quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

But nnanji.. all animals are equal. Its just some animals are more equal than others.

The reason we tax incomes differently involves many factors. If I save $100 and earn 10% - I have little risk.

If I take the money and start a company - I could lose that money - most small business go bankrupt in 5 years. When you make money by starting a business, thats a socially useful function. It creates jobs, products, infrastructure. Since it has risk, we tax the gains at lower rates in order to offset the possibility of risk.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
But nnanji.. all animals are equal. Its just some animals are more equal than others.
The reason we tax incomes differently involves many factors. If I save $100 and earn 10% - I have little risk.
If I take the money and start a company - I could lose that money - most small business go bankrupt in 5 years. When you make money by starting a business, thats a socially useful function. It creates jobs, products, infrastructure. Since it has risk, we tax the gains at lower rates in order to offset the possibility of risk.

To a point, but it is still government picking winners and losers. Look, for instance, at Ashton Kutcher. He's made a lot of money acting. Then he took that money into start up investment capital. If he is making hand money hand over fist with a new company who is taking the risk. The guy that started the company and found investors or the investors. In your scenario, where should the government assign risk and public benefit? Why should Kutcher be picked as a winner by th government when the actual company startup guy with the idea still have his entire effort on the line?

If he had to use his own money to start the company, and would have lost it if the company failed, then he did take the risk.

The government didn't pick Kutcher; it picked those that create companies. It just so happens that Kutcher started a company.

That being said, I have to wonder how necessary it is, or if it can be capped at a certain number of years. For example, let's say that after 10 years, you lose the lower tax rate. If your business is still around after 10 years, you're likely to have been successful at building it, and your risk is now much lower.

Specifically, you are correct. But my side point is that when the government picks and chooses winners and losers there is always inequity. If creating jobs is the goal, why not make that the tax incentive. Each State can determine a "suggested" living wage, not a compulsory one. Every employer could get a tax incentive every year for every full time employee who makes at or more than the suggested wage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

i cant speak for nnanji here in terms of what exactly he is looking for, but for my part, youre not answering the question of "moral systems."

talking about outcomes or downstream ends doesn't specify the paradigm by which they are judged right or wrong/good or bad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Ending Tax Break for Ultrawealthy May Not Take Act of Congress.

Let's hope we get a little more 'legacy' out of these last few months of this administration.

Not only this but these guys making so-called 'carried interest' are in deeper water than they were in 2008. We currently have such values that millions a year are going to these managers et all, taxed at 1/2 what the great working stiff pays and all while the derivatives market, securities market and the swaps sold to hedge their bets, are all bigger and putting the taxpayers at even a greater risk...than in 2008.

Complain all you want but we are in for a TARP II, and we are all Bush was, Obama is and whoever comes next...owned by wall street.

Treasury could this year, end this immorality but don't hold your breath. HERE

There should be a bi-partisan and yes, 'conservative' move to end this ridiculousness.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Ending Tax Break for Ultrawealthy May Not Take Act of Congress.

Let's hope we get a little more 'legacy' out of these last few months of this administration.

Not only this but these guys making so-called 'carried interest' are in deeper water than they were in 2008. We currently have such values that millions a year are going to these managers et all, taxed at 1/2 what the great working stiff pays and all while the derivatives market, securities market and the swaps sold to hedge their bets, are all bigger and putting the taxpayers at even a greater risk...than in 2008.

Complain all you want but we are in for a TARP II, and we are all Bush was, Obama is and whoever comes next...owned by wall street.

Treasury could this year, end this immorality but don't hold your breath. HERE

There should be a bi-partisan and yes, 'conservative' move to end this ridiculousness.

Same place as the non-partisan liberals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Ending Tax Break for Ultrawealthy May Not Take Act of Congress.

Let's hope we get a little more 'legacy' out of these last few months of this administration.

Not only this but these guys making so-called 'carried interest' are in deeper water than they were in 2008. We currently have such values that millions a year are going to these managers et all, taxed at 1/2 what the great working stiff pays and all while the derivatives market, securities market and the swaps sold to hedge their bets, are all bigger and putting the taxpayers at even a greater risk...than in 2008.

Complain all you want but we are in for a TARP II, and we are all Bush was, Obama is and whoever comes next...owned by wall street.

Treasury could this year, end this immorality but don't hold your breath. HERE

There should be a bi-partisan and yes, 'conservative' move to end this ridiculousness.

Same place as the non-partisan liberals.

