re: Dumb f**ks that scream “tax the rich more!”

quote:

---

There is a reason nearly every single country in the developed world reduced their 70% tax brackets in the 1970s and 1980s

---

Isn't that when America stopped being great though? I thought everyone wanted the power and economy we had in the 50s and 60s.

quote:

---

and that is interesting as hell to me.

---

No. It’s you showing your jealousy.

I worked and sacrificed to have what I have and not have to do the 9-5 anymore.

Basically, frick you.

quote:

---

You don’t have to be rich to benefit from long term investment or qualified dividends.

---

That's a good observation.

What is by far the largest way that W-2 workers are able to save some of their earnings for investment?

401K accounts with their employer

The rich had us outsmarted here as well.

401K investment income, whether in the form of interest or capital appreciation or dividend income, as in the example I've given here does not get the favorable tax rate treatment that it does outside of a 401K account.

Money that you draw out of your 401K is going to be taxed at your ordinary tax rate as if you had worked for it and reported it on your W-2, which the rich know, is a lot higher than what they pay.

Thank you sir may I have another

You do realize that that hypothetical 2million+ has already been taxed prior to giving it to Junior, right? Please tell me that you realize that and you really don't favor double taxation.

Ok, so your basic point is that you think it’s unfair that investment income is taxed at a lower rate than wage/salary income.

There are 3 general reasons why long term capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than wage income

1) capital gains are not indexed for inflation- any appreciation of assets is taxed at the nominal instead of the real value. This means investors must pay tax not only on the real return but also on the inflation created by the Federal Reserve.

2) capital gains tax, like nearly all of the federal tax code, is a tax on future consumption. Future personal consumption, in the form of savings, is taxed, while present consumption is not. By favoring present over future consumption, savings are discouraged, which decreases future available capital and lowers long term growth.

3) MOST IMPORTANT: a low capital gains rate has historically raised more in tax revenue. In the opinion of policy makers, it’s more important to raise revenue than to use the tax code to “punish” perceived inequalities.

quote:

---

Yes, we did. Maybe if you were smarter you wouldn’t be in this situation.

---

You always jump to conclusions without having the facts to support them?

That was a rhetorical question.

Maybe I'm just a Warren Buffet type wanting America to do better and trying to educate those less fortunate than me.

quote:

---

it would be extremely hard for both parents to give their kid 2 million plus dollars by the time he is in his late twenties

---

If they exceed annual gift limits it just comes off their lifetime exclusion.

I'm for low taxes but the thing that makes no sense to me is the stepped up cost basis at death. Why do I pay tax on my investments if I sell but my heirs don't if they sell? I'm planning to use this to full advantage for my heirs but seems like a reasonable thing to change.

The worst part is they think it’s gonna be redistributed properly and come back to them.

quote:

---

I'm for low taxes but the thing that makes no sense to me is the stepped up cost basis at death. Why do I pay tax on my investments if I sell but my heirs don't if they sell? I'm planning to use this to full advantage for my heirs but seems like a reasonable thing to change.

---

I can tell you're not a poser.

That's a good one.

The rich have all the angles figured out. I wouldn't be concerned about that if it wasn't for the fact that the only way they can get away with it is by putting more tax burden on the middle class to make up the difference.