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.
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.
Virtually everything you wrote in this post is wrong.
I'm not going to respond to this line of thinking any further because it's hard to believe it could get even more wrong.
Revenue is.are taxes at anywhere near an historic high?
Revenue is.
Should I also point out that taxes are at the same percent of GDP when taxes were at a historical high, or would that break your brain?
Given that you apparently don't understand the point at hand......either convince me that it's for something I want or you can't have it.
Exactly.Toro unless you can show that carried interest is effectively risk free your point makes no sense. And you should probably state what you consider to be effectively risk free.
Toro unless you can show that carried interest is effectively risk free your point makes no sense. And you should probably state what you consider to be effectively risk free.
Revenue is.are taxes at anywhere near an historic high?
Revenue is.
Should I also point out that taxes are at the same percent of GDP when taxes were at a historical high, or would that break your brain?
Should I also point out that taxes are at the same percent of GDP when taxes were at a historical high, or would that break your brain?
Now, now. Revenue from total taxes is NOT as high as at any prior time. Except for the years 2009 through 2011, total taxes as a percentage of gdp is lower than for any year since 1950. Same for personal income taxes, except for 1965 and 1951, when the rates were around .1% lower and 2003, when they were also .1% lower.
Corporate income taxes were near the lowest rate, with few years since the 1950's lower than the last year of taxes paid. But there were many years, up through the 1990's when those taxes were 2 to 3 times as high as the latest years taxes. Again, as a % of GDP.
So, you got all that wrong. REALLY wrong.
Excise taxes have never been lower, at least back through 1934. Social and retirement taxes have never been lower since 1977.
Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP
So, me boy, does that break your brain??? Really, what I just posted is well known, for those interested in knowing it. And by those with enough integrity to be honest. Which, I know, is a problem for you. Look up integrity. You could use some.
--after all, just like the president as saying in '08 that tax fairness is the only issue and nobody cares whether it brings in any revenue or whether it harms the general economy....It's income and should be taxed as such. It's no different than a salesperson being paid a bonus, or an NFL player being paid a bonus...
--after all, just like the president as saying in '08 that tax fairness is the only issue and nobody cares whether it brings in any revenue or whether it harms the general economy....It's income and should be taxed as such. It's no different than a salesperson being paid a bonus, or an NFL player being paid a bonus...
We know the priorities and we don't concur.
Revenue is.Revenue is.
Should I also point out that taxes are at the same percent of GDP when taxes were at a historical high, or would that break your brain?
Should I also point out that taxes are at the same percent of GDP when taxes were at a historical high, or would that break your brain?
Now, now. Revenue from total taxes is NOT as high as at any prior time. Except for the years 2009 through 2011, total taxes as a percentage of gdp is lower than for any year since 1950. Same for personal income taxes, except for 1965 and 1951, when the rates were around .1% lower and 2003, when they were also .1% lower.
Corporate income taxes were near the lowest rate, with few years since the 1950's lower than the last year of taxes paid. But there were many years, up through the 1990's when those taxes were 2 to 3 times as high as the latest years taxes. Again, as a % of GDP.
So, you got all that wrong. REALLY wrong.
Excise taxes have never been lower, at least back through 1934. Social and retirement taxes have never been lower since 1977.
Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP
So, me boy, does that break your brain??? Really, what I just posted is well known, for those interested in knowing it. And by those with enough integrity to be honest. Which, I know, is a problem for you. Look up integrity. You could use some.
Really?
Integrity is admitting you were wrong. I was.
When was the last time you did that?
By the way, your chart, while interesting, is a bit deceptive. The reason revenue as a part of GDP is low right now is because the government is spending is considered part of GDP, and the government does not tax the historically high deficits it has been running the last few years. If you want to lecture me about integrity, you first have to admit I am right about that.
Toro unless you can show that carried interest is effectively risk free your point makes no sense. And you should probably state what you consider to be effectively risk free.
I don't understand what you are saying. How are the risk parameters relevant? Carried interest is effectively "risk free" to the money manager because it is not his capital that he is risking. If the money he is managing goes up, he gets a cut of the profits. If it goes down, he loses nothing because its not his capital. He is not risking his capital. It's income and should be taxed as such. It's no different than a salesperson being paid a bonus, or an NFL player being paid a bonus.
