2016 Presidential Horse Race

[Cackalacky]

When did pork change its slogan? I am guessing the slogan '"The other white meat" is passe?

 

[kmoose]

When did pork change its slogan? I am guessing the slogan '"The other white meat" is passe?

White privilege. White meat gets to be whatever it wants to be, whenever it wants to be, wherever it wants to be.

 

[Cackalacky]

White privilege. White meat gets to be whatever it wants to be, whenever it wants to be, wherever it wants to be.

But pork is oppressive. Like white people. As food and as spending.

 

[ACamp1900]

What I took from the last page... Cack eats white people because he finds them oppressive.

 

[connor_in]

What I took from the last page... Cack eats white people because he finds them oppressive.

#WhiteMeatPrivilege

 

[ACamp1900]

Good thing I'm Scottish, I mean there are some who wrongfully classify us as 'white' but we are also known for aging poorly and being bitter in general... so I think I'm ok around Cack.

 

[pkt77242]

 

[Cackalacky]

Good thing I'm I'm Scottish, I mean there are some who wrongfully classify us as 'white' but we are also known for aging poorly and being bitter in general... so I think I'm ok around Cack.

You should be fine.

 

[ACamp1900]

That's great pt.. haha

 

[potownhero]

LOL. Nice personal attacks. If you actually read the start of my post (are you sure you aren't the moron?) it states that I am not a fan of a 90% rate now. Just posting what the highest marginal rate has been historically as a little history is good for everyone. Calling someone a moron and then asking if they are anti-american in the same post shows that you really aren't interested in having a conversation.

Pretty sure I can understand the difference between calling a post moronic and calling someone a moron; seems like you cannot. Nothing personal - I enjoy reading most of what you say even if I disagree with much of it.

I appreciate you're willingness to share history; but the usefulness of that info should be placed in perspective which I gave.

The last part was meant to be provocative. Given the fact of what the great JFK stated about GDP and reduction of individual income tax rates, why would you suggest the opposite? Add to that, the irony of "Progressives" wanting to take us back to the past.

 

[kmoose]

Tax rates really mean very little. It is net tax that is important. A tax rate of 75%, but with deductions that leave you only out 3% is a better deal than a tax rate of 7% that actually has you paying 7% without handing you back any adjustments.

 

[pkt77242]

Pretty sure I can understand the difference between calling a post moronic and calling someone a moron; seems like you cannot. Nothing personal - I enjoy reading most of what you say even if I disagree with much of it.

I appreciate you're willingness to share history; but the usefulness of that info should be placed in perspective which I gave.

The last part was meant to be provocative. Given the fact of what the great JFK stated about GDP and reduction of individual income tax rates, why would you suggest the opposite? Add to that, the irony of "Progressives" wanting to take us back to the past.

I went back and edited out the moron part already. Why be provocative? Why not engage in the discussion without that? While I think that reducing tax rates from the highs back then was good, I think that we fall into the trap that always reducing tax rates is a good thing and it is not. People (not necessarily you) seem to think that any raising of tax rates is a bad thing and they claim that tax rates are way too high now without any historical perspective of just how low our rates are currently.

 

[pkt77242]

Tax rates really mean very little. It is net tax that is important. A tax rate of 75%, but with deductions that leave you only out 3% is a better deal than a tax rate of 7% that actually has you paying 7% without handing you back any adjustments.

That is an important part of it. What are the effective tax rates, and that is harder to know because everyone has different write-offs and deductions and credits, etc.

 

[wizards8507]

Tax rates really mean very little. It is net tax that is important. A tax rate of 75%, but with deductions that leave you only out 3% is a better deal than a tax rate of 7% that actually has you paying 7% without handing you back any adjustments.

Right, and the benefit of the simpler, flatter plan is that it's much easier and less expensive to administer and comply with. Politically, it's a nightmare. Closing loopholes that the wealthy use means closing loopholes that the middle class reaaaaally loves, like the home mortgage interest deduction.

That is an important part of it. What are the effective tax rates, and that is harder to know because everyone has different write-offs and deductions and credits, etc.

Unfortunately, the left likes be play on the ignorance of the voter when it comes to things like capital gains rates. We saw it in full force with Mitt Romney's "13%" tax rate. What that reporting failed to take into account is that capital gains represent money that was already taxed once at the full 35% or whatever and then invested and taxed again at 13%. I don't think we see real tax reform until people figure out that capital gains is not the same as wage income.

 

[pkt77242]

Right, and the benefit of the simpler, flatter plan is that it's much easier and less expensive to administer and comply with. Politically, it's a nightmare. Closing loopholes that the wealthy use means closing loopholes that the middle class reaaaaally loves, like the home mortgage interest deduction.


Unfortunately, the left likes be play on the ignorance of the voter when it comes to things like capital gains rates. We saw it in full force with Mitt Romney's "13%" tax rate. What that reporting failed to take into account is that capital gains represent money that was already taxed once at the full 35% or whatever and then invested and taxed again at 13%. I don't think we see real tax reform until people figure out that capital gains is not the same as wage income.

This is where I disagree with you. Why should it be treated differently? You aren't being taxed on the part that was already taxed, only the "gain" is being taxed. Care to explain why it shouldn't be treated as income? For example if you buy a stock at $45 and sell it at $65, aren't you only taxed on the $20 "gain"? How has that money already been taxed once?

 

[IrishLax]

This is where I disagree with you. Why should it be treated differently? You aren't being taxed on the part that was already taxed, only the "gain" is being taxed. Care to explain why it shouldn't be treated as income? For example if you buy a stock at $45 and sell it at $65, aren't you only taxed on the $20 "gain"?

I get into this debate all the time with one of my "banker bro" friends from ND. Believe it or not, he thinks capital gains tax rates should be raised. Drastically oversimplifying, but his position is that the vast majority of "capital gains" are just a cheesy way of reclassifying "income" in a way that gets it taxed at a lower rate... that very little of what he sees on a day to day is true investment in a business or other endeavor that actually helps push the economy forward.

His view is that capital gains tax should be low (or near 0%) for specific types of investment. But for stock trading and such profits should be taxed like income, because that's what it is.

In my opinion, I don't like the idea of discouraging investment, period... and I worry too much about unintended consequences of overhauling capital gains tax. The only time in recent memory that we turned back the debt clock is thanks to capital gains tax during the 90s tech boom... and how much would venture capital have been discouraged from investing in that if the rate they would've been taxed at was was double what it was?

 

[wizards8507]

This is where I disagree with you. Why should it be treated differently? You aren't being taxed on the part that was already taxed, only the "gain" is being taxed. Care to explain why it shouldn't be treated as income? For example if you buy a stock at $45 and sell it at $65, aren't you only taxed on the $20 "gain"?

Your understanding of "how it works" is correct. It's the pros and cons of the economic impact of raising versus eliminating the capital gains rate that I'd like to challenge you on. The choice to invest is risk versus reward. A 35% tax on capital gains is telling an investor that the "reward" side of his analysis will be artificially reduced in relation to his risk. In other words, it disincentivizes investment. That has a downward pull on markets overall, which hurts 401(k) holders, pension holders, etc.

 

[Wild Bill]

This is where I disagree with you. Why should it be treated differently? You aren't being taxed on the part that was already taxed, only the "gain" is being taxed. Care to explain why it shouldn't be treated as income? For example if you buy a stock at $45 and sell it at $65, aren't you only taxed on the $20 "gain"? How has that money already been taxed once?

Sure, you only pay a cap gain tax on the gain. That doesn't necessarily mean the $45 from your example avoided taxation altogether. Every dollar I've ever invested was taxed at regular income at some point.

It's easy to make money once you have money, right? Of course. But most people (not necessarily you) don't like to acknowledge how difficult it is to put yourself in a position to earn enough money to invest or how much self sacrifice/discipline it takes to save and invest.

Our economy relies heavily on individual investment.

Since it's difficult to do and we (as a society) rely on investment, the underlying policy of the tax code should be to encourage the behavior. Money is a great motivator, whether it's in the form of payment or tax break.

