Republican reluctance to tax the 1% weakens America

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Suppose they buy your gold and then tax what you are paid? There's not much difference between that and a one step confiscation.

An investment in gold isn't necessarily safe from the reach of government.

You are incorrect on several points. Currency and coinage are not owned by you, they are the property of the US government. You own the VALUE, but the actual physical currency is not yours. This is how they could order people to turn in their gold coins when we went off the gold standard. Gold investments are something entirely different, they are not owned by the government, they are owned by the purchaser. The 4th Amendment prohibits the government from seizing your property, and gold investments are your property, unlike currency. I won't argue that the government could violate the hell out of the Constitution, they've done it before, but I suspect there would be a revolt if they attempted to confiscate property.

They can't just decide to buy your gold, you have to be willing to sell it to them. If some kind of taxation is applied to that sale, I doubt many people would do it.

The point I was making is, people who have wealth resources, have a variety of mechanisms to protect their assets. Gold is one of them, securities are another. When you raise income taxes, and make it less attractive for wealthy people to earn income, they tend to revert to safety and security, and sock away their money in gold, securities, things the government can't touch. As opposed to being entrepreneurial and using those resources to invest in new businesses or spend on venture capitalism. In order to revive the economy, you need the wealthy people to invest their money in economic growth, fund new business and industry, and they will only do this if they can make profit, otherwise it is stupid for them to do that, and they are better off just playing it safe.

 

[sedan]

You are incorrect on several points. Currency and coinage are not owned by you, they are the property of the US government. You own the VALUE, but the actual physical currency is not yours. This is how they could order people to turn in their gold coins when we went off the gold standard. Gold investments are something entirely different, they are not owned by the government, they are owned by the purchaser. The 4th Amendment prohibits the government from seizing your property, and gold investments are your property, unlike currency. I won't argue that the government could violate the hell out of the Constitution, they've done it before, but I suspect there would be a revolt if they attempted to confiscate property.

They can't just decide to buy your gold, you have to be willing to sell it to them. If some kind of taxation is applied to that sale, I doubt many people would do it.

The only problem with this line of reasoning is that Executive Order 6102 specifically called for citizens to deliver their bullion. So in 1933, at least, the government could and did "just decide" to buy people's gold.

The point I was making is, people who have wealth resources, have a variety of mechanisms to protect their assets. Gold is one of them, securities are another. When you raise income taxes, and make it less attractive for wealthy people to earn income, they tend to revert to safety and security, and sock away their money in gold, securities, things the government can't touch. As opposed to being entrepreneurial and using those resources to invest in new businesses or spend on venture capitalism. In order to revive the economy, you need the wealthy people to invest their money in economic growth, fund new business and industry, and they will only do this if they can make profit, otherwise it is stupid for them to do that, and they are better off just playing it safe.

And for the most part I agree with you. My point is simply that gold isn't as far out of the government's reach as many people seem to think it is.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The only problem with this line of reasoning is that Executive Order 6102 specifically called for citizens to deliver their bullion. So in 1933, at least, the government could and did "just decide" to buy people's gold.
And for the most part I agree with you. My point is simply that gold isn't as far out of the government's reach as many people seem to think it is.

EO 1602: The order criminalized the possession of monetary gold by any individual, partnership, association or corporation.

Investment in gold as a precious medal is not monetary gold. We're talking about two completely different things.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

The middle class might not get to use the tax loopholes and incentives the wealthiest 1% get to use, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. The wealthiest pay the highest percentage of income...

LOL, your lies are getting wilder. That must be why you don't post any links.


BTW, exclamation points are not evidence.


The IRS has released an analysis of the richest 400 American tax filers (.pdf).


The top-line finding drawing the most attention is that these 400 earned about $138 billion, collectively, in 2007, the most recent year of data.


In contrast, the bottom 90 percent of Americans, over 24 million filers, earned $247 billion.


One less-noticed finding in the report is that the super rich have been paying smaller and smaller portions of their incomes to taxes.



The chart below shows the effective tax rate for the richest 400 American filers from 1992 and 2007.


