I'm not talking about taxing all investments obviously. I'm talking about the loop-hole that allows these guys to get away with paying extremely low tax rates, because the money they are making isn't taxed as earned income but the same as those elderly and average Joe's whom actually are using it for retirement.

Actually...during the last debate between Romney and Obama...Romney said that was sort of what he wanted to do.

He said he would leave the rate where it is now for "rich" people. That would encourage investment.

And he said that he would lower the Capital Gains tax to ZERO for middle and lower income people so that they would have reasons to invest and also not be taxed in their retirement.

I thought that was a pretty big proposal he laid out there.

Of course the media totally ignored it and concentrated instead on "folders full of women". :(

taxing the rich is the answer to funding an inefficient, oversized, corrupt failing system.

for now, until they overspend what they bring in from over taxing the rich. give them a dollar, they spend it like they have 5 dollars

simple as

Lets see:
Federal 39.6%
State (California): 10.30%
Medicare: 2.9%
SS: % depends on income (up to 12.4%)
---------
Total: 52.8%+

I agree, 50% tax rate is silly indeed... :2 cents:

(of course this doesn't even include real estate, sales, vehicle, and 50 other taxes)

what a terrible idea. most of those people are greedy sociopaths. the world would be destroyed in record time if that was allowed to happen. government should always seek to work for the majority, not the minority, no matter who they might be. if the majority are poor and struggling, we should be working to figure out why they can't rise up the ladder. most people aren't lazy entitlement whores. the system is structured so only a few will actually make it because society needs more workhorses than high rollers. i do however support a flat tax idea..

SS is only on the first 70k. If the person makes their money from investments, they don't pay SS or Medicare on that money. So high earners would not pay 50%.

Then do the Hedge fund trick and it all drops to 20%(was 15%) with no SS or Medicare. But even with lots of dividends or long term capital gains it is still then 20% without those other two taxes.

So California from what I could find Capital Gains tax rate with Federal tax is 31.2%.
Source - http://heartland.org/sites/default/f...ains_final.pdf

This is the reasoning behind tax the rich. But no one wants to really tax the rich so they raised the income tax which won't hardly effect anyone but high earners of the working class.

How about get rid of them all together. Initiating force to solve problems, under the false doctrine of social contract theory is both an immoral and poor solution.

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...61609538_n.jpg

Considering the money they EARNED that was then invested was taxed at 52.8%, you have no point

Agreed.

The masses do not bother to see just how many times that same money is double and triple taxed. You get taxed at the time you make it (whether from your business, income, etc. via income for the year) and then you're taxed again on any purchases you make, your investments, and taxed when you withdraw it at retirement, and should you have any left, you get taxed on your estate (if high enough), and so on and so forth.

In short, that same money is already "taxed" over and over again to the point of being ridiculous.

:2 cents:

Anyone who doesn't believe we should be shrinking our government and the cost associated with it isn't smart enough to be a part of the conversation

First - The fees from hedge funds which would be salary are taxed as long term capital gains. That is the big loop hole. It would make sense to close just that loop hole.

Second - Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, etc did not pay 52.8% on their vast holdings. The majority of their holdings have never been taxed as they are still being held and growing tax free. They then make dividends which are taxed at the lower rate. I think this is the majority of people in the multi millions range and certainly is the case of those in the billions. Economists agree this rewards investment. Should long term capital gains tax keep being lowered to attract more investment? Maybe.

I don't disagree with the current system that much but the Hedge Fund thing is abuse. If you charge 2% of the capital and 20% of the profit to manage other people's money then some of that is fees and should be taxed as income not long term capital gains. As the Hedge Fund makes money even when the Fund does not so that is income to them. Then add in that people are using the structure to hold high cash flow investments to avoid the higher rates and it is just messy.

honestly the government is like a crack addict trying to get his next hit by any means. all these pro tax people are nothing but enablers

I think everyone agrees with this. I sort of liked letting the fiscal cliff just happen. 10% cut across the board did not seem like a bad idea at all to me. The local Senator doesn't want to close a military base? Tough we need to cut. No one wants to stop mail delivery on Sat? Tough. Farm subsidies are too sensitive? Oops they are gone. COLA is too high on SS? Yep we fixed that. Done.

