Debate on Cheney impeachment averted

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

How is it equal already when someone making $100M a year is taxed at a lower rate than someone making $150k a year?

How is it equal when the richer person has a special tax just for him? The person making $150k/year pays the same 15% capital gains tax on *his* investments.

I think you have missed a very important point here.

The debate is not about taxing capital gains like regular income, though some of the less honest among us might make that claim. The point here is that hedge-fund managers should see their income treated just like our income. Right now, they pay capital-gains rates (15%), we pay income-tax rates (35%).


Private equity and hedge fund managers have devised a way to make the bulk of their compensation look like capital gains, to take advantage of the fact that income from capital gains is taxed at a lower rate than income from work. Specifically, they arrange to take their compensation for providing investment advice and asset management services [aka INCOME] in the form of a percentage of profits ("carried interest") of the funds they manage. So, they pay federal income tax on that compensation at a maximum rate of only 15 percent, instead of the top rate of 35 percent that applies to income from work. They also avoid paying the 2.9 percent Medicare payroll tax. This means that a single woman earning a little over $40,000 per year is in a higher income tax bracket than a billionaire hedge fund manager.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

How is it equal already when someone making $100M a year is taxed at a lower rate than someone making $150k a year?

How is it equal when the richer person has a special tax just for him? The person making $150k/year pays the same 15% capital gains tax on *his* investments.

I think you have missed a very important point here.

The debate is not about taxing capital gains like regular income, though some of the less honest among us might make that claim. The point here is that hedge-fund managers should see their income treated just like our income. Right now, they pay capital-gains rates (15%), we pay income-tax rates (35%).


Private equity and hedge fund managers have devised a way to make the bulk of their compensation look like capital gains, to take advantage of the fact that income from capital gains is taxed at a lower rate than income from work. Specifically, they arrange to take their compensation for providing investment advice and asset management services [aka INCOME] in the form of a percentage of profits ("carried interest") of the funds they manage. So, they pay federal income tax on that compensation at a maximum rate of only 15 percent, instead of the top rate of 35 percent that applies to income from work. They also avoid paying the 2.9 percent Medicare payroll tax. This means that a single woman earning a little over $40,000 per year is in a higher income tax bracket than a billionaire hedge fund manager.

I didn't miss it - it's more class envy whining.

"Oh, that investor is making most of his money from capital gains and isn't paying income (and all the other) taxes on it!"

Ok, fine - there's two ways around the situation - actually 3, but we just *CAN'T* let those evil capitalists keep all those ill-gotten gains, now can we?

The *FAIR* way is to treat all capital gains as income and tax them accordingly. The *UNFAIR* way is to come up with some sort of cutoff limit and convert amounts above that to income, or implement some sort of special tax.

Which way do *YOU* think Congress will do it? I already know - hence my remark about the 'Party of Equality'.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

How is it equal already when someone making $100M a year is taxed at a lower rate than someone making $150k a year?

How is it equal when the richer person has a special tax just for him? The person making $150k/year pays the same 15% capital gains tax on *his* investments.

I think you have missed a very important point here.

The debate is not about taxing capital gains like regular income, though some of the less honest among us might make that claim. The point here is that hedge-fund managers should see their income treated just like our income. Right now, they pay capital-gains rates (15%), we pay income-tax rates (35%).


Private equity and hedge fund managers have devised a way to make the bulk of their compensation look like capital gains, to take advantage of the fact that income from capital gains is taxed at a lower rate than income from work. Specifically, they arrange to take their compensation for providing investment advice and asset management services [aka INCOME] in the form of a percentage of profits ("carried interest") of the funds they manage. So, they pay federal income tax on that compensation at a maximum rate of only 15 percent, instead of the top rate of 35 percent that applies to income from work. They also avoid paying the 2.9 percent Medicare payroll tax. This means that a single woman earning a little over $40,000 per year is in a higher income tax bracket than a billionaire hedge fund manager.

I didn't miss it - it's more class envy whining.

"Oh, that investor is making most of his money from capital gains and isn't paying income (and all the other) taxes on it!"

.

YOU ARE STILL MISSING THE POINT. They aren't the investors. They are the managers of other people's investments. They work (like you and me) for other people, but their INCOME from that work is taxed at 15%.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Let me tell you a thing or two about this stuff. See, when laws seek to regulate all conduct as opposed to being guidelines and goals. So as more and more situations pop up, more and more specific laws are passed.

This is, of course, where "loopholes" come from. The more specific a law is, the bigger the loophole.

So if a law is passed that is intended to stop people from protesting within 300 yards of funerals, it creates a loophole. The loophole is that protesting is not banned from a viewing. So the protesters start protesting "viewings." And then a law is passed banning that.

So the protestors then go to "memorial services." A law is passed to ban that.

So the protestors go to the airport and protest the caskets coming off of planes.

The laws get specific, which creates loopholes. The letter of the law is followed - not the intent.

