History Quiz for Conservatives....

[Cancel 2016.2]

No, you are too hard headed to actually READ what I posted.

No ditzie... I read what you posted and debunked it.

I didn't say investments aren't taxed. I said essentially what you are saying, they are taxed upon sale or distribution. IF the investment is left alone and not touched, it isn't taxed.

No ditzie... you did not... you stated "No, you wouldn't tax investments and portfolios, but we don't tax those now!"

If they take their money out, what will they do with it besides spend it? What value does money have if it's not spent? You think wealthy people are going to avoid taxation by living poor and not spending their money? Really? And you call me 'ditzie?'

As I stated ditzie... they will REINVEST it. Yes, you are indeed ditzie. No, the wealthy are not going to 'live poor' ditzie. In my example of those earning $1m, I have them spending half. That is not living poor, yet it still gives them a lower effective tax rate.

You are making wild presumptions about people and spending habits here. People tend to live within their means, whatever they are. If you make $50k a year, you buy more stuff than someone making $30k, you have a nicer home which costs more and has higher property tax, and maybe you have an extra vehicle in the garage or a pool? Same if you make $100k or $200k, you live a little better lifestyle, you spend a little more money on frivolous things and splurge more, and the more you make, the more this dynamic is in play. There is NO indication that someone who makes more money is more inclined to invest or save than someone who makes less. Every indication is, people who make more money, spend more money, purchase more luxury, enjoy the extra wealth because that's what life is all about. Now if they want to invest, that is fine, we don't care how much money they invest, only what they spend. Money is of no value unless it is spent, so what difference does it make?

Yes ditzie, people will live better life styles if they make more. The difference ditzie is that the more you make, the more you tend to save/invest as a percentage of income. Those who are in the low or low middle income ranges do not tend to have extra money to save and invest. They tend to spend 100% of their earnings. The higher you go up the income scale, the more investments/savings.

I used those numbers as examples to show your tiny little mind how that consumption tax is regressive. If you wish to counter it with an example using actual numbers rather than rhetoric, please do. Show us how it isn't regressive. Show us an actual example based on what you think spending/investments look like relative to those income levels.

Again, money invested and not touched as income, can't be taxed under ANY tax plan! Savings accounts are not taxed! We don't tax WEALTH! We tax INCOME! What fundamental purpose does INCOME have, if you're not going to spend it?

you truly are an idiot. The money can be reinvested you moron. Have you never sold one stock only to buy another? Under the current system and the flat tax system, you are taxed as you go on the capital gains and dividends. Under your plan we would not ever tax the capital gains until the money is spent on something. That creates a very regressive system.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No ditzie... I read what you posted and debunked it.

I didn't say investments aren't taxed. I said essentially what you are saying, they are taxed upon sale or distribution. IF the investment is left alone and not touched, it isn't taxed.

No ditzie... you did not... you stated "No, you wouldn't tax investments and portfolios, but we don't tax those now!"

And as you admitted, we DON'T tax investments and portfolios, we tax distributions and sales. You've not "debunked" what I said, you "reaffirmed" what I said. People are simply not taxed on their investments and portfolios, only on their received distributions and sales. It doesn't matter what tax system, it's the same either way.

As I stated ditzie... they will REINVEST it. Yes, you are indeed ditzie. No, the wealthy are not going to 'live poor' ditzie. In my example of those earning $1m, I have them spending half. That is not living poor, yet it still gives them a lower effective tax rate.

How do you know that every person earning $1m is going to save or invest half? Is everyone the same in your imaginary world? It gives them a lower effective tax rate if they spend less of their money. But eventually, someone is going to spend the money, otherwise, what use does it have? Yes, they can sock it away in investments and not touch it and therefore, not pay tax on it, but they can do that now! We don't tax savings and portfolios, we tax received INCOME. If the millionaires spend $500k in a year, they will pay 5x more taxes as someone who spent $100k for the year. It doesn't matter how much they saved or invested, they will pay taxes on it when the money is used and spent, just as they now pay tax on it when it is received and sold. The difference is, a consumption tax would be the same rate for all, instead of a reduced 'cap gains' rate which benefits the wealthy more.

