Flagpole wrote:
Thisthreadisridiculous wrote:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton-anyone-other-than-trump-would-have-been-indicted-for-obstructionCan’t make this up!
She is the last person to talk.
Umm...was she ever President?
No. Thank God.
Sally Vix wrote:
Why should capital gains not be taxed at a lower rate than earned income? That money invested was already taxed! Sam the stockholder earned 50k one year and paid taxes on that 50K. After taxes and everything he decides he wants to invest 5k in the stock arket. Sam the stockholder is risking that the 5K invested in company A could tank and Sam would be out of an investment. Sam ALREADY paid taxes on the money he is investing in company A. You want Sam to pay the same tax rate on capital gains he may make in company A after he already paid taxes on that 5K and is risking a complete loss of that 5K? Come on, how much taxation are you going to put on Stockholder Sam? And that offset stuff is limited.
Sally, I thought that you were supposed to be a non-troll. You can't really be that stupid, can you?
"Why should capital gains not be taxed at a lower rate than earned income? That money invested was already taxed!" - Uh, no. The ONLY money that is taxed as a capital gain is money above and beyond the original investment. The original investment amount - you know, the money that was already taxed - is taxed for capital gains at a rate of . . . drum roll please . . . 0%.
Come on, Sally, please show me you have an IQ above 70.
Sally Vix wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
It's simple.
The principle you earned to buy the stock is taxed when you earn it. It is taxed once and only once.
When you get a dividend, that is income that was never taxed. You are taxed on it once and only once.
When you get capital gains, you are only taxed on the gain. That is income that was never taxed. You are taxed on it once and only once.
Triple taxation is pure BS.
My apologies. You are correct.
I should have said there is triple taxation but not on the original money invested.
Racket wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
This "triple taxation" is a myth.
As long as you hold for more than a year, capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income. So a wealthy person who makes money from capital gains pays a lower rate than someone like me who gets most of his income from working.
When the tax code is used to artificially inflate the value of a company, the wealthy person gets even more income, which again, is taxed at a lower rate than my income. And ordinary taxpayers like you and me are footing the bill for the wealthy person to make even more money by owning stock.
In the case that a stock lost value, the wealthy person can just use that loss to offset his capital gains. So that reduces his tax burden even more.
Here's a novel idea : if you think owning stock is such a lucrative get rich quick deal then why don't you go out and buy some.
That's exactly what I have done. While most of my friends invested in McMansions, I bought a modest home and plowed everything I could into the stock market.
Now my stock portfolio is worth several times what a McMansion would cost. And I owe it all to the favorable tax treatment of corporate wealth.
Obvi wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Why should capital gains not be taxed at a lower rate than earned income? That money invested was already taxed! Sam the stockholder earned 50k one year and paid taxes on that 50K. After taxes and everything he decides he wants to invest 5k in the stock arket. Sam the stockholder is risking that the 5K invested in company A could tank and Sam would be out of an investment. Sam ALREADY paid taxes on the money he is investing in company A. You want Sam to pay the same tax rate on capital gains he may make in company A after he already paid taxes on that 5K and is risking a complete loss of that 5K? Come on, how much taxation are you going to put on Stockholder Sam? And that offset stuff is limited.
Sally, I thought that you were supposed to be a non-troll. You can't really be that stupid, can you?
"Why should capital gains not be taxed at a lower rate than earned income? That money invested was already taxed!" - Uh, no. The ONLY money that is taxed as a capital gain is money above and beyond the original investment. The original investment amount - you know, the money that was already taxed - is taxed for capital gains at a rate of . . . drum roll please . . . 0%.
Come on, Sally, please show me you have an IQ above 70.
We all have bad days. I had a long run this morning so not at my peak performance level.
If you added the IQs of SallyVix and Racket, you may get to triple digits. It would be close.
Sally Vix wrote:
Fat Hurts - how is the "triple taxation" a myth? I have decent holdings in the stock market. Every penny I earned I paid taxes on. I have invested in the stock market throughout my life. When a company pays me a dividend I am taxed on that dividend. That is double taxation. When I sell that stock or mutual fund at a profit I am taxed a capital gains tax. That is THREE TAXES. I was taxed three times. Please explain to me how that triple taxation is a "Myth?"
