Barstool economics

Epicurus said:
No I'm really not confusing anything. It appears to be you who are confused. Taxing money twice (once as income, then that same money again as "capital gains") is double taxation.

Of course this is really all irrelevant because what is driving your position on this issue is not the fact that you don't believe capital gains to be double taxation, but rather your oft-stated belief that the rich have too much money and that other people are entitled to some of it.
Click to expand...

I think we should replace capital gains and corporate taxation with a VAT. It effectively taxes corporate income up front.

Mainly what I'm concerned with is that the corporate income tax makes our products less competitive overseas.
 
apple0154 said:
Double on what money?

In the example I gave the $100,000 was mine. I had paid tax on it. I use it to buy a building.

I sell the building for $300,000. I made $200,000 and pay tax on $200,000. I never paid tax on it before. That is the first time I pay tax on the $200,000 so where does the "double" taxation enter into it?

EDIT: You're confusing paying tax on the entire selling price which does not happen. If I buy a building for $100,000 and sell it for $100,000 I don't pay any tax as I didn't gain anything. We're talking capital GAINS tax.
Click to expand...

Meh, maybe we should have a capital gains on items that don't have to do with corporate stock. You shouldn't be able to make money in real estate tax free. IMHO it should just be calculated as regular income.
 
Epicurus said:
No I'm really not confusing anything. It appears to be you who are confused. Taxing money twice (once as income, then that same money again as "capital gains") is double taxation.

Of course this is really all irrelevant because what is driving your position on this issue is not the fact that you don't believe capital gains to be double taxation, but rather your oft-stated belief that the rich have too much money and that other people are entitled to some of it.
Click to expand...

No. No. What is driving this issue is capital gains is not taxed twice. It is taxed as capital gains which, in some jurisdictions, is subject to a lesser amount than income OR part of it is non-taxable and the rest is taxed at the same rate as income. There is no way to twist that to say it is taxed twice or it represents double taxation.

The second thing driving this issue is people want capital gains tax removed which means NO tax on that money. They want capital gains to be declared/treated as something other than income. That's the point and that's what I object to.

It has to do with taxing money received and it shouldn't make a difference how money is received. However, the wealthy are more likely to benefit from capital gains and inheritances than a poor individual and the laws are unfairly tailored to the wealthy individual's benefit. That is the issue.
 
Watermark said:
Meh, maybe we should have a capital gains on items that don't have to do with corporate stock. You shouldn't be able to make money in real estate tax free. IMHO it should just be calculated as regular income.
Click to expand...

Exactly. All money should be calculated the same regardless of how one acquired it. That would be fair.
 
FYI - The middle class actually invests. They like having their gains taxed at a lower rate, and they especially like ROTH-IRAs which aren't taxed at all.
 
Threedee said:
FYI - The middle class actually invests. They like having their gains taxed at a lower rate, and they especially like ROTH-IRAs which aren't taxed at all.
Click to expand...

I know the middle class also invest just as I did. I was a regular, blue collar worker. I still didn't have a problem paying taxes. I'm happy I make/made money on which to pay taxes! :)
 
SmarterThanYou said:
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers", he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
Click to expand...
Nice. This also explains why you're not a college professor. Cause is our system the 10th guy would have paid 59% but would have drank 4 of the beers. The 9 guy would have drank 2 and the other 8 would have split the other 4 beers.
 
Watermark said:
I think we should replace capital gains and corporate taxation with a VAT. It effectively taxes corporate income up front.

Mainly what I'm concerned with is that the corporate income tax makes our products less competitive overseas.
Click to expand...
It incentivizes purchasing foreign goods here too and increases the cost of everything artificially.
 
Originally Posted by apple0154 View Post
The problem is most wealthy people don't even pay as much as the poor, percentage-wise.

Folks like to throw out the numbers showing wealthy people pay a higher percentage of income tax. A higher tax bracket. The problem lies with what's considered "income".

The average, hourly paid working stiff is taxed on every dollar they receive because the only dollars they receive are from their job. Wealthy people receive dollars from capital gains but capital gains is taxed at a much lower rate or there is a portion that is tax-free.

Wealthy people are more likely to know other wealthy people meaning they are more likely to receive inheritances. Again, tax-free money.

Rather than have a varying tax rate simply classify all money received as income because it is income. It's money coming in. Whether one worked for it, inherited it, found it, realized it through capital gains......it's money they received.

The idea is put out there that wealthy people worked for their money as if others could have done the same thing, as if everyone has the same opportunity and it's just a matter of working. That is not the case.

In many instances ones good fortune was a matter of luck and circumstance.

For example, a trial lawyer may win a class action suit or a huge jury award and become instantly wealthy. To say they worked for their money implies other less successful lawyers do not apply themselves. however, there is not an infinite number of class action suits from which to choose.

This goes all the way down the line. There are usually more applicants than there are jobs.

This idea that wealthy people worked for their money, earned their money, that their success was a matter of working harder than other people is nothing but a take on the "divine right to rule" philosophy. "I'm here so I must be special."

However, things are changing. As the world becomes one there will be less places for them to "hide".
Click to expand...

wrong... while the effective tax rate does tend to be lower than the income brackets, most wealthy people still pay a higher effective tax rate than the average poor person... This is evident in the FACT that the top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes. The top 55% pay all of it.