Yes ditzie, people will live better life styles if they make more. The difference ditzie is that the more you make, the more you tend to save/invest as a percentage of income. Those who are in the low or low middle income ranges do not tend to have extra money to save and invest. They tend to spend 100% of their earnings. The higher you go up the income scale, the more investments/savings.

SO WHAT? We don't currently, and we wouldn't under your plan, begin taxing investment holdings and savings account values! We only tax people when they SELL a stock or RECEIVE a dividend! Yes, one thing a consumption tax would do, is it would decrease consumption, and cause more people to save and not spend. I say that is a GOOD thing to happen, as opposed to ringing up debt.

I used those numbers as examples to show your tiny little mind how that consumption tax is regressive. If you wish to counter it with an example using actual numbers rather than rhetoric, please do. Show us how it isn't regressive. Show us an actual example based on what you think spending/investments look like relative to those income levels.

You make wild assumptions based on your narrow-minded understanding of the world, and think that somehow refutes my points. Generally speaking, most financially savvy people will save or invest a certain percentage of their income, maybe it's 10%, maybe it's 20%, maybe more, maybe less? We don't know this because everyone is different, and each person has their own motivations and plans, or ideas of how they want to handle their finances. What most thinking rational people understand is, wealthy people do spend more money than less wealthy people, on 'extras' and things that are above their basic needs. Poor people don't tend to buy high-priced luxury items like yachts and mansions, because they don't earn that kind of wealth, therefore, they would pay far less in taxes through consumption. They might even have no tax liability at all, under the plans proposed. Middle-class families, if they wanted to save and not spend, and live within their means, and make do with less stuff, perhaps they wouldn't pay taxes either? Even if some eccentric billionaire wanted to live in a cabin off the grid in Montana, grow his own food and not "consume" things, he could avoid tax liability! The thing is, if he were so inclined, he could do that NOW, under the current tax codes, or under your idea of a tax code. He would simply leave his money invested and not receive it as income, voila... no taxes to pay!

you truly are an idiot. The money can be reinvested you moron. Have you never sold one stock only to buy another? Under the current system and the flat tax system, you are taxed as you go on the capital gains and dividends. Under your plan we would not ever tax the capital gains until the money is spent on something. That creates a very regressive system.

No, I am not "truly an idiot" or "ditzie" or "little minded" or "stupid and dumb" or any of the other names you wish to hurl at me. You can continue to hurl those pejoratives and think it's helping you make your case, but it's not. You are apparently smart enough to know that if I have millions of dollars invested or socked away in savings, it is NOT SUBJECT TO US INCOME TAX OF ANY KIND! It is ONLY when I choose to SELL my stock or RECEIVE a dividend as a capital gain, that I am taxed on that amount. As long as I leave my money where it's at, and don't sell my stock or realize a capital gain as income, it CAN NOT BE TAXED! Not under the current code, not under your code, not under my plan! You are clinging to something that we haven't EVER taxed before in the history of America, and claiming this is the reason not to have a consumption tax. IF the monies are received as income, chances are, the monies are going to be SPENT! What other purpose would there be? Do "rich people" just like to have piles of currency to roll around in or something?

 

[zappasguitar]

So, you dont want to answer my questions? I understand.

That's the deal Jarod...don't expect any of them to answer YOUR questions, however you are required to answer all of theirs...LOL!

 

[zappasguitar]

According to factcheck.org

A campaign ad that praises Mitt Romney’s performance as governor of Massachusetts presents a slanted view of his record on jobs, unemployment and taxes. To every claim, there is a “yes, but” qualifier.

