Union Worker Protests In Wi

[brvheart 1,752]

Not true: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/201...e_its_ours.html

[CaneBrain 95]

Who gets to make the decision on who is a "true" entrepreneur? Please not Cane.

muahhahaha.if you can explain to me why making money from stock is somehow better than any other kind of income, then I might agree that the capital gains tax being so low is ok.

[akoff 0]

muahhahaha.if you can explain to me why making money from stock is somehow better than any other kind of income, then I might agree that the capital gains tax being so low is ok.

is it possible that capital gains are were all income should be?

[CaneBrain 95]

is it possible that capital gains are were all income should be?

I obviously disagree but that at least has logical merit. Having different rates for the two does not.

[vbnautilus 48]

That's why I put that sentence in there, and explained it. The government should be allowed to run at a basic level. I talking specifically about the revenue taken after our basic needs are fulfilled. Also, I'm not talking about negotiable "basic needs". I'm not talking about homeless people or medicare. I'm talking about the absolute bare-bones necessities of the federal government as laid out for us in the constitution.

I understand what you believe, I'm just taking issue with the rhetoric you were using which is very common rhetoric for people on your side to use. It's disingenuous language because even at this most basic level of taxation you are also advocating that the government "take something from the people by force", since however small the tax rate is it must be enforced. So "taking by force" does not distinguish the two sides.

[akoff 0]

I know a lot of rich people and a quite a few super-rich people and precious few of them came from humble beginnings.Most small businesses are not in the super wealthy class getting such a good deal.Part of the problem is we don't have enough tax brackets. Putting someone making 400k in the same bracket with someone making 400 million is insanity. I'm mostly talking about the ultra wealthy, not the merely very successful.

this is spot on true but they are treated as such by our government and take the abuse in class warfare from the Democrats. Hence much of my anger...of the super rich that i know and associate with all of them are completely insulated from any of this.That being said the real money is in trusts and untouchable to capital gains taxes...

[brvheart 1,752]

I understand what you believe, I'm just taking issue with the rhetoric you were using which is very common rhetoric for people on your side to use. It's disingenuous language because even at this most basic level of taxation you are also advocating that the government "take something from the people by force", since however small the tax rate is it must be enforced. So "taking by force" does not distinguish the two sides.

You are talking apples and oranges. This has nothing to do with rhetoric. I'm talking about what the constitution says the federal government should provide vs. all the extra crap.

[vbnautilus 48]

You are talking apples and oranges. This has nothing to do with rhetoric. I'm talking about what the constitution says the federal government should provide vs. all the extra crap.

Strangely you are still missing the point. You said:

There is a major difference between you (dems) and me (non-dems), and that is that I don't believe the government should force people to do things.

I am pointing out that this is not actually a different between you and the dems. The difference is in the amount of money you wish to forcibly extract from people, not that one of you wants to do it and the other doesn't.Also, the constitution is not meant to be an exhaustive inventory of all the things the government is supposed to do. It sets up the basic structure and limits the governments power in various ways, but it is by no means expected to comprise the entirety of government in and of itself.

[CaneBrain 95]

this is spot on true but they are treated as such by our government and take the abuse in class warfare from the Democrats. Hence much of my anger...of the super rich that i know and associate with all of them are completely insulated from any of this.That being said the real money is in trusts and untouchable to capital gains taxes...

I've said numerous times we need more tax brackets. Whenever these tax issues come up someone says 'well, 250k per year is not that much'. And that is true to a degree. I think the way the ultra wealthy get to shelter their money is borderline criminal and why I don't have a problem with the estate tax as long as the threshold is high (over 5 million). It's not double taxing since they barely paid anything the first time around in many cases.

[brvheart 1,752]

I am pointing out that this is not actually a different between you and the dems. The difference is in the amount of money you wish to forcibly extract from people, not that one of you wants to do it and the other doesn't.Also, the constitution is not meant to be an exhaustive inventory of all the things the government is supposed to do. It sets up the basic structure and limits the governments power in various ways, but it is by no means expected to comprise the entirety of government in and of itself.

Strangely you are still missing the point.

It's not "forcibly" extracting if it's in the constitution. "Forcibly" implies that it's something that people don't want. Everyone wants infrastructure and defense, as provisioned by the constitution.Also to the 2nd point: I'm not talking about comprising the entirety of the government in this argument. I, in fact, mentioned that I think the government should be actively involved in rewarding people for giving to charity. That should have been a clue that I don't think the government should only build roads and then sit in the corner and not speak.

[vbnautilus 48]

I'm talking about what the constitution says the federal government should provide vs. all the extra crap.

And really the more I think about this the more horrible of a standard it seems. You can't possibly think the constitution itself is precise enough to make federal budget decisions. Doesn't health care fall under "promoting the general Welfare"?

[brvheart 1,752]

And really the more I think about this the more horrible of a standard it seems. You can't possibly think the constitution itself is precise enough to make federal budget decisions. Doesn't health care fall under "promoting the general Welfare"?

