Trump

[davideinstein]

You want to lower capital gains taxes further so that the rich pay even less? Seriously?

You can reallocate taxes. I'm very much for a progressive tax, just don't like capital gains taxes specifically.

[cannon_fodder]

You can reallocate taxes. I'm very much for a progressive tax, just don't like capital gains taxes specifically.

Man born with nothing and works his butt off as a crane operator, making $100,000 a year busting his butt, following the pipeline, and getting damn good as his job. He does this for 40 years making $4,000,000.  Income tax plus FICA, lets call it 40% to keep it simple.  The worker pays $1.6 million in taxes in his lifetime.

Man is born to a wealthy family who holds investments. When he turns 18 he is gifted some of the holdings and lets other people run them for him. They generate $250,000 in annual distributions for him, because he was born into the right family. Over 40 years he makes $10,000,000. He pays capital gains tax of 15% on his income. The wealthy man makes 150% more not working, and pays $1.5 Million in taxes in his lifetime. If anyone is keeping score, he pays less in tax than the working man.

But wait, there's more!

The worker retires at 60. Part of the $2.4 million he took home during his lifetime has been saved so he can have a modest and comfortable retirement.  His income in retirement is a percentage of whatever he managed to save. What he doesn't spend on retirement, he can pass on to his kids.

The man born into the right family never stops earning his $250k a year and can continue to build wealth and live as he pleases. When he dies, he passes the family assets onto his kids, who very likely have no inheritance tax to pay so they also don't really have to work if they choose not to. They will pay less in taxes than the children of the working man.


Hard to argue that the 15% Capital Gains tax is somehow oppressive.

[Conan71]

What we are watching now is the very death of the Party of Lincoln. The Republican Party may continue in name, but the fissure that has been created, that Trump is pouring hot lava into with his attacks on party leaders, means that the Republican Party as we have known it for almost  150 years is dead. There can be no healing from this. The long standing pro chamber of commerce conservative party of business leaders and conservative religious values cannot reconcile with Trump's populist, fact disregarding movement of hate, fear and anger. There are now two distinct "parties" under the tent of the Republican Party, but that tent Is on fire.

I'm seriously disappointed in what the GOP has become.  I left the party six or eight years ago based on what it had become in Oklahoma, now I see the disarray of it on a national basis and I'm even more glad I changed to IND.

Trump will end up beaten badly and I hope his rise to POTUS candidate will make the large egos within the party re-examine what a shitbag it has become.  If there were any sort of unity, they wouldn't have had 16 or 18 candidates running.  It has become a collection of egotists who only seem interested in being seen as the leader, not people who really care about developing sound policy and trying to advance it.

Trump will fade away as persona non grata for being the guy who enabled the Democrats to retain control of the White House.  I don't know any of my Democrat friends who are terribly excited about Hillary, but for them there is no viable alternative.  Hillary is not a great candidate, but the GOP ended up with someone far far worse due to the factions in the party. 

Assuming Hillary wins, I personally think it is a sorry overall reflection on the two party system that by 2020 the White House will have been controlled by Clintons and Bushes for 24 of the last 32 years.  Someone please explain to me how that has any benefit to our country and I'll gladly try to listen.  I believe that system is stifling and discouraging really good potential candidates.

[rebound]

You can reallocate taxes. I'm very much for a progressive tax, just don't like capital gains taxes specifically.

So, are you suggesting that "income is income", and that all earning be treated equally?  Lump everything together and then consider regression, or not, whatever.  Or are you suggesting that capital gains are not really income?

[AquaMan]

There is something known as institutional learning. Historical learning would probably be a better description. When Congress turned during Clinton's second term, when Oklahoma's legislature turned a few years back, we lost all the wisdom and knowledge acquired over decades on how to actually run the government. It isn't harmful when its gradual or when parties change like the Dems and Repubs did in the 60's because there is still knowledge of how to get things done.