The blue line represents the highest income tax bracket, the red line is the tax rate on long-term capital gains, and the orange line is the average tax rate that the richest 400 filers actually paid.

There are two important things to note from this chart.


The first, and most visually apparent, is that the tax rates of the rich are far more closely linked to the capital gains taxes than income taxes.


Salaries and wages, the source of income taxed at the blue line, represented only 6.5 percent of these filers’ income.


Nearly two-thirds of their income comes from capital gains, and this is why you see a much tighter coupling between the orange and red lines.


The second thing to note is that the overall tax rates are really not that high.


Contrary to concerns about socialism or a government takeover, the richest Americans, those earning an average of $345 million in 2007, paid about 16.5 percent in federal income taxes.


This figure is generally not well understood and is certainly not the one we debate in the public sphere.


Instead, we generally end up talking about marginal tax rates.


The word “marginal” in this context means you don’t actually pay the full rate of the bracket you fall in.


So, for example, a single person earning $50,000 in 2009 would technically be in the 25 percent bracket.


But they would actually pay 10 percent on their first $8,350 in earnings (the lowest bracket), 15 percent on every dollar between $8,351 and $33,950 (the second bracket), and 25 percent on every dollar between $33,951 and $50,000 (their salary).


This works out so that the hypothetical person would actually only pay 17.4 percent of their income in taxes.



The declining tax rates for the richest Americans amounts to real money.


An analysis from the Urban Institute found that raising the capital gains tax for wealthy Americans from 15 to 20.6 percent would reduce the deficit to 3 percent of GDP, the budget goal outlined by President Obama, by 2019.






http://www.quickanded.com/2010/02/effective-tax-rates-of-the-richest-400-americans.html

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The top-line finding drawing the most attention is that these 400 earned about $138 billion, collectively, in 2007, the most recent year of data.

Which is approximately 1 month of Obama's DEFICIT for FY2011. In other words, take ALL their earnings, 100% of them.... and it doesn't even cover a month of the OVER-BUDGET amount Obama is ringing up! That's not running the country for a month, but just paying for the amount OVER budget. And you still have 11 months to go. So, is the problem that we aren't taxing the wealthy enough? Hardly!

This works out so that the hypothetical person would actually only pay 17.4 percent of their income in taxes.

Which is 17.4% more than 48% of the country pays. When are THEY going to pay their "fair share?"

I notice you have now shifted the argument to Capital Gains taxes, which should not actually exist. The money has already been taxed as income, they should be able to do whatever they want with it after that.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Which is approximately 1 month of Obama's DEFICIT for FY2011. In other words, take ALL their earnings, 100% of them.... and it doesn't even cover a month of the OVER-BUDGET amount Obama is ringing up! That's not running the country for a month, but just paying for the amount OVER budget. And you still have 11 months to go. So, is the problem that we aren't taxing the wealthy enough? Hardly! Which is 17.4% more than 48% of the country pays. When are THEY going to pay their "fair share?" I notice you have now shifted the argument to Capital Gains taxes, which should not actually exist. The money has already been taxed as income, they should be able to do whatever they want with it after that.

You need more exclamation points, Dix.

An analysis from the Urban Institute found that raising the capital gains tax for wealthy Americans from 15 to 20.6 percent would reduce the deficit to 3 percent of GDP, the budget goal outlined by President Obama, by 2019.






http://www.quickanded.com/2010/02/ef...americans.html

 

[sedan]

EO 1602: The order criminalized the possession of monetary gold by any individual, partnership, association or corporation.

Investment in gold as a precious medal is not monetary gold. We're talking about two completely different things.

Umm ... you're wrong.

From 1933 through 1974 it was illegal for US citizens to invest in gold as a precious metal.

For an example, take a look at this FDIC statement of policy from December 9, 1974:

"On December 31, 1974, Public Law 93-373, which removes the restrictions on a person "purchasing, holding, selling, or otherwise dealing with gold," becomes effective. The word "person" in the Act has been construed to include banks. Thus, to the extent authorized by State law, State nonmember banks will be permitted to deal in gold.

