Billionaires dumping stocks

our economy is going to collapse its only a matter of time.

I have been collecting ammo, guns, seeds, MRE's for years now.

so all those stocks will be useless if you need food.

hey here is 5000 shares of Apple Stock can I have that carrot and a glass of milk please... I dont think so.

hey I will give you this Silverstone 2004 NSX for a knife and a carton of cigs wanna trade?

I have a huge house 12000 square feet I will trade it for that case of beer.

its not a matter of IF as it is WHEN.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That chart doesn't mean anything to me. I can show you many many to the contrary. This will go nowhere if we did that.

Sorry to burst your bubble, Dave...but those figures are straight from the IRS.

There is no disputing them. :smile:
 
Tax_Rates_v._National_Debt.png

I do agree that we have both a spending AND a revenue problem.

But I feel that the revenue problem stems from the fact that half the country pays no federal income tax....and a majority of those individuals who don't pay any federal tax actually receive money back from other taxpayers.

And I feel that the spending problem is much more severe.

That is a problem.

That said - this chart means little in reality.

If the chart depicted actual dollars collected and spent, instead of %...it would be much different. :tongue:

Please post that chart if you can find one. It would be much more helpful to the discussion.
 
I must commend all of us for having a civil discussion about another polarizing topic for which none of the participants will be able to sway the others beliefs,but I'm sure this thread is a good read for the many lurkers who are reading with interrest.....and of course thankyou shawn for crystalizing the end of days....
 
You also got whacked by the "single penalty". Based upon your limited posted details I would presume you were in the neighborhood of O-3 pay scale which means as a single filer you probably got banged for an extra 10 points than an O-3 who filed a married joint return.

I saw my effective rate go up as soon as I got divorced (as did my insurance rates). Nothing like a little extra financial punishment for not being married....

I find it interesting this is the second time a tax has been referred to as a "punishment" by you guys... to me it seems like its more of a responsibility that everyone has, to help maintain the country's finances. Although we currently aren't doing a good job at it seeing as how much in debt we are in.

Although I do wonder what is the reasoning in the system that decides why singles have to pay more than married individuals.

It's not like the people who do this sit in a table and go like this.

Person 1: "Oh alright guys we need to make a choice on how much we are going to tax people. Scenario 1: The individual is single."
Person 2: "Ha! Single, how lame. Can't even find a spouse lets punish them!" *Thumbs down*
Person 3: "Haha! Oh yeah! Losers. 10 points more for you." *makes slashing motion with hands*
Person 2: "LMAO 10 points awesome idea!" *Almost falling off chair*
Person 1: "Alright man settle down!" *Motions the guys to relax* "Scenario 2: The individual is married."
Person 2: "Married... THEY'RE PIMPIN!" *Throws their hands up like a pimp* "Give him the hooks ups bro!" *Waves pointing finger to person 1*
Person 1: "Oh yeah! We going to let them slide by with no hits. Crescent fresh man."
 
Last edited:
I find it interesting this is the second time a tax has been referred to as a "punishment" by you guys... to me it seems like its more of a responsibility that everyone has, to help maintain the country's finances. Although we currently aren't doing a good job at it seeing as how much in debt we are in.

thats because by and large every tax payer would love to pay less and feel like they are getting screwed somehow.Of course every now and then you get the news blurb about some prominant person wanting to pay more tax and how we need to all pay more...but that is a riplies(riplyes) belief it or not moment.
 
I consider the single filing status a penalty. I still have all the same expenses, paid half of my net worth in the divorce, lost the second salary and saw my tax rate increase based upon single status. To me, that is a penalty for not being married.
 
I consider the single filing status a penalty. I still have all the same expenses, paid half of my net worth in the divorce, lost the second salary and saw my tax rate increase based upon single status. To me, that is a penalty for not being married.

And to further demonstrate how f*ed up our tax code is...

My effective tax rate went up after I got married. :confused:
 
It always surprises me when people think that if you increase taxes you automatically get more revenue. Taxation is often a penalty and it has been frequently used to shape society. Is the society against smoking? Then tax it. Does the society want to foster and encourage marriage? Then tax divorce. Generally, when you tax something you get less of it. Tax wealth and you'll get less of it. The concern over raising taxes (particularly now in a recession) is that economy will shrink even more. Revenue will not be increased much, if at all. There have been numerous times in our history that have shown increases in revenue upon tax cuts.

