• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Census shows 1 in 2 people are poor or low-income

Mach said:
Why should it be treated the same? There is no correct or incorrect way, to suggest it (again) is as absurd as it was in prior posts.

1. There is no "should" on an issue like taxation, with regards to what policies are actually in place. You should know this already, that you are still questioning it leads me to believe you have motiations other than seeking the truth.

2. Again, income is widely differentiated on a lot more than simply long-term cap gains, check the IRS:
Tax Topics - Topic 400 Types of Income

For any one of these, say, pensions (you have a nice public pension, do you not?), is treated differently, than other income sources, depending on the state, how it was contributed to, and in some part, the whim of whatever government officials set up whatever laws relate to it.

If you don't understand this, and really just want to learn more about capital gains, here, I'll wiki it for you.
Capital gains tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Of course, simplifying the tax code is a good thing that a number of candidates have as part of their rhetoric. We know from other posts you oppose flat taxes though (correct?), seems odd to someone I'm sure.
Click to expand...

ie. Trickle-down economics which does not work. We should reward the income that requires the most work - earned salary or wages. Why do reward earnings that come from transactions and inaction?
 
AdamT said:
There is a very good reason to treat all income the same. Quite simply, if you create a tax preference for one type of income over another you are distorting the market. You are creating a PREFERENCE for investment income versus earned income.
Click to expand...

The problem with taxing investment income higher, is that middle class retired people also get taxed at a higher rate than others who earn the same.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The problem with taxing investment income higher, is that middle class retired people also get taxed at a higher rate than others who earn the same.
Click to expand...

Except middle class seniors receive very little of their income from Capital investments:

Who Receives Capital Gains?

Advocates of capital gains tax cuts frequently point out that a growing

number of middle-class Americans now own stock. Yet only 7 percent

of Americans reported net capital gains income on their fed¬eral tax

returns in 2008 —and the vast majority of these gains were realized by

the very wealthiest Americans. In particular:

•

Taxpayers with federal adjusted gross incomes (AGI) in excess of

$500,000 reported close to 80 percent of taxable capital gains,

even though they accounted for less than one percent of all returns

filed."
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:TnPf5yqaS3UJ:www.itepnet.org/pdf/pb13capg.pdf+Percentage+of+middle+class+that+receives+capital+gains&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESg3J0uJ_j-hCrLs7f9UpqvWT1QbdJMmu6HMzSwbdRsjHUys3Rzh1lrdU-oTA0Rm8XiDus790-uLshFLZrxHIMJ4hb6Kx4UW-hbe2kwRG-kYA89abdAVUAagwHTHhKK-1EcE9kN0&sig=AHIEtbR6XSifHxdJwkqr0763GdoVDtVe6A
 
Catawba said:
Except middle class seniors receive very little of their income from Capital investments:

Who Receives Capital Gains?

Advocates of capital gains tax cuts frequently point out that a growing

number of middle-class Americans now own stock. Yet only 7 percent

of Americans reported net capital gains income on their fed¬eral tax

returns in 2008 —and the vast majority of these gains were realized by

the very wealthiest Americans. In particular:

•

Taxpayers with federal adjusted gross incomes (AGI) in excess of

$500,000 reported close to 80 percent of taxable capital gains,

even though they accounted for less than one percent of all returns

filed."
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...cE9kN0&sig=AHIEtbR6XSifHxdJwkqr0763GdoVDtVe6A
Click to expand...

So what?
Those seniors who do, should get taxed more?

You're arguing that the government should incentivize people spending all their money now, instead of incurring additional costs through saving and investing.

It's a catch 22, sure the government will incur more revenue now, from taxing capital gains at a higher rate.
On the flip side, they are encouraging people to save less, requiring more government expenditure, when those same people reach retirement age.

That doesn't even address the fact that many capital gains, are earned through selling a small business, where the owner is still middle class, except for that one year.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
So what?
Those seniors who do, should get taxed more?

You're arguing that the government should incentivize people spending all their money now, instead of incurring additional costs through saving and investing.

