IBCoupe wrote:

WDRacing wrote:If you're pro-Obama you don't think people should be able to invest their money successfully without "sharing" their "fair" share. Fair would be taxing people at the same rate they were initially. God forbid you want to invest for your retirement.

If "investing your money successfully" means "earning income," then yeah you shouldn't be able to do so without paying income taxes.

Did I say earning income? No. I figured since we were talking about capital gains you could make the friggin leap, guess not. I'll try to explain things clearer for ya college boy.

IBCoupe wrote:

WDRacing wrote:If you're pro-Obama you don't mind spending 4 billion a day in interest on the National Debt. In fact, you're so ok with it, you want to spend more!

Oh, I get it. You're a troll.

So you're ok with spending 4 billion a day in interest? And since I'm not, I'm a troll? Standard BS Liberal thinking right there. Any opinion that differs from yours has to be hated upon.

WDRacing wrote:Did I say earning income? No. I figured since we were talking about capital gains you could make the friggin leap, guess not. I'll try to explain things clearer for ya college boy.

What is this I don't even...

Do you know what the word "income" means?

WDRacing wrote:So you're ok with spending 4 billion a day in interest? And since I'm not, I'm a troll?

I'm not, and that's not why you're a troll.

If you can't keep up, take notes.

Riiight.

But do you?

...know what "income" means?

Why don't you explain it to me....slowly. This would be a much better conversation over beer, in person.

ugh.. this thread makes my head hurt again.

Anyone know why the US, Europe and a few other select countries are so wealthy? Sure, natural resources play a part.. but it's the concept of capital that creates our wealth. It allows us to make money work on multiple levels for multiple people. Our government is wise enough to know that our economy depends on the expansion of capital to grow our wealth. To expand capital we need people start spreading money.. that means making investments. If you increase the tax rate on investments you reduce the return of investments and then people stop making investments.

It's in our best interest (all people) to keep the tax rate on investments low.

I'm not saying our income tax system isn't screwed up. I'm not saying there are not too many loopholes.. I'm just saying the idea of raising taxes on capital gains is a really bad idea for our economy.. especially right now.

Eikon wrote:ugh.. this thread makes my head hurt again.

Anyone know why the US, Europe and a few other select countries are so wealthy? Sure, natural resources play a part.. but it's the concept of capital that creates our wealth. It allows us to make money work on multiple levels for multiple people. Our government is wise enough to know that our economy depends on the expansion of capital to grow our wealth. To expand capital we need people start spreading money.. that means making investments. If you increase the tax rate on investments you reduce the return of investments and then people stop making investments.

It's in our best interest (all people) to keep the tax rate on investments low.

I'm not saying our income tax system isn't screwed up. I'm not saying there are not too many loopholes.. I'm just saying the idea of raising taxes on capital gains is a really bad idea for our economy.. especially right now.

Agreed.

And IB - I was not arguing that capital gains should not be taxed, and I really wasn't trying to label it a "double tax" when I called it a "secondary tax". Right along with what Eikon said above. It is legitimate to tax capital gains as income, if indeed you are still in the tireless habit of taxing income, I was trying to set the argument for why capital gains should not be taxed as straight ordinary "primary" income.

WD,
"Income" is money you take in. If you are investing and you make money, that's income. If you work for a factory, and you get paid a salary, that's income. If you buy a home and you sell it for a profit, that's income. If you paint pretty pretty pictures, and you sell them, that's income. Here's something important to understand: long-term capital gains are income, and we choose to tax them at a lesser rate. It's a pretty solid choice, but it's a choice nonetheless, and either way you're talking about income.

Stebo,
The reason it should not be taxed as straight ordinary "primary" income has nothing to do with the fact that it's income earned off of money you already paid taxes on. The reason it should not be taxed as straight ordinary "primary" income is because it's in our policy interests to encourage people to invest, and to do so on a long-term basis.

If it was truly about "primary" and "secondary" income, I'd expect you to be totally livid at the fact that if you buy a stock and sell it within a year of buying it, you pay taxes on it as ordinary income. It's a policy choice, Stebo, and one that Congress should properly account for as a "tax expenditure."

Eikon wrote:To expand capital we need people start spreading money..

That is exactly what Obama was talking about

Spreading the wealth to the middle class instead of all the wealth going to the rich with more tax cuts that Romney/Ryan are advocating

Telcoman

spreading the wealth to the middle class? What are you talking about.. Obama is all about spreading the money to the poor.

As usually you take one little nugget of the overall conversation and try to spin in a liberal direction.