Federal Govt jobs pay more and have more perks then private sector jobs. Then outsource. Cut the perks. Lower the pay. This is not that hard if someone would look at it but they won't.

I have to say that the govt. and the media have certainly pulled off a trick I NEVER thought I would see:

People ASKING to be taxed MORE.
Even though you all know that the govt. will funnel the majority of the money to defense contractors from their home states.

I see the GFY forum just full of people who are salivating at the idea of raising tax rates and taking people's money away from them to give to the greedy and overbloated federal govt.

I never thought that I would see this in the United States Of America.

And it's happening while our govt. is out invading other countries, occupying other countries around the world, and killing people world wide.

SURE! Let's take even more money from the people earning it and give it to a govt. that spends $10.6 BILLION PER DAY already.

There's a sucker born every minute

Look at the socioeconomic class and success, or lack there of, regarding those who want more taxes. That sums it up.

:2 cents:

I'll tell you something else that I've learned about life.

Some people are worker bees and some people are leaders. That's just the way it is.

There are certain people who just rise to the top in life. Doesn't matter where they start out at. I'm not talking about the handful of exceptions like a Kim Kardashian type who becomes filthy rich because of our societal infatuation with stupid shit...or the handful of heirs like Paris Hilton.

I'm talking about the vast majority.

Look at Steve Jobs. He didn't come from a rich family. But there was no way that guy wasn't gonna rise to the top.

A lot of people who complain that the system is stacked against them just don't have the personality type to beat that system. I see it everyday in every way.

That same person who does just enough at work to "get by" is NEVER gonna keep up with that guy who is dedicated, loves his work, and puts in long hours.

And long hours aren't all it takes.

I know guys working 3 jobs and barely getting by.

They just don't have the intelligence and foresight to work for themselves. They are worker bees.

No amount of taxing and govt. legislation will change who and what they are.

I dont know the real statistics, but youre right there are worker bees and queen bees.

then theres the bees that dont do shit, or cant do shit, or claim they cant do shit. thats whats eating not only the middle class but could easily eat the wealthy as well. why would anyone build a workforce in this country? its almost silly at this point. then to raise tax on top of this mess. wtf

First, I agree that that loophole should be closed.
Second, bill gates and warren buffet have paid more in taxes than all the people who have ever posted here combined. Stop worrying about other people's "vast holdings"
It's none of your concern. The government and the extreme left just wants you to think it is.

That's like saying we should be trying to figure out why everyone isn't a star forward in the NBA.

The United States became the richest country in the world without an Income Tax or Federal Reserve.

Prices used to be stable and there was hardly any inflation. In fact, prices tended to fall more during the industrial revolution.

Poor people never starved until the depression era, with income tax, federal reserve and progressive FDR policies hurting the economy.

There is no need for wealth distribution, it does more harm than good and hurts the poor people more by limiting job opportunities and prospects. For every tax, law and regulations there is a cost to business and to productive people so they hire less people.

reaching NBA in basketball is similar to becoming a Billionaire in the game of life, while it's not likely we can help people to reach that level, it's quite possible to teach people enough skills so they are able to play some pick up basketball at a local park ... :2 cents:
(which in real life terms would mean they are able to earn enough for them to lead a comfortable life without any government subsidies)

It's called Mobocracy.

51% voting to steal from the other 49%

America used to be a Republic - the founders made it that way for a reason - with separation of powers and senators appointed by the states.

But things are very different now.

You have a party called the Democrats promising free stuff to certain interest groups and whipping up class envy so the moochers will vote for them every time and want to steal more money from the 49% .

it's like the tax debate in the Soviet Republic of California. They just voted for the highest tax in America believing that the rich will pay. People will always vote to raise someone elses taxes. Thatcher once said socialism works until you run out of people to tax. Sooner or later those making 50k will be deemed rich enough for higher taxes because the current high income folk have left the state. Surprise, surprise the rich people like Mickelson are leaving in droves to low tax states like Texas.

