"I don't usually eat crow, but when I do..."
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
US PoliGAF 2012 | The Romney VeepStakes: Waiting for Chris Christie to Sing
- Thread starter Invisible_Insane
- Start date
- Status
"I don't usually eat crow, but when I do..."
The thread of our conversation changed when you said that all money is taxed multiple times and Romney is not against that. I then illustrated why he would be against this specific type of 'multiple taxation'.
44 percent of Americans found it 'totally/mostly unacceptable' to raise capital gains taxes to help erase the deficit.
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll, [Dec, 2010]
So, this is the reality of the world we live in. Not the world you wish we lived in.
Look, you can label and compartmentalize people all you want .. this has been a very common economic viewpoint for one to have, regardless of how it may impact their own life.
Newt Gingrich played a huge role in lessening the capital gains taxes in the 90's, yet apparently doesn't significantly benefit at all from them (based on his recent tax release). Now, I realize you will then compartmentalize Newt as an 'agent' for his 'master' or some other type of conspiracy talk ... but it's all nonsense.
Newt would lose worse than McCain did. I think he's simply unelectable in a GE. But I'd personally love to have Newt be the Family Values candidate.
Agreed. Conservatives may eat that shit up, but women will look at that video and be appalled. Its a FACT that Gingrich cheated on his wife before they got divorced, the only thing he was disputing was that he wanted an open marriage.
Gingrich is probably one of the most disliked politicians in the country, and most of that dislike comes from the crap he pulled while he was speaker of the House. It also doesn't help that he's a fat troll who resembles Bilbo Baggins.
If he wins the general, Obama is going to win by a landslide. The Republican zeal to defeat Obama is going to irrevocably hurt their party.
maximum360
Member
Suspected classless republican.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...ling-for-obamas-wife-to-be-a-widow/?mobile=nc
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...ling-for-obamas-wife-to-be-a-widow/?mobile=nc
I imagine some significant portion of these 44% do not know when capital gains tax applies, or erroneously believe that they are subject to them when they are not.
Tithing. Perhaps he's not a full tithe-payer within the church. That would be scandalous and very damaging.
Invisible_Insane
Member
I prefer it with fava beans and a nice Chianti.
Romney is still pretty likely to take the whole thing, even if Gingrich takes SC, but I'm prepared to take my lumps if not.
dave is ok
aztek is ok
He almost pays as much to the Mormon Church as he does in taxes.
Well, as I pointed out in the Mormon thread it seems he's been doing some...uh...interesting ways of paying tithing. Like giving company stock to the mormon church and all that. He'd excuse himself that way.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
I'd be interested in seeing a new poll for that, actually. Conversation's changed a lot since Dec. 2010.
N Coward Parody
Member
As much as I would love to believe the Republican Party is willing to self-destruct and nominate Newt over Romney, in the end I think it's just a whole lot of wishful thinking on my part (and on the part of online liberals everywhere).
But please Republican primary voters, feel free to prove me wrong!
But please Republican primary voters, feel free to prove me wrong!
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
It's not savings though. It's investments that you put into a company.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Wow--never thought about that one.
Although, I think the amount of people who actually tithe to a church is much lower than expected. That might not offend many people.
empty vessel
Member
The thread of our conversation changed when you started a new one. What I said was that Romney is campaigning on a platform to give himself more money, take money from other people, and cut everybody's benefits.
Which remains true. And which you addressed by changing the subject.
That 44% of people were in 2010 at the height of the manufactured deficit hysteria somewhat opposed to the idea of raising the capital gains tax for the purpose of reducing the deficit doesn't really prove your assertion that the belief that the capital gains tax should be reduced or eliminated is common.
Nevertheless, this is all a wash because, in fairness to Romney, I have just learned that he proposes to eliminate the capital gains tax only with respect to married couples with incomes under $200,000. Note that this still doesn't change what I said: his tax plan is still designed to reduce his own taxes and raise them on others, just not through reductions in the capital gains tax. It's a fact.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
EVERYTHING comes from savings! Until you spend it on something. Then it's not savings. Because you're not saving it anymore. Which is key to the definition of savings.
A27_StarWolf
Banned
HERMAN CAIN AND STEVEN COLBERT ARE JOINING FORCES?!? !
Narpas Sword0
Member
Investment money isn't taxed. Gains on investment money are taxed. Gains are income
RoninChaos
Member
I'm not too up on Capital gains, but from my understanding, a capital gains tax a tax on the earnings, or "gains", that are earned from an investment. If you lose money with investments, I'm pretty sure you can write that off.
