• 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!

Tax Cuts Are An Expense To The Federal Government

Winston

Advanced stage dementia patient pls support my run
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2017
Messages
24,489
Reaction score
23,577
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Tax Cuts have the common sense effect on the federal register. The lower the rate, the lower the revenue. Any burst of consumption seen on the lower end, by a relaxation of the tax burden, is rendered beyond negligible by missed revenue on high income earners. In order to maximize the government's available resources, we need to reform our tax policy. I'm open to ideas, as long as they include raising taxes on the rich and raising capital gains.

Trump is set to propose some new tax policy anytime. All the old worn out talking points will be dusted off. They are going to lie boldly, unapologetic, and knowingly right to your face. "Tax cuts create jobs" "Tax cuts boost revenue" They are going to credit tax cuts for growth, that would have existed independent of the tax cut. When the top percentiles get even more money than they need, they do not reinvest it or spend it. They save it, which has no broader impact on the economy, it has an insular impact on the lucky bank account.

Some ideas floated by Trump regarding tax policy in the past...

Ending the Estate Tax...
3 tax brackets...
Lower taxes for everyone...
Lower business taxes...

We know from history that the strategy that conservatives use to sell tax cuts to the general milieu, is that tax cuts are reinvested into the economy. History has told us this is a lie. Massive tax cuts are about transferring money to the top. High income earners don't need the extra money and they save it. A massive tax cut results in the top percentiles of income earners, keeping large chunks of money, while the lowest of percentiles keep crumbs. Allow me to demonstrate.

Let's use the top marginal tax rate of 39% for income earners of $450,000... in this small sample:
(.39)(450,000)=$175,500

We know this hypothetical person actually pays a lower effective rate than 39% through deductions available to people who can afford savvy accountants.

Let's use the same tax rate on someone who made $2,000,000. I'm going to use two million because it is a large amount of money, that will illustrate my point later on, but, it is by no means even in the ballpark of what some Wall St. and silicon valley gurus make.

(.39)(2,000,000)=$780,000, once again we should note, that this hypothetical person pays a far lower effective rate after their accountant is through.

Let's look at how much someone in the middle class pays in taxes. Median income in the United States is $51,000. The current middle class tax bracket is 25%.

(.25)(51,000)=$12,750

Let's run a hypothetical.. Let's say legislation is introduced, like Trump has proposed in the past.. which lowers the tax rate across the board. Let's say everyone gets 5 points lobbed off their marginal rate.

That brings our middle class wage earner down to 20% and our twice times millionaire down to 34%.

(.2)(51,000)=$10,200. Not bad, a 5 point reduction in his rate saved him $2,550. That's a starter car for a son or daughter, or a nice family vacation. But, let's look at how much revenue the government loses when we knock 5 points off the $2,000,000.

(.34)(2,000,000)=$680,000.. 780,000-680,000= $100,000 That's a $100,000 dollar break, on an income of $2,000,000. The sheer size of those numbers compels me to favor, giving up my extra $2,550 dollars per year, if it means we have to sacrifice that much revenue.

When you see the numbers illustrated for you, can you understand the lie? Extra consumption in the middle class can be beneficial. However, excusing the absence of important federal revenue, in the name of the middle class, is a lie as plain as day. The truth is tax cuts give extra money to people who don't need it, at the expense of deficits which reinforce the conservative favorite: cutting spending. Tax cuts are a brainchild of the right, because they disrupt the government's books, which they can then use to manufacture a debt crisis, to cut programs they disagree with ideologically, and then call Democratic programs failures. If people are genuinely for cutting taxes. They must also be for cutting spending. This includes the DoD.

So, when Donald Trump and the rest of them, tell you that they are cutting taxes for you, you'll know they are lying to you. They're cutting taxes for the rich. That is who benefits here. The Republican never introduces legislation that does not include a major win for high income earners. That is a requisite of every piece of legislation. Look at the AHCA. They outright lied to you about the AHCA and disguised tax cuts for the rich, in warm and fuzzy language, like "access" and "choice".
 
Have you spent you career working for a poor man?