The Romney ad claims that as governor, “Romney had the best jobs record in a decade.” Yes — Massachusetts added more net jobs during Romney’s four years in office than during the four-year period of either his predecessor or successor. But — that ignores the national recessions before and after Romney’s time in office. If you look at how Massachusetts stacked up on job creation compared with other states, Romney actually fared worse than his predecessor and successor.
The ad claims Romney “reduced unemployment to just 4.7 percent.” Yes — Massachusetts’ unemployment rate went from 5.6 percent to 4.6 percent under Romney. But — the state’s unemployment rate was slightly lower than the national rate when he took office, and was roughly the same as the national rate when he left office.
The ad claims Romney “balanced every budget without raising taxes.” Yes — Romney never raised personal income taxes. But — in order to balance the budget, Romney increased government fees by hundreds of millions of dollars.
The Romney ad, called “Strong Leadership,” is another in the campaign’s theme of what would happen on “Day 1″ of a Romney presidency, and it serves as push-back against a recent Obama campaign ad that assailed Romney’s record as governor (an ad we found overreached with several claims).

Save your strength Rana.

The same people that refuse to accept any kind of "yes, but" quantifier regarding Obama's performance are the very same who will allow the same type of "yes, but..." comeback since it involves a candidate they support.

 

[cawacko]

That's the deal Jarod...don't expect any of them to answer YOUR questions, however you are required to answer all of theirs...LOL!

So after answering his questions then what? That's the end of discussion? There's nothing more to it than that? Can we have a further discussion on the issues Jarod brought up?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

No ditzie... I read what you posted and debunked it.
And as you admitted, we DON'T tax investments and portfolios, we tax distributions and sales. You've not "debunked" what I said, you "reaffirmed" what I said. People are simply not taxed on their investments and portfolios, only on their received distributions and sales. It doesn't matter what tax system, it's the same either way.

You truly need to re-read what you actually wrote. Here it is:

"No, you wouldn't tax investments and portfolios, but we don't tax those now! A point I often make in the Class Warfare arguments, the wealthy people do not HAVE to receive their investment dividends as income, and if they don't, they aren't taxed."

The above is incorrect. Investment dividends are taxed, whether they receive them or not. Capital gains are taxed upon the sale of a security. Under your system, the gains would NEVER be taxed if the person kept reinvesting in new securities. Under the current system and the flat tax system, they are taxed upon the sale. That is what was debunked ditzie.

You then went on to say

"So you are clinging to something that isn't currently taxed, as a reason not to do this? The 4th Amendment prohibits you from confiscating property from individuals, so we will never have a "wealth" tax. The ONLY way they pay tax on investment dividends, is if they receive these as income during the year. Now, the only reason they would take their money out of investment would be in order to spend it, which would result in a tax under my idea. It wouldn't matter if the money came from investment dividends (capital gains) or earned income, the tax at the consumption level would all be the same. "

The above is completely wrong... it too was debunked. I was not clinging to something that would not be taxed anyway as you suggested. There is a big difference in how they are taxed between the consumption tax and the current system and flat tax. You are again wrong to state that dividends are only taxed if received. That is 100% wrong. They are taxed whether you re-invest the dividends or receive them. You are also flat out wrong to say the only reason someone would take money out of an investment is to spend. they obviously also have the option to reinvest in another security. So you were yet again, debunked. Completely.

How do you know that every person earning $1m is going to save or invest half? Is everyone the same in your imaginary world? It gives them a lower effective tax rate if they spend less of their money.

Jesus Christ you are a moron. It is an example ditzie. I never claimed that every single one would save/invest exactly half. I was showing you, using real numbers how your system is likely to be progressive. AGAIN ditzie... if you care to use ACTUAL numbers and set up an example yourself as to what you think the average person would do in each of those income brackets... DO SO... otherwise shut the fuck up because you are spouting nothing but rhetoric. You are not putting numbers to the test.

But eventually, someone is going to spend the money, otherwise, what use does it have? Yes, they can sock it away in investments and not touch it and therefore, not pay tax on it, but they can do that now! We don't tax savings and portfolios, we tax received INCOME. If the millionaires spend $500k in a year, they will pay 5x more taxes as someone who spent $100k for the year. It doesn't matter how much they saved or invested, they will pay taxes on it when the money is used and spent, just as they now pay tax on it when it is received and sold. The difference is, a consumption tax would be the same rate for all, instead of a reduced 'cap gains' rate which benefits the wealthy more.

