Taxpayers earning income above certain thresholds ($200,000 for singles, $250,000 for married couples filing jointly) pay an additional 3.8% tax on all investment income.[3][4] Therefore, the top federal tax rate on long-term capital gains is 23.8%.[5]
That brings the difference down to about 3%. Essentially nothing. The fact is - you were worked up about the rich not paying anything, about capital gains taxes being nothing, and the facts are exactly the opposite. But it doesn't make good class warfare ammunition to have the actual truth out there so the myth that the "rich pay nothing" is constantly pushed.
So you would dramatically increase taxation for the lowest 50% of all taxpayers. I'm all for it - is that what you really wanted to say, though? You would also give most of the upper-middle-class and lower-upper-class a significant tax break as well...(see this summary of 2016 tax returns for a breakdown of what we already pay).
That is pretty much what we do. Most investment income is taxed as basic income; you can do some exempted type of investments, and long-term capital gains are exempted (which are generally good - it stimulates more economic development than it costs, even President Obama admitted as such), but pretty much all income IS earned income. And it's taxed at the same rate.
Last fiscal year, the US Federal Government spent $1.423 trillion more than it brought in (source: US Department of Treasury). There are approximately 140 million taxpayers. This represents a DEFICIT spending $10,160 per taxpayer - spending above and beyond income. It is more than all the Federal Income tax paid! We would have to literally more than double the current Federal tax rate for all taxpayers to cover our deficit spending...
Or, we start cutting things that are outside the domain of the Federal Government, and scale back on spending. It's either increase revenue or cut spending - but it has to be done. We cannot keep blowing over $4 billion dollars a day in deficit spending (that is $29 per day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, per taxpayer).
Again, income != accumulated wealth. You are talking about how much he is worth, and saying his taxes are not appropriate. We tax income, not wealth - do not mix the two.
You get the biggest, best-equipped military in the world.
Which we borrow every penny of funding for. Our deficit last year was $600 billion and so was our defense department budget. We borrowed literally every penny we spent on our military because we have a bunch of paranoid xenophobic repu
Not even close. The reported "on-budget" deficit was that much, but we actually spent $1.422 TRILLION more than we brought in. The real deficit was nearly 3 times the reported "on budget" deficit. It's a lot worse than you think it is - and also shows that it's not the defense that's the entire issue - it's the entitlements and social spending of the Federal Government (that also drives 70% of all spending).
What does it matter if it's your employer paying it directly, or paying the money to you and you paying it?
The difference is that if your employer pays for it, or the Government pays for it, then it is tax-free (insurance premiums are either tax deductible or not taxed, respectively). If you pay for health insurance out of your own pocket you cannot deduct that expenditure unless it is a very large portion of your income (and your income is below a middle-class limit). Basically I pay tax on my healthcare - but if I was a direct employee rather than a self-employed engineer, I wouldn't pay any taxes on my healthcare.
Yeah its awful the way we don't let sick and retired people eat dog food and die.... see thats part of the actual helping that taxes do, but we waste a much higher amount of our tax dollars on military spending than other developed countries
Great, I'm sure you were all smiles and happiness then when President Trump called Germany on their under-funding of NATO, and pushing to have other countries cover their defense obligations (instead of assuming the US will always do it for them), right?
According to actual IRS data the bottom 50% pay 2.75% of all Federal income taxes, but make 11.27% of all income. The top 1% pay 39.48% of all income taxes, but make 20.58% of all income. That's about an 8:1 change in taxes-per-income...
Income != accumulated wealth. Assuming Trump was paying $38 million in taxes, he probably had an income around $125 million. Accumulate the balance over 15 years and you're a billionaire.
I for one would love a simpler tax code. Throw out the horrible monstrosity we have now that no one but an army of CPA's could fathom, and do a fair tax or possibly national sales tax (ONLY if by constitutional amendment any other federal taxes are banned, no income tax and nat'l sales tax)....
