Obama proposes tax hikes on wealthy, Capital Gains tax hikes that will likely backfire as usual

[The Rabbi]

And his proposed tax increases on "the wealthy" will probably result in slowing of job growth or even decreases in job production as large employers have less money to spend on wages and personnel, adding to their increased burdens imposed by Obamacare.

Capital gains is on stock speculation. If you say, buy microsoft for 70 and sell it for 100, the increase is taxed at a rate of 15%. Often less than half of the rate that actual income is taxed.

How then would it effect job production?

You do realize that when someone sells something they plan on spending the proceeds right?

The same would be true if you say, sold a good or service. Why then does capital gains enjoy such an inexplicably entitled status with such a dramatically lower rate than that paid for ordinary income? You know....labor that actually produces a good or service rather than simply shifting money around between speculators?

By any logical standard, ordinary income would enjoy that preferred lower tax level as it actually benefits the economy in a meaningful way and produces goods and services. While stock speculation produces nothing, enhances nothing, improves nothing, provides no service, makes no good.

Which is why Obama's plan to cut taxes on ordinary income for the middle class while raising it on capital gains makes so much sense. Its completely reasonable, logical, and actually benefits the economy.

You simple dont get it.
Funds for investment are priviliged because they provide for future growth. Labor does not provide for future growth. Any more than copper does.
Investment is the life blood of any economy.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

And his proposed tax increases on "the wealthy" will probably result in slowing of job growth or even decreases in job production as large employers have less money to spend on wages and personnel, adding to their increased burdens imposed by Obamacare.

Capital gains is on stock speculation. If you say, buy microsoft for 70 and sell it for 100, the increase is taxed at a rate of 15%. Often less than half of the rate that actual income is taxed.

How then would it effect job production?

You do realize that when someone sells something they plan on spending the proceeds right?

The same would be true if you say, sold a good or service. Why then does capital gains enjoy such an inexplicably entitled status with such a dramatically lower rate than that paid for ordinary income? You know....labor that actually produces a good or service rather than simply shifting money around between speculators?

By any logical standard, ordinary income would enjoy that preferred lower tax level as it actually benefits the economy in a meaningful way and produces goods and services. While stock speculation produces nothing, enhances nothing, improves nothing, provides no service, makes no good.

Which is why Obama's plan to cut taxes on ordinary income for the middle class while raising it on capital gains makes so much sense. Its completely reasonable, logical, and actually benefits the economy.

Some people get stock options through their job and they are going to support their retirement with them. So you want to fuck those people out of their golden years?
Most of us dont have government pensions to look forward to....
Nice to know you want seniors to have to rely on the government in their later years.

 

[Little-Acorn]

BTW, capital gains takes in if a company owns a building it does business from, and decides to sell it and buy a bigger building because their business is going well, people want more of their products etc. They get hit with massive taxes if the building sells for more money (say, due to inflation) than they bought it for initially.

High capital gains taxes will often prevent a company from expanding when their business makes it a good idea. The taxes make it economically unviable when plain business suggests it should be done.

 

[BlindBoo]

BTW, capital gains takes in if a company owns a building it does business from, and decides to sell it and buy a bigger building because their business is going well, people want more of their products etc. They get hit with massive taxes if the building sells for more money (say, due to inflation) than they bought it for initially.

High capital gains taxes will often prevent a company from expanding when their business makes it a good idea. The taxes make it economically unviable when plain business suggests it should be done.

Weren't they allowed to take the cost of the building as a deduction? Same with the new one.

 

[Skylar]

And his proposed tax increases on "the wealthy" will probably result in slowing of job growth or even decreases in job production as large employers have less money to spend on wages and personnel, adding to their increased burdens imposed by Obamacare.

Capital gains is on stock speculation. If you say, buy microsoft for 70 and sell it for 100, the increase is taxed at a rate of 15%. Often less than half of the rate that actual income is taxed.

How then would it effect job production?

You do realize that when someone sells something they plan on spending the proceeds right?

The same would be true if you say, sold a good or service. Why then does capital gains enjoy such an inexplicably entitled status with such a dramatically lower rate than that paid for ordinary income? You know....labor that actually produces a good or service rather than simply shifting money around between speculators?

By any logical standard, ordinary income would enjoy that preferred lower tax level as it actually benefits the economy in a meaningful way and produces goods and services. While stock speculation produces nothing, enhances nothing, improves nothing, provides no service, makes no good.

Which is why Obama's plan to cut taxes on ordinary income for the middle class while raising it on capital gains makes so much sense. Its completely reasonable, logical, and actually benefits the economy.

You simple dont get it.
Funds for investment are priviliged because they provide for future growth. Labor does not provide for future growth. Any more than copper does.
Investment is the life blood of any economy.

Except that they don't. Shaving a fraction of a penny off several times a second based on minute fluctuations in stock price don't 'provide for future growth'. They don't do...anything.

They don't benefit the company that issued the stock. They add nothing to the economy. They provide no good. They offer no service. The improve nothing, they enhance nothing, they invent nothing. Its just a transfer of money from one speculator to another speculator. Almost all stock transactions are done by hedge funds. Less than 1% are done by the rest of us.

