Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12-18-2011, 11:22 PM   #61
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
photoguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronstar View Post
The money used to earn capital gains and dividends has already been taxed as income before it is invested. It's unfair to tax capital gains/dividends at all. But I agree with simplifying the tax code. Flat tax, no deductions, and eliminate capital gains and inheritance tax.
You are only taxed on the profit and not the base amount you put into the investment. So it seems fair to me that it should be taxed along with all other sources of income. (Note: I would agree with adjusting the cost basis for inflation).

I certainly agree that the tax code should be simplified, but I can't see myself signing on to a flat tax (although that would probably benefit me). I strongly prefer a progressive tax system where the higher your income, the higher rate that is paid.
__________________

__________________
photoguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 12-19-2011, 07:26 AM   #62
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
nun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronstar View Post
The money used to earn capital gains and dividends has already been taxed as income before it is invested. It's unfair to tax capital gains/dividends at all.
You're taxing the gains so I don't agree with you at all in the case of CGs, with dividends there is an argument to be made if the company also gets taxed on them before they are distributed to the shareholder. But I see that as just taxing 2 parties once.

Money is taxed more the once all the time, we pay income tax and in many states when we spend the money we pay sales tax, that's a double tax...I see tax as the price you pay to live in a civilized society, the Romans and Jesus understood that and I'll go with them over the Chicago School
__________________

__________________
“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”

Current AA: 65% Equity Funds / 20% Bonds / 7% Stable Value /3% Cash / 5% TIAA Traditional
Retired Mar 2014 at age 52, target WR: 0.0%,
Income from pension and rent
nun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 07:34 AM   #63
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Posts: 1,005
Acc. to Global Rich List I am among the top 0,41 % of the world.
It all depends on with whom we compare ourselves.
__________________
chris2008 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 07:41 AM   #64
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 8,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by nun View Post
I see tax as the price you pay to live in a civilized society, the Romans and Jesus understood that and I'll go with them over the Chicago School
+1. Gotta remember that riposte.
__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 09:47 AM   #65
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
target2019's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris2008 View Post
Acc. to Global Rich List I am among the top 0,41 % of the world.
It all depends on with whom we compare ourselves.
I have been looking for such a web app, and I thank you for finding it. The answer others get will be humbling, too.
__________________
target2019 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 10:36 AM   #66
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by nun View Post
Money is taxed more the once all the time, we pay income tax and in many states when we spend the money we pay sales tax, that's a double tax...
The distinction is as follows. Your example includes two separate taxable persons: the wage earner, then the business at which the earner spends.

Contrast that with dividends. The stockholders own the corporation, and thus before dividends of corporate earning are distributed, the stockholders have, via the corporation, already paid tax on those corporate earnings.
__________________
GrayHare is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 11:35 AM   #67
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by nun View Post

Money is taxed more the once all the time, we pay income tax and in many states when we spend the money we pay sales tax, that's a double tax...I see tax as the price you pay to live in a civilized society, the Romans and Jesus understood that and I'll go with them over the Chicago School
Then I'd prefer we become a somewhat less civilized society.
__________________
gerntz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 11:43 AM   #68
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
target2019's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrayHare View Post
The distinction is as follows. Your example includes two separate taxable persons: the wage earner, then the business at which the earner spends.

Contrast that with dividends. The stockholders own the corporation, and thus before dividends of corporate earning are distributed, the stockholders have, via the corporation, already paid tax on those corporate earnings.
I am an individual taxpayer in the U.S. I invest $100 in a stock. I am taxed on the dividend payout. I do not pay on the $100 investment.

When I sell the stock, I pay tax on the difference between my original investment and the selling price, or I take a loss.

The argument that I invest money and somehow become the corporation isn't sustainable, says the I.R.S. They take. Case closed.
__________________
target2019 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 02:04 PM   #69
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Finance Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan View Post
I've not seen a single 99% badge either, where are you seeing them?
The Occupy Wall Street folks...some of them are wearing the badges...see them on the news sometimes.
__________________
"Live every day as if it were your last, and one day you'll be right" - unknown
Finance Dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 02:34 PM   #70
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Koolau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Leeward Oahu
Posts: 3,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by nun View Post
You're taxing the gains so I don't agree with you at all in the case of CGs, with diI see tax as the price you pay to live in a civilized society, the Romans and Jesus understood that and I'll go with them over the Chicago School
Couple of points. Jesus said to pay your taxes because it is the law, not that they are "fair" or made any sense or that they are used for your benefit. He wasn't that concerned about such temporal things which are man made. I suspect the Chicago School is more interested in those things than Jesus was. So am I.

