http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3233363Oh my.
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Thu May-01-08 06:18 PM
Original message
When debating raising taxes on the wealthy, why don't Democrats point out that the wealthy often don't have to pay any interest on investments because often they can pay cash or at least put more down. For a middle class person buying a house on a 30 year plan, they will likely pay hundreds of thousands just in interest, while a wealthy person buying the same house (perhaps as an investment) and paying cash, he/she pays nothing.
The more wealth a person has the less often they have to pay interest and when you don't have to pay interest it's much, much, much easier to make a profit off investments right away. It's a huge advantage the Rich have over the poor and middle class and it NEVER gets mentioned. Why? I would have liked to see Hillary Clinton bring this up to O'Reilly on Fox last night.
Interest: The way the wealthy tax the shit out of the poor and middle class.
I dunno. As someone who does income taxes, it bothers me that so many primitives and sub-primitives pay more each month in credit card fees, credit card interest, and credit card penalties, than they do for groceries.
Yet the primitives and sub-primitives whine about the cost of groceries.
By the way, while the "rich" probably don't pay interest on mortgages, at the same time while such interest is tax-deductible for the poor, the "rich" can't deduct their own interest.
DemocratInSoCal (386 posts) Thu May-01-08 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. Because The Democrats Representing Us Are MORONS!!
OHHHHHHHHHHHHHH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!
Don't want to use the "T" Word!!!! HEAVEN FORBID!!!!
Forget about paying down the Debt in our lifetime, or our childrens lifetime, or our children's children's lifetime.
Well, the primitive forgot to mention another relevant fact, besides the Democrats being morons.
The Democrats are wealthy too; oodles and oodles of money, Democrats have.
One doesn't suppose Bela Pelosi, Vast Teddy, the Bostonian Billionaire, Jon Corzine, George Soros, Jay Rockefeller, Dianne Feinstein, Maria Cantwell, Barry "Goldwater" Obama, Messalina Agrippina, John Edwards, Bags Streisand, the Leona Helmsley of DUmmieland "flyarm," &c., &c., &c., are going to stand for paying higher taxes on their immense wealth.
LSparkle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Thu May-01-08 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
2. What especially bothers me is the capital gains tax argument ...
Just because MILLIONS of people have money in 401(k) plans DOES NOT mean that those millions of people benefit from a capital gains tax reduction! As long as your money remains in your 401(k) plan, you ARE NOT TAXED ON IT. The only people paying the capital gains tax are those who are cashing in their stocks. When you cash in your 401(k) plan at retirement, I know there are taxes involved but I don't think it's the same "capital gains tax" that ReichWingers are desperate to keep low.
Hmm. I know a primitive who won't appreciate those sentiments. In fact, I know two such primitives.
Perhaps the sparked primitive had better have its comments vetted by the richboy the Bostonian Drunkard and the Leona Helmsley of DUmmieland "flyarm," before going off half-cocked.
thecatburgler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Thu May-01-08 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. If it's funded with pre-tax dollars you pay ordinary income tax on the entire distribution
Plus a 10% penalty if you withdraw prior to age 59 and 1/2.
You are correct. No capital gains. People who mention 401ks and capital gains in the same breath are either lying or dumb.
Taxmyth (882 posts) Thu May-01-08 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
4. Being wealthy is all a matter of where you live
In the Northeast, $100,000 a year in income is DECIDEDLY middle class. That same amount in Nebraska gives you a much better standard of living. We can't tax people differently because of where they live so it is a very delicate subject to discuss.
Yep.
According to statistics from about two months ago, a family of four in Omaha with an annual income of $100,000 live better, with better real-estate even, than a family of four in Lost Angeles with an income of $400,000 per year. Bigger house, higher-qualitied vehicles, better schools, lower crime, honest politics.
Apparently only Raleigh, North Carolina tops Omaha as the best place to live.
Big blue cities in blue states fare, uh, rather quite a bit worse.
One wonders why that is.