It is no surprise that Congress can't even agree on a budget when it is consumed with analyzing its own navel while circling the wagons around Obama and shooting themselves instead. That's the benefit of having leaders who transcend ideology and know at its core what serving the public means. Oklahoma suffered badly a decade ago when practically a whole state turned to religious ideologues. Lawsuits had to be filed to even mute their ignorant behavior. Now, another generation thinks our state constitution is not even worth reading unless its to change it.

To simply say that all leadership was Bushes, Clintons for 24 of 32 years assumes that leadership was seamless and homogeneous. It wasn't. Baby Bush wasn't Daddy Bush in tenor, intelligence or experience. Momma Clinton is not the continuation of Daddy Clinton. And it was in vastly different time periods. 80's, 90's, 2016.

That's my take anyway. That's why I insisted these last two years that competence is the next theme for America. Stop electing ideologues. We keep thinking there is one leader, one party that can change everything for us. Truth is it takes lots of people with lots of views and history and even then its a slow meandering course. Changing deck hands in mid trip doesn't help much.

[Hoss]

I hate to break into this spirited and interesting discussion, but this is a Trump thread.  I wonder if he's getting tired but he said this tonight.

https://twitter.com/ditzkoff/status/786017457588801536

The problem is that the election is November 8th....not 28th.  I'm sure the opposition would like them to believe it though...

[AquaMan]

He's talking about the second one after the rigged one is over. The second one will be secured by his Trumpguard from the rallies.

[AquaMan]

I hate to break into this spirited and interesting discussion, but this is a Trump thread.  I wonder if he's getting tired but he said this tonight.

https://twitter.com/ditzkoff/status/786017457588801536

The problem is that the election is November 8th....not 28th.  I'm sure the opposition would like them to believe it though...

BTW, I did all that smart pontificating and you change the subject back to the original? pancakes!

[Red Arrow]

I'm seriously disappointed in what the GOP has become.  I left the party six or eight years ago based on what it had become in Oklahoma, now I see the disarray of it on a national basis and I'm even more glad I changed to IND.

If enough people leave, you will get nothing but the likes of Trump. 

Assuming Hillary wins, I personally think it is a sorry overall reflection on the two party system that by 2020 the White House will have been controlled by Clintons and Bushes for 24 of the last 32 years.  Someone please explain to me how that has any benefit to our country and I'll gladly try to listen. 

We could get a Trump.

[davideinstein]

Man born with nothing and works his butt off as a crane operator, making $100,000 a year busting his butt, following the pipeline, and getting damn good as his job. He does this for 40 years making $4,000,000.  Income tax plus FICA, lets call it 40% to keep it simple.  The worker pays $1.6 million in taxes in his lifetime.

Man is born to a wealthy family who holds investments. When he turns 18 he is gifted some of the holdings and lets other people run them for him. They generate $250,000 in annual distributions for him, because he was born into the right family. Over 40 years he makes $10,000,000. He pays capital gains tax of 15% on his income. The wealthy man makes 150% more not working, and pays $1.5 Million in taxes in his lifetime. If anyone is keeping score, he pays less in tax than the working man.

But wait, there's more!

The worker retires at 60. Part of the $2.4 million he took home during his lifetime has been saved so he can have a modest and comfortable retirement.  His income in retirement is a percentage of whatever he managed to save. What he doesn't spend on retirement, he can pass on to his kids.

The man born into the right family never stops earning his $250k a year and can continue to build wealth and live as he pleases. When he dies, he passes the family assets onto his kids, who very likely have no inheritance tax to pay so they also don't really have to work if they choose not to. They will pay less in taxes than the children of the working man.


Hard to argue that the 15% Capital Gains tax is somehow oppressive.

I didn't say it was oppressive, I said that I disagreed with it. I'm very much the former of those particular people you described. You can be a hard worker, from the ground up and not want your investments taxed as much.

[davideinstein]

So, are you suggesting that "income is income", and that all earning be treated equally?  Lump everything together and then consider regression, or not, whatever.  Or are you suggesting that capital gains are not really income?

I don't think short term gains should be taxed more than long term gains. If I keep up with the market on a daily basis and make intelligent short term trades then I shouldn't be penalized for it. But, I am and the end result is less money being reinvested.

