Xceler8x wrote:
That's because arguing about it at home just makes your wife mad and nukes your chance at getting lucky that night.
Xceler8x wrote:
That's because arguing about it at home just makes your wife mad and nukes your chance at getting lucky that night.
slefain wrote: He still left capital gains alone. Why won't anyone dare tax capital gains at the same rate as other income? Why is that a sacred cow?
See my post a couple of pages back regarding why we want to encourage capital investment.
DILYSI Dave wrote:slefain wrote: He still left capital gains alone. Why won't anyone dare tax capital gains at the same rate as other income? Why is that a sacred cow?See my post a couple of pages back regarding why we want to encourage capital investment.
Found it, read it. Idea versus reality does seem to be a disconnect. Sure you want to encourage investment, but doesn't it also seem like a huge tax loophole? If I go buy a bunch of wood, make chairs from it, and sell the chairs for a profit to pay my bills how is that any different than buying a bunch of stocks, waiting for it to go up, and selling it for a profit to pay my bills?
If they do manage to ban abortion, I wonder how long it will be before the Mexican drug cartels start getting into the illegal abortion provider business.
If you accept this basic idea that whatever you tax, you will get less of and whatever you provide incentives for you get more of, then its pretty easy to see how our tax debates get complex and heated. 300 million people are never going to completely agree on what we should have more of and less of.
No money available to invest = no investment.
No money available to spend = no consumption.
We need both. There's a lot of room for debate in the details, but it seems to me that neither supply-side nor demand-side economics can be the answer by itself.
And I mean a lot of room for debate... But otherwise, isn't that correct?
tuna55 wrote: Fair enough, but I'll bet the majority of those on the right care a lot more about the basic ones than any of the ones you mentioned.
I'd wager you're right. I think that's one of the things some of us on the left have been whining about. It seems like the right has let a fairly small number of people drive a big hunk of the agenda. It's not representative of the concerns of the left, for sure, but it's not even representative of the concerns of many on the right! It doesn't seem right to let them exercise so much control.
tuna55 wrote: There should be no public schools
The parts I snipped, I agree completely. Of course, we don't agree on this last one, but I do understand and respect your position on it. The only thing that bothers me about that issue is very few are as honest about it as you are. That's why things like "No Child Left Behind" are so frustraiting. It masquarades as a public education program, but it's intended to be yet another set toward eliminating public education all together. Lable a school "failing", fire all the teachers and close the school. Divert the money to vouchers that go to private schools. The kids who are draging down the public school scores - who's parents don't care enough to get them a decent education - they just get left out, or "left behind" as it were. I understand the logic behind the argument, it's just not consistant with my view of America.
Snowdoggie wrote: If they do manage to ban abortion, I wonder how long it will be before the Mexican drug cartels start getting into the illegal abortion provider business.
About 20 minutes.
fast_eddie_72 wrote:Snowdoggie wrote: If they do manage to ban abortion, I wonder how long it will be before the Mexican drug cartels start getting into the illegal abortion provider business.About 20 minutes.
They have already been performing abortions, they are just doing them in the 75th trimester and mostly to their opponents.
In reply to fast_eddie_72:
And likewise, as always, I respect your position as well. I hate no child left behind too! Does anyone like that?
slefain wrote:DILYSI Dave wrote:Found it, read it. Idea versus reality does seem to be a disconnect. Sure you want to encourage investment, but doesn't it also seem like a huge tax loophole? If I go buy a bunch of wood, make chairs from it, and sell the chairs for a profit to pay my bills how is that any different than buying a bunch of stocks, waiting for it to go up, and selling it for a profit to pay my bills?slefain wrote: He still left capital gains alone. Why won't anyone dare tax capital gains at the same rate as other income? Why is that a sacred cow?See my post a couple of pages back regarding why we want to encourage capital investment.
If you buy a bunch of wood, it's a cost of goods sold, and is expensed as such.
If you buy a lathe to make those chairs, it's a capital investment in a depreciating asset, and has one level of tax advantage (depreciation).