Seriously you are retarded. How do you think wealthy families maintain and grow wealth from generation to generation? They do not have to eventually spend it. They can continue growing investments. They don't tend to spend it all.... that is how your family goes from wealthy to not wealthy. Yes, in a dollar for dollar basis, the rich will always pay more, regardless of the system. We are talking ditzie about their effective tax rate. Do you understand what that is?

SO WHAT? We don't currently, and we wouldn't under your plan, begin taxing investment holdings and savings account values! We only tax people when they SELL a stock or RECEIVE a dividend!

AGAIN ditzie... under the current system and under the flat tax system, we tax people when they receive the income. Under your system, we do not. That is the difference you twit. Do you understand this ditzie? Or are you going to chirp away again that if they sell a stock they must be going to spend the money?

Yes, one thing a consumption tax would do, is it would decrease consumption, and cause more people to save and not spend. I say that is a GOOD thing to happen, as opposed to ringing up debt.

LMAO... so you think less consumer spending is good for the economy? I agree people should set aside if they can for investments/savings. The problem ditzie is that many cannot. They live paycheck to paycheck. Again... they are going to be spending 100% of their income at the lower levels in order to survive.

You make wild assumptions based on your narrow-minded understanding of the world, and think that somehow refutes my points. Generally speaking, most financially savvy people will save or invest a certain percentage of their income, maybe it's 10%, maybe it's 20%, maybe more, maybe less? We don't know this because everyone is different, and each person has their own motivations and plans, or ideas of how they want to handle their finances.

No ditzie, it was an EXAMPLE. It is an example based on reality. The average savings rate in the US is nowhere near 10 or 20%. It has been about 5% on average for the better part of a decade. The 50 year average is about 6.5%. That is an AVERAGE... no try and put those two brain cells you have together and ask yourself... who is saving the bulk of the total ditzie? People living paycheck to paycheck or the upper income people? Whose savings/investment rate do you think is higher ditzie?

What most thinking rational people understand is, wealthy people do spend more money than less wealthy people, on 'extras' and things that are above their basic needs. Poor people don't tend to buy high-priced luxury items like yachts and mansions, because they don't earn that kind of wealth, therefore, they would pay far less in taxes through consumption. They might even have no tax liability at all, under the plans proposed.

Again ditzie... no one is suggesting that the wealthy don't consume more or that they would pay more in terms of a dollar for dollar comparison. Again, do you understand what an effective tax rate is ditzie? That is how you compare different income levels to determine if a system is progressive or not. Dollar for dollar does not give you an apples to apples comparison. It will always show the wealthy paying more dollar for dollar under any of the three systems.

Middle-class families, if they wanted to save and not spend, and live within their means, and make do with less stuff, perhaps they wouldn't pay taxes either? Even if some eccentric billionaire wanted to live in a cabin off the grid in Montana, grow his own food and not "consume" things, he could avoid tax liability! The thing is, if he were so inclined, he could do that NOW, under the current tax codes, or under your idea of a tax code. He would simply leave his money invested and not receive it as income, voila... no taxes to pay!

No ditzie, he could not. That billionaire would still be paying taxes under the current system and under the flat tax system. The only way he wouldn't be is if his money earned NO dividend income and he never sold a single stock. Tell us ditzie... what kind of stocks don't pay dividends? Let me help you... the answer is the high growth/high volatility stocks. Do you hear how billionaires consistently invest all their money in highly aggressive stocks? No, you do not.

No, I am not "truly an idiot" or "ditzie" or "little minded" or "stupid and dumb" or any of the other names you wish to hurl at me. You can continue to hurl those pejoratives and think it's helping you make your case, but it's not. You are apparently smart enough to know that if I have millions of dollars invested or socked away in savings, it is NOT SUBJECT TO US INCOME TAX OF ANY KIND! It is ONLY when I choose to SELL my stock or RECEIVE a dividend as a capital gain, that I am taxed on that amount.

