The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Ralph Wiggum on December 04, 2013, 01:48:20 PM
-
edhopper (7,485 posts)
Income is income, tax it all the same. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024129197)
As a clear and simple message to begin addressing income inequity in this country, how about we treat all income the same. No difference for capitol gains, hedge fund loop holes, performance pay to CEOs, options or any of the other ways the wealthy have gotten Congress to give them a break.
In think this would be a winning idea the Democrats could run on. "Income is Income!"
It's a meme our nation should embrace.
Go for it!
The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) uses the following definition: "Income is increases in economic benefits during the accounting period in the form of inflows or enhancements of assets or decreases of liabilities that result in increases in equity, other than those relating to contributions from equity participants."
So all the free shit you get from 0bama will be taxed as income. Wonderful idea, DUmmy. Stay out of our pockets, ass-clown! :bigbird:
-
Hey....great idea DUmmie.
A Flat tax on all income without any exemptions, deductions or credits.
-
Go for it!
So all the free shit you get from 0bama will be taxed as income. Wonderful idea, DUmmy. Stay out of our pockets, ass-clown! :bigbird:
I agree with the bold part whole heartedly .....DUmmies want a 90% tax percent rate....go for it DUmmies. At the moment, a 90% rate for one year would suit me just fine. It would hurt the DUmmies more than it would it would hurt me. I know it would hit some of you guys hard but if all the DUmmies starved to death during that year, wouldn't it be worth it?
-
Hey....great idea DUmmie.
A Flat tax on all income without any exemptions, deductions or credits.
And that idea makes them........... :panic: every-single-time.
-
I agree with the bold part whole heartedly .....DUmmies want a 90% tax percent rate....go for it DUmmies. At the moment, a 90% rate for one year would suit me just fine. It would hurt the DUmmies more than it would it would hurt me. I know it would hit some of you guys hard but if all the DUmmies starved to death during that year, wouldn't it be worth it?
Every lost penny. I'll take one for the team. It's rather ridiculous how inexpensive you can live for awhile if you sacrifice. Besides, free entertainment watching the (D)Ummies and their (D) overlords completely piss off their entire voting base?
Priceless.
-
edhopper (7,485 posts)
Income is income, tax it all the same.
Be careful what you wish for, DUmmy.
No difference for capitol gains, hedge fund loop holes, performance pay to CEOs, options
No difference for Social Security, unemployment, disability, welfare, food stamps, housing subsidy. Eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit.
If it puts money in a DUmmy's pocket, tax it at to the highest tax rate. Call it the DUmmies' "Investment in America".
-
As usual, the DUmmies cluster around and figure out how to make tax policy that soaks someone else, but leaves them completely alone. Then, look at this mooch:
Response to edhopper (Original post)
Wed Dec 4, 2013, 02:34 AM
Star Member SheilaT (13,784 posts)
20. One thing I'd advocate is that every single citizen get foot (sic) stamps, SNAP. If you're so wealthy you don't need it, then you can decline and your share can be put back into the pool, which would increase what those who actually need it would get.
Personally, I'd take the SNAP, even though I can manage just fine on my current income. It would free up that amount of money for me every month, and even though I'm not living at the absolute bottom, that boost would absolutely help me.
FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE SHIT!
-
As usual, the DUmmies cluster around and figure out how to make tax policy that soaks someone else, but leaves them completely alone. Then, look at this mooch:
FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE SHIT!
Taxes and free shit is the noose that liberals will use to choke America and freedom to death.
-
I'm fine with eliminating special treatment for capital gains, it benefits stock prices but the post-2009 stock market pretty well disproves the idea that the economy and stock prices are closely coupled...as long as we eliminate a whole bunch of other useless expensive crap like Earned Income Credit at the same time.
-
I'm fine with eliminating special treatment for capital gains, it benefits stock prices but the post-2009 stock market pretty well disproves the idea that the economy and stock prices are closely coupled...as long as we eliminate a whole bunch of other useless expensive crap like Earned Income Credit at the same time.
Should be renamed "Annual Welfare Check to Democrat Voters".
-
Should be renamed "Annual Welfare Check to Democrat Voters".
Wonder how they would like a tax bill on Odiotcare subsidies and Medicaid benefits.
-
I'm fine with eliminating special treatment for capital gains, it benefits stock prices but the post-2009 stock market pretty well disproves the idea that the economy and stock prices are closely coupled...as long as we eliminate a whole bunch of other useless expensive crap like Earned Income Credit at the same time.
