A Separate Reality

Main discussion area is here. Reply to a message to continue a discussion thread, or create your own new Topics.
User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

Re: A Separate Reality

Postby Coondog » 2012 Dec 11 14:29

Someone said, concerning capital gains, 'They get taxed on that money AGAIN.'

Actually, capital gains tax is a tax on the GAINS. The money earned in interest, dividends or through appreciation. The original investment, 'that money', in NOT taxed again. I only mention this because I've seen it stated a number of times and it is my experience that it is patently untrue.

Losses of primary investment are Tax Deductible....unless you invest it in a Losing Presidential Campaign, of course.

It is also my personal experience that this tax stuff is boring and virtually indecipherable when it gets to the fine points of quantification on an individual or universal basis. That's what accountants are for and that's why any money saved by manipulation of the tax codes rightfully goes to pay them for their efforts.

Accountants! There are no poor accountants. All the really good ones are either rich or in jail.

Coondog :sleepy:

Tea Party spelled backwards is........Eat Ytrap

Eat stands for ....Economic Anti-intellectual Terrorism

Ytrap doesn't particularly stand for anything other than phonetically....as in 'Shut Ytrap!'

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1957
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: A Separate Reality

Postby Wise One » 2012 Dec 11 16:16

coondog wrote:Actually, capital gains tax is a tax on the GAINS. The money earned in interest, dividends or through appreciation. The original investment, 'that money', in NOT taxed again.

This basic fact makes all the difference. It demolishes rightie-zealot nonsense. Pretty smart for a mere pooch.

Will it make the slightest difference to an ideologue? Does he understand arithmetic? Fat chance, but dream on, McDuff.

:coffee:
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Of course they get taxed on the GAIN.

Postby Crux » 2012 Dec 11 17:38

You are correct. Now, by RAISING capital gains tax, we very well will discourage investment.
Generally encouraging investments is a good thing. You guys are funny. Do you wish to DISCOURAGE investments?

To Uji, there are many studies of who gets rich by earning it. GENERALLY you will find that the vast swath of rich folks, apparently got that way by EARNING their wealth. By working hard and taking risks. Sorry you that you minimize this and join so in the class warfare mindset. Sad.

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

Excerpts from Reality

Postby Coondog » 2012 Dec 12 11:33

From Rich to Richer

S.M. Miller

Forbes Magazine likes to herald its reports on the wealthiest Americans as demonstrating the realization of the American dream: that one can go from rags to riches. For Forbes, the Horatio Alger story is the true story of America.
But careful identification of how Forbes' centi-millionaires and billionaires attained their wealth tells a different account of the plebeian origins of the richest Americans. Half of those on the Forbes 400 list started their economic careers by inheriting businesses or substantial wealth. Of these, most inherited sufficient wealth to put them immediately into Forbes' heaven. Only three out of ten on the Forbes list can be regarded as self-starters whose parents did not have great wealth or own a business with more than a few employees...............................

Each year, Forbes Magazine releases its round-up of the four hundred wealthiest individuals in the United States. The list usually captures people's interest and leads to accolades for the prowess of U.S. entrepreneurs. Forbes Magazine usually indicates which of the four-hundred are "bootstrappers" ó folks who started with nothing yet rose to the ranks of the nation's wealthiest individuals.

But the Forbes analysis leaves many questions unanswered. Researchers at United for a Fair Economy were curious about where the Forbes 400 started life. How many grew up in families with no substantial savings or wealth? How many inherited wealth or companies ó and grew them into greater fortunes? And how many simply inherited their way onto the Forbes 400?

Baseball and making money are truly America's favorite pastimes ó and each October the publication of the Forbes list coincides with the post-season of America's great game. But how many of our wealthiest citizens actually started life in the batter's box and faced the pitcher? And how many started life on first, second or third base? How many were born crossing home plate and inherited their way directly onto the Forbes 400 list? .............................

42 % Born on Home Plate ó inherited sufficient wealth to rank among the Forbes 400. This percentage is higher than that listed by Forbes for inheritors. The reason: Forbes listed as "self-made" people who actually inherited substantial sums or property and then later built that stake into a greater fortune. One example is Philip Anschutz (1997 net worth: $5.2 billion) who is listed as "self-made" even though he inherited a $500-million oil and gas field.