I would agree with you about taxes being the price of living in a civilized society. My problem is that I can look around and see dozens of places that my tax dollars are wasted (at all levels of gummint). Gummints not only spend tax dollars but they use taxes as incentives to do certain things (like, for instance, investments). When taxing business profits twice (through corp. tax and taxing dividends) we can argue all day about whether that is "right" or "fair", but I don't see any argument about it being a disincentive for investing in stock (over NOT taxing dividends). Naturally, YMMV.
__________________
Ko'olau's Law -

Anything which can be used can be misused. Anything which can be misused will be.
Koolau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 03:20 PM   #71
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
nun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koolau View Post
Couple of points. Jesus said to pay your taxes because it is the law, not that they are "fair" or made any sense or that they are used for your benefit. He wasn't that concerned about such temporal things which are man made. I suspect the Chicago School is more interested in those things than Jesus was. So am I.
Agreed about the "fair" comment, the sensible debate is what is the right level of taxation....I'd like to see Grover et al come up with that number rather than simply demonizing all taxation.

However, Jesus had plenty to say about temporal things and was concerned with how they could corrupt people, Chicargo School aren't concerned with people at all, just markets. They are amoral. I go with Jesus and Marx as their philosophies put the welfare of people above capital.

Quote:
I would agree with you about taxes being the price of living in a civilized society. My problem is that I can look around and see dozens of places that my tax dollars are wasted (at all levels of gummint). Gummints not only spend tax dollars but they use taxes as incentives to do certain things (like, for instance, investments). When taxing business profits twice (through corp. tax and taxing dividends) we can argue all day about whether that is "right" or "fair", but I don't see any argument about it being a disincentive for investing in stock (over NOT taxing dividends). Naturally, YMMV.
I agree, I see plenty of spending that I don't much like.....but that's why we have elections. The problem I have is that I believe the system has been corrupted by money and that a small number of people have undue influence over the system. That might be corporations or any number of pressure groups across the political spectrum. So the views of the majority of the electorate are seldom converted into legislation.
__________________
“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”

Current AA: 65% Equity Funds / 20% Bonds / 7% Stable Value /3% Cash / 5% TIAA Traditional
Retired Mar 2014 at age 52, target WR: 0.0%,
Income from pension and rent
nun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 03:23 PM   #72
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
nun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrayHare View Post
The distinction is as follows. Your example includes two separate taxable persons: the wage earner, then the business at which the earner spends.

Contrast that with dividends. The stockholders own the corporation, and thus before dividends of corporate earning are distributed, the stockholders have, via the corporation, already paid tax on those corporate earnings.
The wage earner is taxed on income and then is taxed again when they buy something. I pay income tax and sales tax
__________________
“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”

Current AA: 65% Equity Funds / 20% Bonds / 7% Stable Value /3% Cash / 5% TIAA Traditional
Retired Mar 2014 at age 52, target WR: 0.0%,
Income from pension and rent
nun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 03:41 PM   #73
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by nun View Post
...Chicago School aren't concerned with people at all, just markets. They are amoral. ...
Wise choice of words (assuming it was intentional, and I think it was), as amoral does not imply immoral.

But so what? When I think of the Adam Smith story of the butcher, baker, brewer providing services for their own welfare, not the welfare of others, I think it is an amoral system that works pretty well.

I actually have more 'faith' in that system, then I do in a system where we simply rely on 'faith' that people will do the 'right thing'. Esp in a world where we may not agree on what the 'right thing' is. But in a free market transaction, both parties feel they are getting a fair deal, or they simply move on.


-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 03:50 PM   #74
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Wise choice of words (assuming it was intentional, and I think it was), as amoral does not imply immoral.
Amoral | Define Amoral at Dictionary.com

"Synonyms
See immoral. "

Wait, now I'm confused. What did nun mean?
__________________
eridanus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 03:51 PM   #75
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by nun View Post
Agreed about the "fair" comment, the sensible debate is what is the right level of taxation....I'd like to see Grover et al come up with that number rather than simply demonizing all taxation.

This was awhile back.... and might not be online anywhere... (and I do not have time to search.... maybe you can)....


Reader's digest actually did do a survey of what was 'fair'.... and to their surprise the number was 25%.... that includes all level of gvmt... all taxes...

