0.1% of tax payers pay over half of the capital gains tax

[GIThruster]

As for ethics, it is unconscionable that we sit back and allow the 0.1% to control over half of the capital gains in the US.

Yes, but that is the result of most people failing to invest. I once read the vast majority of Americans don't even have savings accounts. You wanted to blame who for that?

[GIThruster]

Risk capital should be rewarded. But wealth should not stagnate either.

Don't you think the word "stagnate" is a bit emotionally slanting? If someone saves all their life for their later years, and retires, all that accumulated wealth is essentially "stagnant" but it is what's necessary to keep oneself in comfort once one retires. It sounds as if you think there's something wrong with planning for retirement.

Just who's money did you want to take? Everyone who has more than ___fill-the-blank___ ? How do you decide what's ethical in such "Robin-Hood" economics?

[Aero]

Risk capital should be rewarded. But wealth should not stagnate either.

Don't you think the word "stagnate" is a bit emotionally slanting? If someone saves all their life for their later years, and retires, all that accumulated wealth is essentially "stagnant" but it is what's necessary to keep oneself in comfort once one retires. It sounds as if you think there's something wrong with planning for retirement.

Just who's money did you want to take? Everyone who has more than ___fill-the-blank___ ? How do you decide what's ethical in such "Robin-Hood" economics?

This thread is considering the capital gains earned by the top 0.1% of capital gains tax payers.

Don't you think the phrase"Robin-Hood" economics is a bit emotionally slanted?

[hanelyp]

Money represents a claim on wealth, with a value determined by the seller of the goods and services bought. It is not itself wealth. Goods and services that can be enjoyed are wealth.

A person works for 30+ years, producing wealth for which they are paid money. Some of that money is saved for retirement. But the wealth the money stands to claim at a later date is already in the economy, not waiting for the retirement fund to be spent.

[GIThruster]

Money that is "saved" is technically "stagnant". If it's in an investment, then one can make some argument that it's working and not sitting, but if its in a savings account or similar device, it's about as "stagnant" as can be.

Point is, what is the ethical basis for thinking you can take someone's money, anyone's money, just because it is saved and not spent? That sounds outrageous to me--punishing people for their prudence is preposterous.

And so I am not painted an extremist let me own, I honestly believe we should see the end to the Bush era tax cuts. I think the wealthy can afford to pay a little more, without killing jobs and we certainly need the money to draw down the deficit. I don't however, think anyone deserves to have their savings taken by someone else, no matter what the excuse.

"Robin Hood economics" is not nearly so emotionally slanted as whimsical. "Steal from the rich and give to the poor" is after all the point behind taking what is "stagnant", isn't it?

[hanelyp]

Point is, what is the ethical basis for thinking you can take someone's money, anyone's money, just because it is saved and not spent? That sounds outrageous to me--punishing people for their prudence is preposterous.

That I agree with completely.

And so I am not painted an extremist let me own, I honestly believe we should see the end to the Bush era tax cuts. I think the wealthy can afford to pay a little more, without killing jobs and we certainly need the money to draw down the deficit.

1. Take a closer look at who benefited from the Bush tax rate cut. Those at the lower end of the taxed income range got a large share.

2. It's not just a question of what the "wealthy" can afford, but what they will do in reaction to a change in the tax code. They may find it no longer worth keeping certain employees.

3. The economy blossomed after the Bush tax rate cuts, resulting in an increase in revenue.

4. The deficit is not a revenue problem, but an out of control spending problem.

As for tax code changes, I'd favor some kind of flat rate code with minimal deductions and a modest top marginal rate. Taking 40%+ of a wealthy man's income from an extra hour's work is telling him his work isn't wanted.

[GIThruster]

While I agree with most of this above, I also have to note that it is conservatives whom are feeding the class warfare we're seeing with the OWS crowd.

If the Tea Party wants to get fiscal responsibility from Washington, conservatives need to be able to compromise in some ways. Raising taxes only on those whom earn more than a million dollars/year would not yield much revenue improvement, but it is the olive branch needed to get reductions in spending. If conservatives are not willing to compromise, they will not get what they want.

Remember, 67% of the American public are in favor of tax increases for the wealthy. They're not going to vote the spenders out of power unless they get what they want.