Using class warfare as an excuse to confiscate the nations capital is something only a socialist can love. Capital redistributed to the final "spending class" lacks productivity as they are at end of the mark up chain. Buying that box of cereal and eating it is the end of the line. If you sold it by the bowl in your restaurant you are being productive with that box of capital, assuming you marked it up. It takes capital to produce, package, and transport that cereal.

BTW, you pay the tax in each bracket on the way to your 2,000,000. You don't put all 2,000,000 in the 2,000,000 bracket. I suggest you send your post to your tax man for a revision so we have something to argue about.
 
We know this hypothetical person actually pays a lower effective rate than 39% through deductions available to people who can afford savvy accountants.

Trump promises to close those loopholes.
 
Have you spent you career working for a poor man?

Using class warfare as an excuse to confiscate the nations capital is something only a socialist can love. Capital redistributed to the final "spending class" lacks productivity as they are at end of the mark up chain. Buying that box of cereal and eating it is the end of the line. If you sold it by the bowl in your restaurant you are being productive with that box of capital, assuming you marked it up. It takes capital to produce, package, and transport that cereal.

BTW, you pay the tax in each bracket on the way to your 2,000,000. You don't put all 2,000,000 in the 2,000,000 bracket. I suggest you send your post to your tax man for a revision so we have something to argue about.

Yeah, I'm aware of the graduated levels, regarding how you pay income tax. With a million dollar income earner, just the income above 418,000 is taxed at 39%. The numbers above won't be 100% accurate because of this. Nice catch.

As for the comments of me being a socialist, they are pretty accurate. I'm definitely not a Democrat. Obama extended the Bush Tax Cuts. When we had a full blue congress and president, we still got Republican-light policies. The Democrats generally do not introduce legislation that I would favor or, even vote with the people's interest in mind.
 
Trump promises to close those loopholes.

I find that hard to believe. Didn't Trump brag about exploiting loopholes, that made him "smart", on national television, inside of a year ago?
 
I find that hard to believe. Didn't Trump brag about exploiting loopholes, that made him "smart", on national television, inside of a year ago?

I'm just saying, if you're gonna to a "what if" scenario, don't ignore half the promise. At least, not without openly admitting to such.

He said using the existing system to ones advantage was smart, and that the system should be changed so that it cannot be used in such a manner.
 
I'm just saying, if you're gonna to a "what if" scenario, don't ignore half the promise. At least, not without openly admitting to such.

He said using the system was smart, and that the system should be changed so that it cannot be used in such a manner.

I find it highly improbable that any loopholes will be killed under a tax bill drafted by the 115th Congress. Trump can bluster all he wants.. But, he's proven that he never even knows what's inside of the bill he's signing, much less has influence in its design.

But, I'll give you that one. We can say loopholes are closed now so people can't evade taxes.
 
Last edited:
I am strongly for raising capital gains taxes by making them exactly the same as income taxes.

I am also for eliminating all deductions except charitable contributions and capital losses.

And I think Trump's notion of tax cuts will bring in more revenue is basically him being desperate. Yes, tax cuts can increase revenue, but you look upon that as a bonus. You don't base your entire fiscal picture on that assumption...unless you are a fiscal idiot or you don't much care if the deficit goes up.

When you cut taxes you MUST cut expenses by the same amount or you must assume a rise in the deficit.

BTW, I am 100% against forced wealth redistribution. Punishing people for legally obtaining more money and giving it to people who have done nothing whatsoever to deserve it may be a moocher's paradise...but it is morally wrong. And it sends a terrible message to the economy; do well and we will take it from you...do nothing/poorly and we will reward you.
Plus it will STRONGLY encourage the rich to put their money/assets either underground or offshore...which helps America not at all.


It's simple...but Trump refuses to do it (so did GW Bush and Obama); cut taxes AND spending.

That way, Americans have more money to spend which helps the economy AND the INCREDIBLY inefficient and corrupt government has less to spend - which means the money is far better utilized.

But government's DESPISE cutting spending because spending means power. And politicians ADORE power.
 
Last edited:
Tax Cuts have the common sense effect on the federal register. The lower the rate, the lower the revenue. Any burst of consumption seen on the lower end, by a relaxation of the tax burden, is rendered beyond negligible by missed revenue on high income earners. {snip the math lesson...}

Using this "logic" then Walmart, despite its massive sales volume, is worse off than a similar retail store that elects to carry more high end goods. I suspect that the Waltons might disagree with that (bolded above) assertion.