If you buy a plot of land to supply the wood, and then sell the land for more than you paid for it, it's a capital gain, and has another layer of tax advantage.
The tax advantage isn't there to give rich guys a tax break It's there to encourage the behavior that fuels the economy. It ends up as a rich guy tax break because 1) rich guys are the ones that have the money that is needed for said fuel, and 2) rich guys are good at picking the way to earn income that results in the most money in their pockets.
DILYSI Dave wrote:slefain wrote:If you buy a bunch of wood, it's a cost of goods sold, and is expensed as such. If you buy a lathe to make those chairs, it's a capital investment in a depreciating asset, and has one level of tax advantage (depreciation). If you buy a plot of land to supply the wood, and then sell the land for more than you paid for it, it's a capital gain, and has another layer of tax advantage. The tax advantage isn't there to give rich guys a tax break It's there to encourage the behavior that fuels the economy. It ends up as a rich guy tax break because 1) rich guys are the ones that have the money that is needed for said fuel, and 2) rich guys are good at picking the way to earn income that results in the most money in their pockets.DILYSI Dave wrote:Found it, read it. Idea versus reality does seem to be a disconnect. Sure you want to encourage investment, but doesn't it also seem like a huge tax loophole? If I go buy a bunch of wood, make chairs from it, and sell the chairs for a profit to pay my bills how is that any different than buying a bunch of stocks, waiting for it to go up, and selling it for a profit to pay my bills?slefain wrote: He still left capital gains alone. Why won't anyone dare tax capital gains at the same rate as other income? Why is that a sacred cow?See my post a couple of pages back regarding why we want to encourage capital investment.
He's not talking about how the operating expenses are accounted, he's wondering why one type of profit is more favorably taxed than another. In the end, you did a thing, you made some money, you pay your taxes. If anything it seems illogical to me that the LESS tangible production accounts for the money you make, the less taxes you pay. I though we wanted to be a nation of producers, not just a bunch of lazy bums waiting around for free money to materialize in our laps 
.
PS - I think we'd be better off if we flipped the tax rates around and charged capital gains at twice normal income taxes instead of the other way around. Think about it, you'd still be able to get rich by pulling off some clever bit of arbitrage, you'd just do it more slowly, and we'd get a bunch of things paid for in the meantime. And you'd stop punishing the REAL engine of the economy, actual work that creates value from nothing.
DILYSI Dave wrote: If you buy a lathe to make those chairs, it's a capital investment in a depreciating asset, and has one level of tax advantage (depreciation).
Depreciation isn't an tax advantage in my estimation, it's a protection against tax evasion. The depreciating asset is still a cost of operation, but the government is preventing me from deducting that cost all at once so that I can't have a great year, then go buy a big piece of equipment and pretend I lost money. It's at a tax disadvantage to a normal operating cost like the wood.
slefain wrote: They have already been performing abortions, they are just doing them in the 75th trimester and mostly to their opponents.
It's not a mystery what would happen if it were to be outlawed. We lived that. Girls who wanted an abortion who were born to wealthy families would go on vacation to Europe. Girls who didn't would go to the lady up the street who's magic with a coat hanger. Others would pop down to Tijuana.
If you believe it's murder, then none of these should sway your opinion. But facts are facts. That's what did and would happen.