Again ditzie... yes you are, because you obviously are not intelligent enough to understand our current tax code. It has NOTHING to do with whether you CHOOSE to receive the dividend. If the dividend is paid... you pay taxes... whether you receive the dividend or reinvest it. Period.

As long as I leave my money where it's at, and don't sell my stock or realize a capital gain as income, it CAN NOT BE TAXED!

This part is correct. But tell us ditzie, when you do sell that stock... you are taxed under the current system and under the flat tax system if you have gains, yes or no? Under your system... you are not taxed. THAT is the difference ditzie. Try to grasp it this time.

Not under the current code, not under your code, not under my plan!

Yes ditzie, no one has suggested otherwise you moron. I have stated repeatedly where the difference is. You have repeatedly shown yourself to be too ignorant to comprehend it.

You are clinging to something that we haven't EVER taxed before in the history of America, and claiming this is the reason not to have a consumption tax.

This again shows you are completely incapable of comprehending what is written. You keep pointing out where the three plans are the same and suggesting that is my reason for opposing the consumption tax. It is where they DIFFER ditzie... that is where I have a problem with the consumption tax. Do you understand that? Or do I need to get a first grader to come on here and explain it to you at your level?

IF the monies are received as income, chances are, the monies are going to be SPENT! What other purpose would there be? Do "rich people" just like to have piles of currency to roll around in or something?

I have answered this repeatedly ditzie... the OTHER OPTION is for them to REINVEST.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Wow SF, you sure spend a LOT of time arguing with someone you see as "ditzie" ..what does that say about you?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Wow SF, you sure spend a LOT of time arguing with someone you see as "ditzie" ..what does that say about you?

That I enjoy mocking retards like you for their stupidity. The stupidity you once again have put on full display for the board to see.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The above is incorrect. Investment dividends are taxed, whether they receive them or not. Capital gains are taxed upon the sale of a security.

You are completely confused here, let me clear some things up. A "dividend" is something you gained or received. If it wasn't received (or gained), it was not a "dividend," and can't be taxed as one or called one. Capital gains are received gains in sale of "property" by the holder. The value the property gains each year is not taxed. We do not tax wealth holdings, as long as they remain where they are, the increased value is not taxable and isn't taxed. It is only when those dollars are received as income, they become subject to any kind of income taxation whatsoever.

Let's say I have $1m in stocks invested... over the course of the year, they gain 25% in value... great year... they are now worth $1.25m... I don't have to pay a dime of income tax if I don't receive that $.25m as income and elect to allow it to continue compiling where it sits. It may gain another 25% next year, and it may also lose the 25% it gained this year, it's a risk taken, but my INCOME tax liabilities only come into play when I claim some of it as income received. Whenever I do decide to claim some as income, it is taxed at the low capital gains rate, not at 35% income tax rates, because it was a 'dividend' and not real 'earned' income.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You are completely confused here, let me clear some things up. A "dividend" is something you gained or received. If it wasn't received (or gained), it was not a "dividend," and can't be taxed as one or called one.

Again moron, I am not confused. you are simply ignoring what you previously posted which was:

"No, you wouldn't tax investments and portfolios, but we don't tax those now! A point I often make in the Class Warfare arguments, the wealthy people do not HAVE to receive their investment dividends as income, and if they don't, they aren't taxed."

Are you going to ignore your own comments yet again moron?

Capital gains are received gains in sale of "property" by the holder. The value the property gains each year is not taxed. We do not tax wealth holdings, as long as they remain where they are, the increased value is not taxable and isn't taxed. It is only when those dollars are received as income, they become subject to any kind of income taxation whatsoever.

Again you fucking retard... I understand that unrealized cap gains are not taxed under any of the three systems. They ARE taxed under two of them. THAT is the difference you continue to ignore DITZIE.

