Trump or Clinton?! Ick. ok...Sanders on BOTH TICKETS!!

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
But corporations are not "people" and their "capital gains" should be taxed.

When you say 'capital gains' are you referring to taxes on dividends?

If so, I have no issue with dividends being taxed, that is not a corporate tax.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I am talking about taxes paid by every person who is part of that corporation, at the same level.

Mr. Boss McBossypants has to pay taxes on his income which includes capital gains on gambling (which is what the stock market is - gambling).

I don't get to go to the casino and declare that no matter how much I win, I'm only going to pay pennies in taxes. I don't get to win the lottery and be taxed at 1%. No, I have to pay huge rates. If my credit card creditor writes off a debt I can't or didn't pay (for good reason), I have to pay "income" tax on that, just like it was wages. It's a capital gain by definition, but since it isn't tied to the 'house' (Wall Street) well-being but is taking money out of the system, I don't get to avoid taxes.

It's asinine, unfair, ridiculous, and inappropriate. And it's a giant racket.

If Joe Schmoe comes out at the end of the year with $500,000 more than last year because of his 'gambling card', then by god he will pay it at the "income" level, just like we folks who have to cash in our 'retirement funds' early have to do.

It's a double-standard. I put money into a 401k. I had an 'advisor' who kept me up to speed on how to invest my piddly 2% of my lame paycheck. Fine. But - when an emergency (like long-term unemployment and kid going to college) occurred, and I needed to use that money, I had to pay nearly 50% taxes on it.

That is bullsh!t.


If Jamie Dimon (God fry his soul) doesn't have to pay taxes on his multi-million dollars worth of dividends, I shouldn't have to pay taxes on the money I set aside while I could because I needed to use it before I turned 85 years and 3 months and 2 weeks and 5 days and 17 hours old.

That is crap.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
I am talking about taxes paid by every person who is part of that corporation, at the same level.

So you want a flat tax? Is that what you mean by 'the same level'?

Mr. Boss McBossypants has to pay taxes on his income which includes capital gains on gambling (which is what the stock market is - gambling).

Everyone has to pay capital gains on dividends.

I don't get to go to the casino and declare that no matter how much I win, I'm only going to pay pennies in taxes. I don't get to win the lottery and be taxed at huge rates. It's a capital gain by definition, but since it isn't tied to the 'house' (Wall Street) accounts, I don't get to avoid taxes.

Gambling proceeds and the lottery payouts are not capital gains.

It's a double-standard. I put money into a 401k. I had an 'advisor' who kept me up to speed on how to invest my piddly 2% of my lame paycheck. Fine. But - when an emergency (like long-term unemployment and kid going to college) occurred, and I needed to use that money, I had to pay nearly 50% taxes on it.

No one forces people to open 401k's and anyone who opens one should know and understand the risk assumed with doing so, it is not a guarantee.

If Jamie Dimon (God fry his soul) doesn't have to pay taxes on his multi-million dollars worth of dividends, I shouldn't have to pay taxes on the money I set aside while I could because I needed to use it before I turned 85 years and 3 months and 2 weeks and 5 days and 17 hours old.

Where is Jamie Dimon not paying dividends? I could not find anything regarding that. As a matter of fact, he is someone, similar to Warren Buffet, who has stated he would be willing to pay higher taxes.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Gambling proceeds and the lottery payouts are not capital gains.

Yes, they are.

If I invest in the stock market, and I receive dividends, those are capital gains based on my investment.
If I buy fifteen lottery tickets, and I win a few, those are capital gains based on my investment.

If I go to the boats, and plunk down 400 bucks on a black-jack table, and win 40,000 dollars because I hung out there long enough - that is most definitely a capital gain.

So, your statement, that those aren't 'capital gains' is (in my mind) a semantic deflection, and I beg respectfuly to differ.
The "Language" used in the tax code does not change the fact that the person having more money invested some money into the opportunity and came out ahead. That is a capital gain.

Anyway, that's my thinking.

But right now I am going to bed. This world exhausts me, and I've been working hard today. Trying to stay afloat and balance the income with the expenses.


Good night.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Yes, they are.

No, they are not. A 'capital gain', by definition, is the selling of capital for more than the purchase price. A gambling or lottery win is a windfall.

If I invest in the stock market, and I receive dividends, those are capital gains based on my investment.
If I buy fifteen lottery tickets, and I win a few, those are capital gains based on my investment.

Incorrect, you sold nothing to obtain your winnings.

