Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: IF Capital Gains goes from 15% to 30%, Does it Matter to The Investors?

Posted 10 years ago on Sept. 26, 2012, 4:02 p.m. EST by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I mean, would they really stop dong what they are doing? Would they really stop trying to beat the market?

I'm guessing no. They will carry on with business as usual.

That being said, would that, and allowing the Bush cuts to expire, even come close to turning this train wreck around? Not at all.

When these tax cuts expire at the end of the year is when Im guessing we are going to see the economy tank. The elections keep everyone occupied, the Fed just said they are all in (which should keep everything fine for a while). Europe's election....errrrrr....Germany's election is shortly after ours.

After all that hoopla is done, I think everyone will take a look back, and realize we havent solved shit in decades. And with unlimiting printing all ready been announced (ECB states it too), I think reality will finally set in.

What happens then is anyones guess. I'm guessing that two things will be certain- the real causes will not be talked about, and the solutions will not be in the best interest of future generations.



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by TheRazor (-329) 10 years ago

It would hinder riskier investing, which is both good and bad.

[-] 1 points by WildMan (27) 10 years ago

When Clinton lowered the rate from 30% to 25% the revenue from the tax went up. When it went from 25% to 15% the revenue from the tax went up again.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 10 years ago

Yet the revenue under the Clinton 20% rate was greater than the revenue when the rate dropped to 15% . Remember the boom of the late 90's? Could it be that the variation in revenue is due to economic cycles rather than the level of subsidies for the investor class?


[-] 0 points by Clicheisking (-210) 10 years ago

Damn it! Stop confusing us with facts!

[-] 1 points by Uneasy (19) 10 years ago

The solution: gold, silver and lead (bullets).

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 10 years ago

Instead of asking why Romney has to pay 15% why not ask why the guy making $50k has to pay 35%?

If everyone paid 15% the Fed Gov would get almost $ 3 trillion a year. If they can't manage on that they need to go on a diet.

BTW I don't think Americans care much about future generations. We kill off 1,300,000 of the next generation every year without blinking an eye.

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 10 years ago

Actually I care about them, I care about my kids and grandkids. And I don't give a rats ass about anybody else... nobody in this country should pay more than 15% and if corporations are paying more then they have lost the competitive edge that allows that business to remain viable - Americans need a balance of income versus taxes, they need these jobs.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 10 years ago

Corporate taxes are regressive, hidden taxes that disproportionately hurt the poor. They should be outlawed. As regressive as sales taxes are corporate taxes are worse because they tax basic necessities like food and clothing which are normally exempt from sales tax.

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 10 years ago

True, but today those sales taxes are for items that are primarily manufactured overseas; we need those jobs in the US. Although, honestly, one gets the impression nobody wants to work anymore anyway.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 10 years ago

There is some good news. Consumer electronic manufacturing is coming back to the US. In 15 years it may make little difference in cost whether goods are manufactured in Shenzhen or Kentucky. Proximity the point of consumption is likely to be more important.




[-] 0 points by conservatroll (187) 10 years ago

Nice to see someone on this forum that gets it! Corporate taxes are passed on to the consumers.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 10 years ago

The war against corps is really counter productive. It is the Gov that does most of the damage when they collude with corps giving sweet deals to big donors and over regulating us into the poor house.

[-] 0 points by conservatroll (187) 10 years ago

Exactly. It is our corrupt Congress. Romney is nothing more than a poster child for our f;d up tax code.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

trickle down has not been working since ?83

[-] 0 points by conservatroll (187) 10 years ago

And trickle up has failed since the 60's...LBJ's Great Society. Just as much,. or more poverty per capita since then.

Wait, did you mean trickle down government? Ehh, that doesn't work so well either.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

the san diego government offered me a for job about $2 an hour

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 10 years ago

Corps collude with corrupt Gov, but they are just playing the game Gov invented. The power of any given corp is tiny compared to that of the Fed Gov. Just compare the amount of money that they control; and Gov is a monopoly of the worst kind because there is no competition and no oversight.

This preoccupation with corps ignores the mammoth in the room.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 10 years ago

I think the simpson bowles cuts should go through, all of them. Let the tax bill expire, cut military, cut spending. Everyone says "it'll cause a depression, like OMGosh!" Bullshit. It will cause deflation. Nobody talks about deflation because most people that understand what it actually means have a monetary interest against deflation. And, you can tell the working class that deflation means lower prices, till you're blue in the face, but this usually results in a blank stare.

Anyone see the latest financial news? Preventing deflation is keeping prices up, and wages are still shit. But hey, keep listening to the media experts, they've only had 5 years to prove they have a clue. na mean man?

[-] 0 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3360) from New York, NY 10 years ago

Both candidates were on 60 minutes last Sunday.

When the reporter asked Romney if it was fair that he pays a 15% rate on his $20 million income which is less than someone who actually works and makes only $50k, he said it was fair because corporations also pay the corporate income tax.

The reporter didn't follow up with that and ask him how that at all applies to him. Romney pays just 15%. Workers pay up to 35%.

Investors are not taxed twice. Romney is not taxed twice. They are only taxed once at the 15% rate.

Investment will go down at a higher rate. But so what. It is unfair that they pay a lower rate.

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 10 years ago

What did Romney mean when he said "corporations also pay the corporate income tax?

Did that mean that corporations have to pay income taxes on their profits prior to disbursing them to the owners?

Anyway, what is the difference between a "Corporate Income tax" and a "Investment tax"?

This is the first I have heard anyone speak of this - is this something that the news media has been hiding from us?

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3360) from New York, NY 10 years ago

Capital gains are taxed differently than the income you get paid in wages as an ordinary worker. If you make an investment and later sell that investment at a higher price, your top tax rate is 15%.

So Romney, who gets his income from trading stocks, bonds, metals, whatever, gets taxed at 15%. Workers get taxed at up to 35%.

Dividends are a little different. Yes, a corporation has to pay the corporate income tax rate prior to disbursing dividends.

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 10 years ago

You didn't answer what I asked - what is the difference between a "corporate income tax" and an "investment tax"?

Are these taxes different and if so what is the rate and who is being taxed?

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3360) from New York, NY 10 years ago

I'm not an accountant, so don't quote me on these rates.

Workers who get paid a wage pay the tax rate for ordinary income which goes up to 35%.

Corporations pay a corporate income tax rate on their net income which I believe is the same rate as ordinary income. That rate is among the highest in the world. However, we also offer the most deductions. So if you want a private jet, charge it to the corporation and the corporation now pays taxes on $20 million less income. The effective rate after deductions is around 9% which is one of the lowest rates in the world.

The corporation's net income after taxes gets paid to owners as a dividend.

Dividend income gets taxed at a maximum rate of 15%,

If you buy stock or any other asset and sell it for a higher price, you get a capital gain. Capital gains are taxed at a maximum rate 15%.

[-] 0 points by Faraujo (-4) 10 years ago

There is no investment tax. A capital gains tax is employed on investments that are held longer than a year. Sell it before a year and it is taxed at the normal income tax rate. The money that is invested in investments has already been taxed once when you first receive it and then invested. Anybody can get this cap gains tax rate.

Corporations are taxed on their profits and then can give profits back to their shareholders as a dividend which is taxed again at the dividend rate, not cap gains rate.

What it really comes down to is Romney is one smart investor who saved his money and invested.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago