Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He can't earn the same 1 million twice so he isn't taxed twice. If he pays himself the million profit then that salary is deducted from his profit reducing it to $0.00 and not taxed at the corporate level. If he pays himself 650k then he only pays the corporate tax on the 350k profit.His "profit" and his "stock" are two different things!!! When his profit was taxed his stock wasn't.Let's take a simple case that makes it easier to understand. An entrepreneur creates a corporation on January 1 of year 1 with a small investment and an idea. On December 31th of year 1 he has a profit of $1 million, and will owe tax on that million of say $350,000 (not accounting for lower marginal rates under $100,000 to keep it simple). So he pays the tax and has $650,000 in cash remaining, and sells his stock for $650,000 (he just wants to take his cash and go) on January 1 of year 2. Now he owes another 15% in capital gains taxes. His only profit was the $1 million, and yet he was taxed at both the corporate and individual level. Please explain to us how that single $1 million income isn't double taxed.
If you are claiming his profit was solely his stock, the ONLY way he could have realized his initial 1 million profit was by selling his stock and he can't legally sell the same stock he already sold for another $650k. If you are saying his stock was worth 1.65 million when he sold the first million, then the 650k was not taxed when the first million was sold. When the 650k was finally sold it was taxed for the first time.
I didn't really expect anyone to debate such a clear-cut case of double taxation. Only $1 million in total was earned, yet it was taxed first at the corporate level at 35% ($350,000) and second at the individual level at 15% ($97,500); it's the same $1 million, but instead of a 35% total tax rate, it is taxed at 44.75% (a total of $447,500 in taxes).
Let's look at a 2nd scenario: Instead of creating a corporation, the entrepreneur just starts this business as an individual. On December 31 he has earned $1 million, and therefore owes $350,000 in taxes on the earnings (again forgetting the lower marginal rates for simplicity), and is left with $650,000 with no further federal income tax to pay. In case 1 he is left with $552,500, and it is your argument that the first case doesn't represent double taxation? Is the second case less than single taxation then?
By the way, I'm not arguing that he should "realize his initial 1 million profit"; he is required to pay 35% of that to the federal government. I'm simply saying that he has also paid a second tax on that profit that you are denying. I'm not even arguing that it is unfair, but it is a fact that should be considered.
More bullshit, Bush didn't stop being president in 2007 so all the post 2007 spending is his. Now if he vetoed the spending and the Dem Congress passed the spending over his veto you might have a case, but that didn't happen so you have diddly.The problem wasn't a problem until Reagan and the Bushes cut taxes for the wealthy and began to borrow from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. Borrowing money and increasing the debt so the future generations will have to pay it off was never done at any other time in the history of this great republic other than the 2nd world war. In order to pay that debt both sides agreed to do it wih higher taxes. All through the 1950's(uhder a Republican president) the tax rate for anyone maikng over $300,000 a year was 91% of anything above that.
Now.....after the Reagan-Bushes debt the annual interest on the debt is nearly half a trillion dollars which must be paid each year. Obama inheirited a Republican mess in more ways than the economy bleeding 750,000 jobs a month....he inheirited their debt:
Total U S Debt
09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)
09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)
09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)
09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
...........................................INTEREST ON THE NATIONAL DEBT.............................................
................................Bush's last budget(fy 2008) ended September 30, 2009.........................................
Obama inheirited a Republican mess in more ways than the economy bleeding 750,000 jobs a month....he inheirited their debt:
Poor baby. After November he won't have to whine about it anymore.
2007 we were spending 2.7 trillion a year
2009 it was 3.5
how is that any-ones fault but BHO?
he added 400 billion on 09
kept those same levels thru 2011
spending is up 700 billion from 2007, the last GOP budget
Jobs bleed kept going through the end of 2009 and it had nor recovered as we are close to 6 million jobs form 08 levels
The debt issue has many to blame that is a fact
But blaming the GOP on what the DEM controlled congresses voted into law is boring and does nothing to take away the facts
The GOP from 96 through 07 stopped the bleeding (senate was DEMs in 01-03) it re started in the 08 budget
Blaming the GOP on an addition of 700 billion sense the Dems took control is childish
He can't earn the same 1 million twice so he isn't taxed twice. If he pays himself the million profit then that salary is deducted from his profit reducing it to $0.00 and not taxed at the corporate level. If he pays himself 650k then he only pays the corporate tax on the 350k profit.His "profit" and his "stock" are two different things!!! When his profit was taxed his stock wasn't.
