Mitt’s Income vs. Your Income
 

http://www.slate.com/articles/busine...r_salary_.html

The best part about Mitt is that he only pays 13-15% in taxes. I agree that I cant blame him for just following the tax code, but it doesnt sound like he is too worried about fixing it either.

In 2010, Mitt Romney made $50000 in 20 hours 13 minutes and 13 seconds.

It would take 433 years 2 months 21 days 23 hours 28 minutes and 7 seconds to make what Mitt made in 2010 if you made 50K a year.

"Dont hate the player, hate the game"

when 95% of your income is based off of investments, you too can pay 15% in taxes. (I dont know the actual numbers, but it makes sense)

Train, I think you missed the point..

Why would you want to discourage investment by "fixing" this situation? We should be thanking people like Mitt Romney that somehow figured out a way to make a load of cash in the first place (on which he paid regular income taxes) and then put his cash back into the economy by investing in other businesses (the profits of which were most likely taxed at the corporate rate) before what's left of those profits go back into his pocket (after getting taxed once again at the capital gains rate). The fundamental misunderstanding of the different tax types and tax rates by many is astonishing. Even the news anchors don't even seem to have a full grasp of it.

Don't even get me started on them comparing Romney's "effective" tax rate (recalculating it after he gets a perfectly legal deduction for donating millions to charity) to Buffet's secretary's rate of 15%. Talk about apples to oranges.

Both of my sons (6 & 9) are in Cub scouts, one of the things they had to do was visit a bank and learn about how they work. One of the questions they are supposed to ask is "If I invest $20 today, how much will it be worth when I turn 18?" When the back tells them $20.87 or something close, its a little hard to get them to see the point in investing in anything.

Why "anything?" That should discourage them from investing in a bank account only. They didn't learn anything about investing in other areas (real estate, stocks, etc.). However, there is still a place for that bank account in their investment portfolio if they need liquid assets.

Dave, I have a basic "fundamental understanding of the different types of taxes". The problem is that many like you can't see the forest through the trees. Capital gains tax was as high as 28% at one time in the not so distant past. How has that reduction worked so far?

I get it, the wealthy have a lot of money to invest and high dollar tax professionals to use all of those loopholes. This system allows the wealthy to pay a lower tax rate. I believe anyone should pay a min tax if their primary income is investments especially when they pay less than 1/2 of what the rest of America pays.

I'm not going to thank Mitt for making all of this taxable income until he pays around the same tax percentage as me on his income. If mitt didn't create those jobs, someone else would and If he cant create jobs without government tax breaks and corporate welfare then he should move over for the next guy who can.

Notice I did not say Mitt's tax rate was 13%. Why? Because that was his tax rate after giving millions to the mormon church and that would not be fair.


The government should not need to give a tax incentive to invest....period

It's not really a question of whether or not he CAN do it. It's more a question of where he can do it and get the highest return. If we raise the capital gains tax to 28% or whatever number you want, it will not encourage investment in U.S. companies unless capital gains rates elsewhere are higher. It's all relative.

It cracks me up that in Obama's SOTU speech he complains about companies doing business overseas and then he turns around and tells those same business owners that he's going to raise their taxes. Duh!!! Raise my taxes and I start looking elsewhere for investment opportunities. Lower my taxes and U.S. investments start looking more attractive. Seems like common sense, but even our president can't put two and two together.

Shooter, What is your effective tax rate? Don't get "effective" rate mixed up with your tax bracket. You may be suprised that its not higher than Mitt's:

http://www.smartmoney.com/personal-f...tax-rate-9548/

In my opinion, I pay too much in taxes. Mitt Romney pays too much in taxes. We all do.

The bottom line is, the government takes to much of all of our money, rich or not, and spends even more!

^^^ Agreed. That's the other big misunderstanding out there. We could tax all the billionaires in the U.S. at a rate of 100% and it still wouldn't put a dent in our budget deficit. That makes the conversation about "fair" taxes moot in the big scheme of things. I hate to throw out two DUHs in one thread, but we need to cut government spending...plain and simple.

This makes no sense. Lower capital gains taxes hasn't been shown to do anything except make the wealthy wealthier.

I thought he talked about tax breaks for companies that hire Americans vs sending jobs overseas. Regardless, it's all a dog an pony show whether it's Democrats or Republicans. The real way to create Americans jobs is to discourage imports and balance the trade deficit.