So if all that is the case, then no, capital gains isn't a tax on savings. It's a tax on money GAINED/earned with investments. So no, it's not taxing twice. It's taxing new money that has been created due to investment. Which is why some people have an issue with it being taxed at 15% rather than the tax rate that most people fall under.
You should be arguing with mckmas, he said that investments are not savings nor derive from savings.
Narpas Sword0
Member
Not only can you write it off, you can roll over that write off for years
RustyNails
Member
Not when its venture capitalism
Dude Abides
Banned
Many investments come from debt. Bain did a lot of leveraged buyouts.
RoninChaos
Member
So in order for the world to go-round, it's up to America to remove any and all risk as well as taxes? Last I checked, if you lose money on investments, you write that off and DON'T get taxed on it. What more incentive is there to invest than the fact you might make some money? Do we need to give out blow jobs along with a 0% tax rate on what you make too?
C'mon, son.
I don't get this idea that our tax rates are stunting investment when the stock market is basically back to the numbers it was at before the recession. Further, taxes and risk are part of investing. That's why capital gains taxes are called capital gains taxes, and risk is called risk. If there wasn't risk, then there wouldn't be a return if the investment was successful. If there's no return, then there is no taxing and it can be written off.
So basically your argument is that people won't invest because they'd get taxed if they make money? Even though they can write off a loss to avoid taxes? Isn't this in the same vein as people saying "What reason do you have to work harder if they're just going to tax you more"?
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
What? I agree with mckmas. Your reply to him was that "investments come from savings" which implies that they're still savings after being invested, from some transitive property of money logic I guess? Or I have no idea why you said what you said.
And this is all moot anyway, because principal investments aren't taxed. Not because they're "savings", but because you would owe tax on money that potentially doesn't exist anymore.
Savings is just money you haven't spent. So everything we spend "comes from savings". Once you spend it, it's not savings anymore. Or can I avoid sales tax if I pay for something directly from my savings account?
Until the government starts taking 10% out of the remaining principal in our banking accounts every year, we're not being "taxed on savings".
Narpas Sword0
Member
Sometimes. Everything that isn't paid via credit or directly signing your paycheck over to someone comes from savings.
Investment can also substitute as income, if you are wealthy enough. Unlike traditional income, there are tax benefits for failure and tax consequences cap off at 15%.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
###############
Yeahhhhhh.........so about your tax policy?
No, I specifically said that was a bad argument and I don't agree with it. If you want to join in, you should probably read the entire conversation.
Joe Sh. said:
But the whole root of this tangent was that 'investments are not money that is taxed twice.' When clearly this is the case. And in Mitt's worldview, it's the worst kind of money (or 'savings') to be taxed multiple times.
Nor is it 'immoral' to want to reduce them. It's just bad policy.
You're right. It then becomes a risk that can lose all it's value with no assurance of a return for the person who does it. If you get lucky/make a wise decision, then you are taxed on it's success.
So thus, you were taxed when you earned it, then taxed again when you succesfully risked those savings.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
That's not what I meant at all. I meant once you invest it and make money on it, it's not savings.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
But you aren't being taxed twice on the "SAME" money. That's new money created by your risk paying off. That's why it's called Capital GAINS tax. It's not the same money at all.
And if you want to be that crazy about it, can't we also say that if I use my savings to invest in my own company/side hustle I shouldn't be taxed again if I make a profit from that too?
This would make an interesting separate thread.
Your confusion stems from a false premise. The GOP is not pushing Gingrich. Have we already forgotten everything preceding this week? Gingrich finished fourth in Iowa and NH. Moreover, the preponderance of party actors disapprove of Newt winning the nomination. We already witnessed the devastating suppression of Newt's candidacy preceding Iowa. He had a period of positive press and experienced a corresponding ascension in the polls. Then, the party thwacked him and he cratered. Now, after only a few days of negative press, prominent party officials have announced their support of Romney to buttress his candidacy. They will not allow Newt to win the nomination. Really, his surge in SC is the product of a perfect storm. It is a Southern state where he experienced an unexpectedly positive week in conjunction with a terrible week for Romney. And the proximity of these developments to the actual primary mitigates Romney's advantages.