But most of the left/dems/liberals are already on board. Both sides have their whores but the count is pretty obvious...the right is getting cramps from having their legs spread so wide.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Ending Tax Break for Ultrawealthy May Not Take Act of Congress.

Let's hope we get a little more 'legacy' out of these last few months of this administration.

Not only this but these guys making so-called 'carried interest' are in deeper water than they were in 2008. We currently have such values that millions a year are going to these managers et all, taxed at 1/2 what the great working stiff pays and all while the derivatives market, securities market and the swaps sold to hedge their bets, are all bigger and putting the taxpayers at even a greater risk...than in 2008.

Complain all you want but we are in for a TARP II, and we are all Bush was, Obama is and whoever comes next...owned by wall street.

Treasury could this year, end this immorality but don't hold your breath. HERE

There should be a bi-partisan and yes, 'conservative' move to end this ridiculousness.

Same place as the non-partisan liberals.

But most of the left/dems/liberals are already on board. Both sides have their whores but the count is pretty obvious...the right is getting cramps from having their legs spread so wide.

Translation, if they agree with you they are non-partiisan, otherwise they are just special-interest whore. Thought so which is why I have avioded this thread, now that you have "put me in my place" I shall return to that policy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


Secondly the incentive to start a business is an individual decision based on the opportunity to make a profit in the marketplace. Their is no moral justification for the tax code to provide any additional incentive and it does not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

But nnanji.. all animals are equal. Its just some animals are more equal than others.

The reason we tax incomes differently involves many factors. If I save $100 and earn 10% - I have little risk.

If I take the money and start a company - I could lose that money - most small business go bankrupt in 5 years. When you make money by starting a business, thats a socially useful function. It creates jobs, products, infrastructure. Since it has risk, we tax the gains at lower rates in order to offset the possibility of risk.

First of all, income from a business is not carried interest or capital gains and is taxed at tax table rates subject to business deductions just like ordinary income. Either 'trading as' a partnership or a sub s corp. taxes are in the tables the same as wages, tips and salaries and treated equally as they should or...don't go into business.

Secondly the incentive to start a business is an individual decision based on the opportunity to make a profit in the marketplace. Their is no moral justification for the tax code to provide any additional incentive and it does not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

But nnanji.. all animals are equal. Its just some animals are more equal than others.

The reason we tax incomes differently involves many factors. If I save $100 and earn 10% - I have little risk.

If I take the money and start a company - I could lose that money - most small business go bankrupt in 5 years. When you make money by starting a business, thats a socially useful function. It creates jobs, products, infrastructure. Since it has risk, we tax the gains at lower rates in order to offset the possibility of risk.

First of all, income from a business is not carried interest or capital gains and is taxed at tax table rates subject to business deductions just like ordinary income. Either 'trading as' a partnership or a sub s corp. taxes are in the tables the same as wages, tips and salaries and treated equally as they should or...don't go into business.

Secondly the incentive to start a business is an individual decision based on the opportunity to make a profit in the marketplace. Their is no moral justification for the tax code to provide any additional incentive and it does not.

Try to understand what I said, instead of using it as a platform for whatever you want to say.

You wanting equal taxation for everyone is by far the most conservative thing you've ever said - and frankly I don't believe you. But .. I'll play along. What level of equal taxation do you suppose is fair for everyone?

Secondly, regarding not in the country's best interest to provide incentives to create businesses. Why in the world do you think thats true? I'm fairly sure you have supported incentives for green energy. Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Ending Tax Break for Ultrawealthy May Not Take Act of Congress.

Let's hope we get a little more 'legacy' out of these last few months of this administration.

Not only this but these guys making so-called 'carried interest' are in deeper water than they were in 2008. We currently have such values that millions a year are going to these managers et all, taxed at 1/2 what the great working stiff pays and all while the derivatives market, securities market and the swaps sold to hedge their bets, are all bigger and putting the taxpayers at even a greater risk...than in 2008.

Complain all you want but we are in for a TARP II, and we are all Bush was, Obama is and whoever comes next...owned by wall street.

Treasury could this year, end this immorality but don't hold your breath. HERE

There should be a bi-partisan and yes, 'conservative' move to end this ridiculousness.

Same place as the non-partisan liberals.

But most of the left/dems/liberals are already on board. Both sides have their whores but the count is pretty obvious...the right is getting cramps from having their legs spread so wide and....for so long.