Oh and the idea that we should be thanking Romney making lots of money is ludicrous.

We see it all the time between states with people moving their business out of states like California (high taxes) and into states like Nevada (low taxes). If you think the simple concept of competition for investment dollars "makes no sense" then I can't say anything that will help you to understand.

Really? You can't appreciate the fact that we need entrepreneurs to create new products, ideas, etc.? You can't appreciate the fact that he's stimulating the economy by investing his money in it, which creates jobs, wealth, etc.? Would our country be better off if Romney had just gotten a nice, safe salaried job and never created all the businesses and wealth which he's created? Would we better off if he stuffed his millions in a savings account making 1% interest or if he invests it in businesses like he has done?

you are barking at the moon David.....

"This makes no sense. Lower capital gains taxes hasn't been shown to do anything except make the wealthy wealthier."

Since when is making money bad. It makes no sense that you would want to raise it to allow the government to spend more. Why do the people have to put up with over inflated government spending.

No. You don't.

Florida has some of the lowest corp taxes in the nation along with the lowest income tax (none) and low real estate taxes. It hasn't done a thing for business.

You are right that you can't help me. You don't understand that the low tax rates introduced by Bush not only haven't produced the results you claim will happen, but they correlate with just the opposite. Why would your words trump reality?

I love the last sentence. Apparently you think that all money not invested in the way Romney invested it is stuffed in a mattress at the bank.

Because the govt makes them think that it's needed. What makes no sense is that the Republicans believe it's only a liberal thing.

Nobody claims that making money is bad. Everyone should make enough to live a decent life. What's important is what you do to make that money. If you are improving the lives of others then that mitigates the sole effect of just having more money. Having too much money relative to everyone else does have detrimental effects on society.

That's a typical statement from the OWS crowd.

It’s like, instead of lookin’ in the mirror and go, “Why the #($@ am I not doin’ better?” You just find some guy who’s got more #($@ than you and go “Hey man, what do you need all that #($@ for?” - Adam Carolla

The only income tax that is even remotely fair is a straight percentage where EVERYONE pays the same percentage.

thats because putting money in a bank is called SAVING, NOT INVESTING. Investing involves risk. Your risk tolerence determines your return.

The USSR called. They want their theory back.

Capital gains is double taxation in my mind and with 70% of the wealth being controlled by the baby boomers and shift or change in this policy will result in a transfer of wealth from private citizens to the government in upcoming years, that I am not willing to support.

The non-thinking man's out.:p

Every time money passes hands it's double, triple, quadruple, ad infinitum taxed.

This shows how narrow minded you and Adam Carolla can be. I'm only looking for fair taxes for all Americans. I look in the mirror every day and I'm happy with what I do and what I make. I never wanted to be rich. I'm just tired of paying a ton in taxes while others get a free ride.

Your right, the only tax that is remotely fair is one that everyone pays the same. Thanks for proving my point.

I'm the non thinker when your advocating that everyone should make a "decent" wage and the rest should go to government? Yeah right.

You fail to see that the reason for lower capital gains tax is it has already been taxed. In order for money to turn into capital, to be retained, or distrubited, it must first be a profit. So the profit is taxed, then the dividend is taxed.

That isn't what I'm advocating. But I can see that you draw that conclusion because it detracts from the poor quality of your argument.

Poor quality? LMAO. Yeah. We should just keep feeding the government and start demonizing the rich.

Shooter, Did you check to see what your efffective tax rate is via the calculator I linked? Still think you pay double what Romney does?

Understood but perhaps we should carve out inheritance if the conversation is regarding Capital Gains. With the rhetoric being thrown around on this subject a move to make wholesale changes to capital gains will have a detrimental effect to society. Personally, I would be outraged if a family home, farm or other assets are lost because the taxation on those items prevented surviving family members from keeping assets their parents or relatives worked hard to earn money, that was taxed, and made purchases, that were taxed, and their surviving family who as we know are not as well off as the boomer generation cannot afford it because some radical changes are made to redistribute wealth of Wall Street earnings.

I don't really understand why this has become a huge issue. Capital Gains have been treated differently since WWI. The money used for those investments were taxed multiple times (income and payroll) when they were earned. I am sure you can argue how effective the ROI on those investments are because it is difficult to measure but I would suspect that his investments are diverse but would certainly include a large investment in American companies (which inherently creates jobs).

