It would have a disproportionate impact, because as that points out they own about 10% of all stock, which is a lot of stock compared to their incomes and so to their retirement plans that means a LOT. Arthur
So since they own less stock it would affect them more? There is no question that it would affect the top 1% far, far more than the bottom 50% in terms of additional tax to pay.
I'd ask you what your plan for closing the wealth gap is, but I get the feeling that you don't think it's a problem. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well, you've convinced me. It seems unequivocable in light of all this that social justice for the middle class demands that capital gains tax be made progressive (according to the filer's overall income). So, we'll charge millionaires 50% on their capital gains, and everyone else can continue to pay the current low rates. Indeed, it was brutally oppressive of us to have ever instituted anything so regressive as a flat tax on capital gains in the first place.
And here I was, trying to think of how retirement investments might be taxed at different rates, or some other complicated nonsense. Your idea is quite elegant in its simplicity.
Well, I was also thinking of pointing out that middle-class retirement savings are mostly going to be in things like 401(k)'s and IRAs, and that the proceeds end up taxed as income (not capital gains). But the progressivity angle was just too juicy to pass up... if anyone has any statistics on how the up-thread pie charts on distribution of asset ownership break down in terms of 401(k)s and IRAs, that would be even more interesting. I'd wager that the lion's share of middle-class investment is in those vehicles, and so totally separate from capital gains considerations.
Except for the fact you said by year and not age group - one of them minor details again. Year does not mean age group. I guess you have been engaging in beloved Republican/Tea Party habit of inventing new word meanings to suit your needs. That is fine, but no one is talking about raising taxes on the middle classes. And most middle class retirement savings are in the form of 410k's or IRA's for which retirees pay distributions at the earned income tax rate rather than the capital gains tax rate. So a change in capital gains tax rate would have zero impact on their retirement savings. OH that is a great intellectual response. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The fact is your claim of double taxation is bogus. There is no limit to the number of times a dollar can be taxed. Capital gains are treated differently from earned income for one very simple reason, rich people can buy legislation. Don't believe it, take a look at the US tax code. I think it is a fairly well established fact that our tax code is riddled with special deals for special interests with money. Wall Street is a big special interest. There is no good legitimate reason why earned income should be treated any differently from investment income. Working stiffs cannot afford lobbyists and that is why their earnings are taxed more than that of the investor class (aka rich folk). Yeah, that is a good solution to truth! Runaway, runaway and pretend that you didn't see it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Yes this is about investment income and the inequality of tax rates between earned and unearned income (invesment income). There is no reason why the least able to pay tax (i.e. middle income and poor) should pay more of their income in tax than those best able to pay the tax (i.e. the wealthy). LOL, I asked you for proof that if the capital gains tax were increased investors would invest less. What you provided was a document prepared by a Republican ideologue relating to federal revenues. I asked question A and you answered question B with a ideological statement. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You dodged again Arthur. http://www.ctj.org/hid_ent/part-2/part2-2.htm "A recent study by Congressional Budget Office economists Leonard Bermun and William Rudolph compared capital gains realizations by a sample of particular taxpayers over time. They found large transitory effects when a taxpayer's individual circumstances changed and when the federal government made major revisions in capital gains taxation.3 But on a long-term basis, the study found very little correlation between the tax code's treatment of capital gains and levels of realizations. In fact, in technical terms, the study found that "[t]he permanent elasticity is not significantly different from zero."4 - Citizens for Tax Justice "Contrary to the assertions of capital gains tax cut proponents, capital gains tax cuts have never led to improved economic performance. Tax laws that have increased the capital gains tax, however, typically have been followed by increased growth. After capital gains taxes were increased in the 1976 Tax Reform Act, for example, the economy's growth rate jumped from 3.9% in the preceding year to 5.2% over the next two years. Likewise, following enactment of the 1986 Tax Reform Act, the growth rate rose from 2.2% in the previous year to 3.8% over the next two years" - Citizens for Tax Justice
I think that a mild hit on capital gains taxes is a small price to pay to keep the tens of millions of unemployed workers from facing more years of career devastation. In the long run, it's going to cost us all a lot more to deal with legions of chronically unemployed people with no savings. Policy is about making hard choices. There is no free lunch - and I can't see my way to kicking the entire ladder out from under society just to protect a a little bit of the income of the richest Americans. If they don't like the tax rates on capital gains, they're free to do something else with their money. The same can't be said of the families suffering under the present record-level unemployment rate. Let's face facts: you oppose this jobs bill because you want to see the economy implode so that Obama will not be re-elected, and because the fate of our society doesn't matter one whit to you compared to your own personal wealth. It's despicable, and your tarting it up as moral and compassionate is as insulting as it is tractionless. Get a new schtick; this one is an embarassment.