The most interesting part was that this number seemed to be over almost all demographics... all races, all levels of income, democrats and republicans... IOW, this was the national concensus.... I could agree on that amount... can you?


Since our national gvmt is spending at the 25% level, that would leave nothing for state and local gvmt to spend... so something has to change...
__________________
Texas Proud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 03:57 PM   #76
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by eridanus View Post
Amoral | Define Amoral at Dictionary.com

"Synonyms
See immoral. "

Wait, now I'm confused. What did nun mean?
One for the grammar thread!

I thought I knew what nun and I meant, but now I'm confused too.


Oh well, in this context, I think we both took amoral to align with that first definition:

Quote:
not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.
Dang English language! -ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 04:05 PM   #77
Moderator
Alan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Eee Bah Gum
Posts: 21,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finance Dave View Post
The Occupy Wall Street folks...some of them are wearing the badges...see them on the news sometimes.
I assumed he meant outside the house, not just on the TV. Even on the TV, I only see them on news programs.
__________________
Retired in Jan, 2010 at 55, moved to England in May 2016
Now it's adventure before dementia
Alan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 04:15 PM   #78
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Midpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 11,974
I've read several articles that suggest we should Federal target revenues (taxes etc.) at 19% of GDP and Federal spending at 20% of GDP. Probably not abruptly, but within 10 years at the longest.

Along with a lot of moderates ±, I'm more than fine with what that implies given where we actually are now.

I'm not the first to say it by a long way, everyone is going to have to pay more taxes AND spending is going to have to be reduced across the board. Politically we seem to be a million miles from that middle ground at the moment, but I haven't given up hope someone will actually apply some data to the debate eventually, unlike what the far right and the far left have been doing lately.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg runaway-spending-tax-revenue-600.jpg (164.6 KB, 8 views)
__________________
No one agrees with other people's opinions; they merely agree with their own opinions -- expressed by somebody else. Sydney Tremayne
Retired Jun 2011 at age 57

Target AA: 60% equity funds / 35% bond funds / 5% cash
Target WR: Approx 2.5% Approx 20% SI (secure income, SS only)
Midpack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 04:45 PM   #79
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,360
I'm on board with your targets.

Note that I suspect that the chart attached is based on assumptions that will not turn out to be true. I think it is assuming that a lot of the temporary tax cuts we currently enjoy will actually be allowed to expire. Given the way things have been working, I'd be sceptical that it will actually work out that way.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack View Post
I've read several articles that suggest we should Federal target revenues (taxes etc.) at 19% of GDP and Federal spending at 20% of GDP. Probably not abruptly, but within 10 years at the longest.

Along with a lot of moderates ±, I'm more than fine with what that implies given where we actually are now.

I'm not the first to say it by a long way, everyone is going to have to pay more taxes AND spending is going to have to be reduced across the board. Politically we seem to be a million miles from that middle ground at the moment, but I haven't given up hope someone will actually apply some data to the debate eventually, unlike what the far right and the far left have been doing lately.
__________________
Hamlet is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 05:05 PM   #80
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Midpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 11,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet View Post
I'm on board with your targets.

Note that I suspect that the chart attached is based on assumptions that will not turn out to be true. I think it is assuming that a lot of the temporary tax cuts we currently enjoy will actually be allowed to expire. Given the way things have been working, I'd be sceptical that it will actually work out that way.
Who knows. What seems clear to me is we can't stay where we are now at 15% revenue and 25% spending, or the sustained deficits this chart projects. And there's no sign growth is going to magically make things better that I can see. Why we (politicians, media and electorate) waste most of our time talking about relatively small "fixes" and "what's off limits" defies logic, but sadly not beyond comprehension.
__________________

__________________
No one agrees with other people's opinions; they merely agree with their own opinions -- expressed by somebody else. Sydney Tremayne
Retired Jun 2011 at age 57

Target AA: 60% equity funds / 35% bond funds / 5% cash
Target WR: Approx 2.5% Approx 20% SI (secure income, SS only)
Midpack is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rolling Stone top 100 Guitarists MichaelB Other topics 35 11-24-2011 06:28 PM
Maybe you are in the top 1% and unaware of your status? Lsbcal FIRE and Money 3 10-27-2011 04:30 PM
Top TV Theme Songs Purron Other topics 26 09-27-2011 04:51 PM
Top 10 Worst Tax States for Retirees mickeyd FIRE and Money 31 07-07-2011 03:31 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:00 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.