Last year, a guy gave $165 million to support sports programs at Oklahoma State University. He did it because of a law that allowed people to zero out their adjusted gross income with donations, said law being intended for Katrina relief. Ooops! The law did not specify that it had to be for Katrina relief.

So we are left with a situation where a guy saved over a hundred million in taxes. He'd rather it go to what he WANTS it to go to as opposed to the government. Why fund a war when you can fund a sports program and maybe even get your name on a building?

So the wealthy are paying out in charity to save on taxes. The next issue is whether this is such a bad thing. Personally, my charity has increased dramatically. I prefer that the Salvation Army gets my money over Hallibuton.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

So the wealthy are paying out in charity to save on taxes. The next issue is whether this is such a bad thing. Personally, my charity has increased dramatically. I prefer that the Salvation Army gets my money over Hallibuton.

Ahem - this is NOT about charity. We can ALL contribute to charity. Charity is NOT a loophole. (Although I'd make funding an opera company different from funding a soup kitchen)

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

How is it equal already when someone making $100M a year is taxed at a lower rate than someone making $150k a year?

It isn't - unless the wealthy guy has paid 20 million to charity. Then I see some good reasons.

The $150k per year guy can do the same thing - percent wise..

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

How is it equal already when someone making $100M a year is taxed at a lower rate than someone making $150k a year?

It isn't - unless the wealthy guy has paid 20 million to charity. Then I see some good reasons.

The $150k per year guy can do the same thing - percent wise..

Who is talking about CHARITY?

The discussion is about special low rates of income tax for some extremely wealthy fund managers.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Let me tell you a thing or two about this stuff. See, when laws seek to regulate all conduct as opposed to being guidelines and goals. So as more and more situations pop up, more and more specific laws are passed

You mean like butt sex with the wife??

Still sodomy ( and probably does not enjoy it as much as so many closeted Republican Legislators seem to)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

How is it equal already when someone making $100M a year is taxed at a lower rate than someone making $150k a year?

It isn't - unless the wealthy guy has paid 20 million to charity. Then I see some good reasons.

The $150k per year guy can do the same thing - percent wise..

Who is talking about CHARITY?

The discussion is about special low rates of income tax for some extremely wealthy fund managers.

Okay. Because Congress won't let it. Led by the Senate - Harry Reid in particular.

See, these hedge funds have spent millions to prevent it - and an election is coming up.

Read this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/08/AR2007100801704.html?hpid=topnews

SOund like Bush's fault? Hey. He'd oppose it, but the Dem Congress isn't giving him a chance to.

The Dems are no better than the GOP. Right thing versus stay in power? Guess what wins.


It sucks for most when blame is with both parties. We libertarians just see it as both parties being messed up.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Let me tell you a thing or two about this stuff. See, when laws seek to regulate all conduct as opposed to being guidelines and goals. So as more and more situations pop up, more and more specific laws are passed

You mean like butt sex with the wife??

Still sodomy ( and probably does not enjoy it as much as so many closeted Republican Legislators seem to)

Yep. Your law does not include girlfriends.

Loopholes!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Sloppy, huge, loopholes?

eeeewwww I think I saw that website on a CPO's laptop....hehehehe

[lawrocket 3]

Hmmm. I am finding this interesting. I actually posted a news article from the Washington Post that detailed why this loophole will remain. For some reason, the bitching about it stopped after this.

I think this loophole SHOULD be closed, but the Senate is refusing to act.

Perhaps it proves my point about how "doing the right thing" is unimportant when viewed with "getting elected."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[warpedskydiver 0]

You made too much sense for the usual supects to complain, but they will ignore it anyways.

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

Perhaps it proves my point about how "doing the right thing" is unimportant when viewed with "getting elected."

Hell I think everybody sees that but doesnt have an answer on how to change it.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>I don't. I look at your posts and see an underlying hatred of the wealthy. Envy breeds hatred. You wish you had that money.

No, I despise the method of the government that pushes the $$$ toward the top, the idiots there are just recipients of a scummy system, usally born into it. So to hate the player, not me, I hate the game. As usual you misjudge my intentions.

>>>>>>>>>>>As opposed to appreciating those who have done it correctly, it is far easier to tear them down and seek to destroy,.

Destroy? By making them pay the taxes they should. The very rich know they should be paying more, in fact, as a comparison, it was some of the rich who voted out Hoover for FDR. The country was turning to Communism and the rich knew they need to beat down the enemy (the poor) and not beat them out. I think the intelligent faction of the rich feels the same now.

>>>>>>>>>>>>Helping the poor DOES better society. Helping the poor makes one a better person - SO LONG AS THE PERSON HELPING THE POOR IS DOING SO WITH HIS OR HER OWN RESOURCES.

Yes, and collectively the country pools resourcs to do so and those countries are better, but enough about Europe and Canada and others.

>>>>>>>>>Unless it's Robin Hood. Recall - Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Also recall that the rich were the nobility - who TAXED everyone, thus making them poor. The poor were poor BECAUSE of the the taxes that were pushed upon them - for the benefit of it.