A lot of the market reaction is because of Bernanke pumping $1T/year into the markets, basically having more money chasing fewer stocks, with the resulting inflation. Once QE is tapered off, people are going to want to shift their money in the market into bonds, etc., because there's going to be a hell of a market correction over the next couple of years once the teat is cut off.
In a "regular" economy, you want capital gains taxes low, because otherwise, what incentive is there to invest?
YMMV.
-
A lot of the market reaction is because of Bernanke pumping $1T/year into the markets, basically having more money chasing fewer stocks, with the resulting inflation. Once QE is tapered off, people are going to want to shift their money in the market into bonds, etc., because there's going to be a hell of a market correction over the next couple of years once the teat is cut off.
In a "regular" economy, you want capital gains taxes low, because otherwise, what incentive is there to invest?
YMMV.
Agreed. Not all income is equal. Even money made illegally is taxable. The lowest tax rates should be on income that is generated through processes that generate the most tangible economic benefits.
-
A lot of the market reaction is because of Bernanke pumping $1T/year into the markets, basically having more money chasing fewer stocks, with the resulting inflation. Once QE is tapered off, people are going to want to shift their money in the market into bonds, etc., because there's going to be a hell of a market correction over the next couple of years once the teat is cut off.
In a "regular" economy, you want capital gains taxes low, because otherwise, what incentive is there to invest?
YMMV.
Yeah, my mileage does vary on that one. If stock investment provides the best ROI compared to other available investments, it'll still draw the investment without giving it special treatment, because there isn't any better place to put it. If it isn't the best ROI in a tax-neutral environment, then maybe whatever does outperform it should really be getting the investment, and all that special tax treatment really just represents a distortion of the investment market to favor one thing that may not be the objectively be the best thing after all.
Without getting into a long and boring technical discussion, there are several false assumptions built into the whole correlation of special capital gains treatment, and capitalization that actually benefits the issuing business organization, after the initial stock sale.
It's great for traders and trading organizations. Actual value to the issuer, well, there're some analytical problems there, but those organizations are massively outnumbered by people and organizations with a stake in trading for its own sake.
-
I guess what I'm trying to say is that had the Fed not pumped $5T-plus into the markets, would we be looking at a 16,000 Dow right now? We've seen a couple of off days just from the mention of tapering off of QE.
One thing I find disturbing is if you look at the Dow since 1985, there was a HUGE jump in the dot-com era, the 2000-01 correction, then the housing bubble burst and the 2008 financial crisis, and the subsequent climb until today.
But seriously, how can you honestly justify an increase in the Dow since 1985 of almost 1200 percent? The increase between January 1985 and January of 1995 is barely 200 percent. From there to January of 2008 is another 200 percent.
Granted the market then took a drop of over 47 percent in the following year. But even then, the increase between 1985 and then is still almost 500 percent over the previous 24 years, for an increase of about 7 percent per year. That's pretty much keeping in line with historical market averages.
And in the last 5 years since the historic low, we've seen a rise of 120 percent, or nearly 18 percent a year. I don't think we could say that we'd see anywhere near that level of gains were it not for the money being pumped into the market. Is it sustainable? I don't think so. And when QE does end, I think we're going to see a pretty serious drop in the markets.
Now I'm obviously no financial advisor, so I don't know where to go, although bonds seems to be reasonable if the market takes another dump of more than 10-20 percent. Looking at a chart of the Dow, I can't help but come away feeling that stocks are way overvalued right now.
Another thought that occurred to me was when the Bush tax cuts of 2001-03 kicked in, with the reduction of the capital gains taxes, we had a HUGE influx of money into the markets, which created the rise between 2002 and 2008, until the housing bubble/financial crisis kicked in, and the Fed is just continuing what was started in the late 90's/early 2000's, which was a huge influx of capital previously unknown. Are we depending on a continuing influx of capital to support the markets? Who knows? What I do know/strongly suspect is that jacking the capital gains taxes back up to 28 percent or more is going to cause a big correction in the markets.
-
Sparky, I don't think we're particularly far apart on the whole thing, and FWIW I'd prefer to see the other tax rates pulled down to a single flat rate that applied to long-term capital gains and everything else as well.
-
Sparky, I don't think we're particularly far apart on the whole thing, and FWIW I'd prefer to see the other tax rates pulled down to a single flat rate that applied to long-term capital gains and everything else as well.
18 percent seem reasonable? And start telling people to put in for their own retirements? The only problem then becomes how to satisfy the current unfunded liabilities in the SS system.