Here's a Subject They All Agree On!!!

Are you worried about the jobs going overseas or the "zero" taxes they pay?

What "jobs" are going overseas? Garment makers' jobs?

Why do I care if "GE" makes a ton of money?

And why is making a lot of money "nonsense"?

Do you dislike Trump because he has made and makes a lot of money?

Finally ... that was NOT an "article" you posted? IT IS A link to Bernie's pablum. Originally Posted by LexusLover

That's not the point I am trying to emphasize and you know it. I rest my case.

That's not the point I am trying to emphasize and you know it. I rest my case. Originally Posted by SassySue

You don't have a "case" upon which to rest.

You're merely regurgitating someone else's pablum and political bullshit.

"The point" is ...

... people whine about job's going overseas, but they buy their shit at Walmart!

Do they really want to pay $200 for a pair of "U.S. Made" blue jeans? Can they afford it?

Is Carried Interest Simply a Tax Break for The Ultra Rich? (A Great Article): Originally Posted by SassySue

In a 2015 Pew Survey, 64% say they feel some corporations do not pay their fair share of taxes, and 61% say some wealthy people fail to pay their fair share.(1)

Senator Sanders compiled a list of the top ten corporate tax dodgers –

Corporations also employ battalions of tax lawyers to find ways to reduce their tax bills, from running income through subsidiaries in low-tax foreign countries to moving overseas entirely, in what’s known as a corporate inversion” Originally Posted by SassySue

..... And you cannot possibly justify that kind of nonsense by saying they provide jobs when huge multi-national corporations send so many jobs overseas. Originally Posted by SassySue

That's not the point I am trying to emphasize and you know it. I rest my case. Originally Posted by SassySue

From "carried interest" TO "sending jobs overseas" .... you have managed to morph the dialogue in the direction of "blaming it on the corporations"!!!!!

Individual "interest earnings" is so pitiful it must be "carried forward" so it will even register .... and you are worried about "corporations' hoarding funds?

Renaming something doesn't change the character of the "something" ... investors (and their brokers) should realize benefits from assuming risks. When I leave funds in my account (instead of trading out my holdings, which can contribute to driving down the value), then I should be "rewarding" for holding my position ... even if by a lower tax rate ... as well as the broker who is waiting for me to sell to acquire his INTEREST in my account holdings. The risks taken by investors and business owners are not considered when folks like you start jabbering about wealth redistribution.

Are you willing to allow the broker to deduct a % of losses if the investor "holds" any sale?

Sassy Sue, you do know that in order to have funds to invest and pay capital gains, you are talking about funds that have probably already been taxed when they were originally obtained, don't you?

Sassy Sue, you do know that in order to have funds to invest and pay capital gains, you are talking about funds that have probably already been taxed when they were originally obtained, don't you? Originally Posted by DSK

The incentive to invest long term IS the deferred tax on the initial investments.

But those preaching the wealth distribution agenda find "long term investing" counterproductive to the "master plan" from the "fast food" mentality of the "entitlement crowd." As a consequence, one devises a scheme by which to compel and/or perhaps entice the long term investor to un-invest the funds so that the little grimmies of the entitlement crowd can grab it.

You are simply wrong, Captain Halfbright. Nothing I posted was "wrong" in any way. By the way, what does this make you? "Quarter-bright?" Or is that being too generous? I also taught cost accounting. Sort of like you "taught" economics, eh? LOL! If I had a whiteboard, I could explain it to you. Whiteboard or not, you've never demonstrated the ability to coherently explain ANYTHING relating to economics or taxation. There is a target net profit that every company wants or needs to meet. All expenses, including tax and compliance costs are figured in to reach that target. If they can't reach that target, they raise the price, or cut costs. They don't "absorb" them. That's just bullshit. Sorry, no credit for that poorly conceived, simple-minded answer. Once again, you show that you have no understanding of this issue. Good God, man! Learn something for a change and get in the game. Corporate tax incidence has been taught to every lower-division (freshman-sophomore) college student for generations. Countless graduate students have written theses and dissertations on this topic. No wonder you're so bamboozled by all that "embedded taxes" crap pitched by FairTax enthusiasts! The simple fact is that you cannot intelligently discuss tax policy issues if you don't know this stuff.

I never said "we" own the Congress. The mega-wealthy own the Congress. You aren't rich enough to have any influence. Hell, Trump is barely rich enough to have a significant influence. He buys zoning changes and building codes. If you think you are one of the "rich" in a position to influence policy, you are delusional. When did I state anything to the contrary? Don't be so obtuse. And you have never offered any alternative tax plans, nor have you shared any significant changes to the current system that you'd approve. I certainly did! You just deflected, hurled more barbs, and ignored what I posted -- as usual. One can only presume you're happy with the system as it is. You presume in error, as usual. We've gone through this before. Pay attention for a change! Which is fine. We can disagree. Just be honest about it.