 

[pkt77242]

Sure, you only pay a cap gain tax on the gain. That doesn't necessarily mean the $45 from your example avoided taxation altogether. Every dollar I've ever invested was taxed at regular income at some point.

It's easy to make money once you have money, right? Of course. But most people (not necessarily you) don't like to acknowledge how difficult it is to put yourself in a position to earn enough money to invest or how much self sacrifice/discipline it takes to save and invest.

Our economy relies heavily on individual investment.

Since it's difficult to do and we (as a society) rely on investment, the underlying policy of the tax code should be to encourage the behavior. Money is a great motivator, whether it's in the form of payment or tax break.

I 100% agree with the bold but that wasn't my argument. My argument was that it isn't taxed twice. The government does a great job at trying to tax everything that it can.


ETA: Also although I want to raise the capital gains tax, I would probably only want to do a small amount save 5% to make it 25% for the highest bracket. If anyone has any research on the rate of the capital gains tax and its effects on investment, I would really like to see it.

 

[Cackalacky]

Sure, you only pay a cap gain tax on the gain. That doesn't necessarily mean the $45 from your example avoided taxation altogether. Every dollar I've ever invested was taxed at regular income at some point.

It's easy to make money once you have money, right? Of course. But most people (not necessarily you) don't like to acknowledge how difficult it is to put yourself in a position to earn enough money to invest or how much self sacrifice/discipline it takes to save and invest.

Our economy relies heavily on individual investment.

Since it's difficult to do and we (as a society) rely on investment, the underlying policy of the tax code should be to encourage the behavior. Money is a great motivator, whether it's in the form of payment or tax break.

As to the bolded it was not like that at all until the mid 1980s. Most middle class people put all of the savings into stable savings accounts that earned 3-8%. And that was fine for what I would assume was the lion share of American wage earners that earned enough to save. That practice has all but been disencentivized by the bankers and now even corporations. Even the option for a savings account that earns more than 1% is non-existent thereby forcing people into riskier 401k and IRA products. Now instead of my money being safe and growing steadily (for the most part), I have to turn it over where it is actually in the hands of hedge fund managers who get all the immediate liquid benefits and leaving me with possibly 6% growth if I am not in year the market crashes. Its basically their money while they play their shell games.

I find it amazing people think this system is beneficial to anyone but a handful of people.

 

[Wild Bill]

I 100% agree with the bold but that wasn't my argument. My argument was that it isn't taxed twice. The government does a great job at trying to tax everything that it can.

Gotcha. But the gain only exists b/c someone was thoughtful enough to invest taxed dollars. A tough task. That behavior should be encouraged by the tax code.

As to the bolded it was not like that at all until the mid 1980s. Most middle class people put all of the savings into stable savings accounts that earned 3-8%. And that was fine for what I would assume was the lion share of American wage earners that earned enough to save. That practice has all but been disencentivized by the bankers and now even corporations. Even the option for a savings account that earns more than 1% is non-existent thereby forcing people into riskier 401k and IRA products. Now instead of my money being safe and growing steadily (for the most part), I have to turn it over where it is actually in the hands of hedge fund managers who get all the immediate liquid benefits and leaving me with possibly 6% growth if I am not in year the market crashes. Its basically their money while they play their shell games.

I find it amazing people think this system is beneficial to anyone but a handful of people.

Which handful of people?

 

[Cackalacky]

Which handful of people?

Excuse me for not being literal. Relatively speaking about 318,900 Americans.

 

[pkt77242]

Roger Ailes hits back at Trump over Megyn Kelly attack | OnPolitics

 

[Wild Bill]

Excuse me for not being literal. Relatively speaking about 318,900 Americans.

How many illegals?

I wasn't sure if you were referring to hedge fund managers specifically.

The rest of us mere mortals have more investment options than a bank account, 401k or IRA.