So, your statement, that those aren't 'capital gains' is (in my mind) a semantic deflection, and I beg respectfuly to differ.

You can claim I am using semantics but if you tried to file your taxes that way you would have a serious issue.

A capital gain is a profit that results from a sale of a capital asset, such as stock, bond or real estate, where the sale price exceeds the purchase price. The gain is the difference between a higher selling price and a lower purchase price.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Then dont buy from them. Everyone i see who #s on Walmart is one of their customers. I refuse to buy anything from them. And its not that they are paying to little ( i do agree its is too little ) its the fact that the dollar is worth less. Your money is devalued from the reserve. Taxing corporations and forcing them to pay staff high causes them to ship more jobs overseas. Both the Republicans and Democrats are both guilty of helping Corporations send jobs over seas. Most of the jobs that pay little use to be stepping jobs ie school summer time. But because we have sent jobs overseas they are now the staple jobs. I like what some of Bernie says. But put his tax plan into play wait 10 years or less and you will be crying blaming the last president or the current president at that time. Banks need to be broken up. Lobbies need to be shot and any one in government caught using their influence to help make them money should be hung live on tv.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs
You do have to pay taxes on dividends quite a bit actually i thinks some of these words are confusing you .

a reply to: speeddr2000

sigh

No. The words don't confuse me. The tax structure does. I know when I pulled out my 401k to help my daughter with college, I got whopped upon the head with a usury tax amount. I know that "Capital Gains" are taxed, but at a much lower percentage than "earned wages". That, in my opinion, is wrong.

I get it, but I think it's wrong. Because not everyone can get on that playing field. When half of our people are living check to check and even then on government (TAXPAYER) assistance, and these "Capital Gainers" are paying LESS TAX (if ANY AT ALL) on their (imo) ill-gotten gains (because they all collude to do that, you know. Yes. They do.) that is wrong.

It is wrong. It is ethically wrong for one ape to hoard the figs and only toss out the pits with a few fibers of flesh attached, and then take those figs and trade them for enough bananas to build a raft for themselves to get to safety.......
when everyone else is starving and dying.

It's an illness.

Some good fan-fiction.

a reply to: Lysergic

life of pi

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
No. The words don't confuse me. The tax structure does. I know when I pulled out my 401k to help my daughter with college, I got whopped upon the head with a usury tax amount. I know that "Capital Gains" are taxed, but at a much lower percentage than "earned wages". That, in my opinion, is wrong.

Because that's not how 401k's are meant to be used. They're a retirement investment and the penalties exist to discourage using them for other purposes. What you're looking for if you want liquid cash that you can pull out at will without penalty is a savings account.

Capital gains are the profits you make on a stock. Say you get a stock at $100/share and it rises to $125/share when you sell it. The difference between the sell and the purchase price is your gain, in this case $25/share. That is what is taxed under capital gains rates.

The reason they're taxed less is because the money used to purchase stock was already taxed as income. This however has lead to a loophole where some people (a small minority) are paid mostly in stock, which they then sell. This lets them have their income taxed at the capital gains rate instead of the regular tax rate. But that applies to very few people.

The reason they're taxed less is because the money used to purchase stock was already taxed as income. This however

......
yes, "this however" is right.

We working people who live paycheck to paycheck and manage to save some at the same time, who tighten our belts, and make do with what we have.........

we are taxed when we earn it (it gets taken out of our paychecks), and then taxed again when we spend it (except not in Montana, where my brother lives).......it makes no difference if people "get a refund" - it is still 'double taxation', and that with really lame, subpar 'representation.'

a reply to: Aazadan

Please don't think I'm snarking at you, my friend. I understand all the terms, and all the 'categories' of income....I really do. I do our family taxes every year. We have dividends, and wages, and interest income, and all that coolio stuff.

We don't have enough for any of the loopholes to apply, but - well, ya know.

Folks do know they can write in a choice, right?

I mean, am I the only one that remembers this? That's what the Bernie supporters should do if they are serious. But they aren't, and they will simply stay home (or worse, vote for the criminal that lied and cheated to steal the nomination from him).....

a reply to: Gazrok

Hes backing everything he stood against. I really believe he was a plant. i know sounds crazy. Also the tax code is messed up i was just pointing out the facts that people get confused with capital gains and normal income. Middle class and lower dont have attorneys or accountants to help with all the changes and loop hole. I whole hardheartedly believe in a federal tax or flat tax. It would force every one to pay their shard. It would solve when people try to hide income. How ever it would probably hurt people living paycheck to paycheck.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Aazadan

Please don't think I'm snarking at you, my friend. I understand all the terms, and all the 'categories' of income....I really do. I do our family taxes every year. We have dividends, and wages, and interest income, and all that coolio stuff.

We don't have enough for any of the loopholes to apply, but - well, ya know.

This has to do with a lack of purchasing power. Everything in moderation is the key to life, not just with what you do, but how you treat your finances. 20% to rent, 10% to food, 10% to entertainment, 10% to transportation, 20% to savings, 20% to taxes, 10% to utilities... or some other similar budget. The problem is that it just doesn't go far enough. On this budget a median wage of 50k is $830/month for rent which in a median area doesn't cover a 1 bedroom apartment. So then you have to shave the other areas. That 20% to savings becomes 15%, that's $7500/year. If you split that 20% cash, 50% retirement, 15% bonds, 15% stocks, now you've got $1500/year you can put into a liquid savings fund for things like helping with a childs college. Over 18 years that's $27,000, barely 1 year of school at most universities.

If you're making less than the median wage it gets even worse. Things simply cost too damn much these days for the amount of money people are bringing home.

I wish I knew a quick fix for this. If everyone were dedicated to it, we could fix things over 50 years through gradually lowering income inequality, and skipping a generation with savings, making large savings for our grandkids (or great grandkids given the age demographics of this forum) instead of our kids but no one is patient enough for either of those.

It's not going to change until our economic system changes either.

In order to have savings that you can withdraw from, you have to be able to save in the first place and most people just can't do that.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

A VP doesn't hold much water unless the pres is impeached or killed. Having said that, and as a Trump supporter, I'd be a lot more comfortable if Bernie was on the democratic ticket. But if I had my choice to mix and match parties on the ticket, I'd like to see Trump as the president and (D) Jim Webb as the VP. Webb isn't the kind of democrat that we've had the past 8 years. He values America and the military and doesn't seem like he would cower to foreign enemies or drop warning leaflets 45 minutes before bombs are dropped. He doesn't pander to one race over or another, one religion over another, or one bloc over another. He believes in true equality, not discrimination whether it's against blacks, Mexicans, or whites.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Sillyolme

Why do you say that?

Things change very quickly now, Alice. The RNC is preparing to overthrow the convention rules and "unbind" every delegate from whatever their 'state' had decided. So now it's just up to the delegates.

What makes you think other movers wouldn't come up with some plot to affect the changes they want.

It's not a new concept. When Parliament or Congress or whatever sort of group of legislators gets fed up, they do things like read Green Eggs n Ham on the floor. Or they all go home (reference King Charles I and the English Civil War) and refuse to do what the Big Kahuna says. No acknowledgment of "special session of Congress" calls.

Or they don't show up to vote.
Or they decide to change the rules at the last minute, like a little kid.....and the opponent says, "According to whom?"

And they say, "According to us! Those are the rules that we just made up!"

Of course it could happen. All it would take is a quick fix, some duct tape and zippy ties, and we keep this baby running til we get home!!!

Don't be naive. I know it's comforting to think "no way, that will never happen." I used to stick to that. But now I can't anymore. And that really rattles me. and my cage, too.

And beef jerky, you can't forget the beef jerky.

Hes backing everything he stood against. I really believe he was a plant. i know sounds crazy.

I happen to agree with you. Sounds even crazier....but hear me out.

You can't just put one candidate out there from jump. Has to be a sparring partner. For the left, it was Bernie. For the right, they put Trump in as Jeb's sparring partner. I mean, why else would a lackluster Congressman with an unremarkable record, and one foot in the grave be tapped for a candidate (and get in the running in the first place? They likely thought Hillary would rip him apart in short order.

From day one, the Powers that Be simply underestimated how fed up we were. Lucky for them, on the left side, this was easily corrected through the super delegate nonsense used to disenfranchise primary voters. On the right, they simply felt Trump would bury himself, and make Jeb look good by comparison.

That was their screw up. They underestimated both men. (and overestimated Jeb's national appeal). When Jeb faltered, they tried to boost up two others, but it too failed miserably. They even tried to sabotage the entire GOP just to ensure an establishment candidate was Hillary's opponent (so either way they'd win)...and that too failed.

So, Bernie sells out for a likely cabinet post, trying to cement the establishment victory after a few talks with major DNC leaders.