The Top 40.................

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392751/the-top-40/160#post_3490703
And exactly what policy does Obama push or desire to reduce the wealth gap?
Oh he wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire for those making 250K or more. Of course that does nothing to address his poster boys, Romney and Buffet paying 15% because all they earn is through capital gains but it gets him the welfare vote.

 

[darthtang aw]

Oh he wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire for those making 250K or more. Of course that does nothing to address his poster boys, Romney and Buffet paying 15% because all they earn is through capital gains but it gets him the welfare vote.
Will it stop the gap from widening?

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392751/the-top-40/180#post_3490727
Will it stop the gap from widening?
Nope. It will probably grow it even wider. You don't help the poor by making them even more dependent on government aid. You help the poor by creating jobs so they can start their way up the ladder but it's a complex idea for left wingers to grasp.

 

[darthtang aw]

Nope. It will probably grow it even wider. You don't help the poor by making them even more dependent on government aid. You help the poor by creating jobs so they can start their way up the ladder but it's a complex idea for left wingers to grasp.
how does taxing the rich more prevent them from getting richer if the poor and middle class were to stay the same?
Darth (simple questions) Tang

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392751/the-top-40/180#post_3490735
how does taxing the rich more prevent them from getting richer if the poor and middle class were to stay the same?
Darth (simple questions) Tang
Government is horribly inefficient. Taking money from the private sector (taxation) and moving it into government turns a dollar into something like 73 cents in the real world. It also leads to people taking advantage of tax shelters which rarely lead to any significant economic activity in this country. Right now 0bama has set such an anti business tone businesses are sitting on profits rather than reinvesting or expanding. I'd be willing to bet that just the election of Romney (or any one else) would drop unemployment by more than a percent even if they kept his same failed policies.

 

[beth]

Quote:
Nope. It will probably grow it even wider. You don't help the poor by making them even more dependent on government aid. You help the poor by creating jobs so they can start their way up the ladder but it's a complex idea for left wingers to grasp.
Just to be honest, more jobs have been created under Obama's 1st term then Bush's 1st term. And, Bush exceeds Obama in growing public sector jobs.

 

[darthtang aw]

Just to be honest, more jobs have been created under Obama's 1st term then Bush's 1st term.  And, Bush exceeds Obama in growing public sector jobs.
http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-economic-sleight-of-hand/