Actual labor, actual goods being manufactured, actual services being performed, actual businesses being built.....this grows the economy in a meaningful way. Stock speculation doesn't.

Why then does the transfer of money between hedge fund managers enjoy such a privileged position in our tax system when it provides nothing. While actual labor that provides good, services, and grows the economy is comparatively penalized?

There is no reason. Its wildly stupid. This massive tax break that overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy serves no useful purpose and has no valid reason to exist. Capital gains should at the very least be taxed like regular income.....just like it was under Reagan.

 

[The Rabbi]

And his proposed tax increases on "the wealthy" will probably result in slowing of job growth or even decreases in job production as large employers have less money to spend on wages and personnel, adding to their increased burdens imposed by Obamacare.

Capital gains is on stock speculation. If you say, buy microsoft for 70 and sell it for 100, the increase is taxed at a rate of 15%. Often less than half of the rate that actual income is taxed.

How then would it effect job production?

You do realize that when someone sells something they plan on spending the proceeds right?

The same would be true if you say, sold a good or service. Why then does capital gains enjoy such an inexplicably entitled status with such a dramatically lower rate than that paid for ordinary income? You know....labor that actually produces a good or service rather than simply shifting money around between speculators?

By any logical standard, ordinary income would enjoy that preferred lower tax level as it actually benefits the economy in a meaningful way and produces goods and services. While stock speculation produces nothing, enhances nothing, improves nothing, provides no service, makes no good.

Which is why Obama's plan to cut taxes on ordinary income for the middle class while raising it on capital gains makes so much sense. Its completely reasonable, logical, and actually benefits the economy.

You simple dont get it.
Funds for investment are priviliged because they provide for future growth. Labor does not provide for future growth. Any more than copper does.
Investment is the life blood of any economy.

Except that they don't. Shaving a fraction of a penny off several times a second based on minute fluctuations in stock price don't 'provide for future growth'. They don't do...anything.

They don't benefit the company that issued the stock. They add nothing to the economy. They provide no good. They offer no service. The improve nothing, they enhance nothing, they invent nothing. Its just a transfer of money from one speculator to another speculator. Almost all stock transactions are done by hedge funds. Less than 1% are done by the rest of us.

Actual labor, actual goods being manufactured, actual services being performed, actual businesses being built.....this grows the economy in a meaningful way. Stock speculation doesn't.

Why then does the transfer of money between hedge fund managers enjoy such a privileged position in our tax system when it provides nothing. While actual labor that provides good, services, and grows the economy is comparatively penalized?

There is no reason. Its wildly stupid. This massive tax break that overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy serves no useful purpose and has no valid reason to exist. Capital gains should at the very least be taxed like regular income.....just like it was under Reagan.

Im sorry you persist in your ignorance and stupidity. No one can help you until you hit bottom.

 

[The Rabbi]

BTW, capital gains takes in if a company owns a building it does business from, and decides to sell it and buy a bigger building because their business is going well, people want more of their products etc. They get hit with massive taxes if the building sells for more money (say, due to inflation) than they bought it for initially.

High capital gains taxes will often prevent a company from expanding when their business makes it a good idea. The taxes make it economically unviable when plain business suggests it should be done.

Weren't they allowed to take the cost of the building as a deduction? Same with the new one.

You dont understand how this works, do you?

 

[zeke]

You dont understand how this works, do you?

I bet you think the business gets their one time capital gain exclusion. Just like a personal residence. Don't cha rabbit.

Can you see this rabbit;

 

[HenryBHough]

So government taxes away $1 out of every $100 profit there is in a deal. A deal with $100,000 profit is completed and government gets $1,000.

Great!

Then government decides to tax $2 per $100 profit. The pending deal with $100,000 doesn't happen.

Now, liberals, in the latter case how much does government collect?

 

[BlindBoo]

BTW, capital gains takes in if a company owns a building it does business from, and decides to sell it and buy a bigger building because their business is going well, people want more of their products etc. They get hit with massive taxes if the building sells for more money (say, due to inflation) than they bought it for initially.

High capital gains taxes will often prevent a company from expanding when their business makes it a good idea. The taxes make it economically unviable when plain business suggests it should be done.

Weren't they allowed to take the cost of the building as a deduction? Same with the new one.

You dont understand how this works, do you?

Oh, I remember Accounting 101 and amortization of capital assets.

 

[The Rabbi]

BTW, capital gains takes in if a company owns a building it does business from, and decides to sell it and buy a bigger building because their business is going well, people want more of their products etc. They get hit with massive taxes if the building sells for more money (say, due to inflation) than they bought it for initially.

High capital gains taxes will often prevent a company from expanding when their business makes it a good idea. The taxes make it economically unviable when plain business suggests it should be done.

Weren't they allowed to take the cost of the building as a deduction? Same with the new one.

You dont understand how this works, do you?

Oh, I remember Accounting 101 and amortization of capital assets.