It became a big issue when that toolbag Warren Buffet spouted off about his secretary paying a higher income tax rate than him. Not only was he comparing apples and oranges (investment income vs. regular income, double taxation, et al as explained above), but I have to think that he is pulling a regular salary from Berkshire Hathaway in addition to his investment income. Therefore, a portion of his income is, in fact, subject to regular income taxes that would be at an equal or higher rate than his secretary's. Why aren't any of these news anchors or reporters asking that question?

I'm sure the excuse for Warren's disingenuous argument will be that he has so many lawyers and accountants working for him that he's able to somehow pull a General Electric and pay a lower "effective" rate than his secretary, but that's a different argument than the investment vs. regular income tax rate issue. I will get on board with the fact that Warren, GE or any other person should not be able to whittle down their tax debt to zero because of all the loopholes. I'm fully on board for a simplified tax system with zero loopholes.

I am just amazed at how much time we waste on the small issues when IMO the bigger issue isn't raising another 10-15% on capital gains tax and the real issue is related to our reckless and irresponsible spending habits.

"zero loopholes"

a part of that debate is that many of the people who scream for zero loopholes are the same ones who incourage the tax breaks that are used to subsidize the green energy movement.

Yes poor quality. You have to make a lie out of my argument because your argument is poor. Same thing with saying the high earners are demonized because I believe they should pay on a progressive scale. It's bombastic blabber.

I have never claimed that everyone should earn a decent living wage and pay the rest to the govt. What I have done is point out cause and effect factors in the economic system that supports my belief in a progressive tax schedule and a duty to help the poor.

If he is single and makes around $100K then he probably does pay double.

The simple solution to this is to allow the corp to pay taxes on profits after dividend distributions. Once it reaches the hands of the public it should be taxed the same whether investment or earnings. If anything the cost of making money is much higher for the individual who goes to a job vs the individual who's money works for him.

What I don't understand is why people feel that capital gains are only a benefit for the rich. Capital Gains tax advantages apply to everyone. The rich ALREADY pay at a higher income tax rate. It is not as if only rich people invest their money. Under this logic we should eliminate 401K tax advantages to give the government more money. I simply don't understand the logic.

The top 20% of wage earners contribute 80% of the tax revenue.

I don't understand how the cost of money is much higher for the individual who goes to a job vs the individual who's money works for him. There is ZERO risk for the individual going to a job (assuming some constant variables like him keeping his job). There is SIGNIFICANT risk for those who invest in markets.

"Why would you want to discourage investment by "fixing" this situation?"
I don't think raising capital gains tax 5 or 10% is going to discourage investment, you only pay on the profits, we'll call it the Romney Tax!
come on where else is he going to put his money? You cannot even buy property and expect it to increase in value anymore.
I cannot wait until Romney is out of the picture.

What was my arguement John? I am curious if you even know.

and not taxing corporations and passing the profits to individuals for taxation is called an S Corp.

You're argument was something totally unrelated to me or anything I'm talking about... "Why do people put up with the govt spending more money"

I'm willing to see severe cuts in govt spending. You don't like what I'm saying that totally unrelated so you reinterpret what I said into totally bombastic BS.

I know what an S corp is. That has nothing to do with anything.

Jobs benefit everyone too. So just tax capital gains like earnings.

Being rich has nothing to do with taxes. We don't tax wealth in most cases.

401K plans aren't meant to benefit high earners excessively because of limits to contributions. But I'm also fine with eliminating tax deductions for pensions and HI. I've said that many times. It creates a false economy and distorts the free market.

That's nice. So what.

Going to a job has lots of overhead. Transportation, work clothes, eating away from home, hire other people to do things that you can't do, taking care of children. and.... 15% additional overhead for FICA.

Fly135 - you like to argue in circles. This is pointless. You are insane if you think taxing capital gains is more productive in creating jobs than the reinvestment or spending of those dollars.

Are you serious about not taxing wealth? Wow.

I love this - the top 20% of income earners generate 80% of tax revenue and your answer is....so what? How much of the tax burden do you expect the top 20% to be accountable for?

You should also recognize that the accumulation of wealth through investment markets has a significantly diminished impact on state/federal resources than Joe the plumber.

Anyone care to address inheritance as that's an important component of this debate and while you're busy demonizing the rich there are going to be a lot of middle and lower income people affected by these Capital Gains changes everyone is so zealous about.