Oh, you are correct that income should only become taxable when it is realized. Sorry! It must be painful for you to concede that I am correct about anything, no matter how trivial! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Yes, that's correct, income should only be taxable when it's realized, of course. But all capital gains are still income and so is interest income. It should be taxed just like working wages. There are good reasons why capital gains are taxed at lower rates than ordinary income. Please see below. Why is there a cap on payroll taxes after a certain amount? Is that fair? Maybe the cap should be raised just a little so that we could bring the deficit down some. Many people agree with you. I'm fairly agnostic on the issue, although my preference would be to get rid of the payroll tax altogether and replace it with some sort of consumption tax. From the very beginning of history taxes have gone down, down, down for the very rich. Actually, it's not as simple as that. Effective tax rates on the wealthy have both gone up and down at various times over the course of many decades. And, I am talking about the very, very rich. When I say this, I am talking percentage wise. So please don't take my words and misconstrue them. A flat tax might be a good idea, but in a way, how could it be fair to people who make only 10,000 per year and were being taxed at 25 percent? I was thinking more on the lines of a consumer tax where people are taxed on how much they spend or consume. Ever thought of that? Since you are clearly a progressive, I would think that would be the last type of tax system you would support, as a consumption tax is highly regressive -- far more regressive, in fact, than the flat tax on income. It would allow very high income earners and wealthy individuals to pay, in the aggregate, only a fraction of the tax they pay now. Somehow I don't think that would comport with your wishes! Originally Posted by SassySue

See discussion @ http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?...605&highlight=
.

Sorry, Sue. Captain HalfBright had to hijack this thread out of his hatred for me. A bit obsessive, don't you think? I think he has issues. Oh, and I didn't agree with you about when income should be taxed, that has been my position for years. Where we disagree is you defend the income tax, and I don't.

Many apologies, Sue. This thread is about to descend into HalfBright hell.

During the Reagan Administration the Tax Code under went some significant changes, but IMO the most devastating was the elimination of the "sheltered gains" multi-family housing regulations in which investors in limited partnerships were allowed to take their gains after 20-25 years "tax free" ... so long as the LP's followed the rules of generating NO PROFITS during the life of the LP .... which meant that all revenues were plowed back into the low income (sliding scale) complexes.

What the LPs meant was high purchases of heavy appliances, roofing materials, and upgrading constant repairs with the associated labor expenses .... which consumed the profits ... while the tenants enjoyed quality places to live that were regularly UPGRADED. There were 1,000's of them around the country. Creating many manufacturing and local labor jobs .... installing, repairing, and servicing.

In a 90 day window during which no gains taxes would be paid they were dumped on the market ..... which began driving down the real estate market in multi-family projects .... and systematically driving out low income families as the projects were converted to standard rental complexes.....not to mention loss of manufacturing, sales, and labor jobs.

My point is ... there are sometimes unintended consequences when people don't back up and look at the larger picture .... and what happens to the "dominoes."

The same happens every time there is a discussion about elimination of the deductions for 2nd homes (vacation properties) .... the vacation home market starts suffering for months while Congress (and the media) "debate" whether to get rid of it.

Sorry, Sue. Captain HalfBright had to hijack this thread out of his hatred for me. How did I hijack this thread? All I did was point out the asininity and incongruity of whining that the income tax "favors" the rich that you seem to resent so much, while promoting a tax system that would distribute the tax burden sharply downward in the income and net worth distribution. A bit obsessive, don't you think? I think he has issues. Due to your insecurity, you falsely claimed to have taught a subject that you know nothing about, yet I'm the one who has "issues?" Oh, the irony! Oh, and I didn't agree with you about when income should be taxed, that has been my position for years. Where we disagree is you defend the income tax, and I don't. For the umteenth time, knock off the obtuseness. Where did I say or insinuate that I "support" the income tax? Oh, that's right! I didn't. I merely said that you'd better get used to it, because there ain't the slightest chance that it's going anywhere during your lifetime or mine.

Many apologies, Sue. This thread is about to descend into HalfBright hell. Only if "Quarter-bright" takes it there! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

True to form!

Any time you post a feeble attempt to rebut a point I made concerning something related to economics or taxation, it backfires on you because you simply have no understanding of the issue. So you just deflect or change the subject. Yet you yearn so desperately to seem smart! Very sad.

Here's a suggestion for you, Mr. Dunning-Kruger Poster Boy. Why don't you use a little bit of the time you spend serving up several hundred inane posts on an SHMB every month to take an introductory economics course. Surely there must be a couple of decent community colleges near your home in Wichita.

Many of us find learning to be fun. Try it; you might enjoy it!
.

During the Reagan Administration the Tax Code under went some significant changes, but IMO the most devastating was the elimination of the "sheltered gains" multi-family housing regulations in which investors in limited partnerships were allowed to take their gains after 20-25 years "tax free" ... so long as the LP's followed the rules of generating NO PROFITS during the life of the LP .... which meant that all revenues were plowed back into the low income (sliding scale) complexes.

