By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Millionaire tax! America only for now, so the rest of you millionaires in other coutries are safe!!!

Tagged games:

 

Hi Vgchartz millionairre! Do you want extra taxes?

Yes 31 54.39%
 
No 16 28.07%
 
I get paid in gum. 5 8.77%
 
(recycle) I am a meat popcycle. 5 8.77%
 
Total:57
HappySqurriel on 20 September 2011
Ail said:
HappySqurriel said:
Ail said:
Kasz216 said:
spurgeonryan said:

Wait? Millionaires pay less of a percent of there income than poorer people do! Is that what I am reading?

That's what your reading.... but it's not true.

It's a talking point created by conflating Income with Capital Gains.

 

One is a salary gained through working... in which the rich pay MUCH more.

The other, is a tax placed on investments, in which the rich ALSO pay MUCH more.

The diffrence is Rich people are more likely to make more money on investments then poor people, Therefore when the two are combined together they are being taxed  a "Lower percentage".

Aka, someone makes 10 dollars  through working and are taxed 20%.

VS someone who makes 10 dollars through working, and is taxed 20%, then makes 90 dollars through capital gains, and is taxed 10% on that... they're "only paying 15%"


 I pay a much higher amount of taxes then other people who make as much money as me using this same standard...  because I have money invested... that, even if you counted it as income wouldn't move me over to the next income bracket even though my captial gains bracket is higher then my income tax bracket, because actually, I don't have to pay ANY taxes outside of FICA or Social security.

I'm actually forced to pay MORE money for being responsible!

  Yet nobody cares about that, a case of the exact opposite happeneing... because it's not a way to target the rich.

 

 

However, the different tax rates exist for a number of good reasons.  To just list one (edit: Was wrong on number 2)

 

1)  Capital gains are much riskier.  If you work 40 hours a week, you are guranteed that money.  Capital Gains vary with the market, you could make a bunch of money only to lose it.


For tax purpose they are actually not that riskier as you can take advantage of capital losses to reduce your tax rate ( don't sell during a bad market year, keep some investments around till the next year and then sell some of those loosing investments to offset any gain you might make that good year..

Look at it another way ...

You're a venture capitalist and you invest $10 Million into a firm today, in 10 years you sell your investment for $11 Million, when factoring for inflation you lost money on the deal and your "earnings" were $100,000 per year; why should you pay the same tax rate as someone who earned $1 Million in income this year on this investment?


You know if I'm a venture capitalist that invest 10 million$ in a firm, chances are I have more than 10 millions $ lying around ( or I'm the dumbest investor on the earth that puts all its eggs in one risky basket) and the rest of my money is invested too and bringing money in too...........

That's not the point and you know it ...

A capital gain is the total increase in value of an investment over its lifetime as calculated from the point the investment is sold. Being that the lifetime of most sound investments are years/decades why should the gain in investment value be considered as if it was the same as someone who earned a similar amount in a year?

Why should someone who invested in a stock monthly over 20+ years until he has a gain over some arbitrary value be taxed at the same rate as someone who earned that in income in a single year?



Around the Network
Ail on 20 September 2011
HappySqurriel said:
Ail said:
HappySqurriel said:
Ail said:
Kasz216 said:
spurgeonryan said:

Wait? Millionaires pay less of a percent of there income than poorer people do! Is that what I am reading?

That's what your reading.... but it's not true.

It's a talking point created by conflating Income with Capital Gains.

 

One is a salary gained through working... in which the rich pay MUCH more.

The other, is a tax placed on investments, in which the rich ALSO pay MUCH more.

The diffrence is Rich people are more likely to make more money on investments then poor people, Therefore when the two are combined together they are being taxed  a "Lower percentage".

Aka, someone makes 10 dollars  through working and are taxed 20%.

VS someone who makes 10 dollars through working, and is taxed 20%, then makes 90 dollars through capital gains, and is taxed 10% on that... they're "only paying 15%"


 I pay a much higher amount of taxes then other people who make as much money as me using this same standard...  because I have money invested... that, even if you counted it as income wouldn't move me over to the next income bracket even though my captial gains bracket is higher then my income tax bracket, because actually, I don't have to pay ANY taxes outside of FICA or Social security.

I'm actually forced to pay MORE money for being responsible!

  Yet nobody cares about that, a case of the exact opposite happeneing... because it's not a way to target the rich.

 

 

However, the different tax rates exist for a number of good reasons.  To just list one (edit: Was wrong on number 2)

 

1)  Capital gains are much riskier.  If you work 40 hours a week, you are guranteed that money.  Capital Gains vary with the market, you could make a bunch of money only to lose it.


