Billionaires dumping stocks

[chado]

That is a recent thing -- at one time there was no bonus for combat pay. However the risk is your life not money and you can't deduct the loss of life on your taxes.

Plus just because you are not in combat does not mean your sacrifice is less great. I had an assignment where I would be gone 200 to 300 days a year. Now it was not in a combat zone, but I was never home. I was single so this was not a problem but some of the members of that squad had been divorced two or three times. No bonus for that.

So many issues with this response, but I'll just comment on one. You chose to be in the military knowing the requirements and many of those individuals who do end up getting divorced are usually at fault because they are marrying for the wrong reason; to get exactly what you are complaining about not receiving - those bonuses, perks and tax credits for being married and having kids! You mean they wont give an additional bonus for divorce.. those basta***!!

I am one who thinks active duty is a bigger sacrifice than to be just "away" from your ideal situation. I think most would agree..

 

[cptnsx]

Tax wise, the super rich can lower their brackets significantly through their charity work. The Gates Foundation has an endowment in the neighborhood of $35 billion or so and is required to donate at least 5% of it's funds every year so that is a donation of approximately $1.5 BILLION annually. None of us could spend that kind of money in our lifetimes but that type of net worth is so beyond the norm that it really isn't a fair comparison to look at our rates in comparison to the Buffets/Gates of the country.

I don't doubt anything you say, you know your stuff; however there are many charities that are rip-offs. Many kids or grand-kids of the very rich or connected run these charities as well. As someone in the military and now a government contractor, I have seen companies try each trick in the book to rip off the government. Most of it done through legal manipulation so there is nothing you can do about it. Mega wealth/power and true altruism are mutually exclusive.

 

[RSO 34]

Buffett owes about $1 billion in back taxes spanning more than a decade too.

-J

Actually it is Berkshire hathaway and not buffet personally that owes the taxes. They are still fighting over what is owed but while that goes on berkshires effective corporate fed rate is 29% when most corps are in the range of 20%. Plus the $1 billion in dispute over a decade is a mere .2% of the holdings around $370 billion.

 

[cptnsx]

So many issues with this response, but I'll just comment on one. You chose to be in the military knowing the requirements and many of those individuals who do end up getting divorced are usually at fault because they are marrying for the wrong reason; to get exactly what you are complaining about not receiving - those bonuses, perks and tax credits for being married and having kids! You mean they wont give an additional bonus for divorce.. those basta***!!

I am one who thinks active duty is a bigger sacrifice than to be just "away" from your ideal situation. I think most would agree..

The point I was making is that if military people can potentially sacrifice their lives and in some cases their families then the rich can pay the same rate on all their earned income just like everyone else.

The members of that squadron were doing that for years. Nearly everyone in that squadron was divorced at least once and some four times. It is the only squadron in the AF that does that mission and therefore most of its members are old (for active duty) because no one wants the job. But it has to get done.

 

[docjohn]

The point I was making is that if military people can potentially sacrifice their lives and in some cases their families then the rich can pay the same rate on all their earned income just like everyone else

that is the crux of our discussion ,the rich do pay thier fare share on earned or ordinary income.We are discussing our personal viewpoints on capital gains rates.Dave feels that at some income level which he has not stated yet the 15% rate which you and i enjoy should be increased.

 

[jond]

I'll assume you're being serious and not facetious. Hard to tell on this thread sometimes.

I'm in the process of considering taking the "next step" in the startup i've been cultivating for a few years. That next step would require investors.

With this plan, what would motivate my potential investors to invest large sums of money of me if they get penalized the more return my company makes for them? If they decide to hold back their investment to just a small sum then that could mean me hiring 0-2 people instead 5+ new employees.

Help me understand how your plan would benefit the economy and specifically businesses like mine.

Good question. The same question could be made today for A N Y investment relative to another point in time.
Ex. Tell me why I should invest in the stock market when it returns 0% over a 10 year average. Why should I invest in bonds when they return 0%. Why should I work hard when I don't get a pension? It's always relative to other options. AKA, you will have the EXACT same number of investors if the tax rate was 99% as you would if it was 1%.

Fact is times change. We're the lowest tax rates for the 1% in the history of the country and ironically, broke.