(guffaw!) Spare us. You're just bitter because your clumsy rhetorical sleight got caught. You tried to make an issue about the wealthy into one about the middle class. I just don't find your approach very honest, especially since it attempts to shield the wealthy behind the middle class. And as several people have pointed out to you, that just doesn't work. It was a clodhopping, keystone, slapstick attempt to reframe the issue into bogus demagoguery. And nobody's buying it.
And I wasn't complaining about taxing withdrawals from 401Ks because they weren't taxed as income to begin with. In contrast, investments made outside of one's 401K (which are limited to just 6% of income) are made with what is left over AFTER paying hefty Federal, State, Payroll, Sales, Personal Property taxes, so taxing income on that money is the issue.
BS It was just a typo (and the use of interest in that statement made no sense at all), deal with the actual issue, taxing Capital Gains as income.
First of all this is not really about the bottom 50%, but the middle class income earners. The disproportionate has to do with the Financial impact on the household of these middle class. Of course the actual amounts involved will be greater on the very wealthy, but the IMPACT will be more on the middle class, since this directly affects their retirement funds and they have no way to recoup. Indeed, a much more reasonable solution would be to exempt the first $50k or so from any Capital Gains and then the tax could be structured on a tiered basis like income is, but every proposal I've seen floated here ignores the impact on the middle class of just raising the Capital Gains rates. Arthur
Except that is true for a POINT in time, but a typical middle class earner will indeed get to the point where as they reach their 50s their income is nearing it's peak, their kids have gone out on their own, they are nearing the end of house payments and have fewer needs (they already own all the appliances and toys and fashion isn't that big of a deal etc) and so they finally can start socking a decent amount of money away into investments to prepare for their retirement years. So, yeah, for most of the years they worked the amount of stock they owned was none to very little, but over their working lifetime that is most assuredly not true. Every one of the people in their mid 50s or older that I work with has a growing investment portfolio and all of them are seriously planning for their eventual retirement after a life of working and these investments are a big part of that. Arthur
What does this issue have to do with the Jobs bill? Answer: NOTHING http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/08/fact-sheet-american-jobs-act
And I'd have no problem with a system something like that since it does address the needs of the middle class Indeed it was.
Sounds like you have seen the light. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You need to tell your fellow Republicans/Tea Partiers.
Photo: Obama in Pittsburgh 2008 Vs.*2011 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!What a difference a few years makes.....
*shakes head* It's incredible how stupid people can be... I don't care WHO you put in office (short of Jesus Christ himself), NO ONE MAN can fix our economy/job market/education/healthcare/et al... it's not possible. Congress and the House would cockblock any president regardless of how good their ideas are... Obama's plan very well may work - the problem is, how much of it can he actually put into motion? How much has been PUT into motion, and how much is held up in votes? Think about it... no matter how good the plan, if you can only enact a small portion of it... it won't be fully effective.
You have a very good point. Back in the old days, twenty years ago, you could count on congress to eventually do the right thing for the country. Now with the repeal of The Fairness Doctrine, we have a political party and media structure that is all about making money and advancing a political agenda regardless of the impact on the state and individuals with in the state.