If you are claiming his profit was solely his stock, the ONLY way he could have realized his initial 1 million profit was by selling his stock and he can't legally sell the same stock he already sold for another $650k. If you are saying his stock was worth 1.65 million when he sold the first million, then the 650k was not taxed when the first million was sold. When the 650k was finally sold it was taxed for the first time.
I didn't really expect anyone to debate such a clear-cut case of double taxation. Only $1 million in total was earned, yet it was taxed first at the corporate level at 35% ($350,000) and second at the individual level at 15% ($97,500); it's the same $1 million, but instead of a 35% total tax rate, it is taxed at 44.75% (a total of $447,500 in taxes).
Let's look at a 2nd scenario: Instead of creating a corporation, the entrepreneur just starts this business as an individual. On December 31 he has earned $1 million, and therefore owes $350,000 in taxes on the earnings (again forgetting the lower marginal rates for simplicity), and is left with $650,000 with no further federal income tax to pay. In case 1 he is left with $552,500, and it is your argument that the first case doesn't represent double taxation? Is the second case less than single taxation then?
By the way, I'm not arguing that he should "realize his initial 1 million profit"; he is required to pay 35% of that to the federal government. I'm simply saying that he has also paid a second tax on that profit that you are denying. I'm not even arguing that it is unfair, but it is a fact that should be considered.
There is allot of conversation of the profits off of capital gains never being taxed.
let me make this simple as I can
I make 1.25 million gross
I get taxed 250,000
I invest 1 million I have left and make 250,000 with it
That money has been taxed
I am back to even
Do you libs understand this now?
Your taxing wealth that has all ready been taxed
some how you could I guess get to a point in which after you got past that 250,000 you could tax it from then on, sure
My god people 15% is enough ok?
No matter how many times you repeat this lie it is still a lie. As you well know, only the 100k profit is taxed, the 1 million you invested to make the 100k is not. The 1 million was taxed once when you earned it and the 100k was taxed once when you sold the stock you invested the 1 million in. All of the money was taxed only once while you possessed it.
Let's take a simple case that makes it easier to understand. An entrepreneur creates a corporation on January 1 of year 1 with a small investment and an idea. On December 31th of year 1 he has a profit of $1 million, and will owe tax on that million of say $350,000 (not accounting for lower marginal rates under $100,000 to keep it simple). So he pays the tax and has $650,000 in cash remaining, and sells his stock for $650,000 (he just wants to take his cash and go) on January 1 of year 2. Now he owes another 15% in capital gains taxes. His only profit was the $1 million, and yet he was taxed at both the corporate and individual level. Please explain to us how that single $1 million income isn't double taxed.
Since he created the corporation on January 1st of year 1, his ownership of the stock commenced on that date. He sold it one year later allowing him the long-term holding period required to qualify for the 15% long-term capital gains rate. That's not really the issue; we're talking about double taxation, so the rate is a secondary consideration.No matter how many times you repeat this lie it is still a lie. As you well know, only the 100k profit is taxed, the 1 million you invested to make the 100k is not. The 1 million was taxed once when you earned it and the 100k was taxed once when you sold the stock you invested the 1 million in. All of the money was taxed only once while you possessed it.
Let's take a simple case that makes it easier to understand. An entrepreneur creates a corporation on January 1 of year 1 with a small investment and an idea. On December 31th of year 1 he has a profit of $1 million, and will owe tax on that million of say $350,000 (not accounting for lower marginal rates under $100,000 to keep it simple). So he pays the tax and has $650,000 in cash remaining, and sells his stock for $650,000 (he just wants to take his cash and go) on January 1 of year 2. Now he owes another 15% in capital gains taxes. His only profit was the $1 million, and yet he was taxed at both the corporate and individual level. Please explain to us how that single $1 million income isn't double taxed.
When did he purchase the stock he sold.
S Corporations
S corporations are corporations that elect to pass corporate income, losses, deductions and credit through to their shareholders for federal tax purposes. Shareholders of S corporations report the flow-through of income and losses on their personal tax returns and are assessed tax at their individual income tax rates. This allows S corporations to avoid double taxation on the corporate income.
Since he created the corporation on January 1st of year 1, his ownership of the stock commenced on that date. He sold it one year later allowing him the long-term holding period required to qualify for the 15% long-term capital gains rate. That's not really the issue; we're talking about double taxation, so the rate is a secondary consideration.Let's take a simple case that makes it easier to understand. An entrepreneur creates a corporation on January 1 of year 1 with a small investment and an idea. On December 31th of year 1 he has a profit of $1 million, and will owe tax on that million of say $350,000 (not accounting for lower marginal rates under $100,000 to keep it simple). So he pays the tax and has $650,000 in cash remaining, and sells his stock for $650,000 (he just wants to take his cash and go) on January 1 of year 2. Now he owes another 15% in capital gains taxes. His only profit was the $1 million, and yet he was taxed at both the corporate and individual level. Please explain to us how that single $1 million income isn't double taxed.