One must remember that payroll taxes capture 15.6% of each dollar of wages up to the cap of about $110K/year and yet raise plenty of revenue - they do not rely on being progressive but rather on having no "loopholes? at all, no complex formula to try to get a refund, and thus simply generate revenue that nobody seems to miss.
 
I am strongly for raising capital gains taxes by making them exactly the same as income taxes.

I am also for eliminating all deductions except charitable contributions and capital losses. {snip the rest}

That sounds wonderful except that a long term capital gain (LTCG) is simply any sale of an (investment or real estate) asset (held more than a year) with a "profit". Currently we have a "loophole" for one's priciple residence and their "retirement" account assets that should be eliminated out of "fairness" (according to you?).

My beef with LTCG taxation is simple - it is a primarily a double tax on inflation along with the successful investing of your already taxed income. The first is not anyone's fault (or a real gain at all) and the second should be strongly encouraged, thus the lower (or no) taxation rate on any such "income". If you buy a house at fair market market value, live in it for 10 years, and then sell it at fair market value then you have gained nothing - you still have only enough money to buy that same house at fair market value.
 
Last edited:
Tax Cuts have the common sense effect on the federal register. The lower the rate, the lower the revenue. Any burst of consumption seen on the lower end, by a relaxation of the tax burden, is rendered beyond negligible by missed revenue on high income earners. In order to maximize the government's available resources, we need to reform our tax policy. I'm open to ideas, as long as they include raising taxes on the rich and raising capital gains.

Trump is set to propose some new tax policy anytime. All the old worn out talking points will be dusted off. They are going to lie boldly, unapologetic, and knowingly right to your face. "Tax cuts create jobs" "Tax cuts boost revenue" They are going to credit tax cuts for growth, that would have existed independent of the tax cut. When the top percentiles get even more money than they need, they do not reinvest it or spend it. They save it, which has no broader impact on the economy, it has an insular impact on the lucky bank account.

Some ideas floated by Trump regarding tax policy in the past...

Ending the Estate Tax...
3 tax brackets...
Lower taxes for everyone...
Lower business taxes...

We know from history that the strategy that conservatives use to sell tax cuts to the general milieu, is that tax cuts are reinvested into the economy. History has told us this is a lie. Massive tax cuts are about transferring money to the top. High income earners don't need the extra money and they save it. A massive tax cut results in the top percentiles of income earners, keeping large chunks of money, while the lowest of percentiles keep crumbs. Allow me to demonstrate.

Let's use the top marginal tax rate of 39% for income earners of $450,000... in this small sample:
(.39)(450,000)=$175,500

We know this hypothetical person actually pays a lower effective rate than 39% through deductions available to people who can afford savvy accountants.

Let's use the same tax rate on someone who made $2,000,000. I'm going to use two million because it is a large amount of money, that will illustrate my point later on, but, it is by no means even in the ballpark of what some Wall St. and silicon valley gurus make.

(.39)(2,000,000)=$780,000, once again we should note, that this hypothetical person pays a far lower effective rate after their accountant is through.

Let's look at how much someone in the middle class pays in taxes. Median income in the United States is $51,000. The current middle class tax bracket is 25%.

(.25)(51,000)=$12,750

Let's run a hypothetical.. Let's say legislation is introduced, like Trump has proposed in the past.. which lowers the tax rate across the board. Let's say everyone gets 5 points lobbed off their marginal rate.

That brings our middle class wage earner down to 20% and our twice times millionaire down to 34%.

(.2)(51,000)=$10,200. Not bad, a 5 point reduction in his rate saved him $2,550. That's a starter car for a son or daughter, or a nice family vacation. But, let's look at how much revenue the government loses when we knock 5 points off the $2,000,000.

(.34)(2,000,000)=$680,000.. 780,000-680,000= $100,000 That's a $100,000 dollar break, on an income of $2,000,000. The sheer size of those numbers compels me to favor, giving up my extra $2,550 dollars per year, if it means we have to sacrifice that much revenue.