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/392751/the-top-40/180#post_3490747
Just to be honest, more jobs have been created under Obama's 1st term then Bush's 1st term. And, Bush exceeds Obama in growing public sector jobs.
Bush came into office with an unemployment rate of 4.2. 4.5 is considered "Full Employment" by most economists which accounts for those who are willfully unemployed and people between jobs. There wasn't a jobs vacuum to be filled. There was really nowhere to go but down which it did between the 2000 and post 9-11 recessions. It spiked over 6 percent then pulled back do to a little over 5 at the end of his first term
0bama came in with 7.8%. It spiked at 10.2% and quite frankly has remained there when you consider the drop in the labor force participation rate but anyway there is a huge jobs vacuum right now that should be creating at least a quarter million a month.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392751/the-top-40/160#post_3490719
And as I told you up thread the public is overwhelmingly ignorant as to who exactly pays the taxes now. I suspect if they were told the "rich" earn 19% of the income and pay 40% of the income taxes with a 24.5% effective tax rate those polls would be vastly different.
I don't know where you're coming up with this 24.5% effective tax rate. Capital gains is not double taxation. Romney has stated his EFT was 13.5% in 2010 and 2011. His capital gains was actually lower than the standard rate due to his little investment strategies in the Caymans. The "rich" effectively pay 40% of the income tax because they make more money than someone in the middle and lower class. If you make $5 billion in income, and pay the same 15% taxes an individual who makes $50K, of course you will pay more taxes. It's all relative. The problem is you want to patronize the billionaire, and somehow justify allowing him to pay a lower tax rate simply based on the idea that he deserves it for making more money. The only reason the wealthy "earn more income" is because they have all these investment opportunties the avergae worker doesn't have. Take Romney. They claim he had virtually no income last year, but the guy made what, $4 - $5 million on his "investments"? You think some guy with a wife and two kids that makes $45K/year can take 10% of his income, invest it, and earn enough in those investments to where he wouldn't have to work the following year due to the profits he made on those investments? When you have more money, you make more money. When you have excessive amounts of money as the Top 10% or higher, you can make more money by essentially doing nothing than sticking it in some fund, stock, business, etc. The lower middle income worker doesn't have that luxury. They need their disposable income just to survive these days, much less stick it into some investment portfolio hoping to make 7% - 9% on their money. Even if the 50K earner could put 20% of his income into investments, and get 9% return (which is huge these days), that's an annual profit of a whopping $900. The $5 million earner does the same, he earns $90K for the year, almost twice what the $50K guy makes the entire year in just salary.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392751/the-top-40/180#post_3490758
Bush came into office with an unemployment rate of 4.2. 4.5 is considered "Full Employment" by most economists which accounts for those who are willfully unemployed and people between jobs. There wasn't a jobs vacuum to be filled. There was really nowhere to go but down which it did between the 2000 and post 9-11 recessions. It spiked over 6 percent then pulled back do to a little over 5 at the end of his first term
0bama came in with 7.8%. It spiked at 10.2% and quite frankly has remained there when you consider the drop in the labor force participation rate but anyway there is a huge jobs vacuum right now that should be creating at least a quarter million a month.
That's what happens when you're in a major recession the first three years of your term. You keep forgetting the global market has an impact of what happens with our jobs and economy. Greece and other foreign markets tank, it tanks our market. Investors losing money in their portfolios hold onto to the money they would normally use to invest in businesses and jobs.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392751/the-top-40/180#post_3490860
That's what happens when you're in a major recession the first three years of your term. You keep forgetting the global market has an impact of what happens with our jobs and economy. Greece and other foreign markets tank, it tanks our market. Investors losing money in their portfolios hold onto to the money they would normally use to invest in businesses and jobs.
Nice try. The recession officially ended in June 2009. When things go bad in Europe people typically invest elsewhere, like here. 0bama has talked his way into a stagnate economy and businesses are waiting to see if we can get rid of this clown before they make any big moves.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392751/the-top-40/180#post_3490859
I don't know where you're coming up with this 24.5% effective tax rate. Capital gains is not double taxation. If I earn 100K I am taxed on it as income. If I invest that hundred grand I am taxed on the gains. If that aint double taxation I dunno what is. Romney has stated his EFT was 13.5% in 2010 and 2011. His capital gains was actually lower than the standard rate due to his little investment strategies in the Caymans. ROFLMBAO!!!! you don't suppose it was more due to him donating 19% of what he earned to charity and other write offs more than your unicorn in the Caymens do you? The "rich" effectively pay 40% of the income tax because they make more money than someone in the middle and lower class. If you make $5 billion in income, and pay the same 15% taxes an individual who makes $50K, of course you will pay more taxes. It's all relative. Except they don't. There are only a handful of people in the position Romney and Buffet are. The problem is you want to patronize the billionaire, and somehow justify allowing him to pay a lower tax rate simply based on the idea that he deserves it for making more money. Nothing in 0bamas plan deals with the capital gains tax. He just wants let the income tax rates on those earning over 250K go up. It wont effect Romney or Buffet. The only reason the wealthy "earn more income" is because they have all these investment opportunties the avergae worker doesn't have. Take Romney. They claim he had virtually no income last year, but the guy made what, $4 - $5 million on his "investments"? You think some guy with a wife and two kids that makes $45K/year can take 10% of his income, invest it, and earn enough in those investments to where he wouldn't have to work the following year due to the profits he made on those investments? My family income has never hit 6 digits in my life. I made better than 40 grand in the market in 2007. This is relative. 40G's is a rounding error to Romney, to us it was a pretty big deal. When you have more money, you make more money. When you have excessive amounts of money as the Top 10% or higher, you can make more money by essentially doing nothing than sticking it in some fund, stock, business, etc. Do you have the slightest clue at what level of income you are considered the top 10%? Here's a hint. To be in the top 1% you have to earn $380K The lower middle income worker doesn't have that luxury. They need their disposable income just to survive these days, much less stick it into some investment portfolio hoping to make 7% - 9% on their money. Even if the 50K earner could put 20% of his income into investments, and get 9% return (which is huge these days), that's an annual profit of a whopping $900. The $5 million earner does the same, he earns $90K for the year, almost twice what the $50K guy makes the entire year in just salary. And your point is? Even if we just did a flat tax with no deductions which is the most fair way the rich pay more taxes in 5 minutes than most of us will pay in our life and they are far less likely to ever depend on public services the taxes pay for.
http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04/12/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/

 

[darthtang aw]

That's what happens when you're in a major recession the first three years of your term.  You keep forgetting the global market has an impact of what happens with our jobs and economy.  Greece and other foreign markets tank, it tanks our market.  Investors losing money in their portfolios hold onto to the money they would normally use to invest in businesses and jobs.
Lmao! And these are the same people you want to raise taxes on. How much investing in jobs investing in jobs and business will they do with higher taxes? Especially with a still low economy. Nice circle you just ran.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392751/the-top-40/180#post_3490968
Lmao! And these are the same people you want to raise taxes on. How much investing in jobs investing in jobs and business will they do with higher taxes? Especially with a still low economy. Nice circle you just ra
The rich have had tax breaks since 2002. Where's all the jobs they were supposed to create with all that extra money in their pockets?

 

[darthtang aw]

The rich have had tax breaks since 2002.  Where's all the jobs they were supposed to create with all that extra money in their pockets?
Lol. Look at you. Chasing your tail. You state a down economy won't allow investors to invest in jobs and businesses. But then turn around and want to take more of the investment money they have because there are no jobs created. Please pick a defense because if lower taxes don't have them creating jobs why would a booming world economy? After all both give them more money

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392751/the-top-40/180#post_3490902
http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04/12/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/

Financial Samurai?