Josh wrote:DILYSI Dave wrote:He's not talking about how the operating expenses are accounted, he's wondering why one type of profit is more favorably taxed than another. In the end, you did a thing, you made some money, you pay your taxes. If anything it seems illogical to me that the LESS tangible production accounts for the money you make, the less taxes you pay. I though we wanted to be a nation of producers, not just a bunch of lazy bums waiting around for free money to materialize in our lapsslefain wrote:If you buy a bunch of wood, it's a cost of goods sold, and is expensed as such. If you buy a lathe to make those chairs, it's a capital investment in a depreciating asset, and has one level of tax advantage (depreciation). If you buy a plot of land to supply the wood, and then sell the land for more than you paid for it, it's a capital gain, and has another layer of tax advantage. The tax advantage isn't there to give rich guys a tax break It's there to encourage the behavior that fuels the economy. It ends up as a rich guy tax break because 1) rich guys are the ones that have the money that is needed for said fuel, and 2) rich guys are good at picking the way to earn income that results in the most money in their pockets.DILYSI Dave wrote:Found it, read it. Idea versus reality does seem to be a disconnect. Sure you want to encourage investment, but doesn't it also seem like a huge tax loophole? If I go buy a bunch of wood, make chairs from it, and sell the chairs for a profit to pay my bills how is that any different than buying a bunch of stocks, waiting for it to go up, and selling it for a profit to pay my bills?slefain wrote: He still left capital gains alone. Why won't anyone dare tax capital gains at the same rate as other income? Why is that a sacred cow?See my post a couple of pages back regarding why we want to encourage capital investment.
Bingo. I was actually groomed by my dad to take over his small business and I understand the tax implications of running a business. My dad used to do all kinds of stuff (legally) to lessen his corporate tax burden. You write off equipment, you depreciate stock, you pay yourself a salary. That is a business. I'm talking about people. What I don't understand why it matters how a person makes money as to how it is taxed. If I decide to switch my career from editor to derivatives trader I will now pay less tax on my income. To me that is not right.
Josh wrote:DILYSI Dave wrote:He's not talking about how the operating expenses are accounted, he's wondering why one type of profit is more favorably taxed than another. In the end, you did a thing, you made some money, you pay your taxes. If anything it seems illogical to me that the LESS tangible production accounts for the money you make, the less taxes you pay. I though we wanted to be a nation of producers, not just a bunch of lazy bums waiting around for free money to materialize in our lapsslefain wrote:If you buy a bunch of wood, it's a cost of goods sold, and is expensed as such. If you buy a lathe to make those chairs, it's a capital investment in a depreciating asset, and has one level of tax advantage (depreciation). If you buy a plot of land to supply the wood, and then sell the land for more than you paid for it, it's a capital gain, and has another layer of tax advantage. The tax advantage isn't there to give rich guys a tax break It's there to encourage the behavior that fuels the economy. It ends up as a rich guy tax break because 1) rich guys are the ones that have the money that is needed for said fuel, and 2) rich guys are good at picking the way to earn income that results in the most money in their pockets.DILYSI Dave wrote:Found it, read it. Idea versus reality does seem to be a disconnect. Sure you want to encourage investment, but doesn't it also seem like a huge tax loophole? If I go buy a bunch of wood, make chairs from it, and sell the chairs for a profit to pay my bills how is that any different than buying a bunch of stocks, waiting for it to go up, and selling it for a profit to pay my bills?slefain wrote: He still left capital gains alone. Why won't anyone dare tax capital gains at the same rate as other income? Why is that a sacred cow?See my post a couple of pages back regarding why we want to encourage capital investment.
If he buys wood, he putting to work himself and the lumberjack.
If he buys a lathe, he's putting to work himself, the lumberjack, the dude who makes the lathe castings, the dude who makes the patterns for the lathe castings, the dude who machines the castings, the engineer who drew the lathe, the dude who does the assembly of the lathe, the dude who ships the lathe, and the dude who sells the lathe.
The capital investment put more people to work. If you want to put people to work, you want to encourage capital investment.
Now, do I realize that the guy who buys a lathe and the day trader are different? Of course. But, they are both making capital investments. If some jack knob in an Armani suit paying a low tax rate is the by-product of a set of rules that encourage the purchase of that lathe, I'm not too heart broken about it. If there's a better way to ensure one without the other, I'm all ears. But it is in our best interest to keep capital investments flowing. Our biggest issue right now is that they are not flowing freely enough. Adding more tax liability would be disastrous.
slefain wrote: If I decide to switch my career from editor to derivatives trader I will now pay less tax on my income. To me that is not right.
Not so.
You would pay the same percentage on salary as you do now. You pay right now the same percentage tax on capital investments as you would as a trader.
