When do you consider someone "wealthy" or "rich"?

[Seattle]

Rich people employ people with law degrees and advanced accounting qualifications to divide their income and assets up to make sure they do not get taxed.

so your asking us to give tax avoidance advice to rich people.

currently people with shares & stocks & those who buy & sell houses and businesses to make profit pay no tax or only around 2 to 5 % tax, while employees pay around 30% tax

Your comment about me asking you to give tax avoidance advice to rich people makes no sense so I can't address that.

You are talking about short term and long term capital gains. Short term gains are taxed at your normal rate. Long term gains are taxed at about 18%. Your income from your job is taxed at your normal rate.

the dot-com bubble crash wiped out middle class savings
then the sub prime mortgage scam wiped out half of middle class retirements savings and threw thousands of family's including children out on to the street...

Up above you are implying that only the rich have stock gains or housing gains but now you are arguing that the middle class had their saving wiped out by the dot-com crash.

That's not true plus it makes no sense given your comments above.

and all this can be fixed by not taxing the rich more and that somehow is the solution ?
...to suggest that personal wealth is to blame but not to blame ?(& its really your own fault because you could be worse off anyway)?

who regulates the taxation laws ?
the government
who makes regulations ?
the government
who allows American company's to keep their made in America name while they pay 3rd world children slum wages to make their products then sell them at top end prices as American goods ?
the Government

who decided to give billions of working class poor health care and housing money to company's while people were thrown out of their houses on to the street with no health care ?
the government !




How much money did the American middle class choose to spend on the Cold war ?
How much money did the American middle class choose to spend on the Korean war ?
How much money did the American middle class chose to spend on the Vietnam war ?
How much money did the American middle class choose to spend on the Iraq war ?(all 3 of them)

who is doing the choosing and with whos money is it being chosen to do it with ?

The rest of this is a mostly unintelligible rant.

I didn't say or imply that the wealthy shouldn't pay a slightly higher burden.

The rest of your rant about "the government" is just that, a rant. Vote and get the government that you want.

 

[Jeeves]

I didn't say or imply that the wealthy shouldn't pay a slightly higher burden.

How slight is slightly higher, as compared to the not-so-slightly higher standard of living, access to services, personal and financial security - and how slowly does that slightly higher tax revenue trickle down to the desperate?

Vote and get the government that you want.

Very, very cute!
Steal enough, and you can buy the government you want.

 

[parmalee]

I said that responsible citizens (ones who save money so that they aren't at the mercy of whatever the government does) shouldn't be paying the price of those who weren't responsible in their actions for themselves.

If someone puts money into a mutual fund every month they aren't the ones who should be taxed higher because someone else didn't save every month. They shouldn't be lumped into the "rich" category just because they put some money into a mutual fund.

Kinda hard to avoid stating the obvious here, but--what about those who simply can't afford to set aside money in such a manner? I don't recall the numbers, but the stats are readily available: something like 60 percent of Americans would have to put off whatever monthly payments for a time if faced with a 500 dollar emergency? I'm reasonably certain that if that be the case, then it's also most unlikely they're able to set aside money into savings.

(Apologies for weird diction--head is fuzzy)

 

[Jeeves]

what about those who simply can't afford to set aside money

They must have made "poor" life choices.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

If someone puts money into a mutual fund every month they aren't the ones who should be taxed higher because someone else didn't save every month.

yes i was aware this was where you were heading.
my point is, what does that equate to for those whom do not earn enough to save money and so rely on government funded health care & government funded education ?

i am pro the idea that taxation on retirement savings compounding profit should be almost nothing, maybe even 0
but they should be wholly contained retirement savings that pay out at retirement or are used partially to fund a 1st new home deposit.

not some lumbering massive fund of millions for someone to dodge capital gains tax as their primary income for to avoid paying income tax like all the lower income workers are forced to pay.
i am also pro the idea of somehow lowering the gift tax for inheritance purposes so direct funds being passed on to another person are not taxed like income or gift tax when that income is going to be used as a form of income to sustain the person like an investment portfolio that operates just like a business to fund the beneficiary like any company would fund an an employer.

there is a great deal of people who seek to exploit such ideas to avoid income tax.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

That's not true plus it makes no sense given your comments above.

show me
prove what you just said by posting some data

The rest of this is a mostly unintelligible rant.

whos ranting ?

the dot com bubble wiped out middle class investment portfolios which woudl have gone to retirement savings

i notice you conveniently avoid addressing the sub prime mortgage issue & the global credit collapse it caused.
why is that ?
glaringly obvious by your deliberate omission that you had a hand in it somehow and wish to avoid the subject and the massive social and global carnage it did to middle class people and those seeking to make a better life for themselves and their children.

the way you avoid talking about certain things is quite a tell
"Mr _anker i know how it all works..."

yet you dont show how it works.
you avoid that at all costs.

your soft trolling to push my comments into your desired frame of suppositions is a bit thick with dogma.
please oppose my comments by posting some data to show i am wrong or something to support what you have said instead of going into your normal "emotional" straw-man excuse" to avoid getting technical.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

They must have made "poor" life choices.