When you see the numbers illustrated for you, can you understand the lie? Extra consumption in the middle class can be beneficial. However, excusing the absence of important federal revenue, in the name of the middle class, is a lie as plain as day. The truth is tax cuts give extra money to people who don't need it, at the expense of deficits which reinforce the conservative favorite: cutting spending. Tax cuts are a brainchild of the right, because they disrupt the government's books, which they can then use to manufacture a debt crisis, to cut programs they disagree with ideologically, and then call Democratic programs failures. If people are genuinely for cutting taxes. They must also be for cutting spending. This includes the DoD.

So, when Donald Trump and the rest of them, tell you that they are cutting taxes for you, you'll know they are lying to you. They're cutting taxes for the rich. That is who benefits here. The Republican never introduces legislation that does not include a major win for high income earners. That is a requisite of every piece of legislation. Look at the AHCA. They outright lied to you about the AHCA and disguised tax cuts for the rich, in warm and fuzzy language, like "access" and "choice".

Tax reductions are not expenses.
 
That sounds wonderful except that a long term capital gain (LTCG) is simply any sale of an (investment or real estate) asset (held more than a year) with a "profit". Currently we have a "loophole" for one's priciple residence and their "retirement" account assets that should be eliminated out of "fairness" (according to you?).

My beef with LTCG taxation is simple - it is a primarily a double tax on inflation along with the successful investing of your already taxed income. The first is not anyone's fault (or a real gain at all) and the second should be strongly encouraged, thus the lower (or no) taxation rate on any such "income". If you buy a house at fair market market value, live in it for 10 years, and then sell it at fair market value then you have gained nothing - you still have only enough money to buy that same house at fair market value.

Forgot about 'principle residences'.

I am aware of the 'principle residence loophole'...I have used it myself several times.

Than either eliminate the loophole, keep it as is or grandfather it in to include all those who bought their principle residence before the new tax rules come into effect.

The point was to take out the lower tax rates of most long term capital investments.
 
Last edited:
Forgot about 'principle residences'

I am aware of the 'principle residence loophole'...I have used it myself several times.

Than either eliminate the loophole, exclude it from taxes or grandfather it in to include all those who bought their principle residence before the new tax rules come into effect.

The point was to take out the lower tax rates of long term capital investments.

You have yet to explain why inflation or investment yields on already taxed income should be taxable. The same is true of interest - if it is income when you earn it then it should be deductible when you pay it.
 
Tax Cuts have the common sense effect on the federal register. The lower the rate, the lower the revenue. Any burst of consumption seen on the lower end, by a relaxation of the tax burden, is rendered beyond negligible by missed revenue on high income earners. In order to maximize the government's available resources, we need to reform our tax policy. I'm open to ideas, as long as they include raising taxes on the rich and raising capital gains.

Trump is set to propose some new tax policy anytime. All the old worn out talking points will be dusted off. They are going to lie boldly, unapologetic, and knowingly right to your face. "Tax cuts create jobs" "Tax cuts boost revenue" They are going to credit tax cuts for growth, that would have existed independent of the tax cut. When the top percentiles get even more money than they need, they do not reinvest it or spend it. They save it, which has no broader impact on the economy, it has an insular impact on the lucky bank account.

Some ideas floated by Trump regarding tax policy in the past...

Ending the Estate Tax...
3 tax brackets...
Lower taxes for everyone...
Lower business taxes...

We know from history that the strategy that conservatives use to sell tax cuts to the general milieu, is that tax cuts are reinvested into the economy. History has told us this is a lie. Massive tax cuts are about transferring money to the top. High income earners don't need the extra money and they save it. A massive tax cut results in the top percentiles of income earners, keeping large chunks of money, while the lowest of percentiles keep crumbs. Allow me to demonstrate.

Let's use the top marginal tax rate of 39% for income earners of $450,000... in this small sample:
(.39)(450,000)=$175,500

We know this hypothetical person actually pays a lower effective rate than 39% through deductions available to people who can afford savvy accountants.

Let's use the same tax rate on someone who made $2,000,000. I'm going to use two million because it is a large amount of money, that will illustrate my point later on, but, it is by no means even in the ballpark of what some Wall St. and silicon valley gurus make.

(.39)(2,000,000)=$780,000, once again we should note, that this hypothetical person pays a far lower effective rate after their accountant is through.

Let's look at how much someone in the middle class pays in taxes. Median income in the United States is $51,000. The current middle class tax bracket is 25%.

