DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> The Dream Team
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 151 - 175 of 519, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/16/2012 02:49:10 PM · #151
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I guess Romney says that at no point in the last 10 years he paid less than 13% tax on his income and that last year it was 13.6%. It would be nice to see the returns, but it seems to counter the unsubstantiated accusations that he paid zero income tax. He also said were it not for his chartiable giving the rate would be 20%.


Am I the only one who thinks there should be a different rate for earned income versus investment income? I seem to recall it was the middle class (me) who were complaining about being taxed again on money I already paid taxes on the first time at the same rate no less. I recall it was the middle class 30 and 40 somethings that were preparing thier retirement accounts that were the catalyst for reducing the capital gains tax as they were tired of paying taxes twice.

Now maybe rich folk get a break by this simply because of the amount of dollars invested, but so does everyone who has inverstment income - like retirees. If you raise the capital gains tax rate, then everyone who has a 401 or IRA will pay more tax. If you have a bunch of money - good for you. You didn't get it without putting it at risk. To tax it twice just stings. To compare what Buffet's secretary pays on earned income versus what Buffet pays on investment income is apples to oranges.


I hear you and think the possible double tax nature could be a good reason to have lower capital gains taxes. I think people object when you don't pay double tax. I'm no accountant, but let's say you take a job as CEO and your compensation is a salary and twenty million dollars worth of stock options. You take advantage and buy those stocks. I don't believe you pay income tax on $20,000,000 in that year (but I could easily be wrong). Then you sell the options later for $23,000,000. You would now pay 15% capital gains (on $3 milllion? $23 million?) so you really aren't being hit twice.

You and I, however, buy a stock out of money that we earn and are taxed on. We make a profit and are taxed with capital gains on that profit as well. I think it is unreasonable to expect another twenty-something percent tax on that profit. Whenever this comes up for debate we only imagine the former scenario and not that latter. The latter plays out far more commonly (or lets say with the sale of your house). Again, that doesn't make for a good talking point though...

Message edited by author 2012-08-16 14:50:39.
 08/16/2012 07:17:09 PM · #152
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I guess Romney says that at no point in the last 10 years he paid less than 13% tax on his income and that last year it was 13.6%. It would be nice to see the returns, but it seems to counter the unsubstantiated accusations that he paid zero income tax. He also said were it not for his chartiable giving the rate would be 20%.


Am I the only one who thinks there should be a different rate for earned income versus investment income? I seem to recall it was the middle class (me) who were complaining about being taxed again on money I already paid taxes on the first time at the same rate no less.

If you are talking about taking post-tax wages and investing them, you're not being "taxed twice" -- you're being subsequently taxed on the interest or dividends earned yielded by your investments, not the principal you invested, and, if you invest in a Roth IRA, even those won't be taxed if you wait until the proper age to withdraw funds.

Originally posted by GeneralE:
ETA: Note that the IRS defines capital gains as "unearned income" -- I am curious as to what moral (or other) basis or justification there is for taxing "unearned" income at half the rate of those who "earn" their (almost always substantially lower) incomes. It is clear that those monies are not being used to create jobs or to stimulate the economy in any way other than to manipulate financial transactions to as to increase accumulated wealth. It makes a joke of the whole supposed American ethos of "work hard and you'll get ahead" -- the trick really seems to be to choose wealthy parents, and to develop (or hire) the ability to accurately guess whether other people will want to buy or sell stock at some specified price (otherwise known as "technical trading").

I still want to know the moral justification for taxing someone who actually does something for their income, rather than just lending it to others or manipulating financial instruments which add no benefit to society as a whole, at a higher rate. It just sounds backwards and the opposite to the reasons we establish societies in the first place.
 08/16/2012 07:25:30 PM · #153
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
ETA: Note that the IRS defines capital gains as "unearned income" -- I am curious as to what moral (or other) basis or justification there is for taxing "unearned" income at half the rate of those who "earn" their (almost always substantially lower) incomes. It is clear that those monies are not being used to create jobs or to stimulate the economy in any way other than to manipulate financial transactions to as to increase accumulated wealth. It makes a joke of the whole supposed American ethos of "work hard and you'll get ahead" -- the trick really seems to be to choose wealthy parents, and to develop (or hire) the ability to accurately guess whether other people will want to buy or sell stock at some specified price (otherwise known as "technical trading").

I still want to know the moral justification for taxing someone who actually does something for their income, rather than just lending it to others or manipulating financial instruments which add no benefit to society as a whole, at a higher rate. It just sounds backwards and the opposite to the reasons we establish societies in the first place.

You didn't mean for those two things I highlighted above to be together, did you? The "manipulation" not having a benefit, I can agree with. The lending to others does have a benefit to society.

In any case, based on your explanation of capital gains not being taxed twice, I would have no problem raising the capital gains tax to at least the level of earned income taxes.