Translation.... I don't change my position. I'm consistent. You don't change your position. You're arguing in circles.:D

Got a reading comprehension problem?

I'm in the top 20% and don't feel overburdened by taxes.

Cannot parse.

Mik, I have no problem with estate taxes. If the children can't learn to make a living then they don't need to get rich off of daddy charity. Money changing hands gets taxed. If you don't want a business to die then start planning.

Besides since corps are people now we need to kill them at the age of 80 and pay estate taxes to the govt. LOL, that's sarcasm BTW.

So take the family farm, or family house because the land value may have appreciated to a point that it is impossible for a middle income family or a young family to pay taxes on. I think that's BS, in no uncertain terms.

This isn't about businesses or corporations but families. Why not carve out families in this converstaion? Families shouldn't be taxed for losing someone.

If they don't want to be taxed because the owner dies then they need to plan ahead and work it out. I see no reason for a family line to accumulate wealth untaxed for a infinite number of generations. The world belongs to future generations. I have no problem with a person losing rights to their property after they are dead. We have exemptions for estate taxes. I'm not claiming those exemptions are exactly the right amount, but I disagree with passing all wealth down a family line no matter how much it is.

My point was, everyone is looking for ways to take more tax dollars in via, higher capital gains tax, higher corp taxes, Higher taxes on the rich, etc....Its a good smoke and mirror game. Distract and confuse , while the government grows and grows. We are asking the wrong questions.

I don't care how anyone tries to spin it, but raising CG tax will hurt investment, because people will get less money to invest.

So what if people who earn large amounts have less money to invest? If you tax earnings people have less money to invest. It's still smoke and mirrors. Where do you think the money is going to go? Into a black hole? It's either spent or invested. BTW, if you answered Black Hole, then you might see another important point that is ignored that I am always bringing up.

It's not like capital gains tax is the only issue on my plate. I talk about cutting the budget of numerous govt agencies all the time.

Earnings are not capital. So lets say capital gains is increased to 28% and ten years from now our government is still broke. Do we raise it again? Are you still going to be ok with government fleecing its citizens when it takes 60,80% of that capital out of production?

I respectfully disagree. The only income tax that is fair is a fixed amount divided evenly over every person in this country. At 2010 spending levels this is $11,504.62 from each person. This is fair. Let's play with those numbers a bit more and eliminate all the big ticket entitlement and redistribution scams. The tax burden for each individual drops to $4,417.88. There is still a lot of room to cut that to half or less. Regardless, this is the only fair tax system. A benefit is it encourages people to care about government size, scope, and spending.

No, earnings aren't capital gains. I think you're getting confused. Earning can be capital if you invest them.

Again you are confused. Taxing capital gains as earnings has nothing to do with how much tax the govt requires.

Cory, you can forget about "fair". Fair is like art, it's different in everyone's mind depending on what factors you use to draw a conclusion.

Interesting opinion piece in the WSJ: Lesson's from the Great Expansion

I left out "gains" after capital.

If you can't figure out the second part, I can't help you.

I can't imagine you helping me with much. No matter how much I address the second part you manage to either ignore it or can't figure out what I mean when I say I'm all about cutting the size of govt.:rolleyes:

Paul, let me say something else regarding Obama. What I object to is blasting Obama for the size of govt and increasing govt debt while continuing to support the Republican party that does the same thing. If you want to cut govt spending you are going to need to support someone with radical attitude. The problem with guys like you is that you simply want to pretend you are about cutting spending, or believe that simply cutting welfare and SS is the remedy.

I am about really cutting govt spending. That means huge cuts in all the departments.. In addition, I am for significantly cutting back on regulation, tax deductions and exemptions for all things including HI and pensions. I'm not a Libertarian because I don't believe in every man for himself. And I believe in a progressive tax schedule. I also believe that the trade deficit is a threat to our national security.

I consider the impact of policy beyond the most obvious. That's why I say things like... tax deductible HI payments have overinflated up the cost of healthcare and distorted the free market. And since the govt has implemented policy that has driven up healthcare costs while strictly controlling the who provides healthcare it's created an obligation to provide healthcare to those who can't afford it.

So who's your radical? Gingrich? Romney?

"trade deficit is a threat to our national security" and our growing deficit is not helping either. Running the Federal Gov. is like trying to heat your house in the winter with the windows open. No matter who is controlling the thermostat, nothing is going to be accomplished until the windows are closed.