What do people need to taught? No one knows to get up, go to work an strive for something more as well as self improvement?

This is what bothers me about today's society. Your response (though more reasonable) like others is predicated on the idea of "it's not your fault" and that's where our economic problems start and end. Success used to be the goal. Now the successful are vilified. They are the enemy. So where do you go from there? No where. You raise taxes until you've drove the economy into the ground an blame the so-called "haves" for causing "have nots" and call it a day. California is a great example of this.

Losers don't want others to be successful. Losers hate success in others because it also shames them. We are creating a nation of selfish, self centered, narcissistic losers who's never going to think "I need to rise up", "I need to do better", "I need to better myself" Those thoughts never enter the narcissistic mind. Only blame does.

people dont like anything thats better than them. be it looks, success, the car they own. it all comes down to those neanderthal instincts, and being neanderthals themselves they cant see past it

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I agree, but I don't know what the solution is... I'm not sure if there is any specific skill or idea that needs to be taught... but we need to strive towards less government subsidies, not more... we need to let people understand that government is not a cow that we can milk, that people need to be self-sufficient... we need to stop vilification of success, and start praising it instead... let people value success, and strive towards it, etc...

how to accomplish that is not clear... but good start is probably to move towards eliminating various subsidies, forcing people to become self sufficient....

I know... it all sounds like a pipe dream, realistically we are fucked, "loser-ness" is so ingrained into our society now, that any politician trying to make any positive change will surely fail...

On a more serious note, Fact: Among all Western democracies, the US now has the lowest level of mobility between social classes. In this country more than any other in the West, where you are born largely predetermines where you die. The American ideal of upward mobility and the reward of hard work is ever more a lie, STATISTCALLY. Recounting myths about "acres of diamonds" in ignorance of actual facts can’t make them any more true.

Anyway, I thought this thread was about fucking France.

source? ..

If you consult google by typing in the keywords "upward mobility in the United States", you will get no less than 1,630,000 sources. Here's one:

http://business.time.com/2012/01/05/...ty-in-the-u-s/

ok, so it may be true, but so what? what's the significance of this? what do you think is causing this low level of mobility? what do you think the solution is?

"Most studies back up the idea that the U.S. has lost the upper hand for upward mobility to Europe and Canada over the last several decades. According to the Times story, 16% of Canadian men raised in the bottom tenth percentile of incomes were still there as adults. In the U.S., 22% remained in the bottom tenth."

the stats you presented sound alarming, but this means that vast majority ( 78%) achieved upward mobility? where is the problem exactly?

the whole statistic seems pointless, cause for every person moving up out of the lowest 10th percentile, someone had to drop down to it, so higher upward mobility implies higher downward mobility...

Lots of reasons: Deindustrialization, the decline of labor unions, globalization, one-way free trade policies, foreign takeovers of corporations, out sourcing of jobs and massive debts, family breakdown, unfettered capitalism/vulture capitalism, etc.

I think it would do well to address those issues before parroting some bullshit about "makers" and "takers", "winners" and "losers", in some kind of twisted attempt to validate your own achievements, like some people do. Not saying any names.

Your logic is correct... which is why it is a fallacy to suggest this should be about taking from one group to give to another group. Someone who inherits millions of dollars is not the same as someone who earns millions of dollars. Someone who is poor because they prefer to get drunk and lay on the couch is not the same as someone who goes bankrupt trying to pay insurmountable medical bills. Over time the people in each group change and the groups should not be defined merely by their present income levels. A very small fraction of the population is wealthy enough that they have no ties to community, country or any governing structure. What the US does will leave someone like Buffet pretty much entirely unaffected. However, for 98+% of the country, how the rest of the country does has a major impact in how you do.

When some poor person without medical coverage gets sick and doesn't get treated, the chance of them infecting other people increases. When a poor person drives a beat up car from 1972 on a snow covered road, the chance of them crashing into you increases. It benefits everyone to allow poor people (who abide by our laws) to live a simple mostly painless life of subsistence. As we need less and less people, the number of people displaced (who are unable to 'earn their keep') will continue to increase. No tax increase or spending cut will change that fact. The central question of the next 50-100 years will be what do we do with them? So far we have been putting plenty of them in prison for nonviolent crimes like marijuana possession and whipsawing many of them by providing credit they never should have had access to and then repossessing whatever they bought.

