All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Real Opinions? Who Do You Vote For And Why?
11/4/2012 12:13 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 11/3/2012 12:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by seamar_116 on 11/3/2012 10:58:00 AM (view original):
I say they are paying lower taxes because of how their income is "earned". Capital gains pays a lower tax rate than other forms of income. I only bring this up because of the assumptions being made about the work ethic and morals of the "poor." I just wondered if some of you considered that it cuts both ways.
As far as I know, capital gains are taxed at the same rate, regardless of whether you're wealthy or middle class.

Income tax is graduated, so that wealthier people pay a higher income tax rate than do poorer people.

I don't get the bashing of capital gains tax rates.  Those rates are lower for a reason . . . to encourage people to invest their money.  Investing money is good for the economy.

So explain why job growth is lagging despite the fact that companies are sitting on record profits?

Who is most likely to have capital gains income?

11/4/2012 12:27 AM
Of course when I actually work extra to earn more money, my overtime is taxed at a larger rate.
11/4/2012 2:24 AM
Posted by moy23 on 11/3/2012 2:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 11/3/2012 1:56:00 PM (view original):
"the funny thing is savings and CDs are taxed as normal income.... something Romney wants to eliminate.... "

Along with capital gains taxes, but only for households making less than $200k.  That's a win for the middle class.
absolutely. I forgot he wanted to eliminate cap gains for under 200k. that's a gigantic win for the middle class.
Do you consider $200K Middle class?

How many people making < $200 k have much in the way of capital gains? It's offering something that most people won't be able to take advantage of because they don't have it. It's a bogus attempt to continue to cut taxes for the wealthiest. If this job creator myth was true, then why are we in the place we are in. The Bush tax cuts should have prevented this, correct?

11/4/2012 7:12 AM (edited)
Posted by seamar_116 on 11/4/2012 2:24:00 AM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 11/3/2012 2:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 11/3/2012 1:56:00 PM (view original):
"the funny thing is savings and CDs are taxed as normal income.... something Romney wants to eliminate.... "

Along with capital gains taxes, but only for households making less than $200k.  That's a win for the middle class.
absolutely. I forgot he wanted to eliminate cap gains for under 200k. that's a gigantic win for the middle class.
Do you consider $200K Middle class?

How many people making < $200 k have much in the way of capital gains? It's offering something that most people won't be able to take advantage of because they don't have it. It's a bogus attempt to continue to cut taxes for the wealthiest. If this job creator myth was true, then why are we in the place we are in. The Bush tax cuts should have prevented this, correct?

I do consider that middle class. and if they dont have money to invest its because of excessive spending or simply lack of finance education... especially at the higher end of $200k. that's the simplest way I can put it. if you provide me with the expenses of a hh making $150k I can provide a way for them to stock money away. it doesn't happen all in one year but with the right financial discipline it will happen. take away capital gains taxes and income taxes for interest and I can show you how that pile of money will grow faster. I will give you an example.... my wife and I spent $8000 a year buying cigarettes.... we quit three years ago because it was a waste of money and bad for our health. 3 years later we have an extra $24,000 dollars. next cut out excessive dining at restaurants.... go once a month instead of once a week. that would save approximately $120 a month or $1440 a year. pay off your car after 5 years and keep the car 5 more years... save the $300 you were paying a month and that's $3600 a year or $18000 over the next 5 years. bring a 6 pack home rather than going to the bar to watch football on Sundays.... does this make sense?

again though... I'm for fair tax. everyone should be taxed the same. no loopholes. no income tax.


lastly, if you are saying that under $200k is not middle class or does not have money to invest, while I would disagree with that, then eliminating capital gains tax for anyone under $200k would have zero impact at all on them (since they don't invest).... and keeping capital gains the same for those over $200k (since its the same) would have zero impact on those over $200k. under your assumptions... why would you even care?


11/4/2012 7:03 AM (edited)
Posted by seamar_116 on 11/4/2012 12:13:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 11/3/2012 12:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by seamar_116 on 11/3/2012 10:58:00 AM (view original):
I say they are paying lower taxes because of how their income is "earned". Capital gains pays a lower tax rate than other forms of income. I only bring this up because of the assumptions being made about the work ethic and morals of the "poor." I just wondered if some of you considered that it cuts both ways.
As far as I know, capital gains are taxed at the same rate, regardless of whether you're wealthy or middle class.

Income tax is graduated, so that wealthier people pay a higher income tax rate than do poorer people.