There's also more to it. GE pays 0% taxes, yet they outsource left and right.
Maybe if we allowed them to pay a negative tax rate they wouldn't outsource?


.

 

[RSO 34]

I have a bigger problem with the pizzeria owner who keeps two sets of books and takes a grand in cash out each week over and above his On the books salary. I have no ability to get cash so I would need to earn an extra 90k "legally" to equal his extra untaxed cash income.

 

[cptnsx]

that is the crux of our discussion ,the rich do pay thier fare share on earned or ordinary income.We are discussing our personal viewpoints on capital gains rates.Dave feels that at some income level which he has not stated yet the 15% rate which you and i enjoy should be increased.

I don't know where Dave is on this but this is my position: Capital gains is profit its just profit earned on your money and not your work. I see no distinction. It should be taxed at the regular progressive tax rate. If you want to make special deductions for poor or struggling people or companies that produce AMERICA jobs (in America) fine.

I don't care if you took a risk. You took a risk to increase your wealth not get a tax cut. If you need an incentive to invest in America how about this: if you invest in another country you lose your citizenship. Go live there since your money is there.

 

[jond]

 

[docjohn]

I have a bigger problem with the pizzeria owner who keeps two sets of books and takes a grand in cash out each week over and above his On the books salary. I have no ability to get cash so I would need to earn an extra 90k "legally" to equal his extra untaxed cash income.

another great tangent you've gotten us on:wink: I wonder how much money..ie undeclared income like tips, or for that matter cash off the books for any goods and services that is never seen by the irs.... The whole system has issues.To every lowly taxpayer the irs is something to be feared,hated,and if you can hide any single dollar you will.I think whether you are rich or poor there is a similar feeling about good ol uncle sam.

 

[docjohn]

I don't think so. I think the rich are paying the lowest tax rate in the history of America and it's about to bankrupt us.
Don't confuse yourself for rich. Rich people don't work for a living.
The rich have thousands of employees.


.

well now you need to define rich.

 

[Vega$ NSX]

Vegas your are wrong in your assumptions about me. I don't despise anyone, to me that is yet one more story. Just another way for the guy that earns a hundred million a year and pays 3% in taxes to belittle someone who works hard everyday and pays 30 (not talking about me). All I am saying is there should be fairness. We made laws and rules for this fairness but only a part of a populace follows them.

No sorry dude, I didn't mean you as in "you" but you as in the plural you, as in people who pretty much feel this way.

Anyway, like I said before, I totally see your point and I do understand where you are coming from. I think that's why I like this conversation so much, in that both people make valid points. :smile:

Personally, I think the system is completely fair and I guess you are feeling it isn't. I can't really argue against how you feel. I mean, if that's how you feel then that's how you feel.

All I can say is this. I've run the spectrum from very poor, to very rich, to poor and back to rich. When I was poor I thought the system was unfair. When I was very rich I realized that it wasn't and that it was fair. When I was poor again, but having been rich, I realized still that the system was fair. Most people who have never been rich (the vast majority) will always hold onto the belief that it is unfair. But I can say, from experience, having experienced being poor, rich and poor again, that the system is fair and I think the people who are poor never have the perspective to actually see that it actually is fair. It's like reading 1/2 of a book and making a determination if it is any good or not.

 

[jond]

well now you need to define rich.

Sure. I think that's a big part of the confusion right now.
Republicans try to convince people they're rich and not part of the 99%.
Anyone who works for a living isn't in the realm of rich IMO.

By rich I'm talking INCOME of $10,000,000 per year.

To put it another way, if we made the bottom half of the country to pay 100% in taxes, we would gain, what, 2% more revenue?

 

[TURBO2GO]

that is the crux of our discussion ,the rich do pay thier fare share on earned or ordinary income.We are discussing our personal viewpoints on capital gains rates.Dave feels that at some income level which he has not stated yet the 15% rate which you and i enjoy should be increased.

I haven't stated it because that's not what I said. What I said was all income should taxed at the same rate, period. I dont care what your income level is.

I think it's pathetic that Buffet pays 17%, Romney earns 22 million and pays 13%, and someone like cptnsx serves in the military and pays over 30%.

