$447 bil

[shmike]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Largely immaterial, given that the truly wealthy are vast multiples of these numbers. You should really ask yourself why your government doesn't create higher tax brackets, precisely to cover these massive earners.

I don't need to ask myself anything.

I think that 35% of your earnings is plenty, regardless of how big those earnings are.

In your opinion, what rate should the "truly wealthy" be penalized for being rich?

Also, how many times and how often do you think it is fair to tax those people? (Once per generation, twice per generation, every time their net worth exceeds a certain threshold, etc..)

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by shmike

I don't need to ask myself anything.

I think that 35% of your earnings is plenty, regardless of how big those earnings are.

In your opinion, what rate should the "truly wealthy" be penalized for being rich?

Also, how many times and how often do you think it is fair to tax those people? (Once per generation, twice per generation, every time their net worth exceeds a certain threshold, etc..)

If you don't ask yourself anything, but instead assume that you already know the answers, then you learn nothing.

If they actually paid 35% of their income, then it might be fair. They don't.

Given our current system it would appear that once a year is the fair interval between taxations. As this goes back to feudal Europe, there's a reasonable amount of supporting documentation.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

One of his points was, even back when capital gains were taxed at a higher rate, it didn't discourage people from investing, and wouldn't, because investing in stocks will always be one of the most effective and pain-free ways to get a good return on your savings.

And I doubt there are very many people earning a million-plus salary, or even just $200K+, who don't invest in stocks. Compare that to the middle-class and lower, many of whom don't have any stocks. The point is, someone who pulls down a high salary can afford to put a higher percentage of that salary into savings. Therefore, his savings will grow more quickly, to the point where a substantial portion of his income is coming from capital gains.

You aren't getting what I am talking about. Any tax that is going to go after Buffett and his ilk isn't aimed at people whose primary income is from a salary.

Your scenario doesn't make sense either. I'll use round numbers to keep things simple, but take that person making $1 mil a year, or around $500k after taxes. How much money are they investing in vehicles where the money can be reached? Keep in mind, a 401k has a big time tax penalty for early withdraws (20% on top of regular income taxes I believe). Even if it were half their take home that is $250k per year. You tell me, at that rate how long will it take before the profits on those investments will even equal their $1 mil salary, much less be significantly greater than the salary?

As I said, if this is going after Buffett it won't be going after people who live off a salary. It would target the few like Buffett, C-level people who got a one time big hit taking their company public, or those CEOs who make 8 figures for a few years.

To speak about capital gains taxes generally, first of all I was wrong. The cap gains rate has been progressive (or regressive depending on how you view it) and is currently that way, but it is much more simplistic than income tax rates.

Secondly, creating a new, higher cap gains rate won't prevent or discourage investment. What it does do is discourage realizing a gain on an investment (selling) and then reinvesting in something else (buying). Taxing those gains at a higher rate will mean the new investment will have to be that much better in order for it to make sense for a person to move their money. A higher cap gains rate doesn't discourage investing, it discourages liquidity of investments.

ETA: The middle class people you refer to who don't have investments are generally stupid.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

If you don't ask yourself anything, but instead assume that you already know the answers, then you learn nothing.

If they actually paid 35% of their income, then it might be fair. They don't.

Given our current system it would appear that once a year is the fair interval between taxations. As this goes back to feudal Europe, there's a reasonable amount of supporting documentation.

I don't believe shmike is referring to how often taxes are calculated, but to how many times the same money is subject to taxation (usually referred to as double taxation). This is one of the complaints about estate taxes.

[shmike]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

If you don't ask yourself anything, but instead assume that you already know the answers, then you learn nothing.

If they actually paid 35% of their income, then it might be fair. They don't.

Given our current system it would appear that once a year is the fair interval between taxations. As this goes back to feudal Europe, there's a reasonable amount of supporting documentation.

You're right about not learning anything, that was a poor response on my part.

I don't need to dig into the "Why don't they have higher brackets for rich folks", because what we have is high enough.

Once a year is a fair interval, but how many times should we tax the rich?

[shmike]

Originally Posted by goof2

I don't believe shmike is referring to how often taxes are calculated, but to how many times the same money is subject to taxation (usually referred to as double taxation). This is one of the complaints about estate taxes.

And dividends, capital gains, (sometimes) corporate taxes, etc...

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by shmike

You're right about not learning anything, that was a poor response on my part.

I don't need to dig into the "Why don't they have higher brackets for rich folks", because what we have is high enough.

Once a year is a fair interval, but how many times should we tax the rich?

How many times are the Middle Class taxed?

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

I don't believe shmike is referring to how often taxes are calculated, but to how many times the same money is subject to taxation (usually referred to as double taxation). This is one of the complaints about estate taxes.

I'm not a fan of inheritance taxes but, if you're investing money in a way that makes more money, then to me that is income. Not the original funds, but what you make with them

How many wealthy people claim any significant personal income? How many self-incorporate, so that they can take advantage of business deductions? How many use corporate funds in order to buy homes, cars, boats, planes.... and, therefore, do not need to expend those funds personally?

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

If you're investing money in a way that makes more money, then to me that is income. Not the original funds, but what you make with them

Hey now...stop right there dammit.
Take your fancy talk and go buy a cookie with it.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by pauldun170

Hey now...stop right there dammit.
Take your fancy talk and go buy a cookie with it.

Sorry, but I was born for fancy talk. For instance asking questions like, "If you don't want to be taxed based on your investment earnings, then why should you be able to claim your losses as a deduction?"