When did he purchase the stock he sold.
For those who continue not to see that corporate income is subject to double taxation, perhaps you would believe the IRS?
S Corporations
S corporations are corporations that elect to pass corporate income, losses, deductions and credit through to their shareholders for federal tax purposes. Shareholders of S corporations report the flow-through of income and losses on their personal tax returns and are assessed tax at their individual income tax rates. This allows S corporations to avoid double taxation on the corporate income.
S Corporations
S corporations were set up specifically to address the double taxation issue, but it is only available to those corporations that have no more than 100 shareholders (and some other provisions). Therefore, it is not available to larger corporations where double tax is a fact of life. If there were no such thing as double taxation, it seems clear this business form and entire section of tax law would not be necessary.
Since he created the corporation on January 1st of year 1, his ownership of the stock commenced on that date. He sold it one year later allowing him the long-term holding period required to qualify for the 15% long-term capital gains rate. That's not really the issue; we're talking about double taxation, so the rate is a secondary consideration.When did he purchase the stock he sold.
For those who continue not to see that corporate income is subject to double taxation, perhaps you would believe the IRS?
S Corporations
S corporations are corporations that elect to pass corporate income, losses, deductions and credit through to their shareholders for federal tax purposes. Shareholders of S corporations report the flow-through of income and losses on their personal tax returns and are assessed tax at their individual income tax rates. This allows S corporations to avoid double taxation on the corporate income.
S Corporations
S corporations were set up specifically to address the double taxation issue, but it is only available to those corporations that have no more than 100 shareholders (and some other provisions). Therefore, it is not available to larger corporations where double tax is a fact of life. If there were no such thing as double taxation, it seems clear this business form and entire section of tax law would not be necessary.
So your example is not so simple. The Corporation paid it's tax and had 650,000 dollars profit for the year. Day 1 of year two he sells his interest in the corportration for 2 million dollars. Should he be taxed on that 2 million? The 650,000 dollars the corportaion made in the previous year is still in the bank and is controlled by the new owner.
Dividends a corporation pays has been taxed once at the corporate level and by the payee so that is an example of double taxation.
Of course that is not what Jr. has been posting about either.
Since he created the corporation on January 1st of year 1, his ownership of the stock commenced on that date. He sold it one year later allowing him the long-term holding period required to qualify for the 15% long-term capital gains rate. That's not really the issue; we're talking about double taxation, so the rate is a secondary consideration.
For those who continue not to see that corporate income is subject to double taxation, perhaps you would believe the IRS?
S Corporations
S corporations were set up specifically to address the double taxation issue, but it is only available to those corporations that have no more than 100 shareholders (and some other provisions). Therefore, it is not available to larger corporations where double tax is a fact of life. If there were no such thing as double taxation, it seems clear this business form and entire section of tax law would not be necessary.
So your example is not so simple. The Corporation paid it's tax and had 650,000 dollars profit for the year. Day 1 of year two he sells his interest in the corportration for 2 million dollars. Should he be taxed on that 2 million? The 650,000 dollars the corportaion made in the previous year is still in the bank and is controlled by the new owner.
Dividends a corporation pays has been taxed once at the corporate level and by the payee so that is an example of double taxation.
Of course that is not what Jr. has been posting about either.
The issue isn't whether he "should" be taxed on the increase in the value of his shares relative to what he paid for them; that's a separate discussion. The issue at hand is whether the corporation has already paid tax on the income, and the answer is yes. I'm not advocating for the elimination of the capital gains tax; I'm merely stating that, in fact, that income has already been taxed. I'm also saying that, in the end, all assets owned by a corporation at any given point in time have already been subjected to tax, and so any sale of stock carries some amount of previously taxed income with it. In addition, if someone was willing to pay $2 million for this hypothetical corporation that has only $650,000 in assets, then that additional $1.35 million that he was willing to pay is with the expectation that it will generate a minimum of $1.35 million in income in the future, which will also be taxed. In the end, the value of a stock is very much related to the ultimate income stream it will generate.
And yes, dividend payouts are a much more direct type of "previously taxed" income and it's much easier to follow that case, since it is not only paid directly out of previously taxed income, it is also not deductible to the corporation, but is taxable to the recipient.