The federal budget would be easy to make if we cut all the crap... like schools, social security, medicare, etc. All that crap should be provided by the states, paid for by the voters of that state.

[CaneBrain 95]

Everyone wants infrastructure

tell that to chris christie.

[vbnautilus 48]

It's not "forcibly" extracting if it's in the constitution. "Forcibly" implies that it's something that people don't want. Everyone wants infrastructure and defense, as provisioned by the constitution.

There's nothing that everybody wants. "Infrastructure" is incredibly vague. Not everyone wants this particular highway to built by the federal government. Not everyone wants a particular helicopter developed for defense. Does infrastructure include high speed rail? Even if taxes were only .5% some people would try not to pay them and the government would have to use its power to take that money. That's what makes it forcible. If it's not enforced its equivalent to zero. you want the government to forcibly take money from people to use in the ways you approve of it being used, but not to take money from anybody to use it in ways you don't want it used. you're just like everyone else in that regard, democrat or republican.

[El Guapo 8]

The capital gains tax being so low is completely insane though super awesome for me personally.

What do you think it should be? BTW, low capital gains is good for the whole. If you raise capital gains rates you will affect most retirees in a very negative way.Also, why do you think someone who make 4MM yr should pay an even larger percentage than someone who makes 400K? What should that number be? 60% 70%, at what point would someone say "f it" and just stop attempting to make money because the majority of it will go to the government?

[brvheart 1,752]

tell that to chris christie.

NJ has plenty of roads, and as soon as they can save up the $400M, that brand new tunnel will be really nice.

There's nothing that everybody wants. "Infrastructure" is incredibly vague. Not everyone wants this particular highway to built by the federal government. Not everyone wants a particular helicopter developed for defense. Even if taxes were only .5% some people would try not to pay them and the government would have to use its power to take that money. That's what makes it forcible. If it's not enforced its equivalent to zero. you want the government to forcibly take money from people to use in the ways you approve of it being used, but not to take money from anybody to use it in ways you don't want it used. you're just like everyone else in that regard, democrat or republican.

If we did a poll of all Americans, where would the percentages fall that think that the federal government should provide infrastructure (including power, roads, airports, police, fire, etc) and defense. Is 99.9 too high?

[brvheart 1,752]

There's nothing that everybody wants. "Infrastructure" is incredibly vague. Not everyone wants this particular highway to built by the federal government. Not everyone wants a particular helicopter developed for defense. Does infrastructure include high speed rail? Even if taxes were only .5% some people would try not to pay them and the government would have to use its power to take that money. That's what makes it forcible. If it's not enforced its equivalent to zero. you want the government to forcibly take money from people to use in the ways you approve of it being used, but not to take money from anybody to use it in ways you don't want it used. you're just like everyone else in that regard, democrat or republican.

Not true. The federal government wouldn't make the decisions on where it would be spent. They would provide the money to the state, require that the state use it on infrastructure, and then the people I vote into office would use it in the way that would help the state the most. That would go to military spending and development also.I believe that they could provide this with little or no income tax. They were providing it long before income taxes were enacted.

[CaneBrain 95]

What do you think it should be? BTW, low capital gains is good for the whole. If you raise capital gains rates you will affect most retirees in a very negative way.Also, why do you think someone who make 4MM yr should pay an even larger percentage than someone who makes 400K? What should that number be? 60% 70%, at what point would someone say "f it" and just stop attempting to make money because the majority of it will go to the government?

of course not 60 or 70%. That's absurd.40% on 5 million plus. 37% on 1 million plus. 33% on 250k+. Everything else the same.And raise the capital gains tax to 25% while lowering the corporate tax rate to 10% (but shut all the loopholes).And people whose income is solely derived from capital gains (like hedge-fund managers) would be taxed at the income rate for their bracket not the more generous capital gains rate. It's just absurd that someone can make 500 million from their hedge fund and have it taxed at a rate lower than what a plumber pays.All you have established above is that a low capital gains tax is good for the wealthy who own the majority of stock and old people. I don't see how that is the whole. I think old people have a pretty good deal in America overall.

[El Guapo 8]

of course not 60 or 70%. That's absurd.40% on 5 million plus. 35% on 1 million plus. 33% on 250k+. Everything else the same.And raise the capital gains tax to 25% while lowering the corporate tax rate to 10% (but shut all the loopholes).And people whose income is solely derived from capital gains (like hedge-fund managers) would be taxed at the income rate for their bracket not the more generous capital gains rate. It's just absurd that someone can make 500 million from their hedge fund and have it taxed at a rate lower than what a plumber pays.All you have established above is that a low capital gains tax is good for the wealthy who own the majority of stock and old people. I don't see how that is the whole. I think old people have a pretty good deal in America overall.

So the capital gains rate should be higher than earned income tax rate? That is abusrd.And so you want to lower the 250K tax bracket, but raise it over 1MM? Am I reading that correctly?

