Democrats' Plan Would Benefit Middle Class, Target Rich

a reply to: neo96

All bums imo. Regardless of the party. How many Americans who owe much, much less get hassled everyday by the IRS?

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Yes, I understood it and that's why I know you are wrong, Marxist indoctrination aside. I wonder, you wear a Che Tshirt on occasion at the coffee shop?

But capitalism is working so well for the American people though, right? My choice of clothing shouldn't be the topic of discussion, and your remarks show the weakness of your position.

No, it shows that I'm rather experienced in dealing with the Marxist undergrad. They are a dime a dozen on campuses throughout the country.

Capitalism did very well for us, however, it is the abandonment of capitalism for failed socialist and Marxist ideals that have hurt us and our economy. Those tenets you believe in have yet to work anywhere in the world and have caused a lot of bloodshed to enforce your ideas of "property reform" and "egalitarianism."

Waiting for the usual excuse of "but it hasn't been tried properly yet" in 3...2...1...

originally posted by: TheArrow

95% Capital Gains is a flat tax.

True, but only on something that you care little about... How about a flat tax on every American.... Crazy talk I know...

Been here before. Same as the 80's. They are just warming us up to the idea. Then when the republicans take over, taxes will go up. Cause we fall for their BS every time. Even the repubs know taxes are going to have to increase. Especially if wages continue to drop. I am not sure if immigrant workers pay income taxes. And the technology that is taking over jobs, computers, don't pay income tax.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: TheArrow

95% Capital Gains is a flat tax.

True, but only on something that you care little about... How about a flat tax on every American.... Crazy talk I know...

It would be a flat tax on every American. Every single person in the United States would be held to the same CG tax rate of 95%.

I wouldn't mind coupling this with a 15% income tax as well, why not?

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: TheArrow

95% Capital Gains is a flat tax.

True, but only on something that you care little about... How about a flat tax on every American.... Crazy talk I know...

It would be a flat tax on every American. Every single person in the United States would be held to the same CG tax rate of 95%.

I wouldn't mind coupling this with a 15% income tax as well, why not?

Splendid! When my stocks do good I lose 95% of that profit to tax and when they do bad I lose 100% of that loss. I guess i'll just keep my hard earned money in a shoe box...

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: TheArrow
Increase Capital Gains tax to 95%

Everyone wins.

LOL. Except people who sell their house, or have a retirement fund, or 401K, or a savings account--all "capital gains."

That's wrong.

Interest is Capital Gains, not the principle. Hence the gains in capital gains. I don't think people should make money on their money.

Make money on labor, not money.

You are wrong. You sell your house at a profit. That is capital gains. You put money in a 401K, you pay capital tax on everything you pull out, principle and interest.

You don't think people should make money off their money or their land or their property? How narrowminded of you.

No.

I don't think people should earn money on their real estate, nor should your money be making money on the work of others. Because, as you say, money is seen as work in our society, and if money is seem as work, then the income provided by people actually doing the work has to be split with people doing nothing but using their money to siphon money from workers.

Which is fine. Investment should happen, it's a good place to put your money. However, if you are going to invest, you should be doing so to help workers, not yourself, unless you are a worker, in which case your investment directly helps you, which is the incentive to invest, not the monetary gains, which would be earned by labor equity, not capital.

Most of the money made on real estate is just inflation. In 1945 a house cost $4000 now it costs $40,000 dollars. Same house.

Inflation is the hidden tax on everything. Inflation takes more money away from poor people than anything else. Democrats use inflation at least as much as the Republicans to "balance" the budget.

Why do poor people have more than any royalty of 200 years ago?

Self interest directed into capitalistic production.

Investment helps workers make more stuff per hour. More stuff means cheaper stuff and more wealth to pay the workers.

Taxes reduce the amount of money in investment and in the workers pockets. Taxes are always bad long term.

Don't confuse Crony Capitalism, State facilitated cartels, and fractional reserve banking with capitalism.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: neo96

Income equality has been a major issue for Democrats, but the proposal would have little chance in Congress, where Republicans now have majorities in both the Senate and House.

