sbl

28% is what I pay in taxes on my income. I do not have to have gains to deduct losses, but they do offset if I have gains. If I was in a lower tax bracket (say 15%), Uncle Sam would not back my losses at 28%--just 15%--I guess it pays to be rich.

Abnshrek

Well it may pay to be rich. But it really pays to invest in yourself, to work smart & hard. The right plan & execution you could be the "master of your world" :^) I don't envy the rich. A Large portion of them have alot more problems than I ever will think about having. :^) Me I don't worry about what I don't have, just enjoy what I do have :^) till uncle sugar sends me a bill due on 15 april.. lol

__________________


I'm a Nannerhead :^)

sbl

I agree with that!

I consider myself fortunate to have done as well as I have. It does not bother me that people who make less than I do pay lower taxes or even no taxes for those making minimum wage. This is a great country and I don't mind doing my share to support it--even if I do not always agree with our government.

It does bother me that those really rich @!@#!# that own millions of shares of Exxon pay half the tax rate that I do--for doing nothing.

harveyc

sbl, you keep claiming that uncle sam backs your losses at 28%, but that simply is not the case. I've pointed that out twice already. In your effort to vilify those who have saved, invested, and done well, you're mixing fiction with facts. The wealthy pay the bulk of the income taxes in the U.S. already and and it seems you won't be happy until they pay 100% of their income back in taxes for some reason. That's the point of this parable of sorts: beat up on the rich guy enough and he'll leave the party and leave you with the bill.

__________________

Abnshrek

I hear you on the tons of shares no matter the company. Like some wise person said, "knowledge is power", and if exec's know they are going to do better than expected they take / execute their options. It's a bonus plan :^) for their efforts.
I had a neighbor burned by Enron.. He's kinda a miserable fellow and blames everyone else. I say if he was managing his retirement he'd have @ least half in bonds as old as he was, and should've been managing what he had with an acount ready to unload or spread risk. Just cause you buy stock options when you work someplace doesn't mean they won't get you in the end if your not tending to your money tree :^)

That's right Harvey.. Its like they say about enemies keep them closer so you can see what's coming.. The rich will be just that, unless they are stupid, but not likely. A friend is friend; it doesn't matter if he's rich or not it's more about the bonding time.

__________________


I'm a Nannerhead :^)

sbl

It is true. I have only a loss on a stock sale to report this yr--it will be between 2 and 3K in loss. When I take that loss from my income, I will get back 28% of the loss because I will not have to pay income taxes on the income equivalent to that loss. That is backing my loss at 28%.

I am not vilifying those who save and invest--I do it myself. I just think that money earned from hard work should not be taxed at twice the rate as those that are lucky enough to be rich. When I first started paying income tax it was very progressive with those who could afford it paid higher percentage as their income increased--the highest rate was supposedly 91% according to what I learned in school. Now the rate is pretty close to flat, but the very rich that don't even have to work for their income pay only 14%--that is not fair.

Yeah, 14% of a million is more than I pay with my 28%--that doesn't make it fair--they can afford to pay more.

harveyc

Then your stock loss was a short term loss (investment held for less than one year) and, as I said before, a short term capital gain would have also been taxed at 28%. If the investment was held for more than one year, you or the rich investor would deduct the loss and save on taxes at the rate of 15% up to a loss of $3,000 in excess of any gains you may have had.

Why should someone pay more because they can afford it? So you think you should pay more for a beer than someone who makes a lot less money than you?

__________________

Abnshrek

An investment is like beer, no one likes to loose a beer (your favorite kind). A short-term sell shouldn't even be taken unless its to your tax advantage. The market isn't for the faint of heart. Most folks need to stick to mutuals that meet their needs (a good no-load). That way when the next Great-American rip-off( Derivitives (Enron, Housing Market, Banks), Lucent, World-Com) occurs your not swimming in losses.
The rich guy didn't mind paying for his friend's beer cause I guarantee he was writing it off. If life is good why not help out his bud's... He might need his lawn mowed next week.. lol

__________________


I'm a Nannerhead :^)

sbl

The investment was held for more than one yr, but I do not have any long term gains for it to offset. I will soon see, but I believe that will be a deduction against my income--taxed at 28%.

Yes, I do believe that when it comes to taxes, those that can afford it should pay more--I said that earlier, I do not mind the fact that minimum wage earners do not pay income tax--I feel glad that I was more fortunate.
Even then they pay sales tax at the same rate as the rich.

I certainly do not believe that the rich should pay taxes at a lower rate than I do (a middle class taxpayer). Especially those that are manipulating the price of oil and energy (Enron, Exxon, and the hedge fund managers that almost brought down the financial system--let's not forget the bankers with their billions in bonuses after we bailed them out).

harveyc

Obviously the rich aren't getting rich by having capital losses so it's not the norm by having capital losses in excess of their gains. Usually it's a one year anomaly.

I didn't ask if you thought the rich should pay more taxes; I asked why you thought they should pay more. Just because someone can afford something isn't a just reason, IMO. I'd hate to start paying $30 for a beer (though one reason I've saved well is because I don't drink much of the stuff anyways).

__________________

sbl

Why should the rich pay less?

Edit: To answer your question and mine with the same answer--because they own more congressmen!