That said, I am sick of arguing/discussing how to get more tax revenue for a government that wipes it's ass and lights it's cigars with it.
 08/16/2012 07:54:12 PM · #154
I can agree that providing capital can benefit society, but I don't think those who profit by it solely should be entitled to pay LESS than those who do something clearly useful, such as removing garbage. I especially have a problem with those who seem to ACCUMULATE capital but do not PROVIDE it for appropriate purposes.
 08/21/2012 11:32:59 AM · #155
Survey to match your views with a candidates positions

One candidate 56% and another 90% - representing how I view things. Thought I might end up with an obscure candidate but no.
 08/21/2012 01:45:24 PM · #156
Proving once again I'm in the middle...Obama 77%...Romney 69%

Apparently I top out at 79% with Jill Stein whomever she is...

Ron Paul? 10% LOL.

I also agree with American voters 51% of the time... :) Can't get much more central than that...

Message edited by author 2012-08-21 13:46:31.
 08/21/2012 02:01:56 PM · #157
Not an American, but wanted to see where I would align.

84% - Gary Johnson
81% - Jill Stein
77% - Ron Paul
74% - Barack Obama
23% - Mitt Rommey

Democratic - 89% vs Republican 11%.

08/21/2012 02:16:53 PM · #158
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Apparently I top out at 79% with Jill Stein whomever she is...

Ron Paul? 10% LOL.

Dr. Jill Stein is the Green Party candidate -- be careful now, you're getting dangerously close to outing yourself as a closeted liberal ... ;-)

Here is a direct link to the survey.

Originally posted by Jill Stein Bio Page:
About Jill Stein
Dr. Jill Stein is a mother, housewife, physician, longtime teacher of internal medicine, and pioneering environmental-health advocate.

She is the co-author of two widely-praised reports, In Harm's Way: Toxic Threats to Child Development, published in 2000, and Environmental Threats to Healthy Aging, published in 2009. The first of these has been translated into four languages and is used worldwide. The reports promote green local economies, sustainable agriculture, clean power, and freedom from toxic threats.

Her "Healthy People, Healthy Planet" teaching program reveals the links between human health, climate security, and green economic revitalization. This body of work has been presented at government, public health and medical conferences, and has been used to improve public policy.

Jill began to advocate for the environment as a human health issue in 1998 when she realized that politicians were simply not acting to protect children from the toxic threats emerging from current science. She offered her services to parents, teachers, community groups and a native Americans group seeking to protect their communities from toxic exposure.
 08/21/2012 02:45:52 PM · #159
Not surprising. 89% Obama, 86% Jill Stein and 63% of American voters. Interestingly, Connecticut agrees with my own answers over every candidate on the list (by a double-digit margin), and I couldn't find any state where that wasn't the case.
 08/21/2012 02:53:46 PM · #160
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Apparently I top out at 79% with Jill Stein whomever she is...

Ron Paul? 10% LOL.

Dr. Jill Stein is the Green Party candidate -- be careful now, you're getting dangerously close to outing yourself as a closeted liberal ... ;-)


I think it's the environmental stuff. I'm pretty staunchly environmental and that's the draw with the green party (I put that as fairly important), but I don't necessarily agree with them on other stuff. It's probably the social issues where I disagree with her.

You guys are all just party wags. I'm the only one with some thought behind things... ;)

Message edited by author 2012-08-21 14:54:05.
 08/21/2012 03:02:46 PM · #161
Originally posted by scalvert:
Connecticut agrees with my own answers over every candidate on the list (by a double-digit margin), and I couldn't find any state where that wasn't the case.

Given that the survey respondents are self-selected, referred by friends/affinity groups, and on-line makes drawing any conclusions relating the results to the actual "mood of the electorate" even more imprecise than usual. :-(
 08/21/2012 03:04:01 PM · #162
//www.isidewith.com/results/54197491

99% Ron Paul - wow, apparently the media has done a good job of marginalizing him to the point that I would have a hard time voting for him.

92% Gary Johnson - who? (kidding, I know who he is)

88% Mitt Romney - bogus. should be 50.5% since I would only vote for him half-heartedly.

17% Barack Obama - So, if he is reelected, I can expect my life to improve by 17%?

Not shown in those results, but in the expanded results: "The Rent is Too Damn High" guy - 83%

I am:
98% Libertarian
88% Republican
30% Green (that's the party in favor of money, right?)
17% Democratic

Message edited by author 2012-08-21 15:15:02.
 08/21/2012 03:19:16 PM · #163
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Given that the survey respondents are self-selected, referred by friends/affinity groups, and on-line makes drawing any conclusions relating the results to the actual "mood of the electorate" even more imprecise than usual. :-(

Not so much imprecise as skewed. With a large enough number of respondents the survey can be very precise, but only within a demographic of people online and willing to take a political survey. Such people are probably more likely to be educated and informed on the matters (whether or not the information is accurate), and that's going to paint a different picture than the general electorate. It would be interesting to see national results of the survey (ah, looking at it again I see that there is an indication– Obama and Johnson are generally strong across the board while Romney is weak in all but 5 states).

Message edited by author 2012-08-21 15:58:15.
 08/21/2012 03:57:15 PM · #164
Originally posted by scalvert:
...more likely to be educated and informed on the matters.


That rules out anybody in rant...
 08/21/2012 04:13:14 PM · #165
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think it's the environmental stuff. I'm pretty staunchly environmental ...