It is BECAUSE of the DEMOCRATS that my checking with interest,savings,CD's, money markets,and bonds. ALL pay people jack snip.

See for DECADES millions of middle class use to use those to build wealth.

The DEMOCRATS are to blame for 'income inequality. Because their policies are WHY those investment vehicles don't pay people anymore.

Now they moved on to the only thing left. That pays people more than a .01% annual interest rate for checking,savings,cds', and money markets.

Help the middle class!!!!

I will be anxious to hear from you, about all of the legislation that the republicans will create and send to Obama for passage that will help the middle class and poor.....can't wait for the glorious outcomes I will be reading about here on ATS...

No one can help the poor with legislation. Laws only complicate and hinder economic development.

Consider the Industrial Revolution. Did legislation have anything to do with that? NO.

It built canals with tax money right before the railroads made them obsolete.

It gave the railroads to the first banksters in line.

It conglomerated all of the small production companies and eliminated most of the diversity in industry during WWI.

It killed the electric car, the alcohol car, and the steam car.

It gave the Federal Reserve the power to buy the whole country.

Legislation is the blind leading the ignorant.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Splendid! When my stocks do good I lose 95% of that profit to tax and when they do bad I lose 100% of that loss. I guess i'll just keep my hard earned money in a shoe box...

In my scenario, when stocks do well, we all profit.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

The democrats had plenty of time to push legislation like this through when they controlled both houses.

why now?

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Legislation is the blind leading the ignorant.

Amen to that

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

Most of the money made on real estate is just inflation. In 1945 a house cost $4000 now it costs $40,000 dollars. Same house.

Real Estate isn't in a vacuum. Inflation touches everything.

Inflation is the hidden tax on everything. Inflation takes more money away from poor people than anything else. Democrats use inflation at least as much as the Republicans to "balance" the budget.

Inflation hurts the rich much more than it hurts the poor. If you have 500 dollars, and a new car costs 12,000, it doesn't matter that it cost 6,000 in 1989.

Why do poor people have more than any royalty of 200 years ago?

They dont.

originally posted by: N3k9Ni
Ja reply to: ladyinwaiting

I don't believe this was put up with the intention of it passing into law. The purpose of this is to point fingers when it gets shot down.

Sadly I agree. It is less about pointing fingers though and more about maintaing the facade that there are 2 seperate teams fighting for the "people" of this country rather than fighting for their big money backers.

Sort of like how the other team is going to repeal Obamacare when it was already bought and paid for by lobbyists. Not going to happen but then the other team can play the script of "we tried but those democrats were in our way"

originally posted by: TheArrow

In my scenario, when stocks do well, we all profit.

But I'm the only one taking the risk...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: TheArrow

In my scenario, when stocks do well, we all profit.

But I'm the only one taking the risk...

Yup, which is why investing would mostly be toward directly personal interest, i.e. investing in companies that you either own or are employed by. You want less risk? Credit union.

The point is, investments would no longer be a viable means of wealth creation for people other than workers, and really, who should control most of the wealth anyway, right?

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

Most of the money made on real estate is just inflation. In 1945 a house cost $4000 now it costs $40,000 dollars. Same house.

Real Estate isn't in a vacuum. Inflation touches everything.

Inflation is the hidden tax on everything. Inflation takes more money away from poor people than anything else. Democrats use inflation at least as much as the Republicans to "balance" the budget.

Inflation hurts the rich much more than it hurts the poor. If you have 500 dollars, and a new car costs 12,000, it doesn't matter that it cost 6,000 in 1989.

The poor are the only people who pay the full amount of inflation. The newly created money gets spent at the top before inflation. Then as the larger amount of money, for the same amount of stuff, works its way through the economy, prices go up.


Also, the poor spend a larger percentage of their money on necessities, which is where they are taxed most heavily and
"invisibly".

Why do poor people have more than any royalty of 200 years ago?

They dont.

200 years ago, royalty had cars, TV, air conditioning, refrigeration, microwaves and public sanitation?

No they didn't.

200 years ago, appendicitis and diabetes were fatal, even for royalty.