You figured out a lot about me from one thread where I was against increasing capital gains taxes. You are missing my point that if we continue to allow government to just raise taxes when ever they want because they cannot operate within a budget, pretty soon we are going to be working for half our income. It appears some on here wouldn't care as long as it is hitting the rich. Capital is vital to the economy. Taxing it and removing more from the hands of the people that put it to work is a dumb idea, especially with such a volatile economy. Do all rich people put it to work? No of course not. But lets not forget, small business is the backbone of our country.

I also, don't blame Obama solely for what our government has become, but he has done nothing to help. I don't like what the Republican party has become especially since the Teaparty has come about. Quacks like backman have given us a bad name and have lead everyone to believe all Republicans are conservative bible beaters. I can assure you I am neither.

I also consider the impact of policy beyond the most obvious, but I am not going to sit here and chart out the national impact of certain tax policies for you to read.That said, you seem to assume that I remember/ care what you say in other threads. I can assure you that I don't.

Who's your radical? Obama?

Paul, I didn't know this was the first politcal thread you've participated in. However, you know me from what I write here to know that my opinions about what's wrong with the economy are not being addressed by anyone. Ron Paul would be the closest to a radical. So the question remains... who's your radical?

You are outraged about raising taxes to pay our bills, but he real question is what expenses do you want to cut, and who do you expect to do it? Otherwise you've got nothing but faux outrage over raising taxes. Do you express outrage in your home about paying the bills, but do nothing to stop the spending? So what spending do you cut? Tax cuts are not going to bring the economy back. That's a pipe dream that's been demonstrated wrong.

I'd rather see Obama in office again than anyone the phony conservatives are supporting. If my only choice is between spending making war or helping people in this country, then I'll take helping people. That's because I know the money helping people is spent domestically. If we do something about the trade deficit then it will stay in the domestic economy. The principals are clear. Just like RonT said.... we live in a leaky house. There is no solution other than to print more money and incur more debt until the leak is sealed.

I never said it was. You are trying to put words in my mouth again. My previous post was clear.

Outraged? Faux outrage? Again.... There are plenty of no brain reductions that can be made. Military being the first.

Show me were I said anything about lowering taxes?

and the question does remain. How high would taxes have to get before you start saying enough?

Given the current field of candidates, I would vote for Romney, basically because it isn't Obama and at least he can follow money through an income statement.

I think that's pretty obvious. It's the same answer for everyone who has to match spending with revenue... when the budget is balanced. I would expect at some point people will be outraged about high taxes to finally make some real demands on govt.

I'll vote for Obama because Romney thinks 15% capital gains tax is fine because it benefits the rich the most.

What about spending?

What about freedom?

What about the right to succeed?

What about the right to fail?

What about self accountability?

I addressed that a couple posts up...

Some people here fail to recognize the values that this country was based on.

They think others success should pay for others failure.

They think that government has a right to the fruits of our labor and risk.

They think everything should be fair.

They think that because some families plan for the next generation and pass wealth on to them, that those families should be penalized.

They think that because some people take responsibility for themselves, become educated (often with huge personal expense), get good jobs, and are able to succeed in life, even when their old jobs get shipped over seas, that these people should carry the rest.

They think that the government can and should make decisions for me because I am unable to do so for myself.

These people are the do nothing crowd. Instead of working hard, planning for their future, their kids future, etc.. they sit around on their butts, they complain that things aren't fair, they take from those that do, and try to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator.

I hope these people are ready for what lies ahead, because we are. These people don't know history, let alone remember it, they are destined to repeat it.

The ideals espoused in this thread have never worked anywhere, at any time in history. They have started wars and resulted in the fall of once great nations. They have resulted in mass genocide numerous times in history. This thread represents two things:

JEALOUSY and IGNORANCE

as I said before:

JEALOUSY and IGNORANCE!

If you think Obama is going to cut spending you prove my assertion!!

Sam, are you just willfully ignorant, or so consumed with your own beliefs that you can't understand anything that doesn't match up precisely?

1) I don't think Obama is going to cut spending. Nor have I ever said that. Assertion not proven.
2) I don't think people who pay capital gains tax should pay a different rate than earners.
3) This country wasn't built on "values" that involve undermining the security of the country by running a huge deficit economy.

And BTW nothing you have ever said has worked in history.

"This thread represents two things:

JEALOUSY and IGNORANCE"

I agree 100%.