Let's say I have $1m in stocks invested... over the course of the year, they gain 25% in value... great year... they are now worth $1.25m... I don't have to pay a dime of income tax if I don't receive that $.25m as income and elect to allow it to continue compiling where it sits. It may gain another 25% next year, and it may also lose the 25% it gained this year, it's a risk taken, but my INCOME tax liabilities only come into play when I claim some of it as income received. ]

Ditzie, you do not 'claim' anything. You either sell the stock and realize a gain/loss or you do not. If the stock pays a dividend, you pay taxes.

Again moron... you continue reverting back to this as if we disagree on unrealized gains being taxed. As I have state many times, the unrealized gains are not taxed under any of the three. THE DIFFERENCE IS WHEN YOU SELL THE STOCK. TWO OF THE SYSTEMS TAX THE GAINS AT THAT POINT. YOUR SYSTEM DOES NOT. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE DITZIE.

HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES DOES THAT HAVE TO BE POINTED OUT TO YOU FOR YOUR TINY LITTLE MIND TO GRASP IT?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Again moron, I am not confused. you are simply ignoring what you previously posted which was:

Are you going to ignore your own comments yet again moron?

I know precisely what I posted. You can't tax something that isn't income with any kind of income tax I am aware of. If they do not receive the money as income, it can't be taxed under the current tax code, or under your idea for a tax code. It is accumulated wealth for sure, but wealth is not taxed in America. If my wealth grows by $100 million this year, I am only taxed on the portion I receive as income, because THAT is what we tax... INCOME! We don't tax holdings and values of holdings, we never have in this country. We do tax income received, when it is received. Certain investments, because of how they are structured, offer an annuity or dividend, and those amounts are taxed as income, and this is what you are yammering on and on about. I realize this, and it doesn't negate the fact that this is an elected option for many large investors. They don't HAVE to receive ANY of their wealth as income, they can deffer taxation on their wealth as long as they like by not claiming it as income and letting it remain in securities. You can't tax what isn't claimed as received income!

Again you fucking retard... I understand that unrealized cap gains are not taxed under any of the three systems. They ARE taxed under two of them. THAT is the difference you continue to ignore DITZIE.

Capital gains are only taxed when realized. You get that part. As long as the gains are unrealized, they aren't taxed. PERIOD. A "capital gain" is income realized from the sale of 'property' so if it is a capital gain, it is taxed as dividend income. If the gain is not received or realized, it can't be taxed as a dividend or income. It may remain an asset which may gain or lose value, but we're not taxing wealth holdings.

Ditzie, you do not 'claim' anything. You either sell the stock and realize a gain/loss or you do not. If the stock pays a dividend, you pay taxes.

Exactly, and if you don't sell a stock you can't realize a gain/loss, so there is no tax owed or paid. If the particular investment scheme you have, pays an annual dividend or annuity, then yes... you do pay taxes on that, it is a received dividend income. Likewise, if you do not have such an investment arrangement, and your gain in value simply 'rolls over' you don't receive a dividend or income, and there is no tax liability. We don't tax wealth holdings or the values of assets held. We tax IN-COME!

Again moron... you continue reverting back to this as if we disagree on unrealized gains being taxed. As I have state many times, the unrealized gains are not taxed under any of the three. THE DIFFERENCE IS WHEN YOU SELL THE STOCK. TWO OF THE SYSTEMS TAX THE GAINS AT THAT POINT. YOUR SYSTEM DOES NOT. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE DITZIE.

The ONLY way my system doesn't is if the person doesn't spend their gains. Now maybe there are some wealthy people who want to fill their swimming pools with cash and play in it? Maybe some of them want to build a bonfire and have their friends over to watch their money burn over a glass of champagne? But I would suppose that most received money is going to be spent on consumer-based things, because we are a largely consumer-based society, not a bunch of idiots who want to hoard our money in mattresses and such.