This, exactly this. I have a Hong Kong corporation. I read the entire HK tax code before creating my company (about 9 years ago). It was 192 pages - and half the pages were in Mandarin. So 96 pages in English. Simple, straightforward, a single tax rate. It works.
No, I understood what you said. There was a vote AFTER the Republicans ended the filibuster. The ONLY reason Schumer voted is his filibuster was ended. That's it. If the GOP didn't end the filibuster, Schumer would have never voted. So you are completely cool with filibustering USSC judges, right?
From your own link: "The move came shortly after most Democrats filibustered the nomination of Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court." So do you condemn Schumer et al. for filibustering Gorsuch?
Senate is to provide any advice and consent they deem for Presidential appointments. Refusing to provide consent is completely legal and ethical. Or do you also condemn Schumer et al. for running the filibuster against Gorsuch?
Mr. AC, as you stand before the Court today, it is clear in your case the law as written does not support a conviction. But morally, I find a perosn who has stated what you have stated as reprehensible and not worthy of integration into society. Given that I believe it is more important to follow my moral belies than the law as written, I sentence you to death. Case closed.
For a foursome, 4 to 5 hours is pretty standard. Add 20 minutes either side for final tally of score, getting bags on carts, etc. and you're pushing 5 hours pretty consistently. At least at the courses around where I live (Ventura County, CA) it's typical for a foursome to take closer to 5 hours to complete a round.
18 USC 798 and 50 USC 1809. Yes. The same laws that the Democrats were so worked up when Dick Armitage leaked Valerie Plame. Leaking classified information - something the Obama/Clinton crime syndicates love to do - appears to be a standard modus operandi for the Democrats.
Slashdot Mirror
If you read the link, you'll find:
Taxpayers earning income above certain thresholds ($200,000 for singles, $250,000 for married couples filing jointly) pay an additional 3.8% tax on all investment income.[3][4] Therefore, the top federal tax rate on long-term capital gains is 23.8%.[5]
That brings the difference down to about 3%. Essentially nothing. The fact is - you were worked up about the rich not paying anything, about capital gains taxes being nothing, and the facts are exactly the opposite. But it doesn't make good class warfare ammunition to have the actual truth out there so the myth that the "rich pay nothing" is constantly pushed.
So you would dramatically increase taxation for the lowest 50% of all taxpayers. I'm all for it - is that what you really wanted to say, though? You would also give most of the upper-middle-class and lower-upper-class a significant tax break as well...(see this summary of 2016 tax returns for a breakdown of what we already pay).
No, true. Short term capital gains are taxed as ordinary income and long-term capital gains for "the rich" are taxed at a rate not much lower than the average rate already paid on income by the rich (20% versus an average of 27%).
That is pretty much what we do. Most investment income is taxed as basic income; you can do some exempted type of investments, and long-term capital gains are exempted (which are generally good - it stimulates more economic development than it costs, even President Obama admitted as such), but pretty much all income IS earned income. And it's taxed at the same rate.
So does $3+ million per month constitute enough to you, in terms of contributing to society? How much, then, would you demand?
Last fiscal year, the US Federal Government spent $1.423 trillion more than it brought in (source: US Department of Treasury). There are approximately 140 million taxpayers. This represents a DEFICIT spending $10,160 per taxpayer - spending above and beyond income. It is more than all the Federal Income tax paid! We would have to literally more than double the current Federal tax rate for all taxpayers to cover our deficit spending...
Or, we start cutting things that are outside the domain of the Federal Government, and scale back on spending. It's either increase revenue or cut spending - but it has to be done. We cannot keep blowing over $4 billion dollars a day in deficit spending (that is $29 per day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, per taxpayer).
Again, income != accumulated wealth. You are talking about how much he is worth, and saying his taxes are not appropriate. We tax income, not wealth - do not mix the two.
You get the biggest, best-equipped military in the world.