It's a catch 22, sure the government will incur more revenue now, from taxing capital gains at a higher rate.
On the flip side, they are encouraging people to save less, requiring more government expenditure, when those same people reach retirement age.

That doesn't even address the fact that many capital gains, are earned through selling a small business, where the owner is still middle class, except for that one year.
Click to expand...

A 5% increase capital gains on the handful of wealthy seniors will have a negligible effect. What problems did it cause under the Clinton Administration when capital gain tax rates were 5% higher, and please cite your documentation?
 
Catawba said:
A 5% increase capital gains on the handful of wealthy seniors will have a negligible effect. What problems did it cause under the Clinton Administration when capital gain tax rates were 5% higher, and please cite your documentation?
Click to expand...

I didn't say it caused problems.
You said that your reasoning was that only a minor percent of senior citizens had any significant capital gains, instead of answering what I wrote, you inserted your loaded language and didn't address any of the points I brought up.

Here's a tip, respond to what people write, then ask your own questions.
You're completely and purposely avoiding the points and instead are mired in your quandary of, only wealthy people earn capital gains.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I didn't say it caused problems.
You said that your reasoning was that only a minor percent of senior citizens had any significant capital gains, instead of answering what I wrote, you inserted your loaded language and didn't address any of the points I brought up.

Here's a tip, respond to what people write, then ask your own questions.
You're completely and purposely avoiding the points and instead are mired in your quandary of, only wealthy people earn capital gains.
Click to expand...

I've posted the statistics to show there are just a handful of wealthy middle class this will affect in any way. You have not refuted the statistics or provided any evidence of a negative for the middle class by raising the capital gains tax rate 5%.
 
Catawba said:
I've posted the statistics to show there are just a handful of wealthy middle class this will affect in any way. You have not refuted the statistics or provided any evidence of a negative for the middle class by raising the capital gains tax rate 5%.
Click to expand...

Precisely what I expected from you.
What's next, the "30 years of Reaganomics" rant?

Own up to the fact that you consistently dodge arguments that contradict yours.

A whole lot of stuff on capital gains taxes.
Capital Gains Taxes: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty
 
Catawba said:
When you don't present evidence to prove your point, what else could you expect.
Click to expand...

I did, but it's more complex than cherry picking simple statements here and there like you did.
See I actually bother to read links and try to learn something.

Maybe you post to preach and not learn anything, I guess we're here for different reasons.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Geesh, never would of expected that response..... :doh
Click to expand...

It does say:

The historical evidence suggests that when the capital gains tax is reduced, locked-in capital is liberated and, at least temporarily, the revenues from the tax rise.
Click to expand...

...more of the old, "if you lower taxes we'll make more money" voodoo? Cmon, G. I do enjoy that they at least prefaced it with "at least temporarily" since even they know that it is total bull****.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I did, but it's more complex than cherry picking simple statements here and there like you did.
See I actually bother to read links and try to learn something.

Maybe you post to preach and not learn anything, I guess we're here for different reasons.
Click to expand...


So complex you can't describe it, or provide quotes with authoritative links to document it? Were you able then to find any negative effects of the 5% increase in the capital gains tax rate under the Clinton Administration?
 
whysoserious said:
It does say:



...more of the old, "if you lower taxes we'll make more money" voodoo? Cmon, G. I do enjoy that they at least prefaced it with "at least temporarily" since even they know that it is total bull****.
Click to expand...

Because it's partially true, it's not entirely false and it's not entirely true.
It think the more money part comes from the increase in transactions brought about by the overall lessening of the tax rate per capital gain.

It's not total bull****.
 
Catawba said:
So complex you can't describe it, or provide quotes with authoritative links to document it? Were you able then to find any negative effects of the 5% increase in the capital gains tax rate under the Clinton Administration?
Click to expand...

You're arguing the negative effects of the 5% increase, not I.
You need to provide sources to yourself, for the argument you made, but attributed to me.

Your sophistry doesn't work on me. ;)
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You're arguing the negative effects of the 5% increase, not I.
You need to provide sources to yourself, for the argument you made, but attributed to me.