I don't get the bashing of capital gains tax rates.  Those rates are lower for a reason . . . to encourage people to invest their money.  Investing money is good for the economy.

So explain why job growth is lagging despite the fact that companies are sitting on record profits?

Who is most likely to have capital gains income?

I was listening to the chief investment strategist of a bank discuss companies sitting on large sums of cash and why it's a slow economic recovery. I think the number was $3 trillion, of which 2/3 of that is overseas. the reason? if you had a company and had to pay the tax difference to bring the money here you'd be crazy.... let's say you have $100 billion overseas and pay 20% corporate taxes.... to bring that money here you would have to pay an additional $15 billion in taxes right off the top.

as for your second question. those making over $200k would still pay cap gains taxes.... those under $200k would not. understood? better question is who is using the money being invested? it's small businesses and large businesses.... it's a means for them to raise capital. without investors there is no business... only a bunch of great ideas with no funding.
11/4/2012 7:44 AM
Posted by seamar_116 on 11/4/2012 12:13:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 11/3/2012 12:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by seamar_116 on 11/3/2012 10:58:00 AM (view original):
I say they are paying lower taxes because of how their income is "earned". Capital gains pays a lower tax rate than other forms of income. I only bring this up because of the assumptions being made about the work ethic and morals of the "poor." I just wondered if some of you considered that it cuts both ways.
As far as I know, capital gains are taxed at the same rate, regardless of whether you're wealthy or middle class.

Income tax is graduated, so that wealthier people pay a higher income tax rate than do poorer people.

I don't get the bashing of capital gains tax rates.  Those rates are lower for a reason . . . to encourage people to invest their money.  Investing money is good for the economy.

So explain why job growth is lagging despite the fact that companies are sitting on record profits?

Who is most likely to have capital gains income?

To your first question: what does "companies sitting on record profits" have to do with capital gains taxes on individuals?

To your second question: anybody who sells off an investment at a profit will have capital gains income.
11/4/2012 6:11 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/2/2012 11:37:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/2/2012 8:26:00 AM (view original):
So you were afraid to quote the entire post?    Do you think I can't remember yesterday?

As I said, you can send people to the doctor all you want for preventative care.  There is NO GUARANTEE that it will help simply because people are gonna do what they like to do.   If that's eating a box of donuts while injecting heroin, a doctor saying "Hey, fatass, stop injecting heroin" will not reduce insurance costs on the back end.

Honestly, you seem to be someone with zero life experience but with a working knowledge of insurance numbers.   Unfortunately, "healthcare for everyone" because you read that it's a good thing isn't correct.  Obviously $100 is less than $800,000 but it just doesn't have real world application in this situation.
Let's start at the beginning:

You stated that people going to the doctor for things like cuts that need stitches are the reason health care costs are going up.

I disagreed. Not only is the incidence of policy holders using of health coverage unnecessarily relatively low, but also, in the long run, encouraging people to take care of small problems before they become big problems lowers costs.

Then you spewed 3,281 pages of non sequiturs about personal responsibility and preventative care not guaranteeing that people will be healthier because you can't tell people what to do.

Once again you're conflating the issue. Person A is injured/sick/in pain and wants to go to the doctor to try to fix the problem. Person B eats donuts and does heroin. Which person is going to be the one that wants to go to the doctor when (god forbid) they might have been able to solve the problem at home?

Person A is who this discussion (which you started) is about. Not person B.

I've seen the actuarial tables on this stuff and sell group health (along with property and casualty lines) for a living. You run a trucking company and think work comp is comparable to health insurance in terms of incentives.

I realize I'm late to the party, but it just isn't accurate to act as though "insurance companies" would rather pay for preventive care than to wait for a bigger problem.

I DO understand that it makes sense to do so, and maybe some insurance companies think that way, but recently (like in the last 5 years or so), many are unwilling to do so.

My family has a history of colon cancer. Several of my father's cousins died young (fifties) from failing to catch it early enough. My father has had a few scares, but has been proactive. I decided when I turned 40 I needed to have an exam. The doctor told me plainly that blue cross didn't cover these types of procedures unless I had symptoms. He basically coached me to lie and say I had blood in my stool which was the reason for the visit. They found a small polip and removed it.