The difference in my system and yours is, instead of the 'wealthy' paying a 15% cap gains dividend tax, they will be paying whatever everyone else is paying in consumer tax, and we already know they will be spending more because rich people do tend to like to flaunt their wealth. Even in my bonfire example, they would probably spring for top-quality champagne, which they would pay a consumer tax on!

 

[Bonestorm]

I don't think Dixie understands that there is a difference between a dividend and a capital gain.

At some pint, SF, you just have to give up. I know you really like to get the last word and all, but is it really worth it?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I don't think Dixie understands that there is a difference between a dividend and a capital gain.

At some pint, SF, you just have to give up. I know you really like to get the last word and all, but is it really worth it?

A capital gain is a dividend, and is taxed as such. A received dividend from a sale of a stock, is a 'capital gain' and is taxed as such. What isn't taxed, is accumulated wealth. If there is no dividend received, there is nothing to tax as a dividend. The "value" may have increased, but it's not a "dividend" until it is realized as received income, as a dividend. That's precisely what the word means. There are investments where annual dividends (or quarterly) are dispersed, and those amounts are subject to taxation. This is what you guys are continuing to assume are 'dividends' and you are right, they are, and we do tax them... however, there are also investments which are "tax deferred" and the realized gains in value each year, are NOT dispersed, but continue to compile as tax-deferred investment, which are not taxed at all... never have been... won't be under any kind of "income" tax plan or "consumer" tax plan. So this is all completely irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Bonestorm]

See what I mean, SF? He's got part of it right and part of it completely fucked so it's impossible to have a discussion with him about it because the fucked part will continue to be fucked forever.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

See what I mean, SF? He's got part of it right and part of it completely fucked so it's impossible to have a discussion with him about it because the fucked part will continue to be fucked forever.

Well instead of talking to SF in an attempt to talk down to me, why don't you point out what I "got wrong" here, and let's have an intelligent conversation about it? Seems that is the best approach to take, if you are so well-armed with the facts here. Simply declining to debate and ridiculing me, isn't working well for you. It really makes you look inept and stupid, which is fine by me, but I would think you'd want to show off for all your liberal buddies and take me on?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

A capital gain is a dividend, and is taxed as such.

ROFLMAO... thanks for proving Dungs point. you have no fucking clue that they are different.

A received dividend from a sale of a stock, is a 'capital gain' and is taxed as such.

A dividend is NOT from the sale of a stock ditzie. A dividend is not taxed as a capital gain ditzie.

What isn't taxed, is accumulated wealth. If there is no dividend received, there is nothing to tax as a dividend.

Tell us ditzie... if a dividend is declared and a person has it automatically reinvested... is it taxed? Let us know what you think on this.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Well instead of talking to SF in an attempt to talk down to me, why don't you point out what I "got wrong" here, and let's have an intelligent conversation about it? Seems that is the best approach to take, if you are so well-armed with the facts here. Simply declining to debate and ridiculing me, isn't working well for you. It really makes you look inept and stupid, which is fine by me, but I would think you'd want to show off for all your liberal buddies and take me on?

There is no such thing as you having an intelligent conversation. I have proven you wrong over and over again. You have stated things that are 100% incorrect over and over again. These are pointed out to you and then you simply restate them again as if they are fact. Hence... ditzie

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I know precisely what I posted.

No, you don't, because you continue to post nonsense and then pretend you didn't post nonsense.

Capital gains are only taxed when realized. You get that part. As long as the gains are unrealized, they aren't taxed. PERIOD.

Actually, that is the only part that you get.

A "capital gain" is income realized from the sale of 'property' so if it is a capital gain, it is taxed as dividend income.

BAM... already wrong again. It is not taxed as dividend income you moron.

If the gain is not received or realized, it can't be taxed as a dividend or income. It may remain an asset which may gain or lose value, but we're not taxing wealth holdings.

See... the above is the same nonsense you continue saying. NO ONE IS FUCKING SAYING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY YOU FUCKING RETARD. NO ONE.

WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? NO ONE.