Which we borrow every penny of funding for. Our deficit last year was $600 billion and so was our defense department budget. We borrowed literally every penny we spent on our military because we have a bunch of paranoid xenophobic repu
Not even close. The reported "on-budget" deficit was that much, but we actually spent $1.422 TRILLION more than we brought in. The real deficit was nearly 3 times the reported "on budget" deficit. It's a lot worse than you think it is - and also shows that it's not the defense that's the entire issue - it's the entitlements and social spending of the Federal Government (that also drives 70% of all spending).
What does it matter if it's your employer paying it directly, or paying the money to you and you paying it?
The difference is that if your employer pays for it, or the Government pays for it, then it is tax-free (insurance premiums are either tax deductible or not taxed, respectively). If you pay for health insurance out of your own pocket you cannot deduct that expenditure unless it is a very large portion of your income (and your income is below a middle-class limit). Basically I pay tax on my healthcare - but if I was a direct employee rather than a self-employed engineer, I wouldn't pay any taxes on my healthcare.
Actually, no. The USA is right in the middle of the OECD average. We're on-par with Germany, the UK, Italy, etc.
Yeah its awful the way we don't let sick and retired people eat dog food and die.... see thats part of the actual helping that taxes do, but we waste a much higher amount of our tax dollars on military spending than other developed countries
Great, I'm sure you were all smiles and happiness then when President Trump called Germany on their under-funding of NATO, and pushing to have other countries cover their defense obligations (instead of assuming the US will always do it for them), right?
According to actual IRS data the bottom 50% pay 2.75% of all Federal income taxes, but make 11.27% of all income. The top 1% pay 39.48% of all income taxes, but make 20.58% of all income. That's about an 8:1 change in taxes-per-income...
Income != accumulated wealth. Assuming Trump was paying $38 million in taxes, he probably had an income around $125 million. Accumulate the balance over 15 years and you're a billionaire.
I for one would love a simpler tax code. Throw out the horrible monstrosity we have now that no one but an army of CPA's could fathom, and do a fair tax or possibly national sales tax (ONLY if by constitutional amendment any other federal taxes are banned, no income tax and nat'l sales tax)....
This, exactly this. I have a Hong Kong corporation. I read the entire HK tax code before creating my company (about 9 years ago). It was 192 pages - and half the pages were in Mandarin. So 96 pages in English. Simple, straightforward, a single tax rate. It works.
That's not true, at least for income taxes. Likewise for capital gains taxes.
No, I understood what you said. There was a vote AFTER the Republicans ended the filibuster. The ONLY reason Schumer voted is his filibuster was ended. That's it. If the GOP didn't end the filibuster, Schumer would have never voted. So you are completely cool with filibustering USSC judges, right?
From your own link: "The move came shortly after most Democrats filibustered the nomination of Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court." So do you condemn Schumer et al. for filibustering Gorsuch?
Senate is to provide any advice and consent they deem for Presidential appointments. Refusing to provide consent is completely legal and ethical. Or do you also condemn Schumer et al. for running the filibuster against Gorsuch?
Mr. AC, as you stand before the Court today, it is clear in your case the law as written does not support a conviction. But morally, I find a perosn who has stated what you have stated as reprehensible and not worthy of integration into society. Given that I believe it is more important to follow my moral belies than the law as written, I sentence you to death. Case closed.
Kudos Uber, maybe you've finally figured out a path to turning a profit...
You're repairing it wrong.
How did the information get outside the immediate control of Ms. Rice? Did it choose to get out on its own? Who leaked it?
For a foursome, 4 to 5 hours is pretty standard. Add 20 minutes either side for final tally of score, getting bags on carts, etc. and you're pushing 5 hours pretty consistently. At least at the courses around where I live (Ventura County, CA) it's typical for a foursome to take closer to 5 hours to complete a round.
OK. So when you state something, and are proven to be wrong, rather than admitting your error you come back with a "what I meant to say was..."
18 USC 798 and 50 USC 1809. Yes. The same laws that the Democrats were so worked up when Dick Armitage leaked Valerie Plame. Leaking classified information - something the Obama/Clinton crime syndicates love to do - appears to be a standard modus operandi for the Democrats.