Seems like a lot of people on here are jealous of the poor for receiving welfare benefits.
Seems like a lot of people on here are ignorant when it comes to reducing the defecit.

Jealous? Lol. I bet you think different when you get out of school and start paying taxes.

No

1. You are the one who said that you would vote for Obama, which would further worsen the situation.
2. They already paid the same rate when they made the original money that they invested. Somehow, you think it is a good idea to tax investors twice. What you fail to understand is that the money they invest is at risk and that they could lose it all.
3. I will agree with you on the deficit; however, mass spending cuts have to come first. We should actually follow the Constitution AND its meaning. We shouldn't be subsidizing everyone and everything.

The basis for this thread is that someone has, while someone else doesn't, and they are complaining about it. The ideals that you, and others here, seem to be espousing are those of social justice and legislating to the lowest common denominator. I don't know if you are purposefully espousing these ideals or not, but without clarification, they represent nothing but JEALOUSY and IGNORANCE!.

With statements like this,

people here don't know what you stand for or what you mean. Others perceive your ideas for what they seem, and parrot them back,

showing nothing but JEALOUSY and IGNORANCE!

Because you can't effectively communicate your ideals, you give people the wrong impression. When someone calls you out on the ideals that you seem to be communicating, you call foul and say that is not what you believe - you do it in every thread. Before you know it, some young fool is parroting back what they think the cool old guy is saying.

IMO opinion, I think you actually believe in what you seem to be communicating and don't have the ability to justify your opinion when someone calls you out on it. Instead of defending your position, you change the subject, divert, or do anything else so that you don't have to defend your position. You will often pick one part of someone's post to attack, instead of attacking the idea behind the entire post. By doing this, you divert the context of the argument from your unjustifiable position and on to one little part of the greater argument. You may not know you are doing it, but you do. See how above you are accused of arguing in a circle arguments? People with this mindset shouldn't feel bad though, because no justification for the argument exists and history shows this.

"Jealous? Lol. I bet you think different when you get out of school and start paying taxes."

Been out of school for awhile. Pardon me for not staying up to date on my Wakeworld status. It also probably doesn't have my current board, binding, etc. I have been paying taxes for awhile. I went to the Navy after high school and worked in management for several years before I went to school. I didn't think different then and I don't think different now. If you want to know where I am in life, ask instead of just reading a profile.

"1. You are the one who said that you would vote for Obama, which would further worsen the situation."

Didn't you say the same thing a bit ago? You said you would vote for Obama over Romney or Gingrich, right? Are you flipflopping on that?

As an actual certified tax professional, I am shocked at how a person's political views skew their understanding of the tax code.

IMO voting for Romney would worsen the situation. If RP becomes the nominee then we'll probably vote for the same person. Not counting on it though.

Well if you invest money you earned then you are taxed again on the earning. So your logic is completely invalid.

So what if they could lose it all. Don't take the risk and put your money in a shoebox. But that won't happen because people want to make money. That's no reason for the govt to give welfare to investors. The stock market already has it's welfare in the form of pension plans.

Massive spending cuts and changes in tax policy.

As a certified tax professional I'm sure you are shocked anytime the govt doesn't give your occupation some welfare in the form of tax break.:rolleyes:

I would vote for Vermin before I'd vote for Romney
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFXXAuDK1Ao
15 million people out of work and he calls them jealous and ignorant!

http://m.yahoo.com/w/ygo-frontpage/l...en&.tsrc=yahoo


"Capital gains: how the rich get richer Why does billionaire Warren Buffett pay less income tax than his secretary?
Two words: capital gains.
Long-term capital gains, which derive from the sale of investments such as stocks and bonds held for more than a year, are taxed at 15 percent. That's well below the 35 percent maximum tax rate on ordinary income such as wages.
The preferential tax treatment of capital gains is widely viewed as regressive because the rich, who derive a disproportionate share of their income from capital gains, pay less than half of the tax rate on that income compared to middle-class wage earners.
"Capital gains are highly concentrated," says Rebecca Wilkins, senior counsel for Citizens for Tax Justice. "Most of the capital gains are earned by folks in the top 10 percent, and it's even concentrated more than that. So the capital gains tax break, which is a 20 percentage-point difference in the amount of tax that is paid on those, is going almost all to the top 5 percent."
In fact, Americans with an annual income of $1 million or more, or 0.3 percent of all taxpayers, enjoy 70 percent of the capital gains benefit, says Hanlon.
The favorable capital gains rate is expected to save the wealthy (and cost Uncle Sam) $38.5 billion for fiscal 2012, according to the Office of Management and Budget."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy...y_category.jpg

No one is arguing against the fact that government spending needs to be drastically cut, but people like Sam don't have a grasp of how much cutting is really required and how difficult that job is. What Sam fails to realize is that the US has spent like drunken sailors for the past 45 years and it is too late to just make cuts. Sacrifices need to be made and it is clear from some of the "ignorant" responses that selfish americans (rich & poor) only want cuts or tax increases as long as it will not effect them.