The Bush tax cuts weren't for the rich. The Bush tax cuts were applied to anyone who paid taxes. This notion that the Bush tax cuts only benefitted the rich has been the biggest distortion of the facts ever. This economy is still so poor and fragile. Any tax increase just will make things worse. The spending side must be addressed first.

-J
 
Last edited:
It always surprises me when people think that if you increase taxes you automatically get more revenue. Taxation is often a penalty and it has been frequently used to shape society. Is the society against smoking? Then tax it. Does the society want to foster and encourage marriage? Then tax divorce. Generally, when you tax something you get less of it. Tax wealth and you'll get less of it. The concern over raising taxes (particularly now in a recession) is that economy will shrink even more. Revenue will not be increased much, if at all. There have been numerous times in our history that have shown increases in revenue upon tax cuts.

The Bush tax cuts weren't for the rich. The Bush tax cuts were applied to anyone who paid taxes. This notion that the Bush tax cuts only benefitted the rich has been the biggest distortion of the facts ever. This economy is still so poor and fragile. Any tax increase just will make things worse. The spending side must be addressed first.

-J

very good points..there is the monetary side of taxation,but just as important the secondary consequences or structural aspects.As I said earlier taxing capital gains income as per ordinary income will drive more investors to utilize pretax havens like 401k's and less likely to use thier own post tax dollars.The government can very easily shape the populaces behaviors in this way.As you said tax on alcohol/tobacco ect dissuade some from using those things.The budget has to be balanced on both the income and expense side to truely work best for all.
 
The Bush tax cuts weren't for the rich. The Bush tax cuts were applied to anyone who paid taxes. This notion that the Bush tax cuts only benefitted the rich has been the biggest distortion of the facts ever. This economy is still so poor and fragile. Any tax increase just will make things worse. The spending side must be addressed first.

-J

Bingo. It's truly disgusting to see the way the media has portrayed the so called 'Bush Tax Cuts' as favoring the rich.

In fact, the lower marginal brackets benefitted WAY MORE than the upper income brackets did.

For instance, the lowest bracket was lowered from 15% to 10%. Yes, nearly cut in half.

More facts on this subject:

http://www.smartmoney.com/taxes/income/how-the-expiring-bush-tax-cuts-affect-you/

The so-called Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire at the end of this year. While you may already know that, you may not fully understand what's in store for you and your family. Here's what to expect.

Higher Tax Rates for All:

You may think only individuals in the top two brackets will face higher federal income taxes if the Bush cuts go bye-bye as scheduled on Jan. 1, 2013. Not true. Unless Congress takes action and the president goes along (whoever that is), rates will go up for everyone -- not just "the rich." Specifically, the existing 10% bracket will go away, and the lowest "new" bracket will be 15%. The existing 25% bracket will be replaced by the "new" 28% bracket; the existing 28% bracket will be replaced by the new 31% bracket; the existing 33% bracket will be replaced by the 36% bracket; and the existing 35% bracket will be replaced by the 39.6% bracket.

Bottom line: We'll all see higher taxes.

Higher Capital Gains and Dividends Taxes for All

Right now, the maximum federal rate on long-term capital gains and dividends is only 15%. Starting next year, the maximum rate on long-term gains is scheduled to increase to 20% (or 18% on gains from assets acquired after Dec. 31, 2000, and held for over five years), and the maximum rate on dividends will skyrocket to a whopping 39.6%.

Right now, an unbeatable 0% rate applies to long-term gains and dividends collected by folks in lowest two rate brackets of 10% and 15%. Starting next year, folks in the lowest two brackets will pay 10% on long-term gains (or 8% on gains from assets acquired after Dec. 31, 2000, and held for over five years) and 15% and 28% on dividends (compared to 0% now).

Bottom line: taxes on long-term gains and dividends will go up for everyone.

Harsher Marriage Penalty

The Bush tax cuts included several provisions to ease the so-called marriage penalty. The penalty can cause a married couple to pay more in taxes than when they were single, which is nuts.

Right now, the bottom two tax brackets for married joint-filing couples are exactly twice as wide as for singles. This helps keep the marriage penalty from biting lower and middle-income couples. Starting next year, the joint-filer tax brackets will contract, causing higher tax bills for many folks.