For tax purpose they are actually not that riskier as you can take advantage of capital losses to reduce your tax rate ( don't sell during a bad market year, keep some investments around till the next year and then sell some of those loosing investments to offset any gain you might make that good year..

Look at it another way ...

You're a venture capitalist and you invest $10 Million into a firm today, in 10 years you sell your investment for $11 Million, when factoring for inflation you lost money on the deal and your "earnings" were $100,000 per year; why should you pay the same tax rate as someone who earned $1 Million in income this year on this investment?


You know if I'm a venture capitalist that invest 10 million$ in a firm, chances are I have more than 10 millions $ lying around ( or I'm the dumbest investor on the earth that puts all its eggs in one risky basket) and the rest of my money is invested too and bringing money in too...........

That's not the point and you know it ...

A capital gain is the total increase in value of an investment over its lifetime as calculated from the point the investment is sold. Being that the lifetime of most sound investments are years/decades why should the gain in investment value be considered as if it was the same as someone who earned a similar amount in a year?

Why should someone who invested in a stock monthly over 20+ years until he has a gain over some arbitrary value be taxed at the same rate as someone who earned that in income in a single year?

And why should someone that has kept a stock 12 months and 1 day be taxed differently than someone that has kept it 11 months and 30 days ?



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

MARCUSDJACKSON on 20 September 2011

i love this president but it won't happen. Republicans are like this stain you can't get rid of, and the tea party are like the black plague but there mostly rich white Americans (i would call them other names but even as an American i'd get banned if i did) only looking out for them selves(oh did i forget to say Donald Trump?) and say screw America cause everything is fine the way it is cause we have the power and nothing changes cause we have no idea how to fix the deficit and tax cuts won't work cause we want to keep our money, and the poor are underachievers that we love holding back cause there worth nothing more to us then the labor they provide that we'd love to make cheaper cause they cost to much already!

 

you know i just had the chance to re-read my post and i have to say iit a super burn and ashton kutcher agrees.


Burn!



 Zarx's unofficial The Witcher 3    

Official Playstation Vita Thread!

write reveiws, articles, share thoughts, and expand on discussion like never before on gamewise.co/brainwaves

Kasz216 on 20 September 2011
Ail said:
Kasz216 said:
Ail said:
 


Once again the argument about leaving the country is a fallacy but not for the reasons most people have been using......

If you have over 100k of a revenue a year and give up your US citizenship for another one ( and you have to give it up, moving only doesn't do shit as US citizens are based on worldwide revenue) the IRS considers that you are trying to evade taxes and will still have you pay taxes for the next 10 years, even if you are no longer a US citizen .

Only on US earned income...

which, we're talking capital gains here.

Not US earned income.

The actual attempts at taxing world wide income by the government doesn't work that well.

Nope, on worldwide income, US isn't canada.

US citizens are taxed on worldwide income not US based income. And the US has agreements with most countries to help enforce this.

And the higher your revenue, the more the IRS monitors your tax declarations. Now you can always forget to declare income outside the US but if you get caught it's huge penalties and jail in some cases, really not worth it if you make that much money .

Then why did 14,700 millionaires and billionaires pay nothing last year due to taking money from overseas investments?

Why does Obama believe the tax code provides a benefit to people who create jobs overseas rather then here?  If those overseas have to pay dual taxation?

By the way, the 10 year US law your a fan of....?  Was passed by republican controlled congress in 2004.

HOWEVER it was changed in 2008... by a democrat controlled congress.

Now instead it is treated as if all your assets were liquidated when you left the country... and that's it.... no 10 year provision.... nothing.  You just pay the Capital Gains tax rate for all capital gains greater then 600,000.

So, basically, the rule preventing the rich to leave, was changed, so the rich can leave more eaisly.



Kasz216 on 20 September 2011
Ail said:
Kasz216 said:
Ail said:
Kasz216 said:
spurgeonryan said:

Wait? Millionaires pay less of a percent of there income than poorer people do! Is that what I am reading?

That's what your reading.... but it's not true.

It's a talking point created by conflating Income with Capital Gains.

 

One is a salary gained through working... in which the rich pay MUCH more.

The other, is a tax placed on investments, in which the rich ALSO pay MUCH more.

The diffrence is Rich people are more likely to make more money on investments then poor people, Therefore when the two are combined together they are being taxed  a "Lower percentage".

Aka, someone makes 10 dollars  through working and are taxed 20%.