6 % Born on Third Base ó inherited substantial wealth in excess of $50 million or a large and prosperous company and grew this initial fortune into membership in the Forbes 400.

7 % Born on Second Base ó inherited a medium-sized business or wealth of more than $1 million or received substantial start-up capital for a business from a family member.

14 % Born on First Base ó biography indicates wealthy or upper-class background that was to our knowledge less than $1 million, or received some start-up capital from a family member. Due to the study team's conservative coding rule, it is likely that some of those listed as born on first base actually belong on second or third base.

31 % Born in the Batter's Box ó individuals and families whose parents did not have great wealth or own a business with more than a few employees.

User avatar
Uji
Posts: 411
Joined: 2008 Aug 01 10:10

Re: Of course they get taxed on the GAIN.

Postby Uji » 2012 Dec 12 14:11

crux wrote:Now, by RAISING capital gains tax, we very well will discourage investment. You guys are funny. Do you wish to DISCOURAGE investments?

There is no evidence that raising or lowering capital gains make any difference. Or, put another way: there are instances in which raising capital gains correlates with increased investment, and instances where it correlates with lessened investment. So, we can disagree about the best policy, but neither categorically "discourages" investments.

Look at it this way, Crux: I live off my investments. I pay capital gains on that income every year. If the rate went up from 15% to, say, 20%, what would I as a rational investor do? If I continued to invest, I would receive 80% of my return after taxes instead of 85%. Would this discourage me from investing? Of course not: 80% of something is better than 100% of nothing -- which is what I would get if I allowed myself to be "discouraged" from investing. What sense would that make? Are you saying that people who pay capital gains would be so pissed off at having to pay more to Uncle that they'd give up the 80% they otherwise would maintain? Think for yourself, man. Does this make sense?

So, yes I do think capital-rates should be increased; and, no, I don't want to discourage investment. The contradiction that you see is illusory.
crux wrote:To Uji, there are many studies of who gets rich by earning it. GENERALLY you will find that the vast swath of rich folks, apparently got that way by EARNING their wealth. By working hard and taking risks. Sorry you that you minimize this and join so in the class warfare mindset. Sad.

I'd be interested in seeing those studies; I've not encountered any. As a matter of fact, I can't imagine how a study like that would be carried out. Accepting you claim, however, I'd wager that just as "vast a swath" of poor folks work just as hard and take just as many risks -- but in occupations that have a lower ceiling on potential return.

You believe that most rich folks earn their money -- which would be irrelevant unless you thought that entailed that most poor folks worked less hard. I've seen no evidence for this. My experience of folks is contrary to yours, I guess. If you have some evidence that suggest that people are poor only because they are lazy, I'd be interested in seeing it.

As to "class warfare": give it a rest. If thinking that the rich need to contribute more is class warfare, then thinking that programs for the poor should be cut is equally so. We are all class warriors, then, and you make a distinction without a difference.

You know, Crux, I'd rather you made arguments rather than call names. It's more interesting, more civil, and more useful. And you are in no position to know how I, in particular, think about class or much else -- based only upon what I have written. "Rich" and "poor" are categories that reflect relative income. "Class" is a loaded term that adds nothing to the conversation.

User avatar
Uji
Posts: 411
Joined: 2008 Aug 01 10:10

Re: A Separate Reality

Postby Uji » 2012 Dec 12 14:16

Read what Republican John Bogle, founder of Vanguard Investments, thinks about all this. You might be surprised, Crux.

User avatar
Uji
Posts: 411
Joined: 2008 Aug 01 10:10

Re: A Separate Reality

Postby Uji » 2012 Dec 12 15:48

Some interesting facts: Fed. tax revenue by source over the last 60 years: Image

Take a look at this chart; you will see the following:
So, kiddies, let's review the data... The percentage of Fed income derived from payroll tax -- the primary tax of the bottom 90% -- increased 4 fold over the last 60 years. The reason is clear: Income tax rates have declined from a top rate of over 90% in 1950 to a top rate of less than 40% today; the share of the national budget paid by corporation has decreased by the same factor of 4. The percent payed in payroll tax has risen, therefore, to make up the budget gap.

Reagan brought tax rates down. Clinton sent them up, a bit. W brought them down to their lowest point in the period. Why? Reagan/Bush gave the same reason: "Encourage investment, encourage growth, etc." Yet, this failed miserably: the GDP rate of growth has declined over this same period by half!