Now, a much higher percentage of the money in your wallet would come from those capital returns as a trader, but that gets back to the above that it is good for the economy to encourage those capital investments, so you are reaping the reward of risking your capital to create growth. Which brings up another thing - capital investments are risky. There is no guarantee (unless you're a supercomputer) of making money on capital investments. If we want to keep capital flowing, and there is just as much risk of losing money as there is of making it, then the preferential tax treatment is one way to reward that risk.
ok this is a huge case of blatant political pandering.
First the pitch "God only asks for 10%"
Here is why that is wrong; Tithes were part of the law that Jesus fulfilled, and is no longer binding on Christians. Lev. 27:30; Gal 3:10-13 I see your Church standardized manipulation of the words of God and the teaching of Jesus to profit yourself is still leading your thinking.
Second - Math Most Americans (64%) can not come up with $1000 in emergency money. so that means the rest is spent. So 9% income tax and now you think less than 1% of the remaining economy isn't going to be spent on income tax? Wrong. So Herman you are asking more than you say God does.
The final 9% is that you actually believe companies aren't going to use that chance to add 9% on top and use it as a profit kicker? Everyone of them are chomping at the bit.
So we have a preacher who is pandering to the public and is counting on the fact no one will do math. Not to mention in any state with a sales tax just had another huge bump.
Hey Herman, from a true conservative to another lost politician. Go berkeley YOURSELF YOU LYING SACK OF E36 M3!
FlightService wrote: ok this is a huge case of blatant political pandering. First the pitch "God only asks for 10%" Here is why that is wrong; Tithes were part of the law that Jesus fulfilled, and is no longer binding on Christians. Lev. 27:30; Gal 3:10-13 I see your Church standardized manipulation of the words of God and the teaching of Jesus to profit yourself is still leading your thinking. Second - Math Most Americans (64%) can not come up with $1000 in emergency money. so that means the rest is spent. So 9% income tax and now you think less than 1% of the remaining economy isn't going to be spent on income tax? Wrong. So Herman you are asking more than you say God does. The final 9% is that you actually believe companies aren't going to use that chance to add 9% on top and use it as a profit kicker? Everyone of them are chomping at the bit. So we have a preacher who is pandering to the public and is counting on the fact no one will do math. Not to mention in any state with a sales tax just had another huge bump. Hey Herman, from a true conservative to another lost politician. Go berkeley YOURSELF YOU LYING SACK OF E36 M3!
Yeah!!!! There's been WAY to much reasonable discussion. You tell 'em!!!!
:rollseyes:
A derivatives trader functions like they are self employed. Even when they work within a corporate environment or are paid via W-2 salary, they bear the responsibility of "making a market". They develop competitive bids or offers.
So, they don't function like an editor (who is typically drawing a salary for the role they perform).
They are in the business of creating business. They make jobs.
It would be more like a publisher or owner. People who take the financial risk to provide a service or product, but are also charged with developing the market (and therefore the jobs).
Most income sources that are capital investments involve risk, and most develop jobs (indirectly).
slefain, you don't have to become a derivatives trader. You can become an owner of a media outlet (risking your own money) and hire other people to be editors (creating jobs) if you like.
Don't forget... the rich have many choices of how to invest their money. Everyone wants it, and offers them incentives. If there is no US tax incentive, there may be one in China or India.
Oh wait.... that might cost a few US jobs (which probably won't help the economy).
DILYSI Dave wrote: Yeah!!!! There's been WAY to much reasonable discussion. You tell 'em!!!! :rollseyes:
DILYSI Dave in case you didn't know your sarcasm sucks.
