Haymarket said:
I hve no idea what you are talking about when you say the 15% capital gains tax comes after a 35% tax.
Given that we have discussed and debated precisely this topic before, I find it difficult to believe you are not being disingenuous here. Obviously I am discussing the nominal capital gains and corporate income tax rates. You are going to insist (I know because we have debated this before, though I shall take at face value your implicit claim to have forgotten) that it is incorrect to count the corporate tax as falling on those who receive capital gains; forgetting that stock owners
own the company, and that it’s taxes are therefore money out of their collective pool of funds. And, again, as I pointed out to you earlier on this thread, the CBO agrees with me on this point.
You then make some vague statements which cannot be verified.
I have
already provided for you
in this thread the sources on this.
Even at 14%, Romney pays a higher rate than 97% of his fellow Americans, and 88 percent of all taxpayers pay 8 percent or less of their income in income taxes.
From IRS data:
CBO argues that
the Total Effective Federal Tax Rate for top 1% is 30%. Effective Income Tax Rate for top 1% (including Capital Gains) is 19%.
Citing Directly:
… ...High-income households have a disproportionate share of comprehensive income and pay a disproportionate share of federal taxes. The half-percent of the population with the highest income received 14.7 percent of total household income before taxes and paid 22.6 percent of total federal taxes in 2005 (see Tables 2 and 3). People at the top 0.01 percent of the income scale received 4.2 percent of total income and paid 6.5 percent of total federal taxes in 2005...
now I was a history major who loathed his "Mathematics For The Non Math Guy Course You Have To Take To Graduate" class, but it seems to me if you are making 14.7% of the income, and paying 22.6% of the taxes, you are paying a higher rate than someone else, who is offsetting you.
that “someone” is the 97% of Americans who are paying
less than the capital gains rate.
case #1 is Richard Dillard, a professional record producer. He earned his million in wages and salary and his hard work and talent took him to the upper ranks of his profession. He is in the 35% tax bracket and will pay a federal income tax bill of $350,000.00.
case #2 is Wanda Phillips, an investor. She made her million off long term capital gains. Her tax bracket is the preferential 15%. She will pay a federal income tax bill of $150,000.00.
Here you are referencing the differences that stem from their different employments. Richard is a record producer, and apparently a high-demand one. His million dollar income will fluctuate, but he is guaranteed an income from his labor. Wanda, however, is an investor – not only is she not guaranteed an income from her labor, but she runs the risk of
losing a considerable sum of money. The system you describe is merely acknowledging that Wanda takes significantly greater risks, and therefore has a greater reward when she succeeds. Complaining that Wanda “gets to keep a greater share of her income” is no different from complaining that someone who took out loans and spent years in college to become a doctor has a higher income. Greater Risk, Greater Reward.
case #3 is Ned Sykes, who does not work or invest. He got his million through inheritance. Because the first 5 million is exempt, he pays nothing - zero percent. His federal income tax bill is $0.00.
Good for him. I have a case for you as well:
Case #4 is Joe Schmoe. Joe Schmoe received from his parents a Harvard Education, current cost
$48,868 a year for a total of a direct investment of $195,472. In addition, the value of the investment in an educational product that they have given him will continue to grow. A median Harvard Graduate can expect to earn $63,400 right out of the gate, and hit a mid-career salary of $124,000 (a 3.8% annualized gain). Compared to the median income of an American Male ($45,000), we can see that Joe will see an annualized gain that averages out over his working life to about $115,000 a year, making the total amount of wealth Joe has received in this venue $5,156,775.67. Not only does Joe pay no taxes on either the investment of a Harvard degree, or his capital gains thereof, his direct degree investment is actually a tax
deduction.
Joe has received from his parents a gift/inheritance/whathaveyou of a value of little over $5 million. How much in taxes should Joe owe on his gift/inheritance/whathaveyou of $5 million?
However, we’re not done there: prior to him going to college, Joe’s parents gave him a raising, currently valued at
$222,360. And furthermore, because they wanted him to go to college, they sent him to a private high school, to the tune of another $48K; meaning that Joe has received a
further gift/inheritance/whatehaveyou of around $270,000. What should the tax rate on this be? Is your argument is that Joe is a minor, and that minors should not be taxed on wealth they receive?
All of this 5-and-a-quarter million dollars that Joe received came in various forms of wealth, mostly in terms of investment in education. But there were probably others. Joe’s parents probably also bought him a car, took him on vacation, paid for him to take a trip to Europe, and so on and so forth. Had they not given him the wealth in the forms they did, they probably would have given it to him in other forms; perhaps they would have flown Joe’s family down to Disney World with them every year once Joe had kids, or maybe they would have bought a second house near where he works and come in a few months out of the year to provide free baby sitting. Or perhaps they would have saved it all and given it to him when they died. Either way, Joe’s parents are still transferring wealth to Joe in a wide variety of venues. You keep referencing
cash, but you aren’t after just
cash, you are after
wealth. Else you would not be coming after my young cousins should their father die in order to force them to break up their family business, fire the employees, and sell off the pieces to pay your pound of flesh.
All three DID NOT have the one million at the start of the year. All three got their one million during the year. It all spends the same. If you took each of their money and placed it in three stacks of one million dollars each, nobody on the planet could tell you with any accuracy time after time in a test which pile of money came from which source.
But the government knows whose million belongs to who because they put a big label on each and apply preferences and favoritism towards one over the other.
Now Turtle, La, Centinel, Thrilla, and anyone else who can - tell Richard Dillard why he should be happy to pay a tax bill of $350,000.00 on the same amount of money that Wanda Phillips only pays $150,000.00 on and Ned Sykes pays nothing on.
Still pretending not to understand tax brackets, or the differences between nominal and effective rates? Do you even really believe in the particulars here, or is this just kind of a general sense that “we should tax more, and we should tax the rich a lot more” and this is how you just happen to express that inclination?
And feel free to use the word FAIR all you want in your explanation.
And that would you too cpwill.
Sure. I think it’s
fair to allow Wanda to keep a greater return given her greater risk. I
don’t think it’s
fair to protect the uber-wealthy and the big corporations from competition from smaller, family owned start-ups. You speak of favoritism and preferences and prefer fairness.
Fairness would be a flat tax if not a straight up Government User Fee – let me know when you decide to support either of those. I happen to think it is perfectly
fair to only tax certain things without having to tax all things. I don’t think it’s particularly
fair that we have turned the tax code into a redistributive model, where portions are designed solely to punish some for working hard and getting ahead while rewarding others for not doing so. And I sure as
hell don’ think it’s
fair for my uncle’s employees find themselves out in the street along with their families because you wanted to make sure you got your piece from my little cousins.
You may think you are
aiming at the rich with such a measure, but you are
hitting small businesses and their lower-to-middle-income employees.