Wow, you really ARE that dumb.
Money earned by working - Taxed once. NOT taxed again as a dividend.
Dividend - Taxed once. NOT taxed again as a capital gain.
Capital gain - Taxed once. NOT taxed again.
OMG, you are the village idiot!
Brain Drain wrote:
If you added the IQs of SallyVix and Racket, you may get to triple digits. It would be close.
My IQ is like Flagpole's biceps : the biggest and most impressive ever.
Sally Vix wrote:
Fat Hurts - how is the "triple taxation" a myth? I have decent holdings in the stock market. Every penny I earned I paid taxes on. I have invested in the stock market throughout my life.
You DO NOT pay taxes on holdings in the stock market.
Fat hurts wrote:
Racket wrote:
Here's a novel idea : if you think owning stock is such a lucrative get rich quick deal then why don't you go out and buy some.
That's exactly what I have done. While most of my friends invested in McMansions, I bought a modest home and plowed everything I could into the stock market.
Now my stock portfolio is worth several times what a McMansion would cost. And I owe it all to the favorable tax treatment of corporate wealth.
So you rail against the inequities of the tax policy, but take full advantage of it.
"I tell my slaves how evil slavery is all the time."
Sally Vix wrote:
My apologies. You are correct.
Wow
Sally Vix wrote:
Have you ever invested in the market? You are not even mentioned dividends. You are taxed on dividends. Why should capital gains be taxed as ordinary income when that money was already taxed? You really don't understand triple taxation.
Ummm . . . those capital gains were NOT already taxed.
Next question.
Monkeys typing wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
My apologies. You are correct.
Wow
Unlike flagpole, Sally admits when he is wrong. Shows a lot of integrity.
agip wrote:
Rental Rick wrote:
No offense, but you "ginormous mortgage interest deduction" is given to those who can afford to buy a home. in other words, it is one more (ginormous) tax break that excludes the bottom third of the population.
If you can't afford to buy a house you are most likely paying zero federal income tax or very little federal income tax. So yeah, you are getting a lot of free stuff the rest of us are paying for. You're welcome. Glad to do it for you.
Exactly! There are two ways to look at this that would be for those who have money paying more taxes than those who don't:
1) Do it because we are a society, and we want as few of us living in poverty as possible, because that is a human tragedy.
2) Do it because the fewer desperate people there are out there, the lower the crime rate, especially burglary and robbery. (this even allows a little bit of bigotry to enter in for you bigots out there)
If you are a person who lives a comfortable life and you complain about having to pay taxes where some of those taxes ultimately go to help those less fortunate than you, then you are an a$$hole.
Rental Rick wrote:
agip wrote:
If you can't afford to buy a house you are most likely paying zero federal income tax or very little federal income tax. So yeah, you are getting a lot of free stuff the rest of us are paying for. You're welcome. Glad to do it for you.
Funny you should say that. I've been paying federal income tax for the last 25 years - anywhere from $15,000 - $50,000 in any given year. I know, peanuts for a big shot like you. But pretty sure that it isn't zero. And I haven't gotten one dime from the mortgage interest deduction.
Now, about that free stuff - would you like to send it my way? Because I'm pretty sure I haven't received any yet and I've been paying more than my fair share.
Now, an apology would be nice. But I know that you don't have the integrity to do that.
I've got loads of integrity.
If someone is middle class, meaning making in the 60k-$100k zone, he or she can afford a house. Maybe not a great house, maybe not in a great area, but a house. Generally, you can afford a house that is 2.5x your salary. Buying a house in the $125,000-$250,000 range is not crazy. The average house is $275k,with massive regional variety.
So yeah, middle class can buy a house.
As for your personal sitch...if you make over $100k and you think you can't afford a house, I'd look in a mirror for the problem, not at the tax code.
Obvi wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Fat Hurts - how is the "triple taxation" a myth? I have decent holdings in the stock market. Every penny I earned I paid taxes on. I have invested in the stock market throughout my life. When a company pays me a dividend I am taxed on that dividend. That is double taxation. When I sell that stock or mutual fund at a profit I am taxed a capital gains tax. That is THREE TAXES. I was taxed three times. Please explain to me how that triple taxation is a "Myth?"