Here are some facts:

The last time the US had a balanced budget was in 1957 (not including Clinton's surplus myth in 2000)
US Debit= 15.3 Trillion and rising
Expected 2012 US budget deficit= 1.2 Trillion
57% of the budget is "mandatory spending" and includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, TARP and other mandatory programs.
Descresionary spending makes up 1.3 trillion of the budget with most of it going to military and homeland security (815 billion)

According to my quick math the US will need to cut approximately 1.7 trillion out of the annual budget to ballance the budget and start making a dent in our 15 trillion dollar debt.

This means even if we cut ALL "descresionary spending", we will still be short 400 billion. No problem! We just change the laws and start digging into the "mandatory spending". It is estimated that the government spends approximatly 900 billion a year on all "welfare for the poor". We can cut every social service known to man! This will put a end to all of the "mexicans" who buy 50 inch televisions and 22 inch rims, but how many deaths of children from malnutrition is except able? We can cut the Social Security that was "promised" to the baby boomers, but how many deaths of ederly from lack of assistance is except able? We can cut Medicare, but how many unnecessary deaths of the sick from lack of care is except able?

As radical as this may sound, I'm not completly against the apocalyptic scenario described (little military, little social services, little social security) because this scenario will eventually come if we continue to ignore our government's income vs spending problems.

Everone needs to sacrifice in order to make a difference, yet I even speak about raising capital gains taxes back to rates seen as recent as 2002 and the "conservatives" get their panties in a bunch. Sam claims to be a "conservative", but the truth is that he is only conservative if it doesnt effect him. You will make a great politician Sam.

BTW… FLY is right, Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate that is willing to make the cuts needed.

In case you are as "ignorant" as Paul or Sam, here is what 15 trillion dollars looks like:

http://usdebt.kleptocracy.us/

Shooter, every one of us here are only here because we were lucky. All of our governments "mandatory spending" seems to be focussed on mitigating bad luck. That should not be the governments job. Just because we have been doing it a long time and feel entitled to that service does not mean it should be kept. All are given opportunity to persue happiness. Most will find it. Many will not, and some of those through no fault of their own. We as citizens should help when we can through charity, but it should not be the job of the government.

So the mandatory spending is for mitigating bad luck, and the discretionary spending is for special interests and generally running the country into the ground. FWIW I say cut the discretionary spending first then work on cutting the mandatory spending.

Shooter,
Please tell me what else what I don't know or believe... I can't wait.

I think we should cut every Federal Government program that isn't explicitly listed in the Enumerated Powers, including those which fall under the liberally defined welfare clause... cut them all, I will do fine, heck, I will excel.

Secondly, maybe charts like this

http://sierravoices.com/wordpress/wp...eased_debt.jpg

are great talking points in your group of friends, but you are either


First, as spelled out in the Constitution of United States, Congress controls the purse strings, not the POTUS.

Article 1 Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The POTUS can only try to set general policy and tone.

The Obama Administration is required by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921and by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to present a budget. Read about history... this is Nixon/Watergate stuff.. The Obama Administration has violated both of these laws by not submitting and adopting a budget.

Furthermore, the chart is complete nonsense since all the POTUS's prior to Obama all include a minimum FOUR FULL YEARS and in some cases EIGHT YEARS as POTUS. The chart only represents two of Obama's years as POTUS. It also is shown with a running percentage which is misleading because it depends on what the debt was prior to each president serving.

During Bill Clinton's term as POTUS the congress stopped him cold when it came to spending.

But the truth is that the debt owed to the public was $6.3 trillion the day Obama took office. A year later, it was $7.8 trillion, and as of June 1, it was $9.7 trillion. The total outstanding debt, which includes both the public debt and money the government owes to itself was $10.6 trillion on Jan. 20, 2009; a year later, it was $12.3 trillion, and it’s $14.3 trillion today.