Do you understand why the capital gains tax is lower than the standard rate? Did you read the rest of my post or simply hang on to one sentence that you could take a liberal swing on?

telcoman wrote:That is exactly what Obama was talking about

Spreading the wealth to the middle class instead of all the wealth going to the rich with more tax cuts that Romney/Ryan are advocating

Telcoman

To "spread the wealth", someone has to LOSE money they earned, and someone else has to GAIN money they didn't earn. Who would you like that to be? And how would you propose that happen?

We get it - you don't like tax cuts, because Mother Jones told you not to like tax cuts. But your grasp of the intricacies of the tax code is tenuous at best.

I don't know of a single educated tax professional or economics expert who believes taxation is even relevant to the issue of getting the country out of debt.

Since you're feeling so charitable, I'll repeat my call: Stay out of MY pockets until you dig into your own.

Side note: Interesting how the Left and the Right view charity... Faith-based institutions feed the poor and nurture the needy through parishoner contributions. Those same institutions, as a rule, largely lean Right. The Left would have the Federal Government doling out the assistance.

What's the difference?

The Right says, "There's a person in need. I have plenty. Here, take some of mine."
The Left says, "There's a person in need. That guy ^ has plenty. Take some of his."

It's hypocrisy at the most basic level.

AZhitman wrote: The Left would have the Federal Government doling out the assistance.


What's the difference?

The Right says, "There's a person in need. I have plenty. Here, take some of mine."
The Left says, "There's a person in need. That guy ^ has plenty. Take some of his."

It's hypocrisy at the most basic level.

Not really. Because here's something else they say.

The Right says, "Now cut my taxes."
The Left says, "Now raise our taxes."

It's nice to think that you're a nicer person than liberals because you're a conservative, but it only works if you ignore half of what they're saying.

AZhitman wrote:I don't know of a single educated tax professional or economics expert who believes taxation is even relevant to the issue of getting the country out of debt.

That is because there are not any where you live.

Your governor got rid of all the good teachers to save money to give tax cuts to the rich ranchers

AZhitman wrote:I don't know of a single educated tax professional or economics expert who believes taxation is even relevant to the issue of getting the country out of debt.

I missed that until Howie quoted you, Greg. For real? Or are you just pulling his leg? I don't want to go Google it for you if you're just ragging on Howie.

But honestly, I don't know of a single economics expert who would claim that we need to "get out" of debt.

AZhitman wrote:Those same institutions, as a rule, largely lean Right.

Also: citation needed.

IBCoupe wrote:

AZhitman wrote: The Left would have the Federal Government doling out the assistance.

What's the difference?

The Right says, "There's a person in need. I have plenty. Here, take some of mine."
The Left says, "There's a person in need. That guy ^ has plenty. Take some of his."

It's hypocrisy at the most basic level.

Not really. Because here's something else they say.

The Right says, "Now cut my taxes."
The Left says, "Now raise our taxes."

It's nice to think that you're a nicer person than liberals because you're a conservative, but it only works if you ignore half of what they're saying.

That's just silly... The right isn't screaming for tax cuts. They're against having their taxes raised. The left never says raise OUR taxes, they say raise someone elses. Nice spin.

Wait until you get a tad older and have money you actually earned yourself. Then maybe, just maybe you'll pass a little less judgement. There isn't anything wrong with wanting to keep the money you've earned.

WDRacing wrote:That's just silly... The right isn't screaming for tax cuts. They're against having their taxes raised. The left never says raise OUR taxes, they say raise someone elses. Nice spin.

There's somebody you should meet.

WDRacing wrote:Wait until you get a tad older and have money you actually earned yourself. Then maybe, just maybe you'll pass a little less judgement. There isn't anything wrong with wanting to keep the money you've earned.

Thanks for speculating wildly about my life.

IB's already pledged to be a public defendant, and to do it purely pro bono

Dude, you're not even out of college yet, you're life experience = nada. I'm not speculating.

telcoman wrote: That is because there are not any where you live.

Your governor got rid of all the good teachers to save money to give tax cuts to the rich ranchers

Do you just make stuff up for fun, or are you delusional?

The Governor gets rid of teachers? The governor gives tax cuts? And economists have to live in AZ to be heard?

I'm beginning to think you bought your GED with change you bummed at a bus stop.

IBCoupe wrote:Also: citation needed.

Why? So you can flounder about and desperately grasp for some counter-statistic that shows people of faith largely vote Left? Do it yourself.

How is it that you continually assume, nay, "spculate wildly" that I'm a conservative? Did you get a free Decoder Ring with your Telcoman Starter Kit?

(...or better still, "speculate wildly" that I'm a "nice person"?)

If the Left says, "Raise my taxes", I'm sure that's news to them. It certainly is to me. Stop the presses - does Howie know about this?

WDRacing wrote:Dude, you're not even out of college yet, you're life experience = nada. I'm not speculating.

Yeah, okay. My four years of designing the next sea-faring nuclear missile silos for the Navy and my eighteen-month old marriage. Totally nada.

AZhitman wrote:Why? So you can flounder about and desperately grasp for some counter-statistic that shows people of faith largely vote Left? Do it yourself.

I don't care which side does it more. That just sounds made up to me. Call me a sucker for counter-intuitive truths.

AZhitman wrote:How is it that you continually assume, nay, "spculate wildly" that I'm a conservative? Did you get a free Decoder Ring with your Telcoman Starter Kit?

Because you and I have been conversing for a few years, Greg. ;-)

AZhitman wrote:(...or better still, "speculate wildly" that I'm a "nice person"?)

Because you and I have met in person, Greg. ;-)

AZhitman wrote:If the Left says, "Raise my taxes", I'm sure that's news to them. It certainly is to me. Stop the presses - does Howie know about this?

I think the proportion of the Right that sees charity as a viable public policy solution to the ills of the country is roughly equal to the proportion of the Left that recognizes that all of the Bush tax cuts, for example, have to go.

stebo0728 wrote:IB's already pledged to be a public defendant, and to do it purely pro bono

That's it. I'm quitting the sauce.

IBCoupe wrote:That just sounds made up to me.

A little churchin' wouldn't hurt you one bit, little brother. You wouldn't be the only left-leaning Indie in the room, thankfully.

IBCoupe wrote:Because you and I have been conversing for a few years, Greg.

And as enjoyable as that is, I'm still lost as to how "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" translates to "capital-C Conservative".

IBCoupe wrote:I think the proportion of the Right that sees charity as a viable public policy solution to the ills of the country is roughly equal to the proportion of the Left that recognizes that all of the Bush tax cuts, for example, have to go.

For a long time, it's all we had. Talk to the old people in your family... they're smarter than you think.

Most of them are dead. My family's not got a great record on that. That's why I get as much energy into what I do now.

Sorry to hear that. I'll bet they'd have had some great stories to share.

IBCoupe wrote:

WDRacing wrote:Dude, you're not even out of college yet, you're life experience = nada. I'm not speculating.

Yeah, okay. My four years of designing the next sea-faring nuclear missile silos for the Navy and my eighteen-month old marriage. Totally nada.

Let me preface this with saying that I don't personally have anything against you. Our views simply reside on the opposite polls. With that said...

Helping design something in the nuclear field is pretty cool. Hats off for getting to be involved in something like that. BUT...and you knew this was coming...sitting behind a computer participating in the design of something and being married for 18 months doesn't strike me as much life experience.

Seeing something like the design of a nuclear, well anything, through from start to finish, THAT would be impressive. Finish being the deployment of the said sub.

Being married to the same chick for 18 months...don't take this the wrong way please, isn't an achievement at all.

My point isn't to take anything away from you. It's to highlight that you haven't walked Gods green earth long enough to pass judgement on what others might think, or make blanket statements concerning everyone with views that oppose your own. If you had said you did 4 years in the Peace Corps or something, I would retract my statement and stfu.

Just because I'm voting for Romney doesn't mean I share all of his views, I don't. However, and you know this, he's the only other choice on the table. I think Obama will be the death of America, so I feel strongly about getting him out of office. So people like yourself that support him...well they just bring out the worst in me. Which is my problem, not yours, I fully understand that. However, I am who I am.

Several of my best friends are life long Liberals, I grew up in north of Boston after all. Friggin surrounded my entire life

Try not to take the things I say too personally. I admittedly say things to inflame quite often, I'm an abrasive unfiltered prick and sometimes say things out of spite. Especially in the evenings having spent the day watching the news etc...no, not just Fox.

To go back to an earlier statement you made about taxes, doesn't everyone want lower taxes? I would think that the both of us would be in favor of that option.

WDRacing wrote:Being married to the same chick for 18 months...don't take this the wrong way please, isn't an achievement at all.

How about over 40 years

WDRacing wrote:Just because I'm voting for Romney doesn't mean I share all of his views, I don't. However, and you know this, he's the only other choice on the table. I think Obama will be the death of America,

I think Romney will be the death of America

WDRacing wrote:Several of my best friends are life long Liberals, I grew up in north of Boston after all. Friggin surrounded my entire life

So what happened to you?

WDRacing wrote:To go back to an earlier statement you made about taxes, doesn't everyone want lower taxes? I would think that the both of us would be in favor of that option.

