CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 146,665
- 69,802
- 2,330
Government has no respect for taxpayer money no matter who it comes from, so no.
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.
are taxes at anywhere near an historic high?
are taxes at anywhere near an historic high?
Government spending is
I think the terms are hiding to an extent the debate, my analogy may suck but I'll try; its like the head of a law firm being given an out on the money the firm makes that he takes a part of , there by forgoing taxes on that 'income'.
Carried interest is profit allocation. It's a bonus for the profits you make. Typically, carried interest is 20%. So if you give the manager your money and he earns 10%, you get 8% and he gets 2%. It's your capital he risks, yet the tax code pretends its the money manager's money.
In every other industry, that 2% bonus to the money manager is taxed as income. In finance, it's taxed as capital gains.
are taxes at anywhere near an historic high?
But (mostly you guys) acknowledge your good fortune at having been born in the 40s, 50s or 60s, entering the male-dominated workforce 25 years later, and having had the privilege of riding a credit wave and a credit boom for the past three decades. You did not, as President Obama averred, build that, you did not create that wave. You rode it. And now its time to kick out and share some of your good fortune by paying higher taxes or reforming them to favor economic growth and labor, as opposed to corporate profits and individual gazillions.
are taxes at anywhere near an historic high?
Nope. Nor is government spending.
I think the terms are hiding to an extent the debate, my analogy may suck but I'll try; its like the head of a law firm being given an out on the money the firm makes that he takes a part of , there by forgoing taxes on that 'income'.
Carried interest is profit allocation. It's a bonus for the profits you make. Typically, carried interest is 20%. So if you give the manager your money and he earns 10%, you get 8% and he gets 2%. It's your capital he risks, yet the tax code pretends its the money manager's money.
In every other industry, that 2% bonus to the money manager is taxed as income. In finance, it's taxed as capital gains.
yes, I understand, I was just trying find to another way to describe it.
I can add to my law firm analogy by saying the head of the firm still gets a piece of the billable hours, even if the case tanks and they get no share of a settlement, ergo- IF they loses the case they still get the billable hours or keep the retainer cash and on top of that he pays a different rate from say a co. they won for......he can only win.
--and that makes twice you've appeared to call for higher vengeance taxes at the expense of general economic well being and reduction of general revenue. Look, you're the one trying to get your hands on my money. You either convince me that it's for something I want or you can't have it....I said "carried interest."
Arguing is easy, doesn't get anywhere, and it can't pay bills. Say what you want about the budget, the fact remains that even though tax rates have soared beyond Clintonian levels to included massive crippling ACA tax hikes, tax revenues are still a $T behind where they would have been without the recession that came with the 110th congress.Nope. Nor is government spending.are taxes at anywhere near an historic high?
So does financial repression by the same reasoning.Yeah, that'll show 'em. Just like cap gains taxes. Back in '08 candidtate Ob. was asked why he liked capgains taxes even if they reduced revenue. He answered saying "It's a matter of fairness".interest should be taxed
Taxing interest reduces the money supply and that deflates the economy and that reduces revenue.
PIMCO | Investment Outlook - Scrooge McDucks
I would love for everybody to read this missive word-for-word, and then comment.Still, I would ask the Scrooge McDucks of the world who so vehemently criticize what they consider to be counterproductive, even crippling taxation of the wealthy in the midst of historically high corporate profits and personal income, to consider this: Instead of approaching the tax reform argument from the standpoint of what an enormous percentage of the overall income taxes the top 1% pay, consider how much of the national income youve been privileged to make. In the United States, the share of total pre-tax income accruing to the top 1% has more than doubled from 10% in the 1970s to 20% today. Admit that you, and I and others in the magnificent 1% grew up in a gilded age of credit, where those who borrowed money or charged fees on expanding financial assets had a much better chance of making it to the big tent than those who used their hands for a living. Yes I know many of you money people worked hard as did I, and you survived and prospered where others did not. A fair economic system should always allow for an opportunity to succeed. Congratulations. Smoke that cigar, enjoy that Chateau Lafite 1989. But (mostly you guys) acknowledge your good fortune at having been born in the 40s, 50s or 60s, entering the male-dominated workforce 25 years later, and having had the privilege of riding a credit wave and a credit boom for the past three decades. You did not, as President Obama averred, build that, you did not create that wave. You rode it. And now its time to kick out and share some of your good fortune by paying higher taxes or reforming them to favor economic growth and labor, as opposed to corporate profits and individual gazillions. Youll still be able to attend those charity galas and demonstrate your benevolence and philanthropic character to your admiring public. Youll just have to write a little bit smaller check. Scrooge McDuck would complain but then hes swimming in it, and can afford to duck paddle to a shallower end for a while. If youre in the privileged 1%, you should be paddling right alongside and willing to support higher taxes on carried interest, and certainly capital gains readjusted to existing marginal income tax rates. Stanley Druckenmiller and Warren Buffett have recently advocated similar proposals. The era of taxing capital at lower rates than labor should now end.
Yeah. I know.
But it would be nice.
The idea of a 'Scrooge McDuck with all that money was so much fun--...love for everybody to read this missive word-for-word, and then comment...
--back when we were kids. This letter is from the looney left/Buffet/Soros/Krugman school of financialfantasy and so full of nonsense that exposing all the lies would take weeks and nobody would care.
I'd love for you to go though it with you one point at a time, and I'll even let you take the first point.
OK
Carried interest should be taxed at the normal rate of income, not as capital gains, because it is a fee paid for performance, not because someone risked capital.
I think the terms are hiding to an extent the debate, my analogy may suck but I'll try; its like the head of a law firm being given an out on the money the firm makes that he takes a part of , there by forgoing taxes on that 'income'.
Carried interest is profit allocation. It's a bonus for the profits you make. Typically, carried interest is 20%. So if you give the manager your money and he earns 10%, you get 8% and he gets 2%. It's your capital he risks, yet the tax code pretends its the money manager's money.
In every other industry, that 2% bonus to the money manager is taxed as income. In finance, it's taxed as capital gains.
are taxes at anywhere near an historic high?
I think the terms are hiding to an extent the debate, my analogy may suck but I'll try; its like the head of a law firm being given an out on the money the firm makes that he takes a part of , there by forgoing taxes on that 'income'.
Carried interest is profit allocation. It's a bonus for the profits you make. Typically, carried interest is 20%. So if you give the manager your money and he earns 10%, you get 8% and he gets 2%. It's your capital he risks, yet the tax code pretends its the money manager's money.
In every other industry, that 2% bonus to the money manager is taxed as income. In finance, it's taxed as capital gains.
That is a bit of an oversimplification.
The taxes are based on liquidation value of the assets. If all the assets of a hedge fund are sold off the owner receives nothing but interest, because he put nothing in. In the specific example of a hedge fund, like Berkshire Hathaway, all interest payments are capital gains, so they are taxed that way. In other words, this only happens to very rare individuals, all of whom would be left with nothing if their ventures failed.
Buffet is perfectly free to report his personal earnings as regular income, but he choses not to, while lobbying the government to change the tax code.
--and that makes twice you've appeared to call for higher vengeance taxes at the expense of general economic well being and reduction of general revenue. Look, you're the one trying to get your hands on my money. You either convince me that it's for something I want or you can't have it....I said "carried interest."