Obama's proposed 2012 budget would double the public debt over the next decade, from $9 trillion in fiscal 2010 to $18.4 trillion in 2019, according to projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. BTW, not one single Democrat voted for this budget!

When the chart says, "Office of the Democratic Leader" on the bottom it might clue the average person in to doing more research since it could possibly be bias...

And for the record, I doubt anyone believes in Ron Paul's message more than I do. I know he can't win this go around, he is only trying to spread his message. He will end up passing his campaign machine on to his son, who does have a real chance to win in the future. Rand Paul is just as awesome as his dad, but wraps it up in a prettier package.

I think you misread, he said discretionary spending was mostly military and homeland security. Oddly enough, two things the government should actually be responsible for. I say start with things that shouldnt be the job of the federal government, like welfare\social services, the move onto areas where they need to maintain responsibility.

Sam, you feel that I posted that image to defend Obama and that is not the case. In fact, it makes Obama look bad. Multiply 16% (two years in office) by 4 (8 years in office) and you will have a 64% increase in debit. I posted it to show BOTH parties are equllly at fault.

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" -The Who

Jason, discretionary or mandatory spending….I dont care. It is my understanding that the president does not have the authority to cut mandatory spending. My only point was that both need to be cut to get the job done.

"I think we should cut every Federal Government program that isn't explicitly listed in the Enumerated Powers, including those which fall under the liberally defined welfare clause... cut them all, I will do fine, heck, I will excel."

Just don't raise Sam's capital gains tax by 5%, he needs to put gas in that boat! Thanks for proving my point

One more for your enjoyment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=Li0no7O9zmE

I just love this "wealth" argument crap. Complete crap. Do you realize that the "wealth" is on paper. They do not actually have that money. It is invested in business which employee people. The purchase of those stocks has been converted to real money that is in the economy. What the heck do you guys even think with. If you want to complain, you should do it regarding the local tax structures that make it real expensive for businesses to get started and be able capture those investment dollars.

I love it how someone won't vote for someone based on his answer about capital gains but will gladly vote for someone who's position and parties position is to spread America's wealth internationally through fixed taxation schemes so the UN can have a budget off American workers backs.

That's why you will always find a large majority who vote against your interests. Both of the things that you think the govt should be doing are so far overreaching and sometimes non-productive or even destructive that they are viewed both as waste and even oppressive.

Bottom line is that anyone with half a brain knows the trillions spent in the middle east are all to put gas in your car or provide other forms of energy. The people using the oil should be paying for it in a way more directly related to consumption. Maybe we need a "security interest gas tax".

As far as a Security Interest Gas Tax goes... Nope..we don't need that. Just cut corporate welfare and adhere to what the Constitution says.

Regarding the "large majority who vote against your interests", this is very problem with a "Democracy" and why our founding fathers didn't make the United States one. A Constitutional Republic guarantees and protects the interest of the worlds largest minority, the individual. The politicians want to change our system though and have been doing so since our inception as country. They keep moving us towards a democracy and away from a republic. The worst part was probably the 17th Amendment.

"Multiply 16% (two years in office) by 4 (8 years in office) and you will have a 64% increase in debit"
Thats simple interest, if you use compound interest its almost 90% increase:eek:

The chart is misleading because it shows "Percent Increase in Public Debt" instead of a consistent baseline. If the Public Debt was low, then the percent increase would appear higher than if the public debt was high when they were in office (Does that make sense?).

McGavin (Shooter)-I havent kept up with this thread, nor do I have a horse in this race...but your post and subsequent posts lost all credibility when I saw you spell "acceptable" as "except able." I would let it slide if it was just 1 brain fart, but it was 3 times in a row. I dont mean to be a jerk, but I dont know how you can make a convincing political argument without knowing how to use/spell a 1st grade word.

Adam,

"ex·cept"
Preposition:
Not including; other than.

It was ment to be a play on words in context of my post (Except-able over Acceptable)….Everyone can sacrifice "except" for me.

It appears the others figured it out, next time I will dumb it down for you.

We do not need anymore taxes. To me, that's the same as giving an ineffective employee a raise for insufficient work. The US Gov. has plenty of money to run our country. Having a balanced budget amendment may help because with an unlimited amount to spend and virtually no accountability what's to stop the spending. The above chart has some interesting information and adjusts for inflation when analyzing the deficit.