You li'l ol' tree-hugger you ... ;-)
==============================================
Candidate % agreement
areas of agreement
==============================================
Jill Stein 71%
on domestic policy, science, healthcare, and immigration issues 

Stewart Alexander 70%
on domestic policy, healthcare, and immigration issues 

Gary Johnson 68%
on domestic policy, foreign policy, environmental, healthcare, and immigration issues 

Barack Obama 59%
on science issues

Ron Paul 58%
on domestic policy, foreign policy, environmental, and healthcare issues 

Mitt Romney 13%
no major issues 

Jimmy McMillan 12%
no major issues 

Virgil Goode 7%
no major issues
 08/21/2012 05:50:28 PM · #166
Originally posted by DrAchoo:


...You guys are all just party wags. I'm the only one with some thought behind things... ;)


Hmmmmmmmmm Doc, did your mom ever watch you while you were in a parade and tell her friendsL "Look at my Jason, he's the only one in step!!! :O)

Ray
 08/21/2012 05:54:50 PM · #167
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:


...You guys are all just party wags. I'm the only one with some thought behind things... ;)


Hmmmmmmmmm Doc, did your mom ever watch you while you were in a parade and tell her friendsL "Look at my Jason, he's the only one in step!!! :O)

Ray


LOL. ;)
 08/21/2012 06:24:10 PM · #168
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I guess Romney says that at no point in the last 10 years he paid less than 13% tax on his income and that last year it was 13.6%. It would be nice to see the returns, but it seems to counter the unsubstantiated accusations that he paid zero income tax. He also said were it not for his chartiable giving the rate would be 20%.


I'm pretty sure the reason why Romney doesn't want to show his returns has nothing whatsoever to do with having paid "no taxes" in any given year. I think what's going on is they're afraid the voters, or some of them anyway, would go into shock if they were able to see just how effectively people like Mitt can SHELTER income, and therefore how little of what the man earns is actually subjected to taxation, basically. I believe him when he says the least he paid in any given year is 13%, but 13% of WHAT? What percentage of the money that flowed into his coffers (or the coffers of ANY very rich person) actually ends up qualified as "income" and ends up being taxed?
 08/21/2012 06:26:38 PM · #169
Ron Paul 86%
Mitt Romney 82%
Gary Johnson 79%
Obama 71%

78% republican
74% libetarian
72% democratic
 08/21/2012 06:37:54 PM · #170
I agree with Romney on nothing, basically. 92% Jill Stein, 78% Barack Obama. I'm in alignment with 65% of Massachusetts and 61% of America on the issues...
 08/21/2012 07:28:06 PM · #171
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I guess Romney says that at no point in the last 10 years he paid less than 13% tax on his income and that last year it was 13.6%. It would be nice to see the returns, but it seems to counter the unsubstantiated accusations that he paid zero income tax. He also said were it not for his chartiable giving the rate would be 20%.


I'm pretty sure the reason why Romney doesn't want to show his returns has nothing whatsoever to do with having paid "no taxes" in any given year. I think what's going on is they're afraid the voters, or some of them anyway, would go into shock if they were able to see just how effectively people like Mitt can SHELTER income, and therefore how little of what the man earns is actually subjected to taxation, basically. I believe him when he says the least he paid in any given year is 13%, but 13% of WHAT? What percentage of the money that flowed into his coffers (or the coffers of ANY very rich person) actually ends up qualified as "income" and ends up being taxed?


He did release his 2010 taxes which were 13.9%. Look to see what numbers he's dividing to get that amount. Is it total income? AGI? I'm make the assumption that's the math they did in the other years.

EDIT: I did it for you. You can see the return here. His total income line 21 is $21,661,344. His total tax paid on line 60 was $3,009,766. This comes to 13.89% Seems like the right way to calculate it to me.
 08/21/2012 07:34:57 PM · #172
What do you (anyone) think of the idea of a mass movement to disconnect from any party affiliation and a pledge to give erroneous answers on political polls? If enough people were to do this (tens of millions maybe), what do you think it would do to the campaigns?

Basically, I believe that the people/electorate HAVE TO ACT to change anything about our system and we are all fairly polarized into just the corners that the power brokers want/need us in to keep control and power for themselves. I'm looking for ideas that would shake the system to it's core. (eta: I should qualify that - ideas that most people would be willing to participate in)

Message edited by author 2012-08-21 19:36:18.
 08/21/2012 07:44:40 PM · #173
I finally have a candidate to vote for! Now to see how she feels about flat tax and bike lanes. :-)
 08/21/2012 07:48:03 PM · #174
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I'm looking for ideas that would shake the system to it's core. (eta: I should qualify that - ideas that most people would be willing to participate in) 
You say you want a revolution

Well, you know, we all want to change the world

  --John Lennon
 08/21/2012 08:00:56 PM · #175
Originally posted by Melethia:
I finally have a candidate to vote for! Now to see how she feels about flat tax and bike lanes. :-)


You surprise me with your flat tax. It seems too regressive for what I know about you. What draws you to a flat tax?
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 08/23/2025 04:21:23 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/23/2025 04:21:23 PM EDT.