RE: Amerika: of the Rich, by the Rich, for the Rich

RE: Amerika: of the Rich, by the Rich, for the Rich (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

MrRodgers -> RE: Amerika: of the Rich, by the Rich, for the Rich (2/18/2009 3:12:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: corysub Doing trade as a corporation is fully taxed at the corporate rate. You are creating a situation that I have never seen in the "real world" and would love to know of any companies that are paying a 15% "capital gain tax' on their earnings. Capital gain taxes apply to assets held more than one year Actually, capital gains taxes are paid on anything that you have made a capital gain on, regardless of the time span it occurred within. The only difference in capital gains taxes are dependent on how long between the time you purchased it and when you sold it...occurred. The longer you hold the item prior to selling it (up to certain time limits) the lower your taxable event is/becomes. Capital gains tax law is designed such that they encourage you to hold it for a longer period, discouraging by virtue "flippers" (of any asset class) which are bad for any economy because they heat up economies and cause boom and bust cycles. Close but no cigar. Yes, doing business as a corporation you are taxed as a corporation. Some of the income those corporations earn are capital gains which if held for a minimum of 1 yr is taxed as long term capital gains just like you and me that portion of which is taxed at long term [sic] capital gains tax rate of 15%. Taxing a corporation's earnings from sales as opposed to long term capital gains can be in the 30% range. If a corporation. buys stock in a co. holds for a year, sells at a profit, that profit is taxed as long term capital gains and taxed 15%...period, just like any other long term [sic] capital gains. There are for tax purposes either short (less than a year) or long (at least 1 year) term capital gains and the rate for short is the rate all other income is taxed, personal or corporate. The capital gains tax is IMMORAL PRIMA FACIE I WILL write in caps and for the last time. For me there is no such thing as capital gains because then my income also should be 'capital gains' but is taxed as either regular business income or from wages, tips and salaries. The 1 yr. (long term) capital gains tax laws are IMMORAL PRIMA FACIE (I lied) and at 15% after only ONE year is lower then the tax than on 80% of the people and does not change up or down anytime after 1 yr. These taxes are DESIGNED so the rich making capital gains (money with money) on the golf course, hold a for a year, pay 15% while you bust ass 2000+ hrs and pay up to 35%. ONE year 'long term' [sic] capital gains is pure speculation NOT investment. People have told me they hate having to pay a capital gains tax. I suggest to them...then don't have capital gains. Don't ya just love the plutocracy ? Don't really matter if it's immoral or not...a capital gain is a taxable event whether you obtained the gain 11 minutes after you purchased the asset or 11 years. The only difference is the rate you pay. (Close...but no cigar). 'Capital gains' is an Orwellian term (same for 'carried interest') to 'create' an immoral political reasoning for it to be taxed (after 1 year) at 15% and not the max personal income rate of up to 35%. No BTW, capital gains after your 11 minutes is short term capital gains and is taxed as regular income meaning the rate all other income is taxed from the tables on a 1040. We are ALL here to make money and there are two types of returns...return on capital and return on labor. So why does the tax code treat them differently ? So the wealthy can hold on their cherished incentives. I mean how can you expect me to invest unless I pay less than the highest paid staff that actually does the work ? I mean after all...I am more special than you and thus my capital gains is more special than your paycheck.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Amerika: of the Rich, by the Rich, for the Rich (2/18/2009 3:36:37 PM)
quote: I mean how can you expect me to invest unless I pay less than the highest paid staff that actually does the work ? I mean after all...I am more special than you and thus my capital gains is more special than your paycheck. In the current political environment where, if you fail and loss your investment, you have a reasonable expectation that the government nanny will reimburse your failure that is an understandable position. However, until recently, the incentive was put there to offset that likely eventuality. As a student of statistics as you are, I'm sure I don't have to point out to you the success rate for investment in new businesses. What reasonable person would leave the comfort of a regular paycheck to invest in a business, if the tax incentive for success wasn't there? Granted, now the incentive is to fail and get bailed out - but it didn't used to be the case.