THen you know they didnt deduct the cost of the building.

 

[BlindBoo]

BTW, capital gains takes in if a company owns a building it does business from, and decides to sell it and buy a bigger building because their business is going well, people want more of their products etc. They get hit with massive taxes if the building sells for more money (say, due to inflation) than they bought it for initially.

High capital gains taxes will often prevent a company from expanding when their business makes it a good idea. The taxes make it economically unviable when plain business suggests it should be done.

Weren't they allowed to take the cost of the building as a deduction? Same with the new one.

You dont understand how this works, do you?

Oh, I remember Accounting 101 and amortization of capital assets.

THen you know they didnt deduct the cost of the building.

I know no such thing. They are allowed to deduct the cost over the lifetime of the building.

 

[The Rabbi]

BTW, capital gains takes in if a company owns a building it does business from, and decides to sell it and buy a bigger building because their business is going well, people want more of their products etc. They get hit with massive taxes if the building sells for more money (say, due to inflation) than they bought it for initially.

High capital gains taxes will often prevent a company from expanding when their business makes it a good idea. The taxes make it economically unviable when plain business suggests it should be done.

Weren't they allowed to take the cost of the building as a deduction? Same with the new one.

You dont understand how this works, do you?

Oh, I remember Accounting 101 and amortization of capital assets.

THen you know they didnt deduct the cost of the building.

I know no such thing. They are allowed to deduct the cost over the lifetime of the building.

Thats sort of wrong.
They can depreciate the value of the building over time. But when they sell, they pay tax on the difference between the sale price and the depreciated value of the building. Usually that means the sale price is basically profit for the company, depending on how long they held it.
Again, why would you want to punish companies trying to expand?

 

[NLT]

Obama needs to stick to his drone sniping, the coward

 

[zeke]

As promised above, there may be a third method of divesting the C corporation of ownership and avoiding double tax completely. If the corporation is eligible to make an S corporation election, the gain at the time of the election is tracked as net unrealized built in gain (NUBIG). If the S corporation sells the asset within 10 years, the corporation pays a C corporation tax on the NUBIG. After the 10 year period passes, the asset can be sold and the shareholders will be entitled to the long term capital gains rate on gains in excess of the depreciation recapture. This holding period was shortened for dispositions in 2009 – 2011, and it is possible it will be shortened again by Congress. If a sale is required before the end of the statutory holding period, only the NUBIG is subject to corporate tax, and accordingly depressed real estate values enhance the benefits of an S corporation election now.




Did you read all that gobblydgook above. That's why corporations have tax accountants rabbit. SO they can figure things out like how to avoid double taxation on property and shit like that.

Yes sir rabbits, tax accountants know ALL sorts of things that a little rabbit brain like yours will never figure out.
Poor rabbit.

 

[BlindBoo]

Weren't they allowed to take the cost of the building as a deduction? Same with the new one.

You dont understand how this works, do you?

Oh, I remember Accounting 101 and amortization of capital assets.

THen you know they didnt deduct the cost of the building.

I know no such thing. They are allowed to deduct the cost over the lifetime of the building.

Thats sort of wrong.
They can depreciate the value of the building over time. But when they sell, they pay tax on the difference between the sale price and the depreciated value of the building. Usually that means the sale price is basically profit for the company, depending on how long they held it.
Again, why would you want to punish companies trying to expand?

My position is there should be no difference in short term and long term capital gains and both should be treated as income and taxed at the appropriate rate for the taxpayers bracket.

 

[The Rabbi]

You dont understand how this works, do you?

Oh, I remember Accounting 101 and amortization of capital assets.

THen you know they didnt deduct the cost of the building.

I know no such thing. They are allowed to deduct the cost over the lifetime of the building.

Thats sort of wrong.
They can depreciate the value of the building over time. But when they sell, they pay tax on the difference between the sale price and the depreciated value of the building. Usually that means the sale price is basically profit for the company, depending on how long they held it.
Again, why would you want to punish companies trying to expand?

My position is there should be no difference in short term and long term capital gains and both should be treated as income and taxed at the appropriate rate for the taxpayers bracket.

OK so you're opposed to Obama's plan.
That's good.

 

[HenryBHough]

1031

Defers capital gains taxes indefinitely and, done well, eliminates them entirely.

 

[Skylar]

You dont understand how this works, do you?

Oh, I remember Accounting 101 and amortization of capital assets.

THen you know they didnt deduct the cost of the building.

I know no such thing. They are allowed to deduct the cost over the lifetime of the building.

Thats sort of wrong.
They can depreciate the value of the building over time. But when they sell, they pay tax on the difference between the sale price and the depreciated value of the building. Usually that means the sale price is basically profit for the company, depending on how long they held it.
Again, why would you want to punish companies trying to expand?

My position is there should be no difference in short term and long term capital gains and both should be treated as income and taxed at the appropriate rate for the taxpayers bracket.

Sounds reasonable to me.

 

[Rozman]

So we should tax profits from investment made with after-tax income to the point so as to discourage such investment



sounds great

That seems to be the plan....