[choff]

While I agree with most of this above, I also have to note that it is conservatives whom are feeding the class warfare we're seeing with the OWS crowd.

If the Tea Party wants to get fiscal responsibility from Washington, conservatives need to be able to compromise in some ways. Raising taxes only on those whom earn more than a million dollars/year would not yield much revenue improvement, but it is the olive branch needed to get reductions in spending. If conservatives are not willing to compromise, they will not get what they want.

Remember, 67% of the American public are in favor of tax increases for the wealthy. They're not going to vote the spenders out of power unless they get what they want.

Whether the conservatives agree or not they should take compromise seriously. If they refuse to budge and the Dem's end up taking 2/3rds control of both houses, they might end up getting stuck with something even more hard to swallow.

[hanelyp]

Raising taxes only on those whom earn more than a million dollars/year would not yield much revenue improvement, but it is the olive branch needed to get reductions in spending.

Such compromises have been made in the past. What ends up happening is we get the tax rate hike but no cut in spending. Theftist democrats are not to be trusted on any promise of fiscal responsibility.

[GIThruster]

The leftist democrats are not to be trusted on any promise of fiscal responsibility.

That's true. That's why there has to be a deal made where spending is cut at the same time that taxes on the wealthy are raised. They have to happen at the same time. We have an historic opportunity for this to happen but it would require compromise on both sides. Seems to me, both parties are unwilling to budge.

[mdeminico]

While I agree with most of this above, I also have to note that it is conservatives whom are feeding the class warfare we're seeing with the OWS crowd.

If the Tea Party wants to get fiscal responsibility from Washington, conservatives need to be able to compromise in some ways. Raising taxes only on those whom earn more than a million dollars/year would not yield much revenue improvement, but it is the olive branch needed to get reductions in spending. If conservatives are not willing to compromise, they will not get what they want.

Remember, 67% of the American public are in favor of tax increases for the wealthy. They're not going to vote the spenders out of power unless they get what they want.

Reagan tried that. The Democrats doublecrossed him. He gave them a tax increase in "trade" for agreement in reduced spending. They never came through with it.

Problem with "agreeing to reduce spending" is that Congress doesn't bind Congress. In 2 years, another Congress will be in those seats, and they have no legal requirement to honor any "agreements" made by the previous congress... even if they wrote a law that said "the budget must be balanced" they can (and do) simply ignore it.

Only with a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution (which they'll also probably completely ignore like they do the rest of the document) can we be reasonably sure of getting a balanced budget.

[choff]

If my understanding of the US system is correct, any party that has at least one third of the votes in either house can block legislation from passing. This forces compromise for the system to work, but currently both parties are at complete odds with each other.

The president has taken the position that the voters have to fix the problem in the next election before anything can be done. Historically, one party rarely has two thirds control of both houses and the executive office.

This means that things could be frozen in Washington for many years to come, while both sides become increasingly bitter towards the other. If the logjam finally does get broken, woe to the vanquished.

Correct me if this interpetation is wrong, but maybe they'd be better off finding common ground before its too late.

[mdeminico]

The problem is, they're two diametrically opposed belief systems.

Absolutely, completely, totally 180 degrees apart from eachother...

Literally... Democrats believe that Government is a tool for enacting good in the world in every area they have enough money from.

Republicans believe Government is one of the most inefficient & least effective ways to enact good in the world, regardless of how much money it has. The only reason Republicans tolerate the existence of Government is because there's some things that ONLY government can do (like military, courts, etc) and some things that really are only feasible for Government to do (regulating value of money, in some cases roads, etc).

So in short, you've got one party that says "Government is great at taking money from everyone and giving it to others who are 'less fortunate'" and on the other side you've got a party that says "Private charity will have 10x the effect of Government in helping the 'less fortunate' with the same amount of money".

[Betruger]

And by Republicans you mean some textbook definition and not the actual current day Republican Party.

[KitemanSA]

Money that is "saved" is technically "stagnant". If it's in an investment, then one can make some argument that it's working and not sitting, but if its in a savings account or similar device, it's about as "stagnant" as can be.

Ridiculous. Under your matress is "stagnent". "In a bank" provides said bank with capital for loans etc. Such money, except for the rather small % the banks have to keep as ready cash, is quite active, thank you very much!