The problem wasn't a problem until Reagan and the Bushes cut taxes for the wealthy and began to borrow from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. Borrowing money and increasing the debt so the future generations will have to pay it off was never done at any other time in the history of this great republic other than the 2nd world war. In order to pay that debt both sides agreed to do it wih higher taxes. All through the 1950's(uhder a Republican president) the tax rate for anyone maikng over $300,000 a year was 91% of anything above that.
Now.....after the Reagan-Bushes debt the annual interest on the debt is nearly half a trillion dollars which must be paid each year. Obama inheirited a Republican mess in more ways than the economy bleeding 750,000 jobs a month....he inheirited their debt:
Total U S Debt
09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)
09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)
09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)
09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
...........................................INTEREST ON THE NATIONAL DEBT.............................................
................................Bush's last budget(fy 2008) ended September 30, 2009.........................................
Obama inheirited a Republican mess in more ways than the economy bleeding 750,000 jobs a month....he inheirited their debt:
Poor baby. After November he won't have to whine about it anymore.
2007 we were spending 2.7 trillion a year
2009 it was 3.5
how is that any-ones fault but BHO?
he added 400 billion on 09
kept those same levels thru 2011
spending is up 700 billion from 2007, the last GOP budget
Jobs bleed kept going through the end of 2009 and it had nor recovered as we are close to 6 million jobs form 08 levels
The debt issue has many to blame that is a fact
But blaming the GOP on what the DEM controlled congresses voted into law is boring and does nothing to take away the facts
The GOP from 96 through 07 stopped the bleeding (senate was DEMs in 01-03) it re started in the 08 budget
Blaming the GOP on an addition of 700 billion sense the Dems took control is childish
So your example is not so simple. The Corporation paid it's tax and had 650,000 dollars profit for the year. Day 1 of year two he sells his interest in the corportration for 2 million dollars. Should he be taxed on that 2 million? The 650,000 dollars the corportaion made in the previous year is still in the bank and is controlled by the new owner.
Dividends a corporation pays has been taxed once at the corporate level and by the payee so that is an example of double taxation.
Of course that is not what Jr. has been posting about either.
The issue isn't whether he "should" be taxed on the increase in the value of his shares relative to what he paid for them; that's a separate discussion. The issue at hand is whether the corporation has already paid tax on the income, and the answer is yes. I'm not advocating for the elimination of the capital gains tax; I'm merely stating that, in fact, that income has already been taxed. I'm also saying that, in the end, all assets owned by a corporation at any given point in time have already been subjected to tax, and so any sale of stock carries some amount of previously taxed income with it. In addition, if someone was willing to pay $2 million for this hypothetical corporation that has only $650,000 in assets, then that additional $1.35 million that he was willing to pay is with the expectation that it will generate a minimum of $1.35 million in income in the future, which will also be taxed. In the end, the value of a stock is very much related to the ultimate income stream it will generate.
And yes, dividend payouts are a much more direct type of "previously taxed" income and it's much easier to follow that case, since it is not only paid directly out of previously taxed income, it is also not deductible to the corporation, but is taxable to the recipient.
So if someone did pay him 2 million on day 1 of year 2, Is that all taxable or just the 1.35 million above the profit the company made in the previous year? Note that the corportation still has the 650,000 sitting in the bank earning interest.
The issue isn't whether he "should" be taxed on the increase in the value of his shares relative to what he paid for them; that's a separate discussion. The issue at hand is whether the corporation has already paid tax on the income, and the answer is yes. I'm not advocating for the elimination of the capital gains tax; I'm merely stating that, in fact, that income has already been taxed. I'm also saying that, in the end, all assets owned by a corporation at any given point in time have already been subjected to tax, and so any sale of stock carries some amount of previously taxed income with it. In addition, if someone was willing to pay $2 million for this hypothetical corporation that has only $650,000 in assets, then that additional $1.35 million that he was willing to pay is with the expectation that it will generate a minimum of $1.35 million in income in the future, which will also be taxed. In the end, the value of a stock is very much related to the ultimate income stream it will generate.
And yes, dividend payouts are a much more direct type of "previously taxed" income and it's much easier to follow that case, since it is not only paid directly out of previously taxed income, it is also not deductible to the corporation, but is taxable to the recipient.
So if someone did pay him 2 million on day 1 of year 2, Is that all taxable or just the 1.35 million above the profit the company made in the previous year? Note that the corportation still has the 650,000 sitting in the bank earning interest.
The entire $2 million is taxable to the shareholder, who theoretically paid nothing for his shares (or very little), even though $1 million of the profit (not $650,000; that's just what is left after tax) had been previously taxed. In addition, the corporation will pay tax on the next $1 million that it earns to make up the $2 million (or at least that's what buyer is assuming). I'm not sure why the $650,000 sitting in the bank is relevant; the buyer paid $2 million (in after-tax dollars, presumably) for the rights to that $650,000 and any other corporate assets.