DILYSI Dave wrote:Josh wrote:If he buys wood, he putting to work himself and the lumberjack. If he buys a lathe, he's putting to work himself, the lumberjack, the dude who makes the lathe castings, the dude who makes the patterns for the lathe castings, the dude who machines the castings, the engineer who drew the lathe, the dude who does the assembly of the lathe, the dude who ships the lathe, and the dude who sells the lathe. The capital investment put more people to work. If you want to put people to work, you want to encourage capital investment. Now, do I realize that the guy who buys a lathe and the day trader are different? Of course. But, they are both making capital investments. If some jack knob in an Armani suit paying a low tax rate is the by-product of a set of rules that encourage the purchase of that lathe, I'm not too heart broken about it. If there's a better way to ensure one without the other, I'm all ears. But it is in our best interest to keep capital investments flowing. Our biggest issue right now is that they are not flowing freely enough. Adding more tax liability would be disastrous.DILYSI Dave wrote:He's not talking about how the operating expenses are accounted, he's wondering why one type of profit is more favorably taxed than another. In the end, you did a thing, you made some money, you pay your taxes. If anything it seems illogical to me that the LESS tangible production accounts for the money you make, the less taxes you pay. I though we wanted to be a nation of producers, not just a bunch of lazy bums waiting around for free money to materialize in our lapsslefain wrote:If you buy a bunch of wood, it's a cost of goods sold, and is expensed as such. If you buy a lathe to make those chairs, it's a capital investment in a depreciating asset, and has one level of tax advantage (depreciation). If you buy a plot of land to supply the wood, and then sell the land for more than you paid for it, it's a capital gain, and has another layer of tax advantage. The tax advantage isn't there to give rich guys a tax break It's there to encourage the behavior that fuels the economy. It ends up as a rich guy tax break because 1) rich guys are the ones that have the money that is needed for said fuel, and 2) rich guys are good at picking the way to earn income that results in the most money in their pockets.DILYSI Dave wrote:Found it, read it. Idea versus reality does seem to be a disconnect. Sure you want to encourage investment, but doesn't it also seem like a huge tax loophole? If I go buy a bunch of wood, make chairs from it, and sell the chairs for a profit to pay my bills how is that any different than buying a bunch of stocks, waiting for it to go up, and selling it for a profit to pay my bills?slefain wrote: He still left capital gains alone. Why won't anyone dare tax capital gains at the same rate as other income? Why is that a sacred cow?See my post a couple of pages back regarding why we want to encourage capital investment.
So the capital gains tax rate is the carrot that gets the jobs flowing, I can understand that. So following the lathe owner/maker/builder idea, wouldn't the answer for really stimulating the economy be lowering the overall tax rates to match the capital gains tax rate? If a special tax rate is all it takes to get all of that flowing, then imagine what would happen if everyone else also had more money in their pocket to spend buying those chairs. I'd actually be happy with that idea, because then everyone is paying the same rate. That will never happen though. I just need to accept that just like life, the tax code isn't fair.
In reply to slefain:
I'm with you on the imbalance. Part of me would like to see all revenue treated the same.
But here's the gig: It takes a certain amount of money to run the government. Lowering EVERYONE's tax rate won't hit the target.
The government uses incentives to encourage various entities to help them raise the money they need. Encouraging companies to create jobs also raises more revenue from the employees hired, and takes those same people off the government's payroll (unemployment). It's a win/win for government.
It's not about being FAIR. It's about raising sufficient revenue to run the government, and encouraging certain entities (companies, wealthy people) to do things that will contribute to that goal like hiring more people.
THAT's why lower rates for capital gains taxes exist.
The government doesn't actually care about the economy and people's ability to buy chairs.
They care about the revenues they can collect, and keeping expense down by removing people from the unemployment rolls.
That's what the government means when they talk about "the economy". Not buying chairs.
FlightService wrote:DILYSI Dave wrote: Yeah!!!! There's been WAY to much reasonable discussion. You tell 'em!!!! :rollseyes:DILYSI Dave in case you didn't know your sarcasm sucks.
At least his comment wasn't childish, pathetic and littered with obvious profanity.
So how about you tell us which of these Great Candidates you'd choose, and why?
You don't have to agree with a candidate. You don't even have to vote. But how about we don't tell the world "Your candidate sucks and you're a moron for voting for him!"? This is GRM, not the Huffington Post.
You'll need to log in to post.