[CaneBrain 95]

So the capital gains rate should be higher than earned income tax rate? That is abusrd.And so you want to lower the 250K tax bracket, but raise it over 1MM? Am I reading that correctly?

capital gains rate is 25%. how is that higher than earned income tax rate? It only will be compared to the rate for people making less than 75k.Yes I want to give people making 250k-999k a slight break from the current level while putting a slight increase on 1mm to 5mm earners and a larger increase on 5mm+

[vbnautilus 48]

If we did a poll of all Americans, where would the percentages fall that think that the federal government should provide infrastructure (including power, roads, airports, police, fire, etc) and defense. Is 99.9 too high?

It is way too high as many people think power and airports should be provided privately. What about airport security? What falls into "etc"? When you get down to the actual decisions on what is included and the budgeting people will not agree.

Not true. The federal government wouldn't make the decisions on where it would be spent. They would provide the money to the state, require that the state use it on infrastructure, and then the people I vote into office would use it in the way that would help the state the most.

How much money though? In order to correctly portion out the bare minimum we need to know what we are covering. Directing the money to the states does not solve the problem, and defense surely cannot be handled this way.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

I don't think we need to figure out the exact cut-off points and percentages. It's enough to say that you want more brackets extending higher up.And vb and brv are pretty obviously just arguing semantics. Look, everybody was thinking it; somebody had to say it.

[El Guapo 8]

capital gains rate is 25%. how is that higher than earned income tax rate? It only will be compared to the rate for people making less than 75k.Yes I want to give people making 250k-999k a slight break from the current level while putting a slight increase on 1mm to 5mm earners and a larger increase on 5mm+

Because most people are in the 15% - 25% tax bracket range and when you do our sliding scale, their effective tax rate is probably 11% - 19% on average. So, you are saying to the majority of people that they are going to be taxed at a higher rate on their long term investments. They would actually be better off making short term decisions and paying the lower tax rate, which is not good, because having people make decisions in the short term is very volatile for the economy and the markets.

[Roll the Bones 74]

Not true: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/201...e_its_ours.html

Yes it is: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statem...inancial-wealt/

tell that to chris christie.

haha

What do you think it should be? BTW, low capital gains is good for the whole. If you raise capital gains rates you will affect most retirees in a very negative way.Also, why do you think someone who make 4MM yr should pay an even larger percentage than someone who makes 400K? What should that number be? 60% 70%, at what point would someone say "f it" and just stop attempting to make money because the majority of it will go to the government?

My biggest peeve is large coorporations and people ledge hedge fund managers not getting taxed on capital gains and being able to take it as income and then only have a 15% tax. But I think vb and Cain addressed this.

of course not 60 or 70%. That's absurd.40% on 5 million plus. 37% on 1 million plus. 33% on 250k+. Everything else the same.And raise the capital gains tax to 25% while lowering the corporate tax rate to 10% (but shut all the loopholes).And people whose income is solely derived from capital gains (like hedge-fund managers) would be taxed at the income rate for their bracket not the more generous capital gains rate. It's just absurd that someone can make 500 million from their hedge fund and have it taxed at a rate lower than what a plumber pays.All you have established above is that a low capital gains tax is good for the wealthy who own the majority of stock and old people. I don't see how that is the whole. I think old people have a pretty good deal in America overall.

And this has been a systematic attack for 30 years on the middle class that has seen the disparity continue to grow, and is the major culprit in the huge deficit as well. The conservative agenda that Reagan started has seemed to become a cultural meme of belief-that supply side economics trickles down- when we are seeing it clearly doesn't. I heard the same mantras that brv is repeating over and over for as long as I can remember. It is just becoming more clear these days and since the Great Recession as to how untrue most of it has been. But people keep buying into this small government-free market-fairy system that will make society run perfectly when the truth is, it is a society that everyone would hate. Well, unless you like being a peasant.

[Roll the Bones 74]

IF THE federal government is serious about deficit reduction, it should first target corporate welfare. According to a 2010 report by the group US PIRG, over 10 years, an estimated $1 trillion in revenues is lost as a result of offshore corporate tax havens — a shortfall the government has to make up. Once again Democrats and Republicans are asking the poor and middle class to sacrifice, when neither GE ($10.3 billion in 2009 pretax income) nor Exxon Mobil ($45.2 billion in 2008 profit) recorded paying a cent of income taxes to the IRS in 2009. Lest these corporate behemoths object to being picked on for funneling profits to offshore subsidiaries while one in eight Americans go hungry, we should recall that in 2008, the Government Accountability Office found that two of every three US corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 to 2005. Ending corporate welfare would help save us from endless debt. Whichever party we vote for, do we wish to live in a corporate plutocracy? Or can we demand something better from our elected officials?

But do the Republicans care about corporate welfare? No, let's get the teachers and planned parenthood. They want to abolish the regulators that might stop them from creating another bubble and their trillion dollar Wall Street bonuses.