Currently, the standard deduction for married joint-filing couples is double the amount for singles. Starting next year, the joint-filer standard deduction will fall back to about 167% of the amount for singles.

Bottom line: lots of lower and middle-income income couples will face higher tax bills due to a harsher marriage penalty.

Return of Phase-Out Rule for Itemized Deductions

Before the Bush tax cuts, a nasty phase-out rule could eliminate up to 80% of a higher-income individual's itemized deductions for mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and charitable donations. The rule was gradually eased and finally eliminated in 2010. Next year, however, the phase-out will be back in full force unless Congress takes action and the president approves. So if you itemize and have 2013 adjusted gross income above about $175,000 (or about $87,500 if you use married filing separate status), get ready for this phase-out rule to take a bite out of your wallet.

Return of Phase-Out Rule for Personal Exemptions

Before the Bush tax cuts, another nasty phase-out rule could eliminate some or all of a higher-income individual's personal exemption deductions (for 2012, personal exemption deductions are $3,800 each). The rule was gradually cut back and finally eliminated in 2010. But it will be back with a vengeance next year unless Congress takes action and the president approves. So you need to be ready for yet another bite out of your wallet if you are a married joint-filer with 2013 adjusted gross income above about $265,000. If you're single, the magic number will be about $175,000. If you use head of household filing status, watch out if your 2013 adjusted gross income exceeds about $220,000.

Some Bush Tax Cuts Are Likely to Be Continued

Some elements of the Bush tax cuts have gained bipartisan support and will probably be continued beyond this year. Examples include inflation-indexed alternative minimum tax (AMT) exemption amounts, the ability to use nonrefundable personal tax credits to offset your AMT bill, and the deduction for qualified higher education tuition and fees. The current versions of the child tax credit, earned income credit, dependent care credit, and adoption credit are also more-likely-than-not to be continued. The Bush tax cut legislation liberalized these credits, and later legislation liberalized them even more.
 
Dave here is a more recent and updated IRS breakdown of who pays federal income tax for the tax year 2008.

Who-pays-taxes-from-NTU.jpg


As you can see, the 'rich' and middle class are shouldering even more of the total federal tax burden than they were in 2004 and the bottom 50% are shouldering less. If I could find the chart for 2011 I would bet that the trend continues.

It would appear that half of us (including you and I) are supporting the other half. And you have that half that don't pay anything clinging to a mantra that says that the other half that does pay doesn't pay their fair share.

Fair question - why are we focusing on raising the taxes of the folks who already pay 100% of the tax burden?

Shouldn't we be more worried about the folks that pay nothing, and the folks that actually receive money back after paying nothing?
 
Silverstone its another meaningless chart to me. We are talking about income. Percentage of income. That chart has NOTHING TO DO with that. Listen, no offense, but you aren't going to convince me and I am not going to convince you. Just like any other political thread. So if you want to carry on, you can, with whoever is still on this thread to talk, but don't write for me. This thread has lived out its usefulness and it's nothing but a repeat at this point. I get why some think capital gains should be taxed lower. I am not stupid. I just don't agree with it. I am not sure what further discussion will bring.
 
But I feel that the revenue problem stems from the fact that half the country pays no federal income tax....

That is a big part of it.
Of course, part of the reason they don't pay taxes is because their salary has gone down over the last 30 years.
Adjusted for inflation, the bottom makes less today than they did in the 70s.
Reason? The 1% outsourced their jobs.
Hence why the 1% gained so much during the same period.

changeincome.png
 
Last edited:
our economy is going to collapse its only a matter of time.

I have been collecting ammo, guns, seeds, MRE's for years now.

so all those stocks will be useless if you need food.

hey here is 5000 shares of Apple Stock can I have that carrot and a glass of milk please... I dont think so.

hey I will give you this Silverstone 2004 NSX for a knife and a carton of cigs wanna trade?

I have a huge house 12000 square feet I will trade it for that case of beer.

its not a matter of IF as it is WHEN.
So you're responsible for this... LOL

These trends bode well for firearm makers Smith & Wesson (NASDAQ: SWHC) and Sturm, Ruger & Company (NYSE: RGR). Both companies have produced record earnings and seen their share prices rise significantly over the past year: a 317 percent gain for Smith & Wesson’s stock price, and a 67 percent increase for Sturm, Ruger’s shares.
 
Back
Top