We both know that will not happen.
empty vessel
Member
As it should be. I'm taxed on my income when I receive it, and then again when I successfully spend my income to pay for the gas that takes me to work everyday. Doesn't the gasoline excise tax dissuade me from working? And why should working be penalized more than investment, which is a way to earn wealth and income without working. Are you saying you think lying on the couch while your money "works for you" should be encouraged while working itself should be dissuaded?
RoninChaos
Member
I read the whole conversation. Don't be an ass. You even said "A lot of people think this is taxation twice" or something along those lines. And those people are wrong.
Perhaps you should have read what I said. Here, I'll quote it for you.
What you're saying is basically that money can't be taxed when it's used to get something else because that's double taxation. Whether that "something else" is more money via investments, or a product like gasoline, there should be no taxes since those taxes are applied to money you've already made. So I should go into the grocery store tomorrow and tell the clerk that I shouldn't pay sales tax on food for my son because they're taxing me twice?
... Really?
No you aren't. That's NEW income that was generated and is being taxed. NEW INCOME.
Also, since you're hung up on "savings". Those "savings" cease to be savings when they're invested. That's why investments are called investments.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
On the subject of eating crow, it's important for everyone here to note that it was never about Romney winning the nomination. I've said that outside of a catastrophic attack or a financial collapse due to Europe that there's nobody in the GOP that could be Obama in 2012.
I stand by that, and I don't eat crow.
I stand by that, and I don't eat crow.
You said:
I said:
in response to EV said:
No need to apologize, but if you do, I will gladly accept it in a PM.
This is another poor interpretation.
RoninChaos
Member
You don't think that the whole "disincentive to invest" runs the same logical pathway as the "Why work more if you'll get taxed more" argument? I.E. Why invest if you're going to get taxed?
To be as clear as possible, I'm speaking specifically of the idea that you've stated in this thread that capital gains taxes are basically taxing the SAME income twice. Hence the back and forth. Even if you don't agree with it, the rest of your posts that bring up the term "savings" suggests otherwise.
Also, again you cut out the rest of my post. Why is that? Is it because your definition of "savings" doesn't really make sense?
I don't get that train of thought, TA.
If you invest part of your savings -- throwing out random numbers here -- say $5,000 and have that grow to $7,500, then get taxed x amount (15%), you are left with $7,125 (taxed on the earned investment of $2,500), no? Isn't $7,125 still more than $5,000 you started out with?
Unless you're a petty immature child in an adult's body that wouldn't invest out of principle, why would you see taxation as a disincentive in this scenario?
Or is my thinking too rudimentary and do investments not work that way? Please correct me if I am wrong.
If you invest part of your savings -- throwing out random numbers here -- say $5,000 and have that grow to $7,500, then get taxed x amount (15%), you are left with $7,125 (taxed on the earned investment of $2,500), no? Isn't $7,125 still more than $5,000 you started out with?
Unless you're a petty immature child in an adult's body that wouldn't invest out of principle, why would you see taxation as a disincentive in this scenario?
Or is my thinking too rudimentary and do investments not work that way? Please correct me if I am wrong.
When Newt went after King last night (which King had every right to ASK the question, and Newt had every obligation to answer it without playing the "big bad media" card again), I was wondering if Newt thought CNN was the Chevrolet when he found out that it was a Jaguar. XD
I was merely illustrating why someone thinks a certain way, not why you should think a certain way.
I cut out the rest of it because it has nothing to do with the conversation. You keep pulling in tangents that have nothing to do with what I am talking about.
RoninChaos
Member
No, what you said is correct. That's why I brought up my point that this idea that capital gains is a disincentive to invest is as stupid as the idea that people won't work more because they have to pay more taxes. In each example, more money is made regardless of taxes.
*edit* The math can be off, but the point stands. I just saw your corrections. More money is made and that new money is taxed. The way Toxic Adam is making it sound is that the government is taxing the same pool of money, and they aren't. They're taxing the GAINS in money from the investment.
I corrected my numbers because I think that you're only taxed on the earnings ($2,500 under my scenario), fyi. I think that's right.
Overall point stands though.
RoninChaos
Member
No, it does have to do with what you're talking about. You've specifically stated that "savings" shouldn't be taxed twice, and you've been given examples as to why that train of thought is incorrect because your definition of "savings" is wonky. Money invested into something isn't savings. It's an investment. Money made from that investment isn't taxed twice. The money made via the investment didn't exist before, hence why it's being taxed.
heh heh heh
- Status