So, what did this change in tax policy accomplish?
  • Put a greater percent of wealth in the pocket of the wealthiest.
  • Increased the percent of the federal tax bill paid by salaried workers while cutting their standard of living almost by half.
  • Cut economic growth 50%.
And you, Crux, think continuing this policy is a good idea -- that it stimulates growth, that it encourages "investment"... ? That ain't the planet we're living on.

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1957
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: A Separate Reality

Postby Wise One » 2012 Dec 12 19:05

:tiphat: Nothing is more persuasive, or more beautiful, than fact-based data used honestly to define reality. Congratulations, Uji!
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Thanks for the kind use of your time.

Postby Crux » 2012 Dec 12 20:28

The state of technology, invention, energy, government growth, regulation, education, family cohesion, savings, and a great many things are important. Uji it's a nice argument you put forward. I am still not liking where we are or where we are heading. You seem to think I have some poison pill.

Take Capital Gains. For me in my life, it could go up or down. It wouldn't matter but on the margins of my economic experience. Except of course for the fact that rich people employ me, not government.

In principle, taxes are plenty high. Our Governmental system on all levels is out of whack. Our Federal Government has grown by EPIC amounts over the time period of your chart. Spending per capita by Government over that period is up dramatically. Education spending etc. All that good will and redistribution and the black family is a shambles. Look at the Democrat utopias of Detroit, and California. Out. Of. Whack.

We are little better and actually worse for it. It is not pure I will admit. Whether it is tax policy, or Union reality for examples. Californians, affluent Californians are moving to Texas. Hopefully for my friends n Texas they will leave their Utopian Fairy Dust in Cali!

You weave a great tapestry. I think it lacking. :2cent: :2cent:

Take Corporate Tax. WE the consumer pay this with every purchase. Some companies like GE pay nada.
Big oil pays out the wazooo...

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1957
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: Thanks for the kind use of your time.

Postby Wise One » 2012 Dec 13 13:01

crux wrote:... taxes are plenty high. Our Governmental system on all levels is out of whack.

Here's the truth. Real revenues as a fraction of GNP collected by the government, are lower than at any other time in the last 32 years. Even lower on a per capita basis because the population has grown.

So yes, tax collections must go up to get back to normal, and spending must go down to eliminate the deficit. The challenge is political, getting agreement to do both in a fair and sensible way and on a schedule that is not destructively disruptive.

:coffee:
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

User avatar
Uji
Posts: 411
Joined: 2008 Aug 01 10:10

Re: Thanks for the kind use of your time.

Postby Uji » 2012 Dec 13 13:44

crux wrote:... it's a nice argument you put forward. I am still not liking where we are or where we are heading. You seem to think I have some poison pill.

Okay, but not liking the facts doesn't mean you can ignore them.
crux wrote:In principle, taxes are plenty high...

What "principle"? Certainly not one that relies upon facts: the facts suggest the reverse: lowering of taxes and tax rates have led to greater income inequality AND slower GDP growth.
crux wrote:You weave a great tapestry. I think it lacking.

You find what "lacking"? --the data? --the interpretaion? --my cologne? Do you have any reason for this "think"-ing that you are doing? -- contrary facts or an alternative interpretation of the data? Are you perhaps receiving revelations from beyond this reality...? Give us a hint. :dontknow:

You want to be taken seriously? Make the effort to incorporate reality into your world view; make an argument.

User avatar
Uji
Posts: 411
Joined: 2008 Aug 01 10:10

Re: Thanks for the kind use of your time.

Postby Uji » 2012 Dec 13 13:48

Wise One wrote:Here's the truth
So yes, tax collections must go up to get back to normal, and spending must go down to eliminate the deficit. The challenge is political, getting agreement to do both in a fair and sensible way and on a schedule that is not destructively disruptive.

Right on, WiseOne. What's the saying? ...Just when you think you've out-distanced reality, it catches up and bites you in the butt. :salut:

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

Re: A Separate Reality

Postby Coondog » 2012 Dec 13 13:52

In 1776, a date dear to the hearts of the Tea Party, the population of the United States was around 250,000.

In 2010, the population was 310,232,863.

Besides the increase in population, a few other changes have ensued over the past 237 years which demand that government must needs to expand well beyond it's original size and scope.