Exactly, and if you don't sell a stock you can't realize a gain/loss, so there is no tax owed or paid. If the particular investment scheme you have, pays an annual dividend or annuity, then yes... you do pay taxes on that, it is a received dividend income. Likewise, if you do not have such an investment arrangement, and your gain in value simply 'rolls over' you don't receive a dividend or income, and there is no tax liability. We don't tax wealth holdings or the values of assets held. We tax IN-COME!

See, again you post that stupidity Ditzie. NO ONE IS SAYING THAT UNREALIZED GAINS ARE TAXED. FOR THE 100TH FUCKING TIME, ALL THREE SYSTEMS ARE THE SAME ON THIS. NO ONE IS SAYING OTHERWISE YOU FUCKING RETARD.

The argument is what happens when the gains ARE REALIZED you fucking idiot?

The ONLY way my system doesn't is if the person doesn't spend their gains. Now maybe there are some wealthy people who want to fill their swimming pools with cash and play in it? Maybe some of them want to build a bonfire and have their friends over to watch their money burn over a glass of champagne? But I would suppose that most received money is going to be spent on consumer-based things, because we are a largely consumer-based society, not a bunch of idiots who want to hoard our money in mattresses and such.

See... more of your fucking idiocy....

AGAIN RETARD... WHAT IF THEY SELL THE INVESTMENT AND BUY ANOTHER INVESTMENT? UNDER THE CURRENT TAX CODE AND THE FLAT TAX, THE GAIN ON THE SALE OF THE FIRST INVESTMENT WILL BE TAXED WHEN SOLD. UNDER YOUR SYSTEM IT WILL NOT. THEY WILL SIMPLY BE ABLE TO ROLL FROM ONE INVESTMENT TO THE NEXT WITHOUT PAYING CAPITAL GAINS TAXES ON THE GAINS.

WHAT PART OF THAT ARE YOU TOO RETARDED TO UNDERSTAND DITZIE?

The difference in my system and yours is, instead of the 'wealthy' paying a 15% cap gains dividend tax, they will be paying whatever everyone else is paying in consumer tax

No moron, under the flat tax... ALL sources of income are taxed at the same rate.

and we already know they will be spending more because rich people do tend to like to flaunt their wealth. Even in my bonfire example, they would probably spring for top-quality champagne, which they would pay a consumer tax on!

You truly are a fucking idiot.

 

[Airstrip One]

You guys should start a fantasy tax plan league.

You should organize a mock bankruptcy proceedings hearing.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

AGAIN RETARD... WHAT IF THEY SELL THE INVESTMENT AND BUY ANOTHER INVESTMENT? UNDER THE CURRENT TAX CODE AND THE FLAT TAX, THE GAIN ON THE SALE OF THE FIRST INVESTMENT WILL BE TAXED WHEN SOLD. UNDER YOUR SYSTEM IT WILL NOT. THEY WILL SIMPLY BE ABLE TO ROLL FROM ONE INVESTMENT TO THE NEXT WITHOUT PAYING CAPITAL GAINS TAXES ON THE GAINS.

But they can currently leave investments as they are, and pay no capital gains tax anyway, if they don't want to pay taxes. You can only tax their capital gain when they've actually gained capital, which comes in the realization of profit from selling something. If they don't sell it, you get $0 in capital gains taxes, regardless of the increase in value of whatever they hold. They can still roll from one investment to the other and only pay a 15% cap gains tax currently. Under my system, we wouldn't care how much they moved money around in invesment or how much they wanted to hoard away, it only matters what they spend. I'm banking on the fact that most wealthy people spend their wealth more than they hoard it. You're hiding behind this mythical "cap gains" argument, without acknowledging reality, they don't have to claim the gains as capital gains dividends, they can keep them invested where they are and not touch them, and you can't tax a dime of their wealth assets. It's not income! It's not subject to ANY income taxation. It is a gain in value on paper of their assets, but unless it is realized and received as income, it is just an asset on paper that means NOTHING to the US Tax Code.