I'm not sure what difference any of that makes - the point is, it is not a lie to say that a sale of stock resulting in a capital gain includes previously taxed income, which was the original point. Getting into the weeds in details doesn't change that fact.
So if someone did pay him 2 million on day 1 of year 2, Is that all taxable or just the 1.35 million above the profit the company made in the previous year? Note that the corportation still has the 650,000 sitting in the bank earning interest.
The entire $2 million is taxable to the shareholder, who theoretically paid nothing for his shares (or very little), even though $1 million of the profit (not $650,000; that's just what is left after tax) had been previously taxed. In addition, the corporation will pay tax on the next $1 million that it earns to make up the $2 million (or at least that's what buyer is assuming). I'm not sure why the $650,000 sitting in the bank is relevant; the buyer paid $2 million (in after-tax dollars, presumably) for the rights to that $650,000 and any other corporate assets.
I'm not sure what difference any of that makes - the point is, it is not a lie to say that a sale of stock resulting in a capital gain includes previously taxed income, which was the original point. Getting into the weeds in details doesn't change that fact.
That would be a former shareholder. So what if the corporate profits have been taxed last year. That $650,000 sitting in the bank is not being taxed again, unless it is distributed in the form of dividends and then share holders who recieve the dividend will pay tax on the corporate profit and that is a form of a double taxation.
Usually a person who sell the stock purchases the stock and doesn't start the company from scratch do they? The money they use to buy the stock has usually been taxed before the purchase. Then when the stock is sold only the profit is taxed. Jr's post seem to be saying that not only are the new profits taxed but also the money used to purchase the stocks are taxed as well. It's just not so.
Its that simple
I got real heart burn with the buffet tax being out there to lead people to believe it has something to do with income tax
I make 1.25 million
I pay 250,000 in taxes
I make 100,000 the next year on capital gains on that same million and paid 265,000 in taxes on it
That money has been taxed twice now
Obvious he was talking about Fereral income tax, my ASS. This is how half the country gets DUPED.
Take all taxes and fees going to ALL gov't, and the rich and corporations pay the LOWEST percentage. Brilliant Pubcrappe, great if you want a banana republic.
If I pay 25% tax on income of 1.25 million dollars of income
I am left with 1 million
If I invest all of that and make 20% profit, I will have made 200,000
when I pay the 15% on that 200,000 I will be paying taxes on money all ready taxed
That is the simple way to see how money that is used for capital gains usually is dbl taxed
Besides trying to make income taxes as the same as Capital gains is dis-honest to start with
Buffet has most of his previous years in court, I have no idea what he thought he was doing. Its a shame
Income tax and capital gains is not even in the same ball park. After the last 2 weeks in the market I do not know if I will ever invest again in the market
My God what a blood bath
"Not only was the entire national deficit eliminated after raising taxes on the wealthy in 1993, but the economy grew so fast for the remainder of the decade that many conservative economists thought that the Fed should raise the prime interest rate in order to slow it down."
Obvious he was talking about Fereral income tax, my ASS. This is how half the country gets DUPED.
Take all taxes and fees going to ALL gov't, and the rich and corporations pay the LOWEST percentage. Brilliant Pubcrappe, great if you want a banana republic.
Really?
Because where I live....our property taxes are the same rate on a big house or little condo. And our sales tax is the same for a rich guy buying food or a poor guy. Gas tax, alcohol tax, all those taxes at the local level....all are a % on the consumer, regardless of their income.
Federal and state are different. Thats what he was talking about.
So you and your rich neighbor.....you both pay local taxes. You both pay state taxes. But likely he is the only one paying federal income taxes.
If I pay 25% tax on income of 1.25 million dollars of income
I am left with 1 million
If I invest all of that and make 20% profit, I will have made 200,000
when I pay the 15% on that 200,000 I will be paying taxes on money all ready taxed
That is the simple way to see how money that is used for capital gains usually is dbl taxed
Besides trying to make income taxes as the same as Capital gains is dis-honest to start with
Buffet has most of his previous years in court, I have no idea what he thought he was doing. Its a shame
Income tax and capital gains is not even in the same ball park. After the last 2 weeks in the market I do not know if I will ever invest again in the market
My God what a blood bath
Hang-in-there!!!
The Universe will regain it's balance in December!!!
"Not only was the entire national deficit eliminated after raising taxes on the wealthy in 1993, but the economy grew so fast for the remainder of the decade that many conservative economists thought that the Fed should raise the prime interest rate in order to slow it down."