VS someone who makes 10 dollars through working, and is taxed 20%, then makes 90 dollars through capital gains, and is taxed 10% on that... they're "only paying 15%"


 I pay a much higher amount of taxes then other people who make as much money as me using this same standard...  because I have money invested... that, even if you counted it as income wouldn't move me over to the next income bracket even though my captial gains bracket is higher then my income tax bracket, because actually, I don't have to pay ANY taxes outside of FICA or Social security.

I'm actually forced to pay MORE money for being responsible!

  Yet nobody cares about that, a case of the exact opposite happeneing... because it's not a way to target the rich.

 

 

However, the different tax rates exist for a number of good reasons.  To just list one (edit: Was wrong on number 2)

 

1)  Capital gains are much riskier.  If you work 40 hours a week, you are guranteed that money.  Capital Gains vary with the market, you could make a bunch of money only to lose it.


For tax purpose they are actually not that riskier as you can take advantage of capital losses to reduce your tax rate ( don't sell during a bad market year, keep some investments around till the next year and then sell some of those loosing investments to offset any gain you might make that good year..


Except... you can't if the Buffet Rule passes... since you have to pay atleast a 25% or 28% tax rate.


Sure you can, even with the Buffet rule because offseting gains with losses doesn't reduce tax rate per say, it reduces income. The thing on which the 25-28% applies......

The Buffet Rule is talking about a Minium tax rate.

You aren't allowed deductions on a minium tax rate.  That's the whole point of having a minium tax rate.

Obama's been talking about reducing tax deductions for the rich for years.  This is a way to do that.



Around the Network
HappySqurriel on 20 September 2011
Ail said:
HappySqurriel said:
Ail said:
HappySqurriel said:
Ail said:
Kasz216 said:
spurgeonryan said:

Wait? Millionaires pay less of a percent of there income than poorer people do! Is that what I am reading?

That's what your reading.... but it's not true.

It's a talking point created by conflating Income with Capital Gains.

 

One is a salary gained through working... in which the rich pay MUCH more.

The other, is a tax placed on investments, in which the rich ALSO pay MUCH more.

The diffrence is Rich people are more likely to make more money on investments then poor people, Therefore when the two are combined together they are being taxed  a "Lower percentage".

Aka, someone makes 10 dollars  through working and are taxed 20%.

VS someone who makes 10 dollars through working, and is taxed 20%, then makes 90 dollars through capital gains, and is taxed 10% on that... they're "only paying 15%"


 I pay a much higher amount of taxes then other people who make as much money as me using this same standard...  because I have money invested... that, even if you counted it as income wouldn't move me over to the next income bracket even though my captial gains bracket is higher then my income tax bracket, because actually, I don't have to pay ANY taxes outside of FICA or Social security.

I'm actually forced to pay MORE money for being responsible!

  Yet nobody cares about that, a case of the exact opposite happeneing... because it's not a way to target the rich.

 

 

However, the different tax rates exist for a number of good reasons.  To just list one (edit: Was wrong on number 2)

 

1)  Capital gains are much riskier.  If you work 40 hours a week, you are guranteed that money.  Capital Gains vary with the market, you could make a bunch of money only to lose it.


For tax purpose they are actually not that riskier as you can take advantage of capital losses to reduce your tax rate ( don't sell during a bad market year, keep some investments around till the next year and then sell some of those loosing investments to offset any gain you might make that good year..

Look at it another way ...

You're a venture capitalist and you invest $10 Million into a firm today, in 10 years you sell your investment for $11 Million, when factoring for inflation you lost money on the deal and your "earnings" were $100,000 per year; why should you pay the same tax rate as someone who earned $1 Million in income this year on this investment?


You know if I'm a venture capitalist that invest 10 million$ in a firm, chances are I have more than 10 millions $ lying around ( or I'm the dumbest investor on the earth that puts all its eggs in one risky basket) and the rest of my money is invested too and bringing money in too...........

That's not the point and you know it ...

A capital gain is the total increase in value of an investment over its lifetime as calculated from the point the investment is sold. Being that the lifetime of most sound investments are years/decades why should the gain in investment value be considered as if it was the same as someone who earned a similar amount in a year?

Why should someone who invested in a stock monthly over 20+ years until he has a gain over some arbitrary value be taxed at the same rate as someone who earned that in income in a single year?

And why should someone that has kept a stock 12 months and 1 day be taxed differently than someone that has kept it 11 months and 30 days ?

They shouldn't ...