 

[Ndaccountant]

As to the bolded it was not like that at all until the mid 1980s. Most middle class people put all of the savings into stable savings accounts that earned 3-8%. And that was fine for what I would assume was the lion share of American wage earners that earned enough to save. That practice has all but been disencentivized by the bankers and now even corporations. Even the option for a savings account that earns more than 1% is non-existent thereby forcing people into riskier 401k and IRA products. Now instead of my money being safe and growing steadily (for the most part), I have to turn it over where it is actually in the hands of hedge fund managers who get all the immediate liquid benefits and leaving me with possibly 6% growth if I am not in year the market crashes. Its basically their money while they play their shell games.

I find it amazing people think this system is beneficial to anyone but a handful of people.

You can thank the Fed for a large chunk of that.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Excuse me for not being literal. Relatively speaking about 318,900 Americans.

You know, I remember reading an article from the Fed last year (can't remember which region) where they looked at inequality at the top of the scale (top earners versus median earners) and the bottom of the scale (bottom versus median). Their data shows very clearly that market income (reported income) inequality has been on the rise and is near historical highs. However, when looking at disposable income, inequality has been basically flat for the last 10+ years. This is a result of the government redistribution efforts. At the bottom, market inequality is tied very closely to long-term unemployment more than anything else and disposable income inequality has been in the same relative range for the last 20 years, though has been trickling up the last few years.

The article also indicated that the existing tax structure (that would not include changes made post Great Recession) was by far the biggest contributor to keeping disposable income inequality stable (EIC being mentioned specifically). Tax code changes have done very little.

I find that all very interesting in that the inequality drum is beat quite a bit, but the data released in this Fed article conceded that market income inequality was certainly high, but the amount of disposable income relative to the median has been stable for quite some time. Meanwhile, the bottom 20% have been seeing their disposable income relative to the median begin to fall after being stable to 20+ years. But that increase in disposable income inequality isn't the result of the top earning more necessarily, but rather the complications and impact of long-term unemployment.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Wut.

If Bernie Sanders makes it to the general election he will run on campaign finance reform and wealth inequality. He's not going to turn the US into the USSR, and I would love for the GOP to try to make that case in an election. Considering the GOP's awful demographic and electoral situation, I'm not losing sleep about his ability to win a general election.

And the economy is doing very well for the rich, that's basically his whole point. The middle class is getting screwed.

Go for it. As low as Hillary has sunk, Dems still prefer her over Sanders. And all this is before Biden jumps in.

Bernie. Will. Not. Make. It.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Bernie Sanders: A 90 Percent Tax Rate Isn't Too High

Not sure how motivated anyone would be to work if they had to give 90% to our lovely gov't.

For Sanders and those like him, no number is too high for the feds to confiscate your earnings. He also doesn't believe in private property rights.

 

[Cackalacky]

You can thank the Fed for a large chunk of that.

I am not sure whose best interests the Fed serves but it seems to favor the people responsible for handling capital.

 

[Cackalacky]

You know, I remember reading an article from the Fed last year (can't remember which region) where they looked at inequality at the top of the scale (top earners versus median earners) and the bottom of the scale (bottom versus median). Their data shows very clearly that market income (reported income) inequality has been on the rise and is near historical highs. However, when looking at disposable income, inequality has been basically flat for the last 10+ years. This is a result of the government redistribution efforts. At the bottom, market inequality is tied very closely to long-term unemployment more than anything else and disposable income inequality has been in the same relative range for the last 20 years, though has been trickling up the last few years.

The article also indicated that the existing tax structure (that would not include changes made post Great Recession) was by far the biggest contributor to keeping disposable income inequality stable (EIC being mentioned specifically). Tax code changes have done very little.

I find that all very interesting in that the inequality drum is beat quite a bit, but the data released in this Fed article conceded that market income inequality was certainly high, but the amount of disposable income relative to the median has been stable for quite some time. Meanwhile, the bottom 20% have been seeing their disposable income relative to the median begin to fall after being stable to 20+ years. But that increase in disposable income inequality isn't the result of the top earning more necessarily, but rather the complications and impact of long-term unemployment.

I would be very interested in reading that. Does it include or account for productivity increases and stagnant wages for those of us still lucky to have a job?