 

[RSO 34]

To put it another way, if we made the bottom half of the country to pay 100% in taxes, we would gain, what, 2% more

The top 5% of earners is defined as those who have an AGI of $155k and above. Not what i would consider "rich" under any definition of that term. That small percentage pays almost 59% of all federal income taxes collected.

How much more of the burden should they shoulder by increasing the capital gains taxes?

The bottom 50% of tax filers pay less than 2.5% of all federal income tax collected. How much of the services are they consuming in relationship to the taxes they pay?

I'm not trying to dump on the lower half of the income earning population but when it becomes more proportionate across the entire income spectrum then come talk to me about increasing my LTCG liability.

Under Dave's argument, shouldn't the lower 50% pay 50% of the total tax collected by the Feds?

 

[BD]

I think all and any income should be taxed at the same rate. It doesn't matter if you made it flipping burgers or did it by putting money into a hedge fund.

So if you think the flat tax rate is good, why do you think the wealthy people has a favorable rate according to the income tax rate chart above?

 

[NetViper]

Really great discussion guys. I have learned a lot. Keep it coming. Though you guys will never agree

 

[cptnsx]

I haven't stated it because that's not what I said. What I said was all income should taxed at the same rate, period. I dont care what your income level is.

I think it's pathetic that Buffet pays 17%, Romney earns 22 million and pays 13%, and someone like cptnsx serves in the military and pays over 30%.

Only one year because I got a huge bonus, but I always paid over 20% mostly around 25%.

 

[Jimbo]

Keep in mind a good number of people pay nothing and get money back too. I think everyone should pay something in the form of income taxes. The whole tax concern is misplaced. We can all argue about the minimal gains in revenue by taxing the bottom or increasing the burden on the rich even more. But regardless of what we do any taxation scheme simply won't support the level of spending we do. Flat tax or fairtax.org - pick one. Make it fair, simple and eliminate loopholes. But unless we get back on track with spending it won't matter.

-J

 

[cptnsx]

Really great discussion guys. I have learned a lot. Keep it coming. Though you guys will never agree

maybe not but when I get finish typing i feel better. everyone wants to be heard at some point.

 

[cptnsx]

Keep in mind a good number of people pay nothing and get money back too. I think everyone should pay something in the form of income taxes. The whole tax concern is misplaced. We can all argue about the minimal gains in revenue by taxing the bottom or increasing the burden on the rich even more. But regardless of what we do any taxation scheme simply won't support the level of spending we do. Flat tax or fairtax.org - pick one. Make it fair, simple and eliminate loopholes. But unless we get back on track with spending it won't matter.

-J

Personally think all the bush tax cuts should expire permanently. America is at war and has been for awhile, there should have never been any tax cuts esp how the folks during WWII sacrificed.

 

[V.Lats97nsx]

This to me is another great example how divided the country is. Let's tax the shit out of the rich. Will we see a change? You think it will trickle up?

 

[jonas1jp]

The top 5% of earners is defined as those who have an AGI of $155k and above. Not what i would consider "rich" under any definition of that term. That small percentage pays almost 59% of all federal income taxes collected.

How much more of the burden should they shoulder by increasing the capital gains taxes?

The bottom 50% of tax filers pay less than 2.5% of all federal income tax collected. How much of the services are they consuming in relationship to the taxes they pay?

I'm not trying to dump on the lower half of the income earning population but when it becomes more proportionate across the entire income spectrum then come talk to me about increasing my LTCG liability.

Under Dave's argument, shouldn't the lower 50% pay 50% of the total tax collected by the Feds?

As I was reading the thread for the first time (VRGN until tonight), I was waiting for someone to post what impression I had on the situation. Yours is it!!!! +1 :smile:

 

[jonas1jp]

This to me is another great example how divided the country is. Let's tax the shit out of the rich. Will we see a change? You think it will trickle up?

Just another way to line the pockets of someone who doesn't EARN it. Tell me again, why the hell are we not drilling? Every argument I hear is B.S.

 

[RSO 34]

Only one year because I got a huge bonus, but I always paid over 20% mostly around 25%.

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....