Some dude with a REAL bad Economics degree pulls some irrelevent data off of some web site, and that's where you get the basis that someone who makes $380K is considered Top 1%? If that's the case, where's my $16 million house in Hollywood Hills? Anyone with more than $1 million in the bank that has a 23.27% EFT, has one of the worst CPA's on the planet, and gets what they deserve regarding paying that tax rate.
You still don't have a clue on the definition of double taxation. Once you pay taxes on any income, it can't be taxed again. So in your mind, once you earn income, and you invest it into something, that money should never be taxed again if it earns even more income. Capital gains is synomynous to earning more income. It's just a different category of income. So based on the "Reef Economic Principle", the US loses billions of tax revenue because the IRS can no longer tax someone who makes a profit on the money they invested in their business, on the profits they make on stocks, or even that low-interest savings account. So do you also disallow capital losses when you invest poorly?
Congrats on your day trading winnings in 2007. If you're that successful in the market, why aren't you making 6-figures every year?

 

[darthtang aw]

Can anyone tell me what happened the last time taxes were raised on the top 2%?

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392751/the-top-40/180#post_3490972
Lol. Look at you. Chasing your tail. You state a down economy won't allow investors to invest in jobs and businesses. But then turn around and want to take more of the investment money they have because there are no jobs created. Please pick a defense because if lower taxes don't have them creating jobs why would a booming world economy? After all both give them more money
You have the notion that all US businessmen and Top 10% invest in the foreign markets. Look at the NASDAQ and DOW on a Monday when the Chinese, Japan, or any other International market tanks on a Friday. Our markets is where the bulk of US investors money is held. It's called The Ripple Effect. If you lost 5% of your investment portfolio in one day, are you going to go out and invest 5% on your business hoping for growth? That's the misnomer when you're talking about Top 5% and above and how they invest in businesses. Once your reach that income level, your gains come from investments other than the business that got you there. Do you think Romney was concerned with whatever profits he received from Bain Capital as a "salary"? That "salary" was play money for him. That's evident since he didn't claim any relative income on his 2011 tax return. He didn't invest any of his personal income in that company because he was making more on his money by investing it elsewhere. Do you think Trump invests his billions of personal income back into his multitude of real estate endeavors? He pulls money from Trump Towers to pay for his losses on his hotels in Atlantic City. You think the CEO's of Ford, GM, or Chrysler hands over part of their multi-million salaries when car sales start dropping? How much of Steve Jobs personal wealth went in developing the Ipad or IPhone? If Bill Gates were to completely walk away from Microsoft, would that conglomerate cease to exist without his personal income paying the bills?

 

[darthtang aw]

I will ask again. What happenned the last few times taxes were raised on the top 2%?

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392751/the-top-40/180#post_3490973
Financial Samurai?

Some dude with a REAL bad Economics degree pulls some irrelevent data off of some web site, and that's where you get the basis that someone who makes $380K is considered Top 1%? If that's the case, where's my $16 million house in Hollywood Hills? Anyone with more than $1 million in the bank that has a 23.27% EFT, has one of the worst CPA's on the planet, and gets what they deserve regarding paying that tax rate.
You still don't have a clue on the definition of double taxation. Once you pay taxes on any income, it can't be taxed again. So in your mind, once you earn income, and you invest it into something, that money should never be taxed again if it earns even more income. Capital gains is synomynous to earning more income. It's just a different category of income. So based on the "Reef Economic Principle", the US loses billions of tax revenue because the IRS can no longer tax someone who makes a profit on the money they invested in their business, on the profits they make on stocks, or even that low-interest savings account. So do you also disallow capital losses when you invest poorly?
Congrats on your day trading winnings in 2007. If you're that successful in the market, why aren't you making 6-figures every year?
Show me wrong. You post up links from discredited hacks like think progress etc. and discount someone else's link? I showed that link because it isn't too complicated. The Data is straight from the IRS, Here it is from the tax foundation http://taxfoundation.org:81/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0#table1 Go down to table 7 (thats five fingers and two thumbs in Bionic speak) and that will show you the dollar cut off for each segment. Table 1 shows groups share of taxes and income.
And yes, If I pay taxes on money and then use that same money to earn more income it's being taxed again. I am not saying it shouldn't be taxed again. I am saying it should be taxed at a reduced rate.
And yet again you make stupid assumptions. I don't day trade. I swing trade, huge difference. Sometimes I am in a trade for a few days but it's usually more like a few months and in the case of stocks with good dividends more than a year. Last year I only made like 12 grand and this year maybe 15 so far (gains, not dividends). Only time I ever day traded I made like 1100.00 bux on Ford stock. Had I not gotten greedy and sold quick I would have made better than 4 times that amount in about a month. Selling quick is great if you can turn the money into another 1100.00 trade the next day but I don't trade like that. It's too easy to step into a big loss doing that crap and I don't like losses. It was actually 2008 I had the big year. Made most of my money in a short trade I was in for about a month and a half. Wish I had guts enough to have put a lot more money than I did in that trade.