Trading in any commodity, including gold, is a highly speculative activity. The past experience of individuals and companies in the commodities markets indicates that, at minimum, commodities trading is a very risky activity for the novice. In the case of gold, moreover, the more than forty year old prohibition against U.S. citizens holding and trading in gold has meant that few persons have even a nominal degree of expertise in such activity. The Corporation therefore believes that insured State nonmember banks should consider confining their trading in gold to purchases and sales on a consignment or agency basis. Irrespective of the manner in which an insured nonmember bank intends to deal in gold, the Corporation should be notified of such intention."​

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Doublewide is often wrong....but he has an unlimited supply of exclamation points.

 

[Liberty]

Once the republicans and their cronies are removed from Washington, the world will be a better place.

That's only half the solution.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Umm ... you're wrong.

From 1933 through 1974 it was illegal for US citizens to invest in gold as a precious metal.

For an example, take a look at this FDIC statement of policy from December 9, 1974:

"On December 31, 1974, Public Law 93-373, which removes the restrictions on a person "purchasing, holding, selling, or otherwise dealing with gold," becomes effective. The word "person" in the Act has been construed to include banks. Thus, to the extent authorized by State law, State nonmember banks will be permitted to deal in gold.

Trading in any commodity, including gold, is a highly speculative activity. The past experience of individuals and companies in the commodities markets indicates that, at minimum, commodities trading is a very risky activity for the novice. In the case of gold, moreover, the more than forty year old prohibition against U.S. citizens holding and trading in gold has meant that few persons have even a nominal degree of expertise in such activity. The Corporation therefore believes that insured State nonmember banks should consider confining their trading in gold to purchases and sales on a consignment or agency basis. Irrespective of the manner in which an insured nonmember bank intends to deal in gold, the Corporation should be notified of such intention."​

Look, I am not debating monetary policies, or the gold standard, or what government has done in the past with regard to it. I made a comment in a post about wealthy people and how they react to burdensome over-taxation on income earning. I refuse to allow my point to be hijacked in a meaningless superficial debate over something like this. The point is, wealthy people will not invest and take risks with their money, if there is no money to be made in that! When we attempt to "punish" the rich by levying higher income taxes, they stop earning income and do something else. If we regulate or restrict investments, they will find something else, and if we just make it absolutely impossible for them to make any money at all, they will put their money under the mattress! They do not NEED to earn more wealth, they already have wealth! WE need them to earn wealth, because when they are earning wealth, it means we have jobs and economic prosperity is happening all around us. Because we have jobs and economic prosperity, tax revenues are generated and we all prosper.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You need more exclamation points, Dix.

An analysis from the Urban Institute found that raising the capital gains tax for wealthy Americans from 15 to 20.6 percent would reduce the deficit to 3 percent of GDP, the budget goal outlined by President Obama, by 2019.

http://www.quickanded.com/2010/02/ef...americans.html

Well I disagree with the Urban Pinhead Institute, because like most moron pinheads, they think in a complete vacuum. As if nothing will ever change, trends and patterns will continue on as always, and wealthy people will just sit there and let their money be siphoned off by government, and that isn't going to happen in the real world, it only happens in studies and in theories from pinhead idiots who don't comprehend reality!

I have a great idea for paying off the $14 trillion debt... we just have the Federal Reserve print up $14 trillion and pay it off! How about that one? Why wouldn't it work? Well, it WOULD work, we could do that... but then, you'd need a wheelbarrow full of $100 bills to buy a gallon of milk or loaf of bread. You see, everything you do, has some effect on something else. The Urban Institute of Morons doesn't account for this, they just assume that things will continue as they always have, and nothing would change. If you raise the cap gains tax to 20.6%, no one will make capital gains investments, further weakening economic growth and prosperity, and ultimately resulting in LESS tax revenue gained.