Yes I think everyone does but a guy like Romney only paying 14% and refusing to show more of his tax returns does not pass the smell test

Is any thing new about taxes?

Of course the "rich" always have found the way to avoid paying taxes "legally". Up to the 60's. the "rich" used to have their pets care, food, etc as deductible from their taxes, until the "poor" found it out and started to do the same, then this deductible was eliminated.

In the 80's you were allowed to use as deductible the interest you paid in credit cards, the "poor" started to use and abuse credit cards and such deductible was also eliminated...and so forth.

Of course that the "rich" will find the way to pay less taxes than anyone, because they are "rich" and have the power to do so. One can scream, protest, cry, get mad, whatever, the "rich" will always dominate the economy, and they will find the corrupt politicians who will comply with their demands...even president Obama didn't touch their low rate taxes...because when new adjustments are made to make the "rich" to pay more taxes, they will find a way to have a new certain deduction that will give them more benefits at last.

Think about it, in these first four years with president Obama as the leader, have the "rich" been "punished" with paying a higher rate of taxes? Lol...of course no...then, what guarantees that in the next four years president Obama will make them pay a higher rate of taxes?

With this falling economy, what about selling luxury boats tax free...and no one cares..."rich" companies paying no tax,
"rich" people paying no tax when buying luxury boats...? ...come on...

And here, some people is reviewing Ryan's budget plan...of course ALL politicians will bow in front of the "rich"...their own re-election depends on the "rich"...even Mitt Romney IS "rich"...

I have nothing against the "rich", they are needed anyway to improve the economy...without them this nation will go into chaos or will become the new old Russia...so be it.

telcoman wrote:

WDRacing wrote:Being married to the same chick for 18 months...don't take this the wrong way please, isn't an achievement at all.

How about over 40 years

WDRacing wrote:Just because I'm voting for Romney doesn't mean I share all of his views, I don't. However, and you know this, he's the only other choice on the table. I think Obama will be the death of America,

I think Romney will be the death of America

WDRacing wrote:Several of my best friends are life long Liberals, I grew up in north of Boston after all. Friggin surrounded my entire life

So what happened to you?

WDRacing wrote:To go back to an earlier statement you made about taxes, doesn't everyone want lower taxes? I would think that the both of us would be in favor of that option.

Yes I think everyone does but a guy like Romney only paying 14% and refusing to show more of his tax returns does not pass the smell test

40 years of of marriage is quite the accomplishment Howie.

You're entitled to your opinion, as I am mine.

I don't believe in coddling the weak and needy. Rise up on your own, or don't. I'm not holding anyone back, I shouldn't be accountable for building them up. It's not my responsibility to take care of anyone but my family. Taking my taxes and using them in any form of Social Entitlement is the same as stealing from me.

Romney already paid more then 14% on the income initially. His income now is nothing but interest from investments.

Here's why I disagree with anyone that argues about his taxes and the entire "secondary" income discussion. Substitute Brian (that's me) for Romney. I worked my a** off for all the money I have, so does my wife. You'd have me paying the same rate of income tax on my retirement income as I did when I was busting my hump, dodging bullets and saving lives around the world. The same goes for my wife. We're working and saving at the same time we're raising 3 kids. Your ideals would take from me and my children Howie. They take so much that I'll be forced to change my standard of living in my golden years so that others can benefit from all my hard work. Well those "less fortunate" can all burn in the same fire for all I care.

When someone takes something from someone else, in my book we call that stealing. The Gov calls it taxes. Rules are rules, so I pay my taxes. Why would I ever support someone that wants to take more from me?

If Obama was the man he said he was almost 4 years ago, he'd do something to recognize that we're floundering. Perhaps use Clinton as a model to emulate. Clinton recognized how much spending was going into the Military and reduced it's size by quite a percentage. We could easily do the same right now. Simply shut off the war in Afghanistan. All those funds currently spent, or should I say wasted, on that POS country and that unwinnable war could be spent rebuilding the infrastructure of America. That would benefit everyone in the country in one felt swoop. You'd create jobs, jobs create taxable revenue, the aging infrastructure would get a much needed revamp and you'd be saving American lives. He has the power to do all of that without Congress. So there aren't any excuses to be made about roadblocks and BS. He has the power, he just chooses not to use it.

But as it stands, his plan simply increases taxes. Call me a mean spirited bastard, but I don't care about the needy, the old or anyone aside from my family. Which brings us full circle to my initial point, I'll never support someone who intends to increase the amount of theft, I mean taxes, that I'm going to pay.