MrRodgers -> RE: Amerika: of the Rich, by the Rich, for the Rich (2/18/2009 3:41:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers 1) I buy and sell things that already exist. I hire labor, pay them well and they pay 35% federal income tax on upper salaries. I sell at a higher value that your labor added and after 1 year long term [sic] capital gains and pay 15% federal tax on those gains. You could pay $35,000 on your $100,000 income from your getting up in the morning and labor and I pay $15,000 on $100,000 capital gains I made on the golf course (where all there is...is lunch and others like you, have jobs) ...whatever that is. You mean you come up with a better or cheaper product to sell? You invest in yourself and your company? You take risks to gain rewards? Since you own this company, how much do you and that company pay in taxes, and I mean all taxes? quote: 2) I develop a piece of commercial property and lease it up at a cost of X. Once leased up just enough (or even fully) obtain a non-recourse mortgage at X + ? millions maybe (lender can only take the building) based on a certain X times net cash flow all of which I turn over to the lender. The mortgage amount over and above my total cost (basis) I put in my pocket TAX free and walk away from the building. You see...I did not sell so I don't even pay a capital gains tax. My 'earnings' are not earnings at all but the proceeds of a loan. Want more ? The rich, the corporations and their lobbyists...actually write the laws of this country through what the OP is trying to illustrate...a PLUTOCRACY. After all...all that money is now 'free speech' people. [sic] This plutocracy, will always exist, in some shape or form. Be better, smarter, stronger, and things can be better. You are missing some extra taxes in your examples by the way, but I would rather you find yourself in this position of having money and learn it for yourself. Allow me this illustration. After buying or during the developing that property, I pay you $100,000 for the year as my staff. I decide to sell after that year and my so-called long term [sic] capital gains is $100,000. You pay about 35% federal income tax..I pay 15% capital gains tax on the same 'income.' Mortgaging a property means after paying off my A & D (acquisition and dev. loan) loan, *I pocket the balance...tax free.* I walk away from the building, the lender takes it, yet I did not sell so there are no gains to tax.

xBullx -> RE: Amerika: of the Rich, by the Rich, for the Rich (2/18/2009 3:44:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife It never ceases to amaze me how many people on here are so extraordinarily impressed with their own intelligence. I don't find that all that surprising...

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Amerika: of the Rich, by the Rich, for the Rich (2/18/2009 4:00:47 PM)
You do not have to illustrate for me. I see and do it daily. I just thought it was funny that you would take a small section of the process and focus on that. So what you are saying is those that have money in investments (that create jobs) should pay just as much after they have made the hard work and the gamble? Okay. Sure. Hope that works for you. Now what I do support is a consumption tax, so that everyone that wants to invest in whatever amount, is not taxed until they actually spend it at the retail level. quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Allow me this illustration. After buying or during the developing that property, I pay you $100,000 for the year as my staff. I decide to sell after that year and my so-called long term [sic] capital gains is $100,000. You pay about 35% federal income tax..I pay 15% capital gains tax on the same 'income.' Mortgaging a property means after paying off my A & D (acquisition and dev. loan) loan, *I pocket the balance...tax free.* I walk away from the building, the lender takes it, yet I did not sell so there are no gains to tax.

MrRodgers -> RE: Amerika: of the Rich, by the Rich, for the Rich (2/18/2009 4:01:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: I mean how can you expect me to invest unless I pay less than the highest paid staff that actually does the work ? I mean after all...I am more special than you and thus my capital gains is more special than your paycheck. In the current political environment where, if you fail and loss your investment, you have a reasonable expectation that the government nanny will reimburse your failure that is an understandable position. However, until recently, the incentive was put there to offset that likely eventuality. As a student of statistics as you are, I'm sure I don't have to point out to you the success rate for investment in new businesses. What reasonable person would leave the comfort of a regular paycheck to invest in a business, if the tax incentive for success wasn't there? Granted, now the incentive is to fail and get bailed out - but it didn't used to be the case. Irrespective of bailouts and socializing (taxpayer rescued) risk, my point is that the success rate in buying and selling stocks, existing companies, bonds real estate is not the same as investing in a brand new start-up. I do believe in a very low or zero investment tax rate in private (not public) stock companies that are real brand new start-ups that do actually create jobs. Those are the real risk and 60-70% of which fail in 1-3 years. but... I know for a fact...associates (friends) invested $5 million in stock of a 2 year old nicely profitable public co. in the 1990's. The emphasis is a public co. that was making money. After a run up during the whole feeding-frenzy of the mid 90's, they sold out in little more than a year, or...long term [sic] capital gains. They took very little risk and stood only to lose a portion of that $5 million. The sellout ??? $355 million. Kinkroids I am sorry I didn't get involved but simply didn't have their kind of money. They paid 15% tax on get this...$350 million in something called capital gains equaling over 70,000 percent return and in less than 2 years. I told them and they agreed...THAT is wrong. They should have paid at least 50% because certainly a profit of say $170 million or a net 35,000% is more than enough incentive.

MrRodgers -> RE: Amerika: of the Rich, by the Rich, for the Rich (2/18/2009 4:11:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xBullx quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife It never ceases to amaze me how many people on here are so extraordinarily impressed with their own intelligence. I don't find that all that surprising... ...and they should be depressed about it ?