If a manager is managing $100 million, and $1 million is his and $99 million is other people's money, then the gains he makes on the $1 million should be taxed as capital gains while the profits he is paid off the $99 million he makes for others is income whereas the profits for the owners of the $99 million is capital gains.
Just another liberal/progressive nitwit spouting socialist talking points about the 'evil' 1% .
You must understand that expat is not constrained. You know, by things like truth. Or facts. Or proof. Expat is a tool. And a total waste of space.--after all, just like the president as saying in '08 that tax fairness is the only issue and nobody cares whether it brings in any revenue or whether it harms the general economy....It's income and should be taxed as such. It's no different than a salesperson being paid a bonus, or an NFL player being paid a bonus...
We know the priorities and we don't concur.
I'm sorry. I thought you were serious when you said someone should take the first point and you'd go through it. I didn't realize you'd respond with empty political rhetoric. My mistake. I won't do it again.
Wow. You made the misquotes, not me. So you lie like a rug, and say you admitted it, and follow up with another bit of bs. Nice try, me boy. Really, it is spelled I N T E G R I T Y. You have none. Liars do not.Revenue is.
Should I also point out that taxes are at the same percent of GDP when taxes were at a historical high, or would that break your brain?
Now, now. Revenue from total taxes is NOT as high as at any prior time. Except for the years 2009 through 2011, total taxes as a percentage of gdp is lower than for any year since 1950. Same for personal income taxes, except for 1965 and 1951, when the rates were around .1% lower and 2003, when they were also .1% lower.
Corporate income taxes were near the lowest rate, with few years since the 1950's lower than the last year of taxes paid. But there were many years, up through the 1990's when those taxes were 2 to 3 times as high as the latest years taxes. Again, as a % of GDP.
So, you got all that wrong. REALLY wrong.
Excise taxes have never been lower, at least back through 1934. Social and retirement taxes have never been lower since 1977.
Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP
So, me boy, does that break your brain??? Really, what I just posted is well known, for those interested in knowing it. And by those with enough integrity to be honest. Which, I know, is a problem for you. Look up integrity. You could use some.
Really?
Integrity is admitting you were wrong. I was.
When was the last time you did that?
By the way, your chart, while interesting, is a bit deceptive. The reason revenue as a part of GDP is low right now is because the government is spending is considered part of GDP, and the government does not tax the historically high deficits it has been running the last few years. If you want to lecture me about integrity, you first have to admit I am right about that.
link?
maybe YOU need to give your brain a rest before you break your brain?
Link??? You need one. No one believes a proven liar based on NOTHING but his word already proven to be not worth anything.--after all, just like the president as saying in '08 that tax fairness is the only issue and nobody cares whether it brings in any revenue or whether it harms the general economy....It's income and should be taxed as such. It's no different than a salesperson being paid a bonus, or an NFL player being paid a bonus...
We know the priorities and we don't concur.
Revenue is.
Should I also point out that taxes are at the same percent of GDP when taxes were at a historical high, or would that break your brain?
Now, now. Revenue from total taxes is NOT as high as at any prior time. Except for the years 2009 through 2011, total taxes as a percentage of gdp is lower than for any year since 1950. Same for personal income taxes, except for 1965 and 1951, when the rates were around .1% lower and 2003, when they were also .1% lower.
Corporate income taxes were near the lowest rate, with few years since the 1950's lower than the last year of taxes paid. But there were many years, up through the 1990's when those taxes were 2 to 3 times as high as the latest years taxes. Again, as a % of GDP.
So, you got all that wrong. REALLY wrong.
Excise taxes have never been lower, at least back through 1934. Social and retirement taxes have never been lower since 1977.
Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP
So, me boy, does that break your brain??? Really, what I just posted is well known, for those interested in knowing it. And by those with enough integrity to be honest. Which, I know, is a problem for you. Look up integrity. You could use some.
Really?
Integrity is admitting you were wrong. I was.
When was the last time you did that?
By the way, your chart, while interesting, is a bit deceptive. The reason revenue as a part of GDP is low right now is because the government is spending is considered part of GDP, and the government does not tax the historically high deficits it has been running the last few years. If you want to lecture me about integrity, you first have to admit I am right about that.
link?
maybe YOU need to give your brain a rest before you break your brain?
