Go Back   Two Wheel Fix > General > News Desk

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-22-2012, 07:21 PM   #71
Homeslice
Elitist
 
Homeslice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Moto: Gix 750
Posts: 11,351
Default

I didn't understand half of that article.

But then, the tax code was written by wealthy people (Congress) trying to create more advantages for themselves.
Homeslice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2012, 07:24 PM   #72
Papa_Complex
Nomadic Tribesman
 
Papa_Complex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brampton, Canada
Moto: '09 ER-6n
Posts: 11,150
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amber Lamps View Post
Oh lord, no wonder we are 15+ trillion in the hole. Romney has 32 million in offshore investments....

Romney didn't write the damn tax code. I guess that none of the rich democrats in the world have ever taken advantage of tax loop holes. Of course not. You are all being lead astray of the real issues here. Where anyone chooses to invest their money is not what's fundamentally wrong with this country. Quite frankly, I'm more concerned with all of the welfare rats that pull EIC credits every year when they don't pay ANYTHING in taxes in the first place. How about the fact that half the country doesn't even pay federal income tax? What do you expect people to do? Do you pay taxes on your 401k? Don't you take every deduction that you can? Oh don't tell me, you guys pay in more than you have to to the federal govt just to be nice, right? Class envy, entitlement mentality, etc is what is fundamentally wrong with this country. Most have nots are also work nots in my experience. I don't fault rich guys trying to hold on to their money, that's what I do as well. Shit, all the feds are going to do is give it to some welfare rat, a foreign country or blow it on some bullshit project/study.... I may as well take 30% of my pay and light it on fire.
That isn't the issue though, is it? Generally speaking it's Republicans, who are complaining about tax rates on the wealthy, that they don't seem to pay anyway. Start talking about things like inheritance taxes, that really are taxes on money that has already been taxed, and I'll be right there with you. Not on this.
__________________
"Everything's better with pirates." - Lodge, "Dorkness Rising"

http://www.morallyambiguous.net/
Papa_Complex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2012, 08:41 PM   #73
Captain Morgan
Let's do another U-turn
 
Captain Morgan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Indiana
Moto: 2009 V-Strom
Posts: 3,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Papa_Complex View Post
That isn't the issue though, is it? Generally speaking it's Republicans, who are complaining about tax rates on the wealthy, that they don't seem to pay anyway. Start talking about things like inheritance taxes, that really are taxes on money that has already been taxed, and I'll be right there with you. Not on this.
While inheritance tax is somewhat taxes on money that has already been taxed, it's not completely that way. The biggest example is unrealized capital gains. If someone bought, or built, a good sized house in the right area and stayed in it most of their lives (a lot of older people have been in the same home for YEARS), that house would have greatly appreciated in value. The gain isn't recognized until the house is sold. If the house is left to someone in an estate, that property doesn't get taxed without an inheritance tax. Granted, there is a 500k exemption for married couples on the gain of a house, but there is also a threshold for inheritance tax.

So lets talk about stocks/bonds. Same situation. If someone holds onto them for years upon years, they've greatly appreciated in value. When they're left to someone in an estate, the new owner gets the basis on date of death. So those stocks could have dramatically appreciated, but that gain is never taxed since they were left in an estate, if there's no inheritance tax. This is where an inheritance tax makes SOME sense.

However, the inheritance tax RATE is what is insane. Also, if someone simply had boatloads of cash/liquid securities where the interest has been taxed over the years, then I don't think that money should be taxed upon death either.
Captain Morgan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2012, 08:30 AM   #74
Papa_Complex
Nomadic Tribesman
 
Papa_Complex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brampton, Canada
Moto: '09 ER-6n
Posts: 11,150
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Morgan View Post
While inheritance tax is somewhat taxes on money that has already been taxed, it's not completely that way. The biggest example is unrealized capital gains. If someone bought, or built, a good sized house in the right area and stayed in it most of their lives (a lot of older people have been in the same home for YEARS), that house would have greatly appreciated in value. The gain isn't recognized until the house is sold. If the house is left to someone in an estate, that property doesn't get taxed without an inheritance tax. Granted, there is a 500k exemption for married couples on the gain of a house, but there is also a threshold for inheritance tax.

