For the love of f*cking God, how many times do I have to explain this. The rich don't have earned income! Most of the 400 richest Americans grow their wealth through asset inflation. And if they never sell those assets, they pay zero taxes!!!!!! What little income they do get from royalties, distributions, licensing fees, etc, they pay taxes on. I wish the moonbats on this forum would understand that. I think Steve Jobs gets paid a salary of exactly $1 a year. And guess what, he pays no income taxes on it! Why is it that a message board devoted to traders has so many people on it that don't have a first grade knowledge of our economic system?
The 400 Richest Americans Pay An 18% Tax Rate
- Thread starter AK Forty Seven
- Start date
Ummm... The Democrats had complete power and controlled all three branches of government in Washington, including a super-majority {pre-Scott Brown}.
The Dems could have changed tax rates and tax policy, both corporate and individual, to anything they wanted to. They could have added or deleted any loopholes they desired.
The Dems could have changed tax rates and tax policy, both corporate and individual, to anything they wanted to. They could have added or deleted any loopholes they desired.
The common man doesn't understand the concept of asset inflation. Matter of fact when you say "asset inflation" the common man will immediately make a joke about a fat woman's behind.
Exactly right! These are also the so-called job creators to a large degree, so why the taxes will kill jobs argument? They pay no taxes!
The tax argument doesn't wash anymore than the, employers aren't hiring the unemployed story we're seeing currently. "They", the powers that be, can't tell the truth. The truth is the jobs lost are gone forever, and they is no great something or other on the horizon to re-place them. The truth is 8-9% unemployment is the new 4-5%. These are in fact, good times for employment. The new normal if you will.
The jobs have been lost to cheap labor and zero regulations in the overseas markets, along with automation, new technologies and general streamlining of the workforce in this country. It just doesn't take as many people to get the job done.
There is an answer, but it would require a hefty tax increase across the board. What we need is labor intensive type work. That would be re-building our horrible infrastructure, top to bottom. Why the hell, in 2011 am I waiting on a f'n train at a railroad crossing placed in a major though-fare? Why am I driving on roads that haven't been widened...EVER? Why am I driving on roads with no left turn lanes? On and on, the list could go. Millions, yes millions of jobs would be created with this project, it would last at least a decade, and it would spawn a tremendous small business and sub-contractor opportunities, but it won't be cheap. So yes, the government can create jobs. Not another dope administrator pushing paper, but real work. Don't want that? If you're an average Joe and don't want this, get used to under and unemployment. You've seen your best days.
There are two ways to pay low or no taxes. Be really, REALLY wealthy, or be dirt poor and/or working poor. You want a good paying job, you'll have to pony up with some tax money. You want your small business to grow? You'll have to pony up some tax money to finance this operation, otherwise, these are the good old days.
The adults in the room know this, so speak to that crowd instead of constantly trying to lecture to the least common denominator.
More to the point, it's still a bullshit policy objective to operate a "stealth" currency devaluation in an effort to boost those same asset values. Just another tax that the wage earner has to pay...
Well, if my least common denominator you mean every liberal on ET, then I guess I have to put them all on ignore. What's still annoying is almost every liberal talk show host repeats this shit as does Bill Maher as does almost every left wing economist. My room would be pretty empty if I had to ask them all to leave. LOL.
To your point....
As weâve pointed out before, thanks to the historically low 15% tax rate on long term capital gains, the uberrich pay a lower effective federal income tax rate than ordinary rich folks, who get more of their money from salary and other ordinary income, taxed at a top 35%.
Since a wealthy taxpayer can decide when to recognize income through capital gains, there would naturally be more year to year variation on the IRS list than on the Forbes list.
http://blogs.forbes.com/janetnovack...of-capital-gains-during-market-meltdown-year/
Arnie, it has nothing to do with the marginal rates - those are political talking points.
It is all about the deductions and loopholes. They had a 95% top marginal rate in 1960 but the IRS didn't collect any more money from the top rate taxpayers due to the accounting allowed.
Flat tax, no deductions.
It is all about the deductions and loopholes. They had a 95% top marginal rate in 1960 but the IRS didn't collect any more money from the top rate taxpayers due to the accounting allowed.
Flat tax, no deductions.