It's a simple question with no good answer yet. What do we do with the rapidly increasing number of people who are somewhat educated, willing to work, nonviolent but unable to become a useful part of the economy?

use of "loser" / "winner" / "maker" / "taker" was probably a poor word choice, I don't think anyone (except maybe 12clicks :1orglaugh) meant to be offensive or used it to validate their achievements, it was just meant to contrast those that achieve more vs those that achieve less in life... :2 cents:

From my phone so that's why there are typos...

Here is my take based on what I've witnessed in my lifetime. We used to worship success. It was part of being American since the founding of the nation. People came from all over the world to find either some form of freedom or opportunity for success. As we transitioned put of an industrial economy to a more tech based economy Wall St went nuts buying up companies that were weak and dying and breaking them up and selling the pieces. As the nation endured the pain of transition, wall st. (Like tube sites today) gave an entire nation a bad guy to blame and suddenly "success" became synonymous with "greed".

At the same time, we headed down the insane path of political correctness. All of the sudden, you couldn't call a midget a midget, you couldn't call an Asian person "oriental".... In fact, you could do or say anything that might offend anyone. Then taking that further, we started all this bullshit about raisin the self esteem of kids. We started grading on the curve, we started dumbing down schools, we started giving everyone a participation trophy.

So what happened? Now we have a whole he generation of narcissistic fuckwits who think "success" = "greed" and have a very poor concept of hard work, sacrifice, determination and what it means to work 80hrs a week for success. They have a poor sense of personal accountability because they've been brought up to believe they're awesome and deserve a trophy no matter what. The problem is these notions don't easily reconcile with reality. So then the frustration builds and of course, someone needs to be blamed.

You can tell in these discussions who's been successful (mid 6 figure income to 7 or 8) and who hasn't (mid 5 figure and down). You can always tell because those who have never sweat 100hrs a week into something to make it succeed can't understand why that person doesn't just want to hand it over to them. They're angry, frustrated and confused by that fact - left to their final refuge of shame, being forced to label everyone more successful than them as greedy and then compare them to the 1:100,000 occurrences of wholesale corruption.

I agree with you. We're fucked. The problems are not economic, they're cultural and that is not likely to change in our lifetimes. This nation is doomed to a France-like existence in the near future. Marginalized, irrelevant and bitching day in and day out about what's "fair" while enjoying their 30hr work week and two months paid vacation, simultaneously blaming politicians for their ever decreasing productivity and failing economy.

In 1900, it was being discussed if the US or Argentina was going to be the leader in the new world. I don't think we were the richest country at that point. Our greatest strides were in the middle of the century and the wealth distribution was more even. I think you have this exactly backwards if you look up the facts. A thriving middle class is the answer to a strong US.

I just googled "history of U.S. middle class"

When you look at this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class
it appears that there is not even a set DEFINITION of who is in the middle class.

As for "wealth distribution"...I just don't go for that kind of talk. I know it's all the rage in the media and amongst politicians.
But to me...you EARN money. Either you earn a lot, a decent amount, not much, or none at all.

You don't "distribute" it. You earn it.

And the United States is still the land of opportunity. ANYBODY with the drive, intelligence and skills can make it to the top.

And yes...people who are not at the top of their game in intelligence, skill, and drive will NOT make it to the top.

You can keep leading the horses to water...but only a select few have what it takes to actually drink.

I used it as an example to respond to you.

Example of someone I know. Bought a rental house with a second loan on their house. Tax free money to invest. Then through 1031 exchanges etc worked that into 3 million when they cashed out in 2001. This was long term capital gains at 20%. This is the stuff that makes America great, and no one would disagree with that. Also no need to fib about the figures to get agreement.

Again, the money he earned was taxed, he then used his already taxed money to invest in property. When he cashed out, he was taxed at a lower rate on what his previously taxed money earned.
You should spend more time trying to emulate him and less time trying to denegrate him.