Your sophistry doesn't work on me. ;)
Click to expand...

No, I support the 5% increase in capital gains tax rate. I'm saying there would be no negative effects to our economy.

You agree?
 
Catawba said:
No, I support the 5% increase in capital gains tax rate. I'm saying there would be no negative effects to our economy.

You agree?
Click to expand...

No because it's too broad and effects people who have less money, but higher utility for the money that they do have.

The uber wealthy still pay more in effective taxes than 90% of Americans.
The real problem is between the .1% and the upper 10%
 
Catawba said:
No, I support the 5% increase in capital gains tax rate. I'm saying there would be no negative effects to our economy.

You agree?
Click to expand...

I don't agree, at least not yet. I have not seen any plausible budget from ANY entity (BHO, Ryan’s PTP, Progressive party, etc.) that addresses the increase in debt over the next 10 year period. The resulting debt is predicted somewhere between $20t-28t. I believe this is wholly unacceptable. Until I see a responsible spending plan I hesitate to increase taxes else DC will continue to overspend the increases in revenue the tax increases might create. BHO’s debt commission had MANY outstanding ideas from those who KNOW government spending/revenues and NONE of their recommendations were considered.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
No because it's too broad and effects people who have less money, but higher utility for the money that they do have.
Click to expand...

What real world evidence do you have of this? What benefit does investment in outsourcing American companies and jobs that our tax breaks enable, have for the middle class in the US?

The uber wealthy still pay more in effective taxes than 90% of Americans.
Click to expand...

Only because tax policy over the last 30 years has allowed greater concentration of wealth at the top. They pay a lower tax rate percentage of their total income.


The real problem is between the .1% and the upper 10%.
Click to expand...

The real problem is that our system now enables 6 members of Walton family to have more wealth than 93 million Americans. And we wonder why our consumer based economy is not taking off.
 
Catawba said:
What real world evidence do you have of this? What benefit does investment in outsourcing American companies and jobs that our tax breaks enable, have for the middle class in the US?



Only because tax policy over the last 30 years has allowed greater concentration of wealth at the top. They pay a lower tax rate percentage of their total income.




The real problem is that our system now enables 6 members of Walton family to have more wealth than 93 million Americans. And we wonder why our consumer based economy is not taking off.
Click to expand...

Can't help yourself can you?
 
Dickieboy said:
I don't agree, at least not yet. I have not seen any plausible budget from ANY entity (BHO, Ryan’s PTP, Progressive party, etc.) that addresses the increase in debt over the next 10 year period. The resulting debt is predicted somewhere between $20t-28t. I believe this is wholly unacceptable. Until I see a responsible spending plan I hesitate to increase taxes else DC will continue to overspend the increases in revenue the tax increases might create. BHO’s debt commission had MANY outstanding ideas from those who KNOW government spending/revenues and NONE of their recommendations were considered.
Click to expand...

Obama offered a $4 trillion dollar deficit reduction that included $3 in spending cuts for every $1 increase in tax revenues. I think that is a reasonable compromise.
 
Catawba said:
Obama offered a $4 trillion dollar deficit reduction that included $3 in spending cuts for every $1 increase in tax revenues. I think that is a reasonable compromise.
Click to expand...

Yeah I heard all that rhetoric from BHO, the WH, Dems, GOP and all the media talking heads. I also heard how BHO was going to ‘open the books’ on the negotiations to validate all that was said concerning these numbers. To date I have seen no such information, please provide if you know where it is. I question the validity of these AND those voice by the GOP during the negotiations. You realize the annual CBO baseline budget includes a +/-7% increase in spending regardless of the projected revenue. All deficit reduction is scored against this and sometimes against the ‘adjusted baseline’ which assumes things like BTC’s sun setting, wars ending and such. $3/$1 does sound somewhat reasonable but the ‘devil is usually in the details’.
 
AdamT said:
Would it change the logic of the argument if he had $10 million in cap gains last year? No.
Click to expand...

I find people who want to impose more taxes on others and not themselves to have no merit in their position
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom