Are you selfish?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
W

WINEX_IHB

New member
<a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/obamas-new-atta.html">Apparently Obama things you are if you don't want to pay higher taxes.</a>



Interestingly enough he didn't mention what people who let their aunt live in the slums of south Boston, their half brothers live in squalor, or who make over $200k a year but donate less than 1% of their income until they enter national politics are...
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1225537030]<a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/obamas-new-atta.html">Apparently Obama things you are if you don't want to pay higher taxes.</a>



Interestingly enough he didn't mention what people who let their aunt live in the slums of south Boston, their half brothers live in squalor, or who make over $200k a year but donate less than 1% of their income until they enter national politics are...</blockquote>


Are you going to argue that your desire for lower taxes is a selfless act, and your only motivation is the well-being of your fellow man?



Most voters are completely self-involved and pick their candidates for selfish reasons. That is why candidates pander -- like John McCain and his ever-changing stance on the housing problem.
 
[quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1225579893][quote author="WINEX" date=1225537030]<a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/obamas-new-atta.html">Apparently Obama things you are if you don't want to pay higher taxes.</a>



Interestingly enough he didn't mention what people who let their aunt live in the slums of south Boston, their half brothers live in squalor, or who make over $200k a year but donate less than 1% of their income until they enter national politics are...</blockquote>


Are you going to argue that your desire for lower taxes is a selfless act, and your only motivation is the well-being of your fellow man?



Most voters are completely self-involved and pick their candidates for selfish reasons. That is why candidates pander -- like John McCain and his ever-changing stance on the housing problem.</blockquote>


No, I'm arguing that there is already a serious imbalance between services received and taxes paid in this country. According tohttp://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ff104.pdf, the top 5% of income earners in this country pay 59.67% of all income taxes (while earning 35.75% of all adjusted gross income)



I'm also arguing that multimillionaires that let their relatives live in squalor are pretty selfish (as are people who give next to nothing to charity when they can afford to donate money to help others)
 
I vote for my self interest and if you call if selfish i am ok with it. I voted for Kerry last time as i could not vote for an incompetent GOP contender. I don't have kids so i don't vote for school bonds etc.
 
I think people who start wars on two fronts but don't raise taxes are selfish. I can say that because I'm in a low tax bracket.
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1225581376]No, I'm arguing that there is already a serious imbalance between services received and taxes paid in this country. According tohttp://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ff104.pdf, the top 5% of income earners in this country pay 59.67% of all income taxes (while earning 35.75% of all adjusted gross income)

</blockquote>


Again with the resentment on a progressive tax. I'll leave you with a little nugget by no other than the father of free market economics:

<em>

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." [Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations]

</em>
 
[quote author="green_cactus" date=1225613611][quote author="WINEX" date=1225581376]No, I'm arguing that there is already a serious imbalance between services received and taxes paid in this country. According tohttp://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ff104.pdf, the top 5% of income earners in this country pay 59.67% of all income taxes (while earning 35.75% of all adjusted gross income)

</blockquote>


Again with the resentment on a progressive tax. I'll leave you with a little nugget by no other than the father of free market economics:

<em>

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." [Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations]

</em></blockquote>


Thank you for the opportunity to refute a very widespread liberal lie.



Liberals often try to confuse the issue of taxing the rich and taxing high income people. Please note that we pay an INCOME tax, not a WEALTH tax. Warren Buffett (for example) has often said that his secretary pays a higher income tax rate than he does. While he is attempting to make the argument that INCOME taxes should be raised, raising the income tax rate won't have an impact on Buffett. Interest paid on municipal bonds is tax free. Capital gains and dividends are taxed at a maximum rate of 15%. Income from investments like rental property or businesses with plant, property and equipment can be offset through non-cash items like depreciation.



There are a lot of ways that the rich can avoid paying income taxes. And they have the means to restructure their cash flow in a manner that allows them to do so. (If memory serves me correctly, in 2004 Teresa Heinz-Kerry was in the 4% bracket for Federal Income taxes)



A rational person might ask why the super rich are in favor of raising other people's income taxes. Only one reason occurs to me. Raising income taxes on high income earners prevents people from acquiring wealth. This lowers competition for everything from Lear jets to Monets to Maybach cars. By restricting competition for the goods and services that the wealthy enjoy, the cost of being rich is reduced. If Warren Buffett really felt bad about paying a lower tax rate than his secretary, he doesn't even need to restructure his cash flows. He could simply give extra money to the Department of the Treasury. (If there are any liberals here who feel bad about paying too low of tax rates, I'll be more than happy to Google the method to pay extra for you.)
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1225622178][quote author="green_cactus" date=1225613611][quote author="WINEX" date=1225581376]No, I'm arguing that there is already a serious imbalance between services received and taxes paid in this country. According tohttp://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ff104.pdf, the top 5% of income earners in this country pay 59.67% of all income taxes (while earning 35.75% of all adjusted gross income)

</blockquote>


Again with the resentment on a progressive tax. I'll leave you with a little nugget by no other than the father of free market economics:

<em>

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." [Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations]

</em></blockquote>


Thank you for the opportunity to refute a very widespread liberal lie.



Liberals often try to confuse the issue of taxing the rich and taxing high income people. Please note that we pay an INCOME tax, not a WEALTH tax. Warren Buffett (for example) has often said that his secretary pays a higher income tax rate than he does. While he is attempting to make the argument that INCOME taxes should be raised, raising the income tax rate won't have an impact on Buffett. Interest paid on municipal bonds is tax free. Capital gains and dividends are taxed at a maximum rate of 15%. Income from investments like rental property or businesses with plant, property and equipment can be offset through non-cash items like depreciation.



There are a lot of ways that the rich can avoid paying income taxes. And they have the means to restructure their cash flow in a manner that allows them to do so. (If memory serves me correctly, in 2004 Teresa Heinz-Kerry was in the 4% bracket for Federal Income taxes)



A rational person might ask why the super rich are in favor of raising other people's income taxes. Only one reason occurs to me. Raising income taxes on high income earners prevents people from acquiring wealth. This lowers competition for everything from Lear jets to Monets to Maybach cars. By restricting competition for the goods and services that the wealthy enjoy, the cost of being rich is reduced. If Warren Buffett really felt bad about paying a lower tax rate than his secretary, he doesn't even need to restructure his cash flows. He could simply give extra money to the Department of the Treasury. (If there are any liberals here who feel bad about paying too low of tax rates, I'll be more than happy to Google the method to pay extra for you.)</blockquote>






what about the radical islam problem?
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1225622178][quote author="green_cactus" date=1225613611][quote author="WINEX" date=1225581376]No, I'm arguing that there is already a serious imbalance between services received and taxes paid in this country. According tohttp://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ff104.pdf, the top 5% of income earners in this country pay 59.67% of all income taxes (while earning 35.75% of all adjusted gross income)

</blockquote>


Again with the resentment on a progressive tax. I'll leave you with a little nugget by no other than the father of free market economics:

<em>

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." [Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations]

</em></blockquote>


Thank you for the opportunity to refute a very widespread liberal lie.



Liberals often try to confuse the issue of taxing the rich and taxing high income people. Please note that we pay an INCOME tax, not a WEALTH tax. Warren Buffett (for example) has often said that his secretary pays a higher income tax rate than he does. While he is attempting to make the argument that INCOME taxes should be raised, raising the income tax rate won't have an impact on Buffett. Interest paid on municipal bonds is tax free. Capital gains and dividends are taxed at a maximum rate of 15%. Income from investments like rental property or businesses with plant, property and equipment can be offset through non-cash items like depreciation.



There are a lot of ways that the rich can avoid paying income taxes. And they have the means to restructure their cash flow in a manner that allows them to do so. (If memory serves me correctly, in 2004 Teresa Heinz-Kerry was in the 4% bracket for Federal Income taxes)



A rational person might ask why the super rich are in favor of raising other people's income taxes. Only one reason occurs to me. Raising income taxes on high income earners prevents people from acquiring wealth. This lowers competition for everything from Lear jets to Monets to Maybach cars. By restricting competition for the goods and services that the wealthy enjoy, the cost of being rich is reduced. If Warren Buffett really felt bad about paying a lower tax rate than his secretary, he doesn't even need to restructure his cash flows. He could simply give extra money to the Department of the Treasury. (If there are any liberals here who feel bad about paying too low of tax rates, I'll be more than happy to Google the method to pay extra for you.)</blockquote>


OK, so your resentment is not against a progressive tax; rather against very rich people. Thanks for the clarification. Are these "super rich" also members of the Illuminati that are trying to take over the world?
 
[quote author="green_cactus" date=1225623953][quote author="WINEX" date=1225622178][quote author="green_cactus" date=1225613611][quote author="WINEX" date=1225581376]No, I'm arguing that there is already a serious imbalance between services received and taxes paid in this country. According tohttp://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ff104.pdf, the top 5% of income earners in this country pay 59.67% of all income taxes (while earning 35.75% of all adjusted gross income)

</blockquote>


Again with the resentment on a progressive tax. I'll leave you with a little nugget by no other than the father of free market economics:

<em>

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." [Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations]

</em></blockquote>


Thank you for the opportunity to refute a very widespread liberal lie.



Liberals often try to confuse the issue of taxing the rich and taxing high income people. Please note that we pay an INCOME tax, not a WEALTH tax. Warren Buffett (for example) has often said that his secretary pays a higher income tax rate than he does. While he is attempting to make the argument that INCOME taxes should be raised, raising the income tax rate won't have an impact on Buffett. Interest paid on municipal bonds is tax free. Capital gains and dividends are taxed at a maximum rate of 15%. Income from investments like rental property or businesses with plant, property and equipment can be offset through non-cash items like depreciation.



There are a lot of ways that the rich can avoid paying income taxes. And they have the means to restructure their cash flow in a manner that allows them to do so. (If memory serves me correctly, in 2004 Teresa Heinz-Kerry was in the 4% bracket for Federal Income taxes)



A rational person might ask why the super rich are in favor of raising other people's income taxes. Only one reason occurs to me. Raising income taxes on high income earners prevents people from acquiring wealth. This lowers competition for everything from Lear jets to Monets to Maybach cars. By restricting competition for the goods and services that the wealthy enjoy, the cost of being rich is reduced. If Warren Buffett really felt bad about paying a lower tax rate than his secretary, he doesn't even need to restructure his cash flows. He could simply give extra money to the Department of the Treasury. (If there are any liberals here who feel bad about paying too low of tax rates, I'll be more than happy to Google the method to pay extra for you.)</blockquote>


OK, so your resentment is not against a progressive tax; rather against very rich people. Thanks for the clarification. Are these "super rich" also members of the Illuminati that are trying to take over the world?</blockquote>


You are wrong on both counts.



I don't like a government that spends money on things it has no constitutional authority to be involved in. And I resent being called "selfish" because I don't want to finance liberal dreams of a socialist utopia.
 
although i can't say i agree with winex very often, he's absolutely right about taxation of income vs wealth. the tax code is indeed progressive until you reach a point that; that is until you have enough wealth that makes loopholes are both plentiful and financially advantageous. every day i sit in our lunchroom and listen to our company directors discuss what they (or their accountants) intend to do to circumvent tax increases. there's a good chance none of obama's tax increases on "those that can afford to pay more" will have any meaningful financial impact on those people. however the rest of us who make a nice living, but still rely on our paychecks and investment portfolios, will likely see a significant impact.



it's really not that surprising that wealthy americans who still rely on their incomes lean toward the right and those who are wealthy to the point of financial independence start to lean back toward the left.
 
Acpme, do you ever wonder who put those loopholes there to begin with and who would be more likely to remove them (although there is no guarantee)?
 
eva, maybe loophole isn't the right term. loophole seems to conjure up in everyone's mind some sort of special treatment or incentive put in place by a special interest, for a special interest. i'm talking about just very basic tax strategies.



take something very simple, like capital gains. the 15% capital gains tax is an easy target for those who say the wealthy don't pay their fair share. so fine, let's raise it to 25%. problem solved right?



not really. anyone with significant amount of money in taxable investments accounts will just sell at the end of the yr and buy back similar positions. for example, John Q Richguy has millions invested in the mkt this yr, let's say he lost 30% at the end of the year. he'll just sell all his positions and buy back the same portfolio but in diff funds. for almost every possible tradable investment out there, there's another investable version of it. you can swap a mutual fund with the etf form of the same, the vanguard XYZ fund with the fidelity XYZ fund, etc. the same could be done with baskets of individual stocks or bonds through options or other investments with similar characteristics. the end result is basically the exact same portfolio in terms of allocation and risk, except now Mr. Richguy has a huge war chest in losses to carry forward. and none of this triggers a wash sale event either.



this strategy is exactly what Fidelity is telling their clients to do.

<a href="http://screener.fidelity.com/ftgw/etf/news/story?storyid=200810261203MRKTWTCHNEWS_SVC_31722A28-2B7A-414C-AE6B-5DB3B1F41595">Fidelity Investments: Market meltdown opens door to tax swaps, rebalancing</a>



although the tax increase was designed to ensure Richguy and his golf buddies him pay their fair share, no matter how much they raise the capital gains tax, they'll have off-setting losses that ensure they'll pay little to nothing for the next several years. the tax collectors might just end up scratching their heads trying to figure out how an increase in the capital gains tax resulted in... less capital gains tax actually being collected?
 
I think WINEX's point is that he wants more taxes. We need to raise the capital gains tax, raise the inheritance tax, and eliminate tax credits for certain investments. This would prevent the wealthy from paying less taxes than their assistants.
 
[quote author="T!m" date=1225772804]I think WINEX's point is that he wants more taxes. We need to raise the capital gains tax, raise the inheritance tax, and eliminate tax credits for certain investments. This would prevent the wealthy from paying less taxes than their assistants.</blockquote>


Would you like to guess again?
 
[quote author="T!m" date=1225772804]I think WINEX's point is that he wants more taxes. We need to raise the capital gains tax, raise the inheritance tax, and eliminate tax credits for certain investments. This would prevent the wealthy from paying less taxes than their assistants.</blockquote>
Raising the capital gains tax will only affect those who sell for profit or get a dividend... not much of that happening in '09-'10 I think, unless we have a massive rally. Raising the inheritance tax won't yield much either... you would have to lower the current exemption level to really see any increase as most of the truly wealthy are adept at working around the tax prior to dying. Eliminating tax credits only works if you don't replace them with other tax credits as they are largely used to encourage investment in things the current administration finds desirable. If you remove a credit for investing in oil exploration and replace it with a credit for investing in biofuels, the net revenue result is the same. You may argue that biofuels are more desirable than oil, but the change doesn't result in more revenue.



As acpme pointed out, "the rich" will do what is in their own best interests. You can either directly confiscate their wealth or entice them to use it in a way that benefits a large portion of society as well as themselves, but if you simply try to make them pay their 'fair share' you will find yourself grasping at smoke.
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1225774769]

Raising the capital gains tax will...</blockquote>


You hear that, WINEX, it won't work.
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1225773909]

Would you like to guess again?</blockquote>


No, I'm pretty sure I got it right. You were complaining about taxing income instead of wealth, and this helps alleviate that discrepancy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top