Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?

Even IF he did already pay 35%, Romney would have paid 40.25% total. 35% for the initial amount. Then 15% of the money he still had, which is 65% of the untaxed amount. An extra 5.25%, not 15%.

This guy is a fcking dumbshit or purposefully misleading. He already paid 35% huh? When exactly did he do that? When did the company do that? Does he know what an equity firm is? What carried interest, which discussed not to long ago, is?

GTFOH

Im honestly not trying to be a dick, but i dont understand your comment. Forget carried interest for a minute thats a different issue, the author is speaking from a boarded view on long term capital gains in general.

Ive read before the reason Capital Gains are taxed at a lower rate is because they have effectively already been taxed. Non-speculative long term equity ownership can/should be thought of as ownership on a firms future profits. Long term increases in the price of a stock are primarily driven by earnings. Speculative or short term equity ownership is not thought as an ownership of future profits and that is why its taxed at higher ordinary income rates.

Since the firm is already taxed at the corporate rate taxing profits made from capital gains is effectively double taxation. This is from the taxman himself:

The profit of a corporation is taxed to the corporation when earned, and then is taxed to the shareholders when distributed as dividends. This creates a double tax. The corporation does not get a tax deduction when it distributes dividends to shareholders. Shareholders cannot deduct any loss of the corporation.

Corporations (http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98240,00.html)

Im honestly not trying to be a dick, but i dont understand your comment. Forget carried interest for a minute thats a different issue, the author is speaking from a boarded view on long term capital gains in general.

Ive read before the reason Capital Gains are taxed at a lower rate is because they have effectively already been taxed. Non-speculative long term equity ownership can/should be thought of as ownership on a firms future profits. Long term increases in the price of a stock are primarily driven by earnings. Speculative or short term equity ownership is not thought as an ownership of future profits and that is why its taxed at higher ordinary income rates.

Since the firm is already taxed at the corporate rate taxing profits made from capital gains is effectively double taxation. This is from the taxman himself:



Corporations (http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98240,00.html)

In 2008, Obama was asked if he would still support a raise in the capital gains tax rate, even if it meant a decrease in government revenues. He said "yes," in the name of "fairness." Well that's just spreading it around for the hell of it. And isn't the intended effect of the Buffet Rule to raise the capital gains tax rate?

I think Mitch Daniels explained it pretty well in his State of The Union rebuttal. To get the rich to contribute more, you don't raise taxes- slowing economic growth. Gotta have tax reform. Close those loopholes from which the rich benefit so much, and means-test entitlements so the benefits of which are going to those who need it most. Makes sense I think.

Im honestly not trying to be a dick, but i dont understand your comment. Forget carried interest for a minute thats a different issue, the author is speaking from a boarded view on long term capital gains in general.

Ive read before the reason Capital Gains are taxed at a lower rate is because they have effectively already been taxed. Non-speculative long term equity ownership can/should be thought of as ownership on a firms future profits. Long term increases in the price of a stock are primarily driven by earnings. Speculative or short term equity ownership is not thought as an ownership of future profits and that is why its taxed at higher ordinary income rates.

Since the firm is already taxed at the corporate rate taxing profits made from capital gains is effectively double taxation. This is from the taxman himself:



Corporations (http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98240,00.html)

I'm sure you're not trying to be a dick but the business structure of a private equity firm is not that of a Corporation. Typically they are structured as limited liability partnership which means the company (note I didn't say Corporation) doesn't take sole proprietorship of the income/profits and thus avoids the tax liability of a corporation. In an equity firm there is no 35% tax rate to pay much less 1%,

That is to say all income is passed on to the partners and if they don't hold the assets long term (more than a year) then each partner's take home cut of the profits would be counted as ordinary income (taxable at 35% personal income tax bracket). Of course fat cats like Romeny hold their profits for more than a year so they only end up paying the capital gains rate of 15%.

You think these a-holes would be in the game if they were paying 35% plus an additional 15% in addition to the prospect of failed investments? If it don't make a dolla' it don't make sense but neither is having Romney only pay 15% while the rest of us are look at paying a much higher rate.