(.25)(51,000)=$12,750

Let's run a hypothetical.. Let's say legislation is introduced, like Trump has proposed in the past.. which lowers the tax rate across the board. Let's say everyone gets 5 points lobbed off their marginal rate.

That brings our middle class wage earner down to 20% and our twice times millionaire down to 34%.

(.2)(51,000)=$10,200. Not bad, a 5 point reduction in his rate saved him $2,550. That's a starter car for a son or daughter, or a nice family vacation. But, let's look at how much revenue the government loses when we knock 5 points off the $2,000,000.

(.34)(2,000,000)=$680,000.. 780,000-680,000= $100,000 That's a $100,000 dollar break, on an income of $2,000,000. The sheer size of those numbers compels me to favor, giving up my extra $2,550 dollars per year, if it means we have to sacrifice that much revenue.

When you see the numbers illustrated for you, can you understand the lie? Extra consumption in the middle class can be beneficial. However, excusing the absence of important federal revenue, in the name of the middle class, is a lie as plain as day. The truth is tax cuts give extra money to people who don't need it, at the expense of deficits which reinforce the conservative favorite: cutting spending. Tax cuts are a brainchild of the right, because they disrupt the government's books, which they can then use to manufacture a debt crisis, to cut programs they disagree with ideologically, and then call Democratic programs failures. If people are genuinely for cutting taxes. They must also be for cutting spending. This includes the DoD.

So, when Donald Trump and the rest of them, tell you that they are cutting taxes for you, you'll know they are lying to you. They're cutting taxes for the rich. That is who benefits here. The Republican never introduces legislation that does not include a major win for high income earners. That is a requisite of every piece of legislation. Look at the AHCA. They outright lied to you about the AHCA and disguised tax cuts for the rich, in warm and fuzzy language, like "access" and "choice".

Your title is incorrect. Tax cuts are not an expense just as reducing the price of a steak is never an expense.

If you start with an incorrect economics definition, why should I pay attention to whatever else you have to say?
 
I find that hard to believe. Didn't Trump brag about exploiting loopholes, that made him "smart", on national television, inside of a year ago?

Adhering to tax law is now "exploiting loopholes". I laughed.
 
I find it highly improbable that any loopholes will be killed under a tax bill drafted by the 115th Congress. Trump can bluster all he wants.. But, he's proven that he never even knows what's inside of the bill he's signing, much less has influence in its design.

But, I'll give you that one. We can say loopholes are closed now so people can't evade taxes.

"We can say loopholes are closed now so people can't evade taxes."

And now loopholes are tax evasion. Sho-nuff be fun to look over your tax returns and point out your hypocrisy.
 
You have yet to explain why inflation or investment yields on already taxed income should be taxable. The same is true of interest - if it is income when you earn it then it should be deductible when you pay it.

Your example from above:

'If you buy a house at fair market market value, live in it for 10 years, and then sell it at fair market value then you have gained nothing - you still have only enough money to buy that same house at fair market value.'

You want to be able to buy a house (not your own - strictly as an investment) and if it goes from $100K up to $1,000,000 in ten years...pay ZERO capital gains taxes? I assume it is the same with equities and other capital investments.

So basically, you want most rich people to almost never pay any taxes ever...because most rich people make the VAST majority of their money through capital gains? Because that is what you are proposing.

Look, over the last 20 years, I have made almost all of my money through capital gains and even I do not agree with your thoughts on this.

And there is NO WAY the masses will agree to that.
 
Last edited:
So, when Donald Trump and the rest of them, tell you that they are cutting taxes for you, you'll know they are lying to you. They're cutting taxes for the rich. That is who benefits here. The Republican never introduces legislation that does not include a major win for high income earners. That is a requisite of every piece of legislation. Look at the AHCA. They outright lied to you about the AHCA and disguised tax cuts for the rich, in warm and fuzzy language, like "access" and "choice".

But you just explained that they ARE cutting taxes for you (middle class)

(.2)(51,000)=$10,200. Not bad, a 5 point reduction in his rate saved him $2,550
 
Your example from above:

'If you buy a house at fair market market value, live in it for 10 years, and then sell it at fair market value then you have gained nothing - you still have only enough money to buy that same house at fair market value.'