What the LPs meant was high purchases of heavy appliances, roofing materials, and upgrading constant repairs with the associated labor expenses .... which consumed the profits ... while the tenants enjoyed quality places to live that were regularly UPGRADED. There were 1,000's of them around the country. Creating many manufacturing and local labor jobs .... installing, repairing, and servicing.

In a 90 day window during which no gains taxes would be paid they were dumped on the market ..... which began driving down the real estate market in multi-family projects .... and systematically driving out low income families as the projects were converted to standard rental complexes.....not to mention loss of manufacturing, sales, and labor jobs.

My point is ... there are sometimes unintended consequences when people don't back up and look at the larger picture .... and what happens to the "dominoes."

The same happens every time there is a discussion about elimination of the deductions for 2nd homes (vacation properties) .... the vacation home market starts suffering for months while Congress (and the media) "debate" whether to get rid of it. Originally Posted by LexusLover

You made a number of very good points, and it certainly is the case that dramatic tax law changes can produce severe adverse consequences.

One of the very worst in history, in my view, was the way the 1986 tax reforms torpedoed commercial real estate loan portfolios almost overnight.

Prior to 1986, Treasury rules (generally) allowed a 2:1 write-off for investors in real estate LPs that typically invested in apartment complexes, office buildings, warehouse/distribution space, and shopping centers. The deal structure typically provided for about five years of equal annual capital calls. A typical proposal pitched to small investors, such as relatively high-income (50% tax bracket) professionals, might provide for, say, a $100K total commitment divided into five annual payments. Then the proposed operations of the underlying asset and the loan thereon would be designed to produce accelerated depreciation deductions for the limited partners equaling twice that year's capital call. This meant that investors in the 50% bracket (the top rate in the years leading up to 1986) could, in essence, "buy" their partnership interest for free! So unless the property value cratered (which, unfortunately, it did in most cases), the investor was sure to win and essentially undertook no risk, since his interest was fully "paid for" with tax savings.

The problem with this, of course, arose from the fact that most of these deals were highly leveraged, so the values of loan portfolios would evaporate if the value of the underlying asset declined by even a small amount -- and in many cases, it plunged by several tens of percentage points when the bust accelerated into full-swing.

The result was that large Texas banks and S&Ls started failing in wholesale fashion, and the state's economy tanked for a couple of years in the late '80s.
.

True to form!

Any time you post a feeble attempt to rebut a point I made concerning something related to economics or taxation, it backfires on you because you simply have no understanding of the issue. So you just deflect or change the subject. Yet you yearn so desperately to seem smart! Very sad.

Here's a suggestion for you, Mr. Dunning-Kruger Poster Boy. Why don't you use a little bit of the time you spend serving up several hundred inane posts on an SHMB every month to take an introductory economics course. Surely there must be a couple of decent community colleges near your home in Wichita.

Many of us find learning to be fun. Try it; you might enjoy it!
. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Sorry, Sue.

Sorry, Sue. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Although an apology from you is certainly appropriate, it should not be addressed only to "Sue."

Judging from the general posture of your recent posts in this and other threads, it seems reasonable to conclude that you have no interest in learning and thus are unlikely to follow up on my suggestion that you take an economics class.

Instead, perhaps you could do everyone a favor and use just a little of your time to start a few threads devoted to teaching all of us how to conduct effective and civil online policy debates.

A nice, beautifully arranged compendium of your work in this area would be impressive indeed!
.

Although an apology from you is certainly appropriate, it should not be addressed only to "Sue."

Judging from the general posture of your recent posts in this and other threads, it seems reasonable to conclude that you have no interest in learning and thus are unlikely to follow up on my suggestion that you take an economics class.

Instead, perhaps you could do everyone a favor and use just a little of your time to start a few threads devoted to teaching all of us how to conduct effective and civil online policy debates.

A nice, beautifully arranged compendium of your work in this area would be impressive indeed!
. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Again, sorry Sue. He won't let this go. I've tried on several occasions to have civil discussions with the good Captain, but he would have none of it. Sorry what he's done to your thread, but his meltdowns are funny.

Again, sorry Sue. He won't let this go. I've tried on several occasions to have civil discussions with the good Captain, but he would have none of it. Sorry what he's done to your thread, but his meltdowns are funny. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You apologized for your past behavior and were actually civil in one thread, but then soon thereafter reverted to form. You simply can't help yourself! And you still claim that you taught university-level economics, despite not having knowledge of the subject one would expect of anyone who completed an introductory course.

Damndest thing I've seen in the entire history of this forum!
.

You apologized for your past behavior and were actually civil in one thread, but then soon thereafter reverted to form. You simply can't help yourself! And you still claim that you taught university-level economics, despite not having knowledge of the subject one would expect of anyone who completed an introductory course.

Damndest thing I've seen in the entire history of this forum!
. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I think you reverted, and there was no discussing with you, only you telling me what I should think. That's why you're not fun. At least until recently when you began frothing at the mouth trying to make me care about your opinion. That's funny!