Let us not fool ourselves into believing the founders crafted anything with forward option derivatives, cyber warfare or demographic diversity in mind.

Coondog :tiphat:

Governing over 300 million people today is a bit more complicated than governing 250 thousand in days of yore.

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Make an argument?

Postby Crux » 2012 Dec 13 18:25

I have made many. 54 Christmas trees at the White House is too many. Corporate taxes are paid by consumers. The rich pay their fair share. Federal "prevailing wage" union labor rates make roads more expensive. Base line budgeting is bad business. Obama care will cost excessively more than it was touted to. Big Government Central State One Size fits All Federal solutions are poison to State and Local decision making. It has never been more profitable to be poor in this country than it is now. Federal government spends more per capita than it ever has, and this is UN-necessary. Our currency is being devalued by poor monetary policy. There is a difference between profit and net profit and on and on.

Uji. Don't act so at a loss here. We can simply disagree.

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

Re: A Separate Reality

Postby Coondog » 2012 Dec 14 11:37

Providers of christmas trees may disagree that 54 is too many. 100 or more would further stimulate their free market profits thus freeing up spendable capital to provide income for corporations who will maybe pay some portion of taxes on their profits which is and always has been paid by consumers.

If Papa Johns costs $0.15 more, just call Domino's. That's called the free market at work.

The rich pay what the rich pay. They can afford to pay more by virtue of their being rich. The poor cannot afford to pay more. Nothing times nothing is nothing. If you're not building roads, what difference does it make how much it costs?

Wisconsin is a prime example of how democracy works at the state level. Winner take all. And I do mean take and I do mean all! If it is so profitable to be poor, why are they still poor?

If I could borrow maney at 0% interest to get myself out of a financial bind, I'd be borrowing as much as possible with the underlying assumption that things will eventually get better. Austerity is negative thinking and negative thinking and negative actions assure negative results.

Devaluation of money is relative to global economic influences. Devaluation of a credit rating is due to simple stupidity.
Profit and net profit is the same thing, only less redundant.

Bah! Humbug! is not a palatable economic philosophy.

Just a few random responses to concerns of little concern.

The election is over. It's Christmas time (or the Holliday Season for those waging imaginary war against Christmas). The NFL game of two hand touch is about to go into play-offs. Egg Nog is on the shelves. Santa Clause is coming to town!

Doris Day: 'What ever will be will be!'

Uncle Remus: 'Dip-a-dee-do-dah!'

Danny Kaye: 'Life couldn't better be!'

Coondog: 'Peace and chew toys be unto you!'

:encore: :encore: :encore: :encore: :encore: :encore: :encore: :encore: :encore:

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

That was good.

Postby Crux » 2012 Dec 14 14:12

Thanks 'dog. That was a fun read. Merry Christmas by the way.

You do realize that your next post will be #666?

Who could know what you'll ponder through... 666...EVIL... :angry4:

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Re: Thanks for the kind use of your time.

Postby Crux » 2012 Dec 15 17:45

Wise One wrote:
crux wrote:... taxes are plenty high. Our Governmental system on all levels is out of whack.
So yes, tax collections must go up to get back to normal, and spending must go down to eliminate the deficit. The challenge is political, getting agreement to do both in a fair and sensible way and on a schedule that is not destructively disruptive.

Let's give you that. We will give Obama 1.6 trillion over 10 years. 160 billion a year. Obama (democrats+state-ists) can't seem to get around the other TRILLION per YEAR in deficit spending they have racked up, and project going forward... Go ahead and call it the "Tax the Rich Bastards Feel Good" bill.

160 billion still leaves 1,000 billion per year in deficit spending.


Then you have Obamacare, servicing the debt, and entitlement spending (tho you eschew the word "entitlement).

To act as if the GOP is the problem hardly gets at the nut.

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

666

Postby Coondog » 2012 Dec 17 11:19

Crux points out that this will be post #666 for me, so I feel it only appropriate to address the devil, who is most always in the details.

Nobody ever said taxing the hell out of the rich was going to solve all our economic woes. But, if we're going to scratch out some additional income, it's a start. If it only runs the government for 8 days, then that only leaves 357 days we need to bargain over.

One might asp if it is fair to ask the rich to fund 8 days and the poor to fund the other 357 whereas the rich will still be getting richer all 365 days a year and the poor souls won't. Must we discuss the evils of cutting allowances for those who depend on government for the benefit of those who don't....right here at Christmas Time? Doesn't entitlement mean that you're damned well entitled to it?