Wow, you really ARE that dumb.
Money earned by working - Taxed once. NOT taxed again as a dividend.
Dividend - Taxed once. NOT taxed again as a capital gain.
Capital gain - Taxed once. NOT taxed again.
OMG, you are the village idiot!
I had a bad day, dude. I had one B in college. Yeah - I am an idiot.
Hypocrates wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
That's exactly what I have done. While most of my friends invested in McMansions, I bought a modest home and plowed everything I could into the stock market.
Now my stock portfolio is worth several times what a McMansion would cost. And I owe it all to the favorable tax treatment of corporate wealth.
So you rail against the inequities of the tax policy, but take full advantage of it.
"I tell my slaves how evil slavery is all the time."
No offense but your post is even more stupid than those of Sally.
The rules are the rules - you play within them (assuming that you are not a criminal). Playing well within the rules does NOT disqualify you from pointing out that the rules are unfair.
Now please try not to post such profound stupidity in the future.
Thanks!
Fat hurts wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Ummm....ever heard of triple taxation? If a "wealthy" person owns stock in a company (many stockholders are not wealthy) he earned income and paid taxes on that income. What is left over after having paid taxes he might invest a little in a public company. If that company pays out dividends to its shareholders that stockholder must pay taxes on that dividend. When that shareholder decides to sell that stock he must pay capital gains taxes IF that stock appreciated. If that company tanks he is out all of his investment. So, that stockholder is taxed three times if that stock is profitable plus he is risking his investment.
This "triple taxation" is a myth.
As long as you hold for more than a year, capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income. So a wealthy person who makes money from capital gains pays a lower rate than someone like me who gets most of his income from working.
When the tax code is used to artificially inflate the value of a company, the wealthy person gets even more income, which again, is taxed at a lower rate than my income. And ordinary taxpayers like you and me are footing the bill for the wealthy person to make even more money by owning stock.
In the case that a stock lost value, the wealthy person can just use that loss to offset his capital gains. So that reduces his tax burden even more.
This is correct.
agip wrote:
Rental Rick wrote:
Funny you should say that. I've been paying federal income tax for the last 25 years - anywhere from $15,000 - $50,000 in any given year. I know, peanuts for a big shot like you. But pretty sure that it isn't zero. And I haven't gotten one dime from the mortgage interest deduction.
Now, about that free stuff - would you like to send it my way? Because I'm pretty sure I haven't received any yet and I've been paying more than my fair share.
Now, an apology would be nice. But I know that you don't have the integrity to do that.
I've got loads of integrity.
If someone is middle class, meaning making in the 60k-$100k zone, he or she can afford a house. Maybe not a great house, maybe not in a great area, but a house. Generally, you can afford a house that is 2.5x your salary. Buying a house in the $125,000-$250,000 range is not crazy. The average house is $275k,with massive regional variety.
So yeah, middle class can buy a house.
As for your personal sitch...if you make over $100k and you think you can't afford a house, I'd look in a mirror for the problem, not at the tax code.
Funny, I haven't seen your integrity show up here in this sequence.
Now, please point out where I said I could not afford a house. Either that or come back here and apologize (twice now). Once for your gratuitous and moronic attempt at an insult. And a second time for trying to put words in my mouth.
I'll be waiting, Mr. Integrity.
Obvi wrote:
Hypocrates wrote:
So you rail against the inequities of the tax policy, but take full advantage of it.
"I tell my slaves how evil slavery is all the time."
No offense but your post is even more stupid than those of Sally.
The rules are the rules - you play within them (assuming that you are not a criminal). Playing well within the rules does NOT disqualify you from pointing out that the rules are unfair.
Now please try not to post such profound stupidity in the future.
Thanks!
But it does make you a hypocrite.
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
Am I living in the twilight zone? The Boston Marathon weather was terrible!
How rare is it to run a sub 5 minute mile AND bench press 225?
Move over Mark Coogan, Rojo and John Kellogg share their 3 favorite mile workouts
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these
Red Bull (who sponsors Mondo) calls Mondo the pole vaulting Usain Bolt. Is that a fair comparison?