So lets talk about stocks/bonds. Same situation. If someone holds onto them for years upon years, they've greatly appreciated in value. When they're left to someone in an estate, the new owner gets the basis on date of death. So those stocks could have dramatically appreciated, but that gain is never taxed since they were left in an estate, if there's no inheritance tax. This is where an inheritance tax makes SOME sense.

However, the inheritance tax RATE is what is insane. Also, if someone simply had boatloads of cash/liquid securities where the interest has been taxed over the years, then I don't think that money should be taxed upon death either.
If it was taxed as income, for the recipient, then there might at least be some logic to it. Instead it's taxed at a ridiculous rate, over and above the taxes what the original holder was taxed. The most reasonable thing would be to tax it as income, but at a special reduced rate.

Things like real estate shouldn't be taxed at all, unless the receiver divests himself of it. If it stays in the family, then it should be inviolate. If it gets sold, then it's treated the same way that a monetary asset would be. If it's rented out, then the rental income is just that; income. This would be fair right across the board, from people scratching to get by right up through billionaires with major holdings.

Tax gains and at time of divestiture not upon receipt, for stocks, capital funds, etc..
__________________
"Everything's better with pirates." - Lodge, "Dorkness Rising"

http://www.morallyambiguous.net/
Papa_Complex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2012, 09:53 AM   #75
Homeslice
Elitist
 
Homeslice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Moto: Gix 750
Posts: 11,351
Default

The inheritance tax doesn't begin until a certain level, around 3 million I think.
Homeslice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2012, 01:09 PM   #76
fatbuckRTO
This is not the sig line.
 
fatbuckRTO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Moto: Be prepared. What? Oh, *moto*...
Posts: 1,279
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Papa_Complex View Post
tap.. tap.. tap..

Um, that's "Mormon."
Ah HA! Two of the biggest figures in the Mormon faith are named "Moroni," only one is named "Mormon." Personally, I think we were just a couple verses off from having ads for "the Book of Moron, a companion to the Bible."
__________________
This was no time for half measures. He was a captain, godsdammit. An officer.
Things like this didn't present a problem for an officer. Officers had a tried and
tested way of solving problems like this. It was called a sergeant.

-Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
fatbuckRTO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2012, 01:12 PM   #77
Papa_Complex
Nomadic Tribesman
 
Papa_Complex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brampton, Canada
Moto: '09 ER-6n
Posts: 11,150
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO View Post
Ah HA! Two of the biggest figures in the Mormon faith are named "Moroni," only one is named "Mormon." Personally, I think we were just a couple verses off from having ads for "the Book of Moron, a companion to the Bible."
It was started by a guy reading golden plates, in a hat. Probably just a spelling error. They didn't have auto-correct in the 1820s.
__________________
"Everything's better with pirates." - Lodge, "Dorkness Rising"

http://www.morallyambiguous.net/
Papa_Complex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2012, 01:51 PM   #78
Sean
giggity
 
Sean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: socal
Moto: street, sumo & dirty
Posts: 1,071
Default

His taxes are low because he pays taxes mostly on capital gains and dividends.

Raising those significantly will never fly because it will screw everyone that's living on retirement savings.
Sean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2012, 06:44 PM   #79
Amber Lamps
Moto GP Star
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 14,556
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean View Post
His taxes are low because he pays taxes mostly on capital gains and dividends.

Raising those significantly will never fly because it will screw everyone that's living on retirement savings.
Who there buddy, only the uber-rich benefit from a lower capital gains tax. Where have you been?

My biggest tax problem is tax on savings/interest. I don't think there should be one, period.
Amber Lamps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2012, 07:44 PM   #80
Homeslice
Elitist
 
Homeslice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Moto: Gix 750
Posts: 11,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amber Lamps View Post
My biggest tax problem is tax on savings/interest. I don't think there should be one, period.
Exactly. Why is someone's measly earnings from their savings acct or CD (which at MOST is giving them only 1% APR these days) taxed as regular income, but dividends & capital gains are only taxed 15%?

"Yeah, let's discourage the poor & middle class from saving anything"

Stocks are for somoene who already has a 6-12 month emergency savings stashed away into an FDIC-insured account. If you don't have that, you shouldn't be buying stocks. And since most people DON'T, their money is in regular bank accounts, and the interest is taxed as regular income. What kind of sense does that make?

Either tax all interest/dividends/gains at 15%, or nothing.

Last edited by Homeslice; 01-23-2012 at 07:47 PM..
Homeslice is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:09 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.