Exactly... an i owe my success to makin good life choices.!!!

First off... an prolly the most important... i had good parents an good health... an besides that... i was always surrounded by just enuff good influences to keep me on the strate an narrow.!!!

Concluson:::

I guess you coud say that i pulled myself up by my own boot straps.!!!

However... i try not to look down on the bad-seeds who Pizzed ther life away an turned into goverment-moochers/crybabies... an that alone gives me a feelin of superiority... so for people like me its all a Win-Win.!!!

 

[parmalee]

They must have made "poor" life choices.

Yeah, I'm just not buying that people who come across, at least, as reasonably intelligent and educated can be so blind to economic realities. Or, for that matter, being oblivious to the fact that the privileges of being born into wealth extend way beyond simply having a considerable safety net and the ability to purchase the "best" education. The initial query seems more like trolling to me.

Meh... I just can't be usin' wordses today.

 

[billvon]

Yeah, I'm just not buying that people who come across, at least, as reasonably intelligent and educated can be so blind to economic realities. Or, for that matter, being oblivious to the fact that the privileges of being born into wealth extend way beyond simply having a considerable safety net and the ability to purchase the "best" education.

Yep. A straight white male from the US, born into even a middle class family*, with no serious deformities or handicaps, has such a tremendous level of privilege that it's hard for them to really grasp what it's like for someone who doesn't have those advantages. I've spoken to a lot of them and they often get really mad, because they think that by describing those privileges it takes away from their accomplishments or something; that it suggests they're not as independent and hardworking than they think they are.

And that's not the point. Many of those people did work really hard and earned everything they got. It's just that a black woman could work every bit as hard and not earn the same level of success.

(* - which is hugely rich to 90% of the world.)

 

[Seattle]

yes i was aware this was where you were heading.
my point is, what does that equate to for those whom do not earn enough to save money and so rely on government funded health care & government funded education ?

i am pro the idea that taxation on retirement savings compounding profit should be almost nothing, maybe even 0
but they should be wholly contained retirement savings that pay out at retirement or are used partially to fund a 1st new home deposit.

not some lumbering massive fund of millions for someone to dodge capital gains tax as their primary income for to avoid paying income tax like all the lower income workers are forced to pay.
i am also pro the idea of somehow lowering the gift tax for inheritance purposes so direct funds being passed on to another person are not taxed like income or gift tax when that income is going to be used as a form of income to sustain the person like an investment portfolio that operates just like a business to fund the beneficiary like any company would fund an an employer.

there is a great deal of people who seek to exploit such ideas to avoid income tax.

That's true. That's why you don't just focus on stocks or capital gains. Focus on that upper tier that you are really interested in and not on middle class people who manage to save a little whether that's with stocks or real estate.

 

[Seattle]

show me
prove what you just said by posting some data


whos ranting ?

the dot com bubble wiped out middle class investment portfolios which woudl have gone to retirement savings

i notice you conveniently avoid addressing the sub prime mortgage issue & the global credit collapse it caused.
why is that ?
glaringly obvious by your deliberate omission that you had a hand in it somehow and wish to avoid the subject and the massive social and global carnage it did to middle class people and those seeking to make a better life for themselves and their children.

the way you avoid talking about certain things is quite a tell
"Mr _anker i know how it all works..."

yet you dont show how it works.
you avoid that at all costs.

your soft trolling to push my comments into your desired frame of suppositions is a bit thick with dogma.
please oppose my comments by posting some data to show i am wrong or something to support what you have said instead of going into your normal "emotional" straw-man excuse" to avoid getting technical.

Enough with the "please post data" bit. You haven't posted any data. Stock prices did go down. People didn't lose all their saving. Many of those same stocks went back up as well. You claim was that the middle class couldn't afford stocks and that it was only the rich.

If it was only the rich then how could the dot com bubble affect the middle class savings? I don't need "data" for that.

Most people were thrown out of their houses with sub-prime mortgages (I had no more involvement in that than you do by the way). People who "lost" money there didn't have it to began with. The banks were the losers there.

You rant is that you take a news story and try to make it apply to everyone, make it bigger than it actually was. You are just looking for excuses.

I saved some money when I had almost no money. People without savings are generally not people with no money. They are people who don't have. I have a friend who had a job for 21 years with the same company, had a house, good salary and he never took advantage of a 401k company plan where they match any money (up to a point) that he put in. He didn't put in anything.

He did go out and spend money socializing, newer car, etc. It's usually a choice.

 

[billvon]

Most people were thrown out of their houses with sub-prime mortgages (I had no more involvement in that than you do by the way). People who "lost" money there didn't have it to began with.

There were people who lost their homes - and ended up with tens of thousands in debt. So I'd call that losing money.

The banks were the losers there.

The banks got the bailouts. Almost a trillion dollars, as I recall.

 

[Jeeves]

Yeah, I'm just not buying that people who come across, at least, as reasonably intelligent and educated can be so blind to economic realities.

Every cloud has a silver lining - on the top. The same clouds look pretty damn dark from underneath. (So do boots!)

Or, for that matter, being oblivious to the fact that the privileges of being born into wealth extend way beyond simply having a considerable safety net and the ability to purchase the "best" education.
Meh... I just can't be usin' wordses today.

I guess you're not one of the privileged.

People who "lost" money there didn't have it to began with.

But that doesn't mean they can't be conned/pushed into borrowing or bullied into paying and paying and paying and paying...

 

[Seattle]

There were people who lost their homes - and ended up with tens of thousands in debt. So I'd call that losing money.

The banks got the bailouts. Almost a trillion dollars, as I recall.

The banks were the losers in that they lost money as opposed to making money. Yes, the government largely bailed them out. I'm probably for the bailout if it was necessary for financial system stability. I'm not for the situation that lead to it.

You can't set up a situation where there is no risk for the banks and then be surprised when they take too much risk. That's a regulation problem. My point is still the same, the banks didn't profit from that situation. They largely were made whole however.

People who should have had houses, for the most part, didn't lose houses. People who could affords houses in the first place are the ones who lost those houses.

I'm not defending a bad policy. I'm just saying that Rainbows claim that "the middle classes savings were wiped out" is not correct.

 

[Seattle]

Every cloud has a silver lining - on the top. The same clouds look pretty damn dark from underneath. (So do boots!)


I guess you're not one of the privileged.

But that doesn't mean they can't be conned/pushed into borrowing or bullied into paying and paying and paying and paying...

That's true. So what? Who is defending that? We were talking about the middle class having all their saving wiped out...which was not an accurate assessment of the facts.

 

[Seattle]

Kinda hard to avoid stating the obvious here, but--what about those who simply can't afford to set aside money in such a manner? I don't recall the numbers, but the stats are readily available: something like 60 percent of Americans would have to put off whatever monthly payments for a time if faced with a 500 dollar emergency? I'm reasonably certain that if that be the case, then it's also most unlikely they're able to set aside money into savings.

(Apologies for weird diction--head is fuzzy)

That's like saying most Americans are fat and therefore can't be fit. They can be fit if they want to be.

Someone with a house, a car, a job can have $500 or more in savings if they really want to.

How many lower middle class people, who do have a house, have unmowed lawns? If it's a lot, is that because they can't mowed their lawns or is it because they don't care to mow their lawns?

 

[billvon]

That's like saying most Americans are fat and therefore can't be fit. They can be fit if they want to be.

No, it's not like that at all. It's more like saying that a paraplegic can't be fit. Sure, they _can_ be, to some degree - but it is nothing like a fit person trying the same thing. And for some, they simply can't.

 

[billvon]

The banks were the losers in that they lost money as opposed to making money.

In the end, yes. But during the heyday of the mortgage backed security, they were making a ton of money. The market in credit default swaps alone was over 60 _trillion_ dollars - and banks were making a lot of money off that money stream. (Note that in 2007, the GDP of the entire world was only 57 trillion.)

People who should have had houses, for the most part, didn't lose houses. People who could affords houses in the first place are the ones who lost those houses.

Did you mean "couldn't?"

I'm not defending a bad policy. I'm just saying that Rainbows claim that "the middle classes savings were wiped out" is not correct.

Some of them were. Most were not.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

That's like saying most Americans are fat and therefore can't be fit. They can be fit if they want to be.

I know its not PC to say... but youv'e just given a clear example of flawed character.!!!

Someone with a house, a car, a job can have $500 or more in savings if they really want to.

They dont... but i bet they have 200 channels of cable TV an the latest phone.!!!

How many lower middle class people, who do have a house, have unmowed lawns? If it's a lot, is that because they can't mowed their lawns or is it because they don't care to mow their lawns?

Clearly... they Just Dont Care.!!!

 

[Jeeves]

That's true. So what? Who is defending that?

No, I'm defending the people who "had no money to lose" --- or to invest or to save - and never will have, because they're bled dry by the money-lenders.
I'm advocating a tax structure that reflects the real economoc relationship of individuals to their society.

We were talking about the middle class having all their saving wiped out...which was not an accurate assessment of the facts.

So what? You were talking about a "middle class" that's undefined. It could include or exclude very large numbers of people by interpretation. Middle between what and which? "Middle" in terms of income, education, occupation, self-designation, property..?
As for banks losing money... Ohhh - the poor dears!
How many top bank executives lost their homes?