Ail on 20 September 2011
Kasz216 said:
Ail said:
Kasz216 said:
Ail said:


For tax purpose they are actually not that riskier as you can take advantage of capital losses to reduce your tax rate ( don't sell during a bad market year, keep some investments around till the next year and then sell some of those loosing investments to offset any gain you might make that good year..


Except... you can't if the Buffet Rule passes... since you have to pay atleast a 25% or 28% tax rate.


Sure you can, even with the Buffet rule because offseting gains with losses doesn't reduce tax rate per say, it reduces income. The thing on which the 25-28% applies......

The Buffet Rule is talking about a Minium tax rate.

You aren't allowed deductions on a minium tax rate.  That's the whole point of having a minium tax rate.

Obama's been talking about reducing tax deductions for the rich for years.  This is a way to do that.


Where am I talking about deduction ?

Do you actually know how capital gain work ?

All I am saying is that capital investments are not as risky as HappysQuirrel make it seem as you can offset capital gains with capital losses, there is nothing in the current proposal by the US government aimed at changing this. This is the same all over the world...



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

HappySqurriel on 20 September 2011
Ail said:


Where am I talking about deduction ?

Do you actually know how capital gain work ?

All I am saying is that capital investments are not as risky as HappysQuirrel make it seem as you can offset capital gains with capital losses, there is nothing in the current proposal by the US government aimed at changing this. This is the same all over the world...


Where did I make any claimes about how risky capital gains are?

I simply made the obvious point that Capital Gains are substantially different than income and therefore it makes sense to tax them differently



Ail on 20 September 2011
Kasz216 said:
spurgeonryan said:

Wait? Millionaires pay less of a percent of there income than poorer people do! Is that what I am reading?

That's what your reading.... but it's not true.

It's a talking point created by conflating Income with Capital Gains.

 

One is a salary gained through working... in which the rich pay MUCH more.

The other, is a tax placed on investments, in which the rich ALSO pay MUCH more.

The diffrence is Rich people are more likely to make more money on investments then poor people, Therefore when the two are combined together they are being taxed  a "Lower percentage".

Aka, someone makes 10 dollars  through working and are taxed 20%.

VS someone who makes 10 dollars through working, and is taxed 20%, then makes 90 dollars through capital gains, and is taxed 10% on that... they're "only paying 15%"


 I pay a much higher amount of taxes then other people who make as much money as me using this same standard...  because I have money invested... that, even if you counted it as income wouldn't move me over to the next income bracket even though my captial gains bracket is higher then my income tax bracket, because actually, I don't have to pay ANY taxes outside of FICA or Social security.

I'm actually forced to pay MORE money for being responsible!

  Yet nobody cares about that, a case of the exact opposite happeneing... because it's not a way to target the rich.

 

 

However, the different tax rates exist for a number of good reasons.  To just list one (edit: Was wrong on number 2)

 

1)  Capital gains are much riskier.  If you work 40 hours a week, you are guranteed that money.  Capital Gains vary with the market, you could make a bunch of money only to lose it.

My bad, it was actually Kasz and not you...



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

Kasz216 on 20 September 2011
Ail said:
Kasz216 said:
Ail said:
Kasz216 said:
Ail said:


For tax purpose they are actually not that riskier as you can take advantage of capital losses to reduce your tax rate ( don't sell during a bad market year, keep some investments around till the next year and then sell some of those loosing investments to offset any gain you might make that good year..


Except... you can't if the Buffet Rule passes... since you have to pay atleast a 25% or 28% tax rate.


Sure you can, even with the Buffet rule because offseting gains with losses doesn't reduce tax rate per say, it reduces income. The thing on which the 25-28% applies......

The Buffet Rule is talking about a Minium tax rate.

You aren't allowed deductions on a minium tax rate.  That's the whole point of having a minium tax rate.

Obama's been talking about reducing tax deductions for the rich for years.  This is a way to do that.


Where am I talking about deduction ?

Do you actually know how capital gain work ?

All I am saying is that capital investments are not as risky as HappysQuirrel make it seem as you can offset capital gains with capital losses, there is nothing in the current proposal by the US government aimed at changing this. This is the same all over the world...

Capital losses are deductions. 

You can note this by the fact that if you have no capital gains, or your captial gains are lower then your capital losses, the remaing capital losses come out of your income tax.

Under a Minium tax you could not do this.  Capital losses wouldn't even count against capital gains.

Aside from which, a capital loss is a loss of real money.

Tell people who lost their retirement funds that capital gains aren't risky or the people on the wrong side of the Dot.com boom.