You want to be able to buy a house (not your own - strictly as an investment) and if it goes from $100K up to $1,000,000 in ten years...pay ZERO capital gains taxes? I assume it is the same with equities and other capital investments.

So basically, you want most rich people to almost never pay any taxes ever...because most rich people make the VAST majority of their money through capital gains? Because that is what you are proposing.

Look, over the last 20 years, I have made almost all of my money through capital gains and even I do not agree with your thoughts on this.

And there is NO WAY the masses will agree to that.

Did you not use your already taxed income to invest? Why should that same income be taxed again simply because you invested rather than consumed it? Do you view it as proper that all should share the proceeds of any personal investment? If so, then should all share in bearing any resulting personal investment losses?
 
Did you not use your already taxed income to invest? Why should that same income be taxed again simply because you invested rather than consumed it? Do you view it as proper that all should share the proceeds of any personal investment? If so, then should all share in bearing any resulting personal investment losses?

I do not get you on this.

How is it a double tax?

If pay $100,000 cash for an investment property. And then you sell it in 10 years for (after expenses) for $1,000,000...the $900,000 is not double taxed. You made it and now you rightly pay tax on it.

If someone makes $1 of income or $1 of capital gains...it is still income you made. And you should pay tax on that income.


But whether I get you or not is irrelevant to reality...there is NO WAY your idea would EVER be passed.

There is no way the masses are going to allow the rich to get away with paying virtually no taxes....NONE.

And that is what you are proposing.
 
I do not get you on this.

How is it a double tax?

If pay $100,000 cash for an investment property. And then you sell it in 10 years for (after expenses) for $1,000,000...the $900,000 is not double taxed. You made it and now you rightly pay tax on it.


But whether I get you or not is irrelevant to reality...there is NO WAY your idea would EVER be passed.

There is no way the masses are going to allow the rich to get away with paying virtually no taxes....NONE.

And that is what you are proposing.

You made simply enough to buy (back) exactly what you just sold - if you surrender part (40%?) of that via taxation you now no longer have enough to buy (back) what you just sold. In other words, you lost part of the asset's value for simply selling it - you took all of the investment risk and yet got only part of the return.
 
I do not get you on this.

How is it a double tax?

If pay $100,000 cash for an investment property. And then you sell it in 10 years for (after expenses) for $1,000,000...the $900,000 is not double taxed. You made it and now you rightly pay tax on it.

If someone makes $1 of income or $1 of capital gains...it is still income you made. And you should pay tax on that income.


But whether I get you or not is irrelevant to reality...there is NO WAY your idea would EVER be passed.

There is no way the masses are going to allow the rich to get away with paying virtually no taxes....NONE.

And that is what you are proposing.

Not virtually no taxes. They still have high wages. In 2014, 1 million people were taxed at the 39.6% rate on 1.5 trillion in income (not cap gains, regular income). Thats 300billion collected right there. A long way from 'nearly no tax'. He cap gains only accounts for 4% of all revenue.
 
Last edited:
You made simply enough to buy (back) exactly what you just sold - if you surrender part (40%?) of that via taxation you now no longer have enough to buy (back) what you just sold. In other words, you lost part of the asset's value for simply selling it - you took all of the investment risk and yet got only part of the return.

A) That is not the government's business or fault. Owning a house is not a right...it is a privilege. Let the Buyer Beware. Like any other product you buy, what happens once you buy it in good faith is tough for you.
You are talking like you have a right to own that house...you do not. You have a right to be able to own that house. But you do not have the right to own it.

B) And you have not answered my question...

So basically, you want most rich people to almost never pay any taxes ever...because most rich people make the VAST majority of their money through capital gains?
 
Last edited:
Not virtually no taxes. They still have high wages. In 2014, 1 million people were taxed at the 39.6% rate on 1.5 trillion in income (not cap gains, regular income). Thats 300billion collected right there. A long way from 'nearly no tax'. He cap gains only accounts for 4% of all revenue.

I am talking about rich people....multi-millionaires and billionaires. Not people who are 'comfortable'.

It is almost impossible to become a billionaire on income alone.

The percentage of income that most RICH people make is FAR AND AWAY mostly capital gains.
 
Back
Top Bottom