Additional laws and taxes had nothing helpful to do with the unbelievable improvements in quality of life that enlightened self interest created.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: N3k9Ni
Ja reply to: ladyinwaiting

Isn't that just wonderful? Legislation that could actually help millions of people. Something that could put more money into the hands of those that need it.

But, wait. This was proposed by Democrats and Republicans now hold the upper hand in Congress which means that the chances of this being passed is somewhere between zip and 0. Where was this a year ago or two years ago or any time in the past 6 years that Democrats had control of Congress and the White House?

I don't believe this was put up with the intention of it passing into law. The purpose of this is to point fingers when it gets shot down.

Well said. All for show, no doubt. Too bad as even a 0.1% tax on stock trades will be met with cries of "you're hurting the job-creators"! LMFAO. They've been soaking everyone for well over a decade and we have less jobs than ever. We do need to tax high-volume trades (much more than 1/10th of 1 percent) as well as tax the Bjeezus out of astronomical executive bonuses.
I would rather a flat tax on purchases be used but that dream ain't happening. We have to start with the system we have and what might reasonably have a chance of being passed.

You do realize that every retirement fund has stocks and trades in stocks, yes? You want to tax my retirement fund every time the fund manager buys new or sells old stock for me? Screw that. You do realize that will add up to a hell of a lot of money during the life of my retirement fund, yes?

They have you convinced that taxing stock trades is going to kill your retirement?
It looks like everybody loses money on this then - the super rich, future retirees.
No matter, the government WILL get their money out of us one way or another.
I should think getting a bit more from the top 1% would be the most helpful to the general populace.
I have no idea how often your hedge funds get traded around but if it happens very often I would have to question the wisdom of your investment firm.

originally posted by: SemicollegiateThe poor are the only people who pay the full amount of inflation. The newly created money gets spent at the top before inflation. Then as the larger amount of money, for the same amount of stuff, works its way through the economy, prices go up.

That's garbage.

If I have 500 dollars, and you have 500,000 dollars, if we lose half of the value of our currency to inflation, then I've lost almost nothing, and you've lost a significant portion of your wealth.

Also, the poor spend a larger percentage of their money on necessities, which is where they are taxed most heavily and"invisibly".

Wont disagree here. That's why a flat tax isn't a viable option without a hefty capital gains tax.

200 years ago, royalty had cars, TV, air conditioning, refrigeration, microwaves and public sanitation?

No they didn't.

200 years ago, appendicitis and diabetes were fatal, even for royalty.

So, I guess the answer to your question is... because these things didn't exist 200 years ago... but that's not relevant to the thread, so I'm not really sure what you're saying here.

Additional laws and taxes had nothing helpful to do with the unbelievable improvements in quality of life that enlightened self interest created.

That's simply naive.

Government spending on scientific research yields breakthroughs in all areas of discipline. Please don't insult our intelligence by asking for links to support that statement.

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: TheArrow

In my scenario, when stocks do well, we all profit.

But I'm the only one taking the risk...

Yup, which is why investing would mostly be toward directly personal interest, i.e. investing in companies that you either own or are employed by. You want less risk? Credit union.

The point is, investments would no longer be a viable means of wealth creation for people other than workers, and really, who should control most of the wealth anyway, right?

Immediately taxing CG at 95% would remove all incentive to investment. The risk/reward balance would be so out of whack that masses of people (and institutions) would try to get their money out of their investments as fast as possible, the stock market would plummet, credit would dry up, entrepreneurs would be unable to bring their ideas to market, jobs would be lost and we'd end up with a depression worse than the 30's.

I'm not saying we can't raise taxes, but you also need to do it in such a way that wouldn't crash the economy.

I'm all for a national tax on all monetary (financial) transactions except for essentials, namely food, clothing, housing and education. Tax everything else and remove ALL other taxes (Income, capital gains, inheritance, etc.). No more tax exempt status for ANY organization (a little disclosure, I currently work for a non-profit).

The more you buy, the more you pay in taxes. If you choose to save your money instead of spend it, no taxes. I don't believe the tax rate would even have to be that high, if every transaction was taxed a small percentage, it would add up VERY quickly.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

The GOP will NEVER let that pass it takes money away from their lords and masters