Just today a friend of mine was diagnosed with cancer in the jawbone area. There is a scan (can't remember the name) that is FAR more accurate and enlightening when dealing with this, that if done would allow the doctors to see any and all instances of the cancer. The insurance company would not cover it, and are making him have a CT scan instead. A CT scan is alright, but not nearly as effective in nipping the problem in the bud NOW.

These are just two personal examples of insurance NOT covering preventive care as you seem to think they should or would without reservation. I don't think forcing insurance companies to cover people they normally wouldn't will result in an about face on this issue.

11/4/2012 6:19 PM
I also have a history of colon cancer in my family, and I've had two colonoscopies.  First was around 8 years ago, the second was a year and a half ago.  Both were covered by my health insurance.  (Both were also clean.)  So it depends on your provider.

If you're getting your health insurance through your work, contact your HR department and let them know how you feel about preventative exams not being covered.  I did that a number of years ago (actually, it was about a billing issue with the provider).  My HR department surprised me by being very receptive to my feedback, and asked me to fully document my problem for them.  I was expecting them to dismiss it with a "thanks for the feedback" response.  Apparently others were also complaining about our particular health care provider, and our company switched providers a year or two later.
11/4/2012 7:25 PM
Posted by seamar_116 on 11/4/2012 2:24:00 AM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 11/3/2012 2:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 11/3/2012 1:56:00 PM (view original):
"the funny thing is savings and CDs are taxed as normal income.... something Romney wants to eliminate.... "

Along with capital gains taxes, but only for households making less than $200k.  That's a win for the middle class.
absolutely. I forgot he wanted to eliminate cap gains for under 200k. that's a gigantic win for the middle class.
Do you consider $200K Middle class?

How many people making < $200 k have much in the way of capital gains? It's offering something that most people won't be able to take advantage of because they don't have it. It's a bogus attempt to continue to cut taxes for the wealthiest. If this job creator myth was true, then why are we in the place we are in. The Bush tax cuts should have prevented this, correct?

But you do admit that everyone pays the same tax rate.

Any capital gains that Romney's secretary has will be taxed the same as Romney, contrary to what Obama is selling.
11/4/2012 9:10 PM
Everyone does not pay the same tax rate. Nominal tax rates, effective tax rates, cumulative tax rates, tax rate as a % of income. But I know you want to ignore that because you are incapable of nuanced and reflective discussions.



11/4/2012 9:50 PM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 11/4/2012 7:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by seamar_116 on 11/4/2012 2:24:00 AM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 11/3/2012 2:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 11/3/2012 1:56:00 PM (view original):
"the funny thing is savings and CDs are taxed as normal income.... something Romney wants to eliminate.... "

Along with capital gains taxes, but only for households making less than $200k.  That's a win for the middle class.
absolutely. I forgot he wanted to eliminate cap gains for under 200k. that's a gigantic win for the middle class.
Do you consider $200K Middle class?

How many people making < $200 k have much in the way of capital gains? It's offering something that most people won't be able to take advantage of because they don't have it. It's a bogus attempt to continue to cut taxes for the wealthiest. If this job creator myth was true, then why are we in the place we are in. The Bush tax cuts should have prevented this, correct?

But you do admit that everyone pays the same tax rate.

Any capital gains that Romney's secretary has will be taxed the same as Romney, contrary to what Obama is selling.
do you ever think before you speak? 
11/5/2012 12:12 AM
as best he can Moy, as best he can.
11/5/2012 12:49 AM
The idea that Romney pays a lower tax rate than his Secretary is misleading.

They both pay the same rate on capital gains. They would both pay the same rates if the both had a job paying the same amount.

The idea that Capital Gains should be taxed at the same rate as income is a concept we can debate. Saying that Romney pays a lower tax rate than his secretary is misleading. It implies that because he is rich they have a different standard for him.

And many people know the difference. Many people do not and this is all part of the class warfare that Obama declared to try to get people to not talk about what a failure he is.
11/5/2012 8:21 AM
What is Romney's income? How much tax did he pay? Divide. Simple.

We would know more if he released more than two years worth of returns. Like he paid ZERO in federal taxes from 1996 to 2009. Legally, I am sure. So why not disclose that so everyone can take advantage of that?

11/5/2012 8:22 AM
What is Romney's income? How much tax did he pay? Divide. Simple.

We would know more if he released more than two years worth of returns. Like he paid ZERO in federal taxes from 1996 to 2009. Legally, I am sure. So why not disclose that so everyone can take advantage of that?

of 18
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Real Opinions? Who Do You Vote For And Why?

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.