Robin Hood is a metaphor, different times, diff economy. In a classist gross capitalistic economy like the US, the rich are inherently wealthy by virtue of the active GNP, the poor that way due to the cost of lving. Really a remote metaphor as compared to today's US economy.

>>>>>>>>>>>I'll ask you this - is a society of equal misery a better society than what we have now?

Oh, like Canada? Yea, miserable bastards. Can a Canadain citizen pipe in to tell Lawrocket of their missery?

>>>>>>>>>Stalin managed to rid Russia of the wealthy and powerful (except himself - he offed all challenges). Mao did, too. So did Pol Pot. All by pointing to an enemy (the bourgoisie). So they kiilled them all, thus ensuring that nobody had a good time (except themselves).

Desperate times / measures? Got to bring in Communism to try to bring down Socialism? BRILLIANT. Not only that, but Pol POt, one of the most greusome dicators of all times.

>>>>>>>>>It's disingenuous to suggest that class warfare is better for society than intergovernmental warfare. They are BOTH wars, and the 20th century suggests that they have similar death tolls.

Do you mean intragovernmental warfare? Not correcting, just making sure I understand the question.

>>>>>>>>>>I disfavor class envy and warfare. I disfavor intergovernmental warfare, as well.

Sure, the higher socioeconomic classes hate to have a war they've already won - can't we all get along - as I'm doing well. The victors always want peace, hence the police force we see in the streets.

>>>>>>>>>I'm anti-war. You're pro-war on one topic. There's the difference between you and me.

So you're trying to claim I'm a war activist due to me wanting health insurance and a moderate social system? I could do the same and say you want to war against the poor. In fact, if we get socialized meds, I will be happy and you will become the warrior, using your logic that is.

>>>>>>>>>>>I am anti-envy. Rather than seeking to destroy the wealthy when I was living in Section 8 housing, I decided to follow their example. I thought it is better to be like them than to try to make them be like me.

I love that toss in of you being poor - kinda trying to assimulate yourself from the streets. Everyone has a story, everyone has their potential, so why make healthcare dependent upon genetics, family, etc? OK< so we all can't drive new Porches, but we should all have healthcare, basic healthcare. To bring in greed and war over that issue is pathetic. If I were asking that all the riches of the country be evenly distributed then your war equation would be relevant, I'm talking basic healthcare here.

>>>>>>>Aim high. Make each day your masterpiece. And worry not about what other people do. Envy has no place in success.

Right, your blueprint to ensure there is little / no class mobility.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

No, I despise the method of the government that pushes the $$$ toward the top, the idiots there are just recipients of a scummy system, usally born into it. So to hate the player, not me, I hate the game.

Most of those who argue with you are the ones who are suffering from class envy.......they are striving for the illusion of upward mobility and therefore defend the system that they hope will reward them.

[rushmc 23]

You want the government to move people up. I want people to move themselves up. How, through hard work..

It you you sir that has class envy not I. I do not care what you or anybody else makes, earms or inherits.

I do not think the goverment should give tax breaks for ethenol or subisdies to farms (for you prof kallend)

Corps do not pay taxes only we pay taxes so, if you want to raise taxes on corps you are just supporting a tax increase for anybody using the products of that corp. And is some cases those taxes stack up.

Open your eyes and curb your emotions, you can learn something

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I do not think the goverment should give tax breaks for ethenol or subisdies to farms

OH.. I get it. you as an IOWAN.. living in a RED STATE... and a CORN STATE...... as long as YOU GET YOURS from the Government largesse its all ok.... go ahead and rail on against PORK spending.. seems there are plenty of PORK already there in the midwest to go around.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I do not think the goverment should give tax breaks for ethenol or subisdies to farms

OH.. I get it. you as an IOWAN.. living in a RED STATE... and a CORN STATE...... as long as YOU GET YOURS from the Government largesse its all ok.... go ahead and rail on against PORK spending.. seems there are plenty of PORK already there in the midwest to go around.

I screwd up and left out the word NOT!

My dad farmed, he always said farmers would be better off with no subsidies or gov help so, I made a mistake, I DO NOT think there should be tax breaks for ethenol

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Kind of destroys your idiotic stupid rant now doesnt it?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

Not really .. I am not responsible for your stupid response.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Not really .. I am not responsible for your stupid response.

Typical left response. I am not responsible. Some one else made me say say it

My goof............I know

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Not really .. I am not responsible for your stupid response.

Typical left response. I am not responsible. Some one else made me say say it

My goof............I know

So if you goofed, how can she be responsible?

It seems that you are implying that responses from the left are typically on account of goofs from the right?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Not really .. I am not responsible for your stupid response.

Typical left response. I am not responsible. Some one else made me say say it

My goof............I know

So if you goofed, how can she be responsible?

It seems that you are implying that responses from the left are typically on account of goofs from the right?

Why do you always have to play the ass? Is that how you get off?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Why do you always have to play the ass? Is that how you get off?

WOW... I got banned for far less than that...