Abnshrek

It always pays to have a Lobbiest in your pocket too.. :^)

__________________


I'm a Nannerhead :^)

harveyc

I have never said that they should pay less. I could argue that they should pay the same amount as everyone else, since they receive essentially the same level of government services as others (a beer is a beer). But even though they pay much more, people want them to pay even more yet and won't be happy until they get brought down to the same level as people who have spent unwisely, maybe not worked as hard, etc.

The rich don't own more congressman; that's nonsense. Just look at how unions had such control over how health care benefits were to be taxed in recent negotiations.

__________________

Richard

There's certainly a lot to complain about in the U.S. structure of federal taxes. It also seems that the people with the most acrimony and complaints have the least (if any) concrete proposals for an effective and equitable alternative.

__________________
Back in business at plantsthatproduce.com

Abnshrek

I say we outlaw any professional lobbiest. So maybe the people might have the power they are suppose to have? :^)
Or are we all so busy to give a crap till election day?

<-thinkin' it's beer:30 :^)

__________________


I'm a Nannerhead :^)

sbl

But the rich do pay less--14 % on millions in dividends as a result of the Bush tax cut-- compared to the 28 % for middle class workers with earned income. So you believe that those single parents making minimum wage should pay almost $5000 out of the measly $16,000 they make in a yr? The truth is that taxes are not the same as buying a beer. There are taxes like sales tax that are the same for everyone, but income tax was originally designed to be a progressive tax on income--starting at 0% for the first few dollars we make and increasing to a maximum of 91% for those lucky enough to be making millions. It was the same for everybody making the same--even the rich paid the same rate for the first $10,000 or first $50,000. But the people with influence started getting politicians to create loopholes for things that benefited them.

Now the income tax system is getting regressive--taxing the middle class at a higher and higher rate. That is why, over the last decade, "real wages" (what you can buy for a dollar) have gone down for the middle class. That is why I can't afford to eat out as often, why we can no longer afford a maid once a week.

Why shoud the rich pay more? Because they benefit more from the opportunities in this country. Because they have more to loose. Because they have more to protect. Because they get more. Because they can afford it.

harveyc

You're dealing with percentages vs. the amount of taxes paid, though 15% capital gains tax is only a portion of the taxes they paid and you're neglecting the Alternative Minimum Tax that is paid. Again, you want to vilify the wealthy and are dealing with your perception rather than fact. Even people that aren't considered "rich" by most standards are required to pay the AMT.

Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) Assistant for Individuals
Alternative Minimum Tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And itemized deductions get phased out for high tax payers as well, losing a "loophole".

Maybe this will help you come to grips with who is really paying the tax bill: Who Pays the Most Income Tax?

Ability to pay is not a reason to pay higher taxes. If someone benefits more from our economic system (as the wealthy generally do), I do think they should pay more income taxes than those benefiting less, but not to the point that we discourage their productivity (i.e., beat up the 10th beer drinker).

__________________

sbl

I don't know much about AMT--it doesn't affect me, but I am just guessing--it doesn't raise the tax on someone who gets a million in dividends whose total income comes from dividends. If it is designed to make sure that everybody pays as much as I do (28% on my last dollar), even if they got it all from dividends, I am all for it.

Productivity is goods produced per hour of work--generally increased by inovation. GDP is a function of both investment and consumer purchasing power. It does no good to invest in increasing you product if nobody can buy it. I have never read the quote myself, but my dad told me that when Henry Ford started building the Model T, his rich friends ask him why he was paying his workers so much (about $1/hr I think). His reply was "If I don't pay them, who is going to buy these cars?". Our economy is in the tank because the middle class has lost it's purchasing power due to increasing cost of gas and energy and a higher percentage of the total taxes.

I am fortunate enough to have been born with at least average intelligence and to parents that made sure I got a good education. Some are not that fortunate, not very smart and still work hard just to make ends meet. They support this country just by the work they do and the taxes they cannot avoid like sales tax and gas tax. I do not believe they need to pay the same rate as the rich--apparently you do.

Again, income tax was designed to be progressive--to collect a higher percentage from those that make more--but it is getting so regressive that it is killing the middle class.

Abnshrek

I don't its like that , but somewhere down the road the US found the rich would just invest someplace else where they can make there $$ worthwhile like thru a foreign bank.
They may pay a lower % but its still more than the middle class pay is harvey's point I believe. ?
If half the poor tried harder we might have a better economy.. That right its the poor folks fault.. :^) They buy more chinese crap than anybody, cause they can't afford the good stuff. Thus our economy is doomed if they keep that crap up. We can do without alot of their (chinese) junk they are attempting to sell here now a days. And that's where the middleclass has transferred to in production/manufacturing unless your one of the fortunate to work in production/manufacturing that hasn't been shutdown to a new factory overseas.
<- thinkin' its time for a beer :^)

__________________


I'm a Nannerhead :^)

sbl

Migael, You are right about the rich investing oversees--that is what they did with all the extra money they got from the Bush tax cut--it sped up the transfer of our jobs oversees to China--and they got a tax breaks for even doing that.

BTW, I looked up the AMT--it does no apply to dividends and capital gains. So those nice big bonuses the bankers are getting in stock options will only get taxed at 15% (if they ar smart enough to hold them for a yr). Not like the bonuses I got and most of the middle class get --taxed at 28%.

Isn't that sweet! We bail them out, give them a sweet deal on their bonuses, and they move our jobs oversees. I do think the rich guy owes me a beer!