Do the rich pay enough in income taxes?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Let's see. Suppose you work for a company that sells something.
People pay sales tax on that something.
Then the company pays corporate income taxes.
Then on the money you earn, you pay income taxes and payroll taxes.
Then when you buy something you pay sales tax.

I think that's quintuple taxation. That's why I could care less if something is a "double tax".

[A18]

I already explained it to you.

The payroll tax should be abolished, but the point is that it's a mandatory service fee, and not a regular tax. If you get more, you should pay more. If you get the same, you should pay the same.

[Jake]

All of which are user fees, and not normal taxes.

Except capital gains, which is double taxation, obviously.

How the f**ck is capital gains a double tax? It's less than income tax. I find that sick. If you actually work for a g living, you pay more in taxes then if you sit on your lazy ass buy low and selling high with inside trading or whatever.

The first $90,000 of income is double taxed, you pay income and payroll.

You pay income tax on the money and when you invest it and gain a profit, you pay taxes again. So you pay twice or are doubly taxed on your money. Understand?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

All of which are user fees, and not normal taxes.

Except capital gains, which is double taxation, obviously.

How the f**ck is capital gains a double tax? It's less than income tax. I find that sick. If you actually work for a g living, you pay more in taxes then if you sit on your lazy ass buy low and selling high with inside trading or whatever.

The first $90,000 of income is double taxed, you pay income and payroll.

You pay income tax on the money and when you invest it and gain a profit, you pay taxes again. So you pay twice or are doubly taxed on your money. Understand?

It's called capital gains. You only pay taxes on the new money, the amount you gain. If you invest in a $1 million house and sell it the next week for $1,005,000, you only pay taxes on that $5000. Get it?

[Jake]

See, you already risked your money once.  Why should you pay taxes for putting money into the economy?

[opebo]

jfern is correct and Jake is talking rot.  Capital gains are income, like any other income. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

See, you already risked your money once.  Why should you pay taxes for putting money into the economy?

Did you read what I said?

[A18]

Jake is entirely correct, and as usual, the two delusional hacks don't get it.

The value of something you own going up is not income.

[opebo]

To answer the question, no the rich do not pay nearly enough in taxes.  All income over $1 million/year should be taxed at least 90%.

I understand the desire to prevent the excesses of profligacy and power represented by incomes in excess of $1,000,000 per year.  However the whole point of devising an economic system of capitalism tempered by State redistribution is to harness capitalism to the benefit of all.  Hence there may be some reason to consider the conservatives much touted Laffer Curve.  I think the goal should be to get the most out of the upper class without subverting the whole profit-driven system and ending up with socialism, which does seem to produce somewhat less efficiently.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Jake is entirely correct, and as usual, the two delusional hacks don't get it.

The value of something you own going up is not income.

So rich investors have no income?

[opebo]

Jake is entirely correct, and as usual, the two delusional hacks don't get it.

The value of something you own going up is not income.

Yes it is.  It is quite simply money in your pocket.  Wages are generated by the only 'capital' the poor have - themselves - and the income of the rich is generated by capital.  Why on earth would we dream of not taxing them?

[A18]

Jake is entirely correct, and as usual, the two delusional hacks don't get it.

The value of something you own going up is not income.

So rich investors have no income?

Every time a company raises prices, you want to tax them for the value of that property going up? Give me a break. This isn't that ing hard to figure out.

[opebo]

Jake is entirely correct, and as usual, the two delusional hacks don't get it.

The value of something you own going up is not income.

So rich investors have no income?

Every time a company raises prices, you want to tax them for the value of that property going up?

Yes, why wouldn't you?  For example, we tax an auto dealership for the markup (income) on their cars.. a grocery store for the difference between what it bought the tinned food for and what it sells it for.. and the worker for the difference between what he had at the beginning of the week and what he had at the end. 

[A18]

Because it's just a ing sales tax. What is wrong with you?

[opebo]

Because it's just a g sales tax. What is wrong with you?

Picture this.  You are not a big corporation, nor a worker.  All you do is take $200,000 you inherited from your parents, and buy houses, flipping them within days or months.  You make $50,000 to $100,000 per year from this.  Should you pay any tax?

[A18]

You don't seem to understand that the value of the asset was already taxed. Tax either it or its yield, but not both.

[??????????]

To answer the question, no the rich do not pay nearly enough in taxes.  All income over $1 million/year should be taxed at least 90%.

Don't ever claim you're not a communist.

[opebo]

You don't seem to understand that the value of the asset was already taxed. Tax either it or its yield, but not both.

Please try to be clear - I believe you are claiming that the original value or 'purchase price' of an asset was already taxed because the money used to buy it was saved up from wage income, which was already taxed.

But capital gains taxation only taxes the gain - the increase in value - above the purchase price.  Therefore it is not taxing the original purchase money which was previously taxed.  There is no 'double taxation'.

[A18]

The taxation is already reflected in the price.

[opebo]

The taxation is already reflected in the price.

But not in the increase.

[A18]

Yes, it is. The value of a stock, for example, is based on the projected after-tax earnings of a company.

[opebo]

Yes, it is. The value of a stock, for example, is based on the projected after-tax earnings of a company.

So what does that have to do with taxing those earnings or the increase in value of a property?

[A18]

So it's already taxed. The value is reduced in accordance with the profits. Duh.

[opebo]

So it's already taxed. The value is reduced in accordance with the profits. Duh.

No, that is the original value, or 'sale price' at which the person bought it.  If it goes up in value from there, the increase is income, and should be taxed.  The rationale for the original sale price in teh marketplace is irrelevant to the tax-man.

[A18]

The increase is also based on after-tax earnings of the company. What is so hard for you to understand about this?