But I have the ticket, we'll call ALL of my income 'Mr. Rodger's Gains' or 'Mr. Rodger's Interest' and to provide me with the proper incentive to go out and make some fucking money...it will be Zero taxes on those very special gains. Yea, that's the ticket alright, for 'my' real 'incentive.'

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

But nnanji.. all animals are equal. Its just some animals are more equal than others.

The reason we tax incomes differently involves many factors. If I save $100 and earn 10% - I have little risk.

If I take the money and start a company - I could lose that money - most small business go bankrupt in 5 years. When you make money by starting a business, thats a socially useful function. It creates jobs, products, infrastructure. Since it has risk, we tax the gains at lower rates in order to offset the possibility of risk.

First of all, income from a business is not carried interest or capital gains and is taxed at tax table rates subject to business deductions just like ordinary income. Either 'trading as' a partnership or a sub s corp. taxes are in the tables the same as wages, tips and salaries and treated equally as they should or...don't go into business.

Secondly the incentive to start a business is an individual decision based on the opportunity to make a profit in the marketplace. Their is no moral justification for the tax code to provide any additional incentive and it does not.

Try to understand what I said, instead of using it as a platform for whatever you want to say.

You wanting equal taxation for everyone is by far the most conservative thing you've ever said - and frankly I don't believe you. But .. I'll play along. What level of equal taxation do you suppose is fair for everyone?

Secondly, regarding not in the country's best interest to provide incentives to create businesses. Why in the world do you think thats true? I'm fairly sure you have supported incentives for green energy. Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

Frankly, I've seen far too much where partisanship and that whole train of thought, often lead people to read something into another's words, that isn't there or simply make assumptions about some of their beliefs because of a few disagreements. So, I don't know why you don't believe me.

I firmly believe that our founders original conservatism with only a very exceptions or differences, is how a people should form a society. Modern liberalism came about as a reactionary response to the various failures of what one now has a right to call...modern conservatism.

I'll save you the short synopsis of what I am sure is a book I have inside of me but suffice it to say that if one could imagine a marketplace unfettered by politics and any financial influence from both sides, one could imagine a humming masterpiece of limited regulation in the areas of health and safety, without favoritism within its tax regime and subsidies, I am thinking that economy would perform much better than ours does now and has for sometime.

For example as I recall, Reagan raised the capital gains tax, many commentators have offer and I agree, that to equalize taxes on labor and capital would be one of the biggest job producing changes this country could make. (maybe even tax capital more) Example 44% of ALL corporate profits (much of it realized as capital gains and not subject to the corporate rate) are now from strictly financial profits. If there are any real incentives to be created in the tax code, first...would be disincentives to say...paper trading which creates no jobs. So, equalize even raise taxes on 'gains' and 'interest' and the more you do, more you can lower taxes on real job producers.

It may be possible to responsibly lower the tax on labor by taxing non-productive pursuits in what I call short term yes, even 1 year profits, unbelievably described as long term. (gains and interests) SO in our pursuit of just what is a good level of taxation, we start with the business world that doesn't enjoy those aberrations. That something like depending upon who you read, 70-80% of all jobs are already created by small business and the mere fact that most do not enjoy capital gains or carried interest yet provide those jobs, that's where we look.

So no corporate subsidies, no corporate tax credits, a flat rate, don't know where that falls since it seems all western countries are falling all over each other to compete for it by lowering rates all over the western world except the US and a couple of others, which is pure politics. Why ? Because as a politician, I want MY favors to the corporate contributer to be worth as much as possible and if the corp. tax rate is high...the games I and my fellow committee members can play, become worth the million$ in contributions that I seek for re-election.

So we have a flat corporate tax without favors and there are those that say...I am dreaming. I probably am. But then what is taxed lower for the small business man is what ? Actual production (making something) or services (doing something) To make things and do things, requires jobs. The financial 'capitalist' would prefer to fire everybody and just trade paper.

I have not supported anywhere near the billions in tax help for green energy just like I don't support corporate energy capping the benefits at the state and often the federal level. But there again, politics come in. If we as a society decide collectively to tax carbon, I can agree but a small tax and we are already moving away from coal which is a bigger step than most realize because coal is the single biggest contributer to CO2. A tax on carbon does establish a new incentive to find carbon-less alternatives.

So the sole incentive to create a business, is in the marketplace, the level of demand that marketplace creates, creates the need to hire. Our tax code and it favoritism for capital as reflected in the cap gains and carried interest rates (also stock dividends) and its corresponding need to tax labor more, thus taxing demand...is a job killer.