MrRodgers -> RE: Amerika: of the Rich, by the Rich, for the Rich (2/18/2009 4:25:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf You do not have to illustrate for me. I see and do it daily. I just thought it was funny that you would take a small section of the process and focus on that. So what you are saying is those that have money in investments (that create jobs) should pay just as much after they have made the hard work and the gamble? Okay. Sure. Hope that works for you. Now what I do support is a consumption tax, so that everyone that wants to invest in whatever amount, is not taxed until they actually spend it at the retail level. quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Allow me this illustration. After buying or during the developing that property, I pay you $100,000 for the year as my staff. I decide to sell after that year and my so-called long term [sic] capital gains is $100,000. You pay about 35% federal income tax..I pay 15% capital gains tax on the same 'income.' Mortgaging a property means after paying off my A & D (acquisition and dev. loan) loan, *I pocket the balance...tax free.* I walk away from the building, the lender takes it, yet I did not sell so there are no gains to tax. I buy and sell a piece of real estate, or stocks in some old co. or bonds and I created jobs ? How ? Much more likely, I borrowed money to buy this stuff and look for people to lay off the last thing I want is payroll. Corporate America and the buying and selling of existing investments and securities reduces jobs...soaks up real investment capital...for new start-ups. It is in new start-ups that we should offer no taxes but only after say 4-5 years. That would not have stopped Google or Yahoo for example, as start-ups. The entire current capital gains regime is the single largest reason why wealth is becoming more and more concentrated at the top. Some transactions result in zero tax liability because of the type of paper and the terms, even though there were profits and often...big profits.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Amerika: of the Rich, by the Rich, for the Rich (2/18/2009 4:48:46 PM)
quote: Irrespective of bailouts and socializing (taxpayer rescued) risk, my point is that the success rate in buying and selling stocks, existing companies, bonds real estate is not the same as investing in a brand new start-up. I do believe in a very low or zero investment tax rate in private (not public) stock companies that are real brand new start-ups that do actually create jobs. Those are the real risk and 60-70% of which fail in 1-3 years. but... I know for a fact...associates (friends) invested $5 million in stock of a 2 year old nicely profitable public co. in the 1990's. The emphasis is a public co. that was making money. After a run up during the whole feeding-frenzy of the mid 90's, they sold out in little more than a year, or...long term [sic] capital gains. They took very little risk and stood only to lose a portion of that $5 million. MrR, We are in de facto and COMPLETE agreement. (should we save this post?) Being the un-trusting sort, I don't trust anyone enough to invest significant money into anything I don't have a direct hand in the results. My little reverse investment group started with a $10k buy-in for short sales and in two months my holding is $16k and I see that as fun exercise not a strategic investment play. I do however, appreciate those who do invest to the level of your friends. I point to Madoff as the most recent example providing a reason why I don't. I see your point on the matter, and would agree to some compromise as you suggest for start up businesses with on-site ownership/management. The alternative of a flat or consumption tax would be preferred but the lawyers/accountants lobby, and the fact that the majority of our elected officials are lawyers, prohibits that pragmatic and reasonable alternative. If everyone, including businesses had to pay a tax on every purchase, the playing field would be leveled significantly. However eliminating the entire IRS bureaucracy, tax accountants, and lawyers required under the present system make it impossible to obtain.