[davideinstein]

I hate to break into this spirited and interesting discussion, but this is a Trump thread.  I wonder if he's getting tired but he said this tonight.

https://twitter.com/ditzkoff/status/786017457588801536

The problem is that the election is November 8th....not 28th.  I'm sure the opposition would like them to believe it though...

Actually talking policy in a Trump thread is the best thread hijack ever though.

[Red Arrow]

Man born with nothing and works his butt off as a crane operator, making $100,000 a year busting his butt, following the pipeline, and getting damn good as his job. He does this for 40 years making $4,000,000.  Income tax plus FICA, lets call it 40% to keep it simple.  The worker pays $1.6 million in taxes in his lifetime.

40% is a bit too simple.  Assuming he is married, filing jointly and is working for someone else, his income tax would be approximately $13,400 and his FICA will be an additional 7.5% (if the current cut is eliminated) for an additional $7500.  Income tax + FICA = $20,900 or about 21%.  $4,000,000 x 21% = $840,000.

https://www.irs.com/articles/projected-us-tax-rates-2016

https://www.irs.gov/uac/ten-facts-that-you-should-know-about-capital-gains-and-losses

"Tax Rate.  The capital gains tax rate usually depends on your income. The maximum net capital gain tax rate is 20 percent. However, for most taxpayers a zero or 15 percent rate will apply. A 25 or 28 percent tax rate can also apply to certain types of net capital gains."

http://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2015/12/14/long-term-capital-gains-tax-rates-in-2016.aspx
[/quote]

Man is born to a wealthy family who holds investments. When he turns 18 he is gifted some of the holdings and lets other people run them for him. They generate $250,000 in annual distributions for him, because he was born into the right family. Over 40 years he makes $10,000,000. He pays capital gains tax of 15% on his income. The wealthy man makes 150% more not working, and pays $1.5 Million in taxes in his lifetime. If anyone is keeping score, he pays less in tax than the working man.

Wouldn't those distributions be more likely to be dividends rather than long term (longer than 1 year) capital gains?  In any case, it is unlikely that someone born into a family that can give him that kind of fund will limit his income to the that fund.  He will be unlikely to take advantage of any personal exemptions or lower rates on the first parts of his income to lower his overall rate on the inherited fund income.  He may also be subject to add-ons that raise his rates above 15% on the capital gains.

But wait, there's more!

The worker retires at 60. Part of the $2.4 $3.1 million he took home during his lifetime has been saved so he can have a modest and comfortable retirement.  His income in retirement is a percentage of whatever he managed to save plus investment income unless he stuffed all his savings in the mattress.  Interest rates have not been as low as present for the last 40 years.. What he doesn't spend on retirement, he can pass on to his kids.

The man born into the right family never stops earning his $250k a year and can continue to build wealth and live as he pleases. When he dies, he passes the family assets onto his kids, who very likely have no inheritance tax to pay so they also don't really have to work if they choose not to. They will pay less in taxes than the children of the working man.

Hard to argue that the 15% Capital Gains tax is somehow oppressive.

I do agree 15% is not oppressive.

Edit: Add quotes around the Tax Rate statement from the IRS.
Edit 2: Fix typo.

[davideinstein]

For short term capital gains it can be up to 39%

While not oppressive, that's too high.

[heironymouspasparagus]

For short term capital gains it can be up to 39%

While not oppressive, that's too high.

Then maybe...just maybe...we should stop fighting the wrong, unfunded wars!  That extra $4 trillion in debt from doing the Iraq Imperialistic Voyeurism, that even most of the Republicontins finally agree was a mistake.   

And giving massive tax breaks to the top 1%.  Which Baby Bush gave that took us from surplus to biggest deficits in the history of the world.  And in particular, making the rest of us subsidize that same 1% - like Trump paying 0 income tax when he brags about $950 million income.  (Clinton's in contrast showed about $10 million last year and paid about 34% - as reported in their tax returns.) 

Just a few of the "little things"....

A little introspection, coupled with a little knowledge and sense of history in the general population would be nice right about now.  But I also know that is too much to ask or expect.