Might we not cast one bloodshot eye toward Military Spending and curbing our war oriented posture toward international relations? And, how much of Homeland Security is really necessary to keep us secure? And might we sulfur to ask ourselves whether the greater threat to our own security isn't.....ourselves?

With a new year on the horizon, might we stop pondering how in the world four people got killed in an unstable middle eastern country and address the question of elementary school children in Connecticut? Liberals are all about reinstating sensible restraints that everybody thought were a good idea after somebody tried to off Pres. Reagan. Conservatives and, more distinctly the NRA, appear to be publicly silent on the subject.

'This is not the time to debate whether there should be a debate!'

Have I strayed from the subject of old Satan? I don't think so! Surely there is a middle ground between the idea that everybody should have a firearm (including assault weapons) and the idea that noone should have one. Somewhere in this argument lies the ramifications of our collective attitudes toward conflict in general. Our inner demons are surely exemplified by the placement of our financial priorities.....and those things we choose to ignore.

Too many bad vibes permeate our society, like an apple vending serpant. Rather than eliminating 'entitlement' spending, we need to divert resources from desctuctive ventures with the intention of ehhancing said 'entitlements'.......because, that's what the Bible says to do.

Peace on Earth is responsible economics. Good Will toward Men is not advanced through superior military capabilities or by utilization of second ammendmnent remedies. Mutual respect is not gained through intimidation.

Our basic philosophy is, Carry Big Styx? But, what ever happened to Speaking Softly? Why speak with a forked tongue? If it accomplishes nothing positive, why speak at all? One last question:

Do we have to agree on everything before we can agree on anything?

Coondog

Hades Pretzles are stale!

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Re: 666 and, CUTTING ALLOWANCES!?

Postby Crux » 2012 Dec 17 21:01

We are not children. I realize too many see their fellow man as incapable, or provide a patronizing and condescending kind of victim making care taking. Cutting allowances... :shakeh:

coondog wrote:One might asp if it is fair to ask the rich to fund 8 days and the poor to fund the other 357 whereas the rich will still be getting richer all 365 days a year and the poor souls won't. Must we discuss the evils of cutting allowances for those who depend on government for the benefit of those who don't....right here at Christmas Time?

So, I get stuck right there with the dumbness of what you are spouting and can't hardly get through the rest! The poor don't fund ANYTHING like 357 days of Federal Spending. You lament so much, and laud such worthiness, yet you put such faith in Obama?

Ponder this: Obama has accrued 78% of our TOTAL FOREIGN DEBT. THIS is your answer? Go ahead and hit the rich mans, so called, for a little more scratch. Too Big to Fail better apply to the stable peace and safety we all enjoy in this society. Oh.

We ain't got none. It isn't because of the law abiding gun owner. It only takes one determined evil doer to COW hundreds.

We are not COWS, but free men and women. You see a solution between unrestricted freedom and no liberty at all. We have laws. We have rights. One is the freedom to bear arms that we might remain free and sovereign and safe. Not cows...

Pro Choice. Trust. Tolerance. Liberty. Personal Responsibility. Individual Rights. Self Defense. These we defend.

...but thanks for sharing ...

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

Speak of the Devil

Postby Coondog » 2012 Dec 18 15:12

Obama has accrued 78% of our TOTAL FOREIGN DEBT
How about 'Obama is responsible for 100% of the debt over the past 4 years?' I guess I'm not the only person who can make meaningless statements.

By the way, I knew it was a meaningless statement when I wrote it. Therein may lie the difference!
You see a solution between unrestricted freedom and no liberty at all.
Of course I do! One is anarchy and the other is slavery.

We have a lot of freedom. I like freedom, too. I just don't make a religion out of it and I'm not stupid enough to think that my personal possession of any number of firearms insures any kind of freedom......not from the government or whackos or pesky neighbors.

I used to think that way.......then I grew up!

If we had perfect mental health in this country, there would be no need for this conversation. Clearly, there is a greater need to address that aspect of the equation, more so than even availability of weapons or limitations on the number of times somebody can reasonably be shot before reloading.

Coondog

Best Quote: 'The shooter's mother as well armed and it didn't do her a bit of good!'
-unknown-