MrRodgers -> RE: Amerika: of the Rich, by the Rich, for the Rich (2/18/2009 5:15:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Irrespective of bailouts and socializing (taxpayer rescued) risk, my point is that the success rate in buying and selling stocks, existing companies, bonds real estate is not the same as investing in a brand new start-up. I do believe in a very low or zero investment tax rate in private (not public) stock companies that are real brand new start-ups that do actually create jobs. Those are the real risk and 60-70% of which fail in 1-3 years. but... I know for a fact...associates (friends) invested $5 million in stock of a 2 year old nicely profitable public co. in the 1990's. The emphasis is a public co. that was making money. After a run up during the whole feeding-frenzy of the mid 90's, they sold out in little more than a year, or...long term [sic] capital gains. They took very little risk and stood only to lose a portion of that $5 million. MrR, We are in de facto and COMPLETE agreement. (should we save this post?) Being the un-trusting sort, I don't trust anyone enough to invest significant money into anything I don't have a direct hand in the results. My little reverse investment group started with a $10k buy-in for short sales and in two months my holding is $16k and I see that as fun exercise not a strategic investment play. I do however, appreciate those who do invest to the level of your friends. I point to Madoff as the most recent example providing a reason why I don't. I see your point on the matter, and would agree to some compromise as you suggest for start up businesses with on-site ownership/management. The alternative of a flat or consumption tax would be preferred but the lawyers/accountants lobby, and the fact that the majority of our elected officials are lawyers, prohibits that pragmatic and reasonable alternative. If everyone, including businesses had to pay a tax on every purchase, the playing field would be leveled significantly. However eliminating the entire IRS bureaucracy, tax accountants, and lawyers required under the present system make it impossible to obtain. We are and I am not surprised...starting to come together on what should be our proper incentives. My and it seems your tax regime, if really tried might buy us a bullet in the head. Yes, we would be calling their bluff, eliminate the tax code as it is today but because that tax code is there to sell in our plutocracy...it may never happen. I think is measures some 20,000 pages. I like a national sales tax, a much lower income tax say 10-15% after say $120,000/yr and until till you get into the millions in a year and a corporate tax about the same. BUT, because we have a debt to pay, I want a gross receipts tax...no deductions, no depreciation or interest write-off. After we draw 1000's of businesses here and create millions more jobs, pay off our debt...then we begin to lower taxes again.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Amerika: of the Rich, by the Rich, for the Rich (2/18/2009 6:37:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers 'Capital gains' is an Orwellian term (same for 'carried interest') to 'create' an immoral political reasoning for it to be taxed (after 1 year) at 15% and not the max personal income rate of up to 35%. No BTW, capital gains after your 11 minutes is short term capital gains and is taxed as regular income meaning the rate all other income is taxed from the tables on a 1040. Wish that were true...I'd save a lot of money on some of my shorter gains. You're correct, it is short term capital gains, but unfortunately....it's not taxed at regular tax rates. Wishing it were so don't make it so.

OneMoreWaste -> RE: Amerika: of the Rich, by the Rich, for the Rich (2/18/2009 8:20:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: corysub People became rich...because they were smarter than most of us...more inventive than most of us, more aggressive than most of us..worked smarter than most of us...more politically astute than most of us, became professional at their "jobs" by working those long hours...took risks that most of us would not dream of taking...failed but learned from failure instead of assuming the embryo position or waiting for a government bailout. Some like those greedy but pretty damn smart Wall Street guys, were in the right place at the right time. And some become wealthy by being more ruthless, by having less integrity and concern for his fellow man than his competitors do. I would be much wealthier than I am today if I were willing to steal. But I believe in making an honest living. That's really the only difference between me and an investment banker.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Amerika: of the Rich, by the Rich, for the Rich (2/19/2009 4:26:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OneMoreWaste quote: ORIGINAL: corysub People became rich...because they were smarter than most of us...more inventive than most of us, more aggressive than most of us..worked smarter than most of us...more politically astute than most of us, became professional at their "jobs" by working those long hours...took risks that most of us would not dream of taking...failed but learned from failure instead of assuming the embryo position or waiting for a government bailout. Some like those greedy but pretty damn smart Wall Street guys, were in the right place at the right time. And some become wealthy by being more ruthless, by having less integrity and concern for his fellow man than his competitors do. I would be much wealthier than I am today if I were willing to steal. But I believe in making an honest living. That's really the only difference between me and an investment banker. And, of course, some of the rich keep more of their money by engaging in Tax Fraud. 52,000 Swiss bank accounts under investigation by IRS. http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/ubs-kept-52000-secret-bank/story.aspx?guid={1264AD62-1C52-4444-8398-6D2E6B08E1DE}&dist=msr_1

Sanity -> RE: Amerika: of the Rich, by the Rich, for the Rich (2/19/2009 8:20:05 PM)
So you've heard of the new Obama Administration team members? It seems like it would be news if one of them weren't a tax cheat for a "change"! quote: And, of course, some of the rich keep more of their money by engaging in Tax Fraud.

urwishfinder -> RE: Amerika: of the Rich, by the Rich, for the Rich (2/20/2009 6:22:07 AM)
money looks after money the rich look after the rich why do you think we pay taxes .....it certainly isnt to our benefit

CreativeDominant -> RE: Amerika: of the Rich, by the Rich, for the Rich (2/20/2009 7:30:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity So you've heard of the new Obama Administration team members? It seems like it would be news if one of them weren't a tax cheat for a "change"! quote: And, of course, some of the rich keep more of their money by engaging in Tax Fraud. ~chuckles~ And let us not forget that we have the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world.

rulemylife -> RE: Amerika: of the Rich, by the Rich, for the Rich (2/20/2009 11:27:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant ~chuckles~ And let us not forget that we have the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. And let us not forget that we have so many tax breaks and loopholes built into that corporate tax rate that many major corporations pay no tax at all.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125