Partially wrong on capital gains... there is no 'tax free' capital gain (unless of course you are talking about Roth IRA's which up until 2010, the rich could not contribute to.

Inheritances are NOT tax free.... unless someone dies next year.... otherwise the exclusion is $1mm starting back up in 2011. Given that this money was already taxed when it was earned and the income and cap gains were already taxed, then what the fuck are you bitching about?

Everyone does have the opportunity to become wealthy. Yes, some may have to work harder and some may get 'lucky' but what the fuck does that have to do with the example on taxes that was presented? oh yeah... NOTHING.
 
Epicurus said:
Double taxation.
Click to expand...

That example would not be double taxation. You would be taxed on the money you made on the sale of the property.

Where cap gains do not make sense is on the sale of stock. Because that money HAS been taxed already in the form of corporate taxes.
 
apple0154 said:
Double on what money?

In the example I gave the $100,000 was mine. I had paid tax on it. I use it to buy a building.

I sell the building for $300,000. I made $200,000 and pay tax on $200,000. I never paid tax on it before. That is the first time I pay tax on the $200,000 so where does the "double" taxation enter into it?

EDIT: You're confusing paying tax on the entire selling price which does not happen. If I buy a building for $100,000 and sell it for $100,000 I don't pay any tax as I didn't gain anything. We're talking capital GAINS tax.
Click to expand...
pwnage by Apple!
 
Epicurus said:
No I'm really not confusing anything. It appears to be you who are confused. Taxing money twice (once as income, then that same money again as "capital gains") is double taxation.

Of course this is really all irrelevant because what is driving your position on this issue is not the fact that you don't believe capital gains to be double taxation, but rather your oft-stated belief that the rich have too much money and that other people are entitled to some of it.
Click to expand...
Dude, you're not making any sense. Apple is right. Capital gains is income and should be taxed as such. As long as the capital itself is not taxed it is in now way, shape or form double taxation. You're just not making any sense nore does your argument add up. Apples does.
 
apple0154 said:
No. No. What is driving this issue is capital gains is not taxed twice. It is taxed as capital gains which, in some jurisdictions, is subject to a lesser amount than income OR part of it is non-taxable and the rest is taxed at the same rate as income. There is no way to twist that to say it is taxed twice or it represents double taxation.

The second thing driving this issue is people want capital gains tax removed which means NO tax on that money. They want capital gains to be declared/treated as something other than income. That's the point and that's what I object to.

It has to do with taxing money received and it shouldn't make a difference how money is received. However, the wealthy are more likely to benefit from capital gains and inheritances than a poor individual and the laws are unfairly tailored to the wealthy individual's benefit. That is the issue.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It makes a value judgement that derived (investment) income is of more value then earned income from work and that those people who earn income this way are of more value to society and therefore should not be taxed. It's a rediculous argument.
 
Superfreak said:
wrong... while the effective tax rate does tend to be lower than the income brackets, most wealthy people still pay a higher effective tax rate than the average poor person... This is evident in the FACT that the top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes. The top 55% pay all of it.
Click to expand...

Yes, a higher tax rate on what is classified as "income". That is the problem. Most poor and middle class derive their income from hourly wages.

Inheritances are NOT tax free.... unless someone dies next year.... otherwise the exclusion is $1mm starting back up in 2011. Given that this money was already taxed when it was earned and the income and cap gains were already taxed, then what the fuck are you bitching about?
Click to expand...

Here's an example.
"In Kentucky, the inheritance tax is a tax on a beneficiary's right to receive property from a decedent's estate. It is imposed as a percentage of the amount transferred to the beneficiary. Currently, transfers to "Class A" relatives—spouses, parents, children, grandchildren, and siblings—are exempt from inheritance tax. Transfers to "Class B" relatives—nieces, nephews, daughters- and sons-in-law, aunts, uncles, and great-grandchildren—are taxed at a lower rate than transfers to "Class C" recipients, defined as anyone not falling within Class A or B.[2]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_tax

So the money was already taxed. So was the money we use to pay the grocer. Why should the grocer pay tax on the money we give them considering we already paid tax on it? Your point is illogical.

Everyone does have the opportunity to become wealthy. Yes, some may have to work harder and some may get 'lucky' but what the fuck does that have to do with the example on taxes that was presented? oh yeah... NOTHING.
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with my examples. People with money can earn money on the money they have and either pay no tax or less tax depending on the jurisdiction in which they live. What are you having a problem with?

Capital gains tax is less than income tax whether due to a lower rate or part of the gains being exempt, again, depending on ones location. Also, as shown above certain people pay less tax on inheritances.

Why should the child of a wealthy individual, a young person who has already lived a relatively privileged life, pay zero tax on an inheritance while a guy living in a cardboard box, should he receive an inheritance from the same wealthy individual, be subject to tax?

If you take a look at the example you'll see the individuals closer to the wealthy individual, the ones who most likely have benefited the most over time, pay the least tax.

Again, what is it you're having difficulty comprehending?
 
Why should the poor have to pay taxes on what they dont have. The more you use the monetary system the more you have to pay. Or did you actually think that the money in your pocket actually belongs to you?
 
wanderingbear said:
Why should the poor have to pay taxes on what they dont have. The more you use the monetary system the more you have to pay. Or did you actually think that the money in your pocket actually belongs to you?
Click to expand...

The poor pay taxes on what they don't have!!! :palm:
Are you nuts - OH, never mind. :good4u:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top