LOL.

You need to listen less to Michele Bachman.

Where has anyone suggested that capital losses can not count against capital gains ?

Answer : nowhere, noone...( Noone is suggesting to tax people on income they haven't earned...)

As for the issue of deducting losses from income, it is true in that case it is a deduction but we're speaking of 3k maximum/year , and we 're speaking of people with over 1 million annual income, i hardly think anyone is worried about that... and that's hardly going  to affect their tax rate ...

The whole Obama proposal is about ensuring a minimum tax rate on earned income of over 1 million$ , not about taxing you on income you haven't earned...

Capital gains taxes are applied individually on each sale.

Capital losses then can be deducted from Captial gains.

Furthermore, capital losses can be used as income tax deductions and/or Capital gains losses up to 3 years in the future.

Minium taxes disallow all deductons.

This is just a supercharged alternative minium tax that treats capital gains just like income taxes.

And you, like many, have fallen for this class warfare.  Were do you think the wealthy get their money?  The vast majority of them own businesses that provide products and services to others.  They make their money when people purchase these products/services.  And there is always someone else who can also provide the same products/services, so their are choices of where to buy.  They don't con the money away from you, regardless of what some may think.  The only way a company gets any of your money without providing you anything is when the government hands it out to them.  Which Obama has done in the past (and wants to do now) and it accomplished nothing. 

The reason higher income taxes for these owners hurts business is because it's not just an income tax they are charged.  These businesses are taxed for just about every step they take to make their products.  Then they have to spend tens or hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions, to adhear to overbearing regulations.  The whole thing just creates a bad environment for a business owner to try and make a good enough profit to actually reinvest in the company and hire new employees and expand.  It's the reason Ford decided to build a $1 billion plant, which is to create 5000 new jobs, in India, instead of in the US.

I also have to laugh at these billionaires suggesting we tax the wealthy more (according to Obama that's a household income of $250,000 and above), when they know full well that they have well paid tax lawyers who's main job it is to find all the loopholes so they can pay less than others.  They also know damn well that if they wish to give the government 90% of their own income they can do so.  Of course, they never would.  But they'll continue to harp about "millionaires" not paying enough in taxes, while taking advantage of the system.

Of course, this whole thing is just a ruse to distract those with lower incomes to the true problem, the government continues to spend WAY more than it is bringing in.  And no amount of new taxes will ever solve that.

1) First you need to stop equating business owners with people making over a million $ income a year. That's not the case.

The majority of the people that make that kind of income make it out of the stock of market( the rest are NFL players or actors...) and these days the correlation between stocks raising or going down and jobs being created just isn't there.  There's plenty of hedge funds out there with a minimal entrance investment of 1 million$ and the return those hedge funds provide has little to do with creating business or jobs too but more about making bets on gold or oil future  or on when Greece is going to default..

2) Small business owners do not make that kind of annual income and big business are ruled by a board and these days lets face it investors have very little say in how they are run  especially as the huge majority of companies that are publicly traded are majority owned by mutual funds and hedge funds, not single owners... You can own 200 million$ worth of Ford stock or 1 billion$ of Apple stock, those companies still will not listen to what you have to say so any impact on your revenue or taxes will not affect them...

3) It's kind of funny to see that the only one out there arguing raising tax on people with that kind of income will slow the economy are not people member of the targeted group. And wisely so, when you make that kind of annual income, one can expect that you do not spend 100% of it every year so an increase in tax level is not going to drastically affect your behavior, what you invest in or what you spend... Heck, a 5% drop of the stock market will have more impact on you than raising your tax level by 5%...

Class warfare is NOT about discussing tax rates, or discussing how different parts of the socio-economic strata are doing, in relation to the rest of the economy.  It isn't about discussing social mobility either.  It isn't about these words.  No matter what side says it, it isn't that.

What class warfare is, is when one class actively harms another class.  It can consist on the use of structuring the laws to harm individuals of another class, engaging in rioting, and anything that results in bloodshed.  When there is actual warfare with violence, or real harm, then you have class warfare.  Anything else short of that is just spin to shut up debate and end all discussion and have it one way or another.

And want to really know why you said a Ford plant in India (not Mexico)?  It is becaue wages are lowest.  Has little of anything to do with tax code, but the fact costs are least.  One can then say, "Well, cut regulations and taxes and jobs will flock".  Well, not if the standard of living costs are lower.  Business relocates there, along with other factors like stability and so on.  If it were just a matter of taxes and regulation, businesses would build factories on oceans platforms.  There is no tax and little regulation out at sea.  It is just there is a lot of other factors also.

As for the global slowdown, and why business is suffering, it has a fairly large amount of reason with high personal debt being carried.  People are not able to sanely borrow more and have rolled back spending.  They aren't spending.  End result is not enough consumers for products.  Talk of depression playes a big part in all this.  What has happened, as a trend historically since Reagan, is that taxes and regulation have been cut.  Tax cuts weren't paid for with spending cuts either, because congress gets elected based on their spending per district.  It wasn't paid for at all.  

Also, if one wanted to REALLY argue that there shouldn't be government manipulation of the economy, there would be found an optimal tax rate things were set at, with the proper set of deductions related to real expenses with out showing any favortism for one sector or another. And it would be left alone, and not used as a tool to manipulate or "stimulate" the economy. One would argue to find this tax rate, and leave it alone, NOT argue forever that taxes need to be cut more. Unpaid for tax cuts are as much of a faux stimulate for the economy as any other Keynesian program. And it is absurd to say that if you cut taxes, they pay for themselves, because they don't. Natural economic growth can make up for it. But if one follows the logic that "tax cuts pay for themselves", then you follow it to a conclusion if you have no taxes, that would generate sufficient income to pay for everything, because they pay for themselves.

For the record, that's what I want.  I think tax cuts provide a very short boost in jobs and economic activity that then goes away after a year or so... leaving nothing but debt.

Works better then stimulus spending... but only just slightly better.

Actually, not really.  It's just the top 400.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/fact-check-the-richtheir-secretaries-and-taxes/

Which is what wil make another alternative minium tax worse.

What needs to happen is a nation needs to figure out its identity, set the tax rates at what is needed to pay for what idenity it assumes for itself, and then leave the tax rate alone and the tax code.  Even if the tax code is complicate, IF it is stable, people can work around it.  And even if it taxes are high, if there is sufficient return for the tax dollars (see Norway), then it can work.

All these play with the tax code is the government  messing around with the economy, which isn't the right thing at all.  But hey, I guess mucking around with the tax code is the way the GOP can feel like they are doing something in Washington, to fix the economy.

You are very wrong about your arguments:

1) http://www.freemoneyfinance.com/2007/01/facts_about_mil.html

25% got their money from stocks or investments. 58% got theirs from their job or business they own.

2) http://smallbusiness.chron.com/average-income-small-business-owners-5189.html

The average small business owner with 10 years experience made an average of $105,000 last year. All data points from that survey suggest that small business owners are above median income in America.

3) What do rich people do with their money that is not spent? They invest it. What do they invest it in? New businesses, loans, ect. Their money is what is used for creating jobs of many kinds.

You may want to listen to Peter Schiff in regards to job creation and growth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLmD9TeUC54