 

[sedan]

Look, I am not debating monetary policies, or the gold standard, or what government has done in the past with regard to it. I made a comment in a post about wealthy people and how they react to burdensome over-taxation on income earning. I refuse to allow my point to be hijacked in a meaningless superficial debate over something like this. The point is, wealthy people will not invest and take risks with their money, if there is no money to be made in that! When we attempt to "punish" the rich by levying higher income taxes, they stop earning income and do something else. If we regulate or restrict investments, they will find something else, and if we just make it absolutely impossible for them to make any money at all, they will put their money under the mattress! They do not NEED to earn more wealth, they already have wealth! WE need them to earn wealth, because when they are earning wealth, it means we have jobs and economic prosperity is happening all around us. Because we have jobs and economic prosperity, tax revenues are generated and we all prosper.

You have thwarted my diabolical plan to hijack this thread!

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Well I disagree with the Urban Pinhead Institute, because like most moron pinheads, they think in a complete vacuum. As if nothing will ever change, trends and patterns will continue on as always, and wealthy people will just sit there and let their money be siphoned off by government, and that isn't going to happen in the real world, it only happens in studies and in theories from pinhead idiots who don't comprehend reality! I have a great idea for paying off the $14 trillion debt... we just have the Federal Reserve print up $14 trillion and pay it off! How about that one? Why wouldn't it work? Well, it WOULD work, we could do that... but then, you'd need a wheelbarrow full of $100 bills to buy a gallon of milk or loaf of bread. You see, everything you do, has some effect on something else. The Urban Institute of Morons doesn't account for this, they just assume that things will continue as they always have, and nothing would change. If you raise the cap gains tax to 20.6%, no one will make capital gains investments, further weakening economic growth and prosperity, and ultimately resulting in LESS tax revenue gained.

Maybe exclamation points constitute proof of validity in Dixieland. Can you substantiaite your claims?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Maybe exclamation points constitute proof of validity in Dixieland. Can you substantiaite your claims?

There is no need to substantiate reality, it is common sense, something you seem to lack. Again, if we increase the capital gains tax, it will result in less capital gains investment, because that is always what happens when you tax anything, you discourage it. If we have less capital gains investment, there will be fewer jobs created, and less economic prosperity realized, resulting in smaller amounts of taxable income and tax revenues. If we lived in a fantasy world where nothing ever changed, and people behaved the same way regardless of circumstances, increasing the percentage of tax would generate more revenue, but we don't live in your liberal fantasy world, we live in reality.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

There is no need to substantiate reality, it is common sense, something you seem to lack. Again, if we increase the capital gains tax, it will result in less capital gains investment, because that is always what happens when you tax anything, you discourage it. If we have less capital gains investment, there will be fewer jobs created, and less economic prosperity realized, resulting in smaller amounts of taxable income and tax revenues. If we lived in a fantasy world where nothing ever changed, and people behaved the same way regardless of circumstances, increasing the percentage of tax would generate more revenue, but we don't live in your liberal fantasy world, we live in reality.

Doublewide admits that has no proof for his claims, and seems to have run out of exclamation points too.


As this evidence shows, historically raising the rate of taxation on capital gains has not produced the results Dixie described...in fact, when they were lowered by the protracted Bush tax cuts, government revenues declined to their lowet level in years, our nation lost its surplus, shed jobs, and rang up unprecedented deficits...


The Tax Reform Act of 1986 repealed the exclusion of long-term gains, raising the maximum rate to 28 percent (33 percent for taxpayers subject to phaseouts).

When the top ordinary tax rates were increased by the 1990 and 1993 budget acts, an alternative tax rate of 28 percent was provided.

Effective tax rates exceeded 28 percent for many high-income taxpayers, however, because of interactions with other tax provisions.

The new lower rates for 18-month and five-year assets were adopted in 1997 with the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.

In 2001, President George W. Bush signed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, into law as part of a $1.35 trillion tax cut program.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capita...tates#History_of_capital_gains_tax_in_the_U.S.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Well I disagree with the Urban Pinhead Institute...

Hmmm...who has more credibility?


Doublewide Dixie, who didn't know the Soviet Union existed during WWII and refuses to be a "data bitch" by backing up his assertions with facts, or the 42-year-old nonpartisan Urban Institute, who...

Use rigorous, state-of-the-art methods to analyze public policies and programs and bring sound objective evidence to public policy decisions?

http://www.urban.org/toolkit/data-methods/index.cfm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_Institute


That's a tough one...