In 2008, Obama was asked if he would still support a raise in the capital gains tax rate, even if it meant a decrease in government revenues. He said "yes," in the name of "fairness." Well that's just spreading it around for the hell of it. And isn't the intended effect of the Buffet Rule to raise the capital gains tax rate?

I think Mitch Daniels explained it pretty well in his State of The Union rebuttal. To get the rich to contribute more, you don't raise taxes- slowing economic growth. Gotta have tax reform. Close those loopholes from which the rich benefit so much, and means-test entitlements so the benefits of which are going to those who need it most. Makes sense I think.

Call it fairness or class warfare but no matter how you slice it it is a travesty that Buffet has a better effective tax rate than his secretary.

^^ Sorry im just getting back to this. Okay so it sounds like your only beef with capital gain treatment is when it comes to the carried interest rule. I get both sides of carried interest rule but the thing to remember is that there are 2 sides to this complicated rule.

When you have partners of a private equity firm only taking income via selling long term capital gains of shares of the private companies they became vested during the course of their ownership, in the holding company their owners of, its important to remember that corporate income taxes have been, are being, or will be paid on the shares of those private companies they own. Its still a 15% tax on top of actual earnings and future earning valuations. And theres still risk in private equity, i think most would say private equity has more inherent risk then public companies, as the market is much less efficient and illiquid.

^ Warren Buffet's secretary needs to release her tax return if they want to keep this up. What they claim makes no sense.

How Rich Is Warren Buffett's Secretary? - Megan McArdle - Business - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/how-rich-is-warren-buffetts-secretary/252056/)

Im honestly not trying to be a dick, but i dont understand your comment. Forget carried interest for a minute thats a different issue, the author is speaking from a boarded view on long term capital gains in general.

Ive read before the reason Capital Gains are taxed at a lower rate is because they have effectively already been taxed. Non-speculative long term equity ownership can/should be thought of as ownership on a firms future profits. Long term increases in the price of a stock are primarily driven by earnings. Speculative or short term equity ownership is not thought as an ownership of future profits and that is why its taxed at higher ordinary income rates.

Since the firm is already taxed at the corporate rate taxing profits made from capital gains is effectively double taxation. This is from the taxman himself:



Corporations (http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98240,00.html)

Capital Gaissn is the amount you make over your investment. So if I paid $100,000 for a rental property and then sold it for $150,000 then my capital gain would be $50,000. I then only pay the reduced tax rate on the $50,000 not the $150,000. The resaon I have heard for the lower tax rate was to incourage people to invest their money.

This isn't fair:

Review & Outlook: Obama's Dividend Assault - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204880404577225493025537660.html?m od=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories)

This also isn't right:

Chart: Nearly Half of All Americans Don't Pay Income Taxes (http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/19/chart-of-the-week-nearly-half-of-all-americans-dont-pay-income-taxes/)

Not worth a new thread:

Occupy Golf Movement


WE NEED TO BE HEARD!!!

I am a member of golf's lower 99%.
I am an indifferent golfer, and there's no way I could ever make it to
the professional level. I will never put in the practice time to be the
best. I will never have the shots, skills, or mental toughness to make
it in the sport. I just never felt like working all that hard at it.
However, I am a part of the golfing community and, as such, feel I
should be paid by the top 1% of golfers for what I do. It isn't fair
that those players who have worked harder, have studied the game, have
better equipment and are more skilled and dedicated should make all
that BIG money.

Where's my share? I'm a Victim!

The top 1% should pay for my club memberships and green fees and
lessons, buy me new clubs, balls, clothes and shoes, and pay me some of
their winnings. They can afford it. They are "The Rich". The whole
system should be changed to accommodate people like me. I think we
should get together and occupy a golf course and demand that those who
are better at what they do, pay for us who generally suck. Whining
should get us something - maybe we'll make the cover of Time Magazine,
garnish some public sympathy. Hell, during this election year we may
even get a law or two passed by legislators who want our votes.

PS. Don't mention this to tennis players. We thought of it first

Good thing taxpayer dollars are going here. WTF.

Guantanamo Detainees Get New $750G Soccer Field | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/28/guantanamo-detainees-get-new-750g-soccer-field/print)