cluedweasel

This sort of wealth distribution isn't new. I remember the 7:84 (7 v% of the population control 84% of the wealth) for my school days in Scotland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7:84

HarryTheSpider

As I understand it the issue is not about raising capital gains rates, but whether an investor treats his/her capital gains as income or has capital gains as a primary source of income... that it should therefore be taxed as income, not capital gains.

So for your example of 28% income tax paid, and then the remainder invested as described, 15% on THAT capital gain seems fine - you've already paid income tax...

Its the hedge fund managers et al who have most, if not all income, coming from capital gains...

scrubbedexpat099

I wonder what rate Obama pays on his Capital Gains?

Giantaxe

I wonder what his effective tax rate is in comparison to Romney's?

The issue is quite simple: why should one form of income (i.e. income in the form of a capital gain) be taxed at a lower rate than another (i.e. income from employment or interest income)?

cluedweasel

Maybe that info is here; http://www.taxhistory.org/www/websit...tialTaxReturns

Haven't got time to check it out at the moment.

Michael

Hedge fund manager and private equity firm tax breaks are only part of the problem. During the Clinton administration when there was full employment, a growing economy, and a balanced budget, the federal government collected about 20% of all reportable income as taxes (income, FICA, and self employment taxes).

Now with an aging population with greater demands on retirement benefits, an increased military budget, a large homeland security budget, the Bush tax cuts, the Bush medicare reform, and Obama health care reform, the current 15% of reportable income collected in taxes by the federal government will not pay the bills and even when the economy returns to full employment, only about 18% will be collected with the current tax structure in place.

Therefore with Romney paying an effective tax rate of 13.9% including self employment tax, that means there are many other poorer people having effective tax rates at 30% or more to compensate for that lost revenue.

So even when the economy returns to full unemployment, the effective tax rate would likely have to average about 24% with the current military spending, benefits provided, and other government expenditures and only about 18% will be taken in. Since conservatives not only don't want to touch the military budget but want to increase it, that removes a large amount of the budget from being cut which means that 40% of spending on all other programs would need to be cut to balance the budget.

So in order to balance the budget, should the majority of the burden fall on those that can least afford it such as cuts in social security payments by 40%, medicare premiums going from the current $100 per month to about $700 per month, eliminating free medicaid and charging medicaid recipients $500 per month when they only make $1,200 per month, cutting college grants and education grants to states by 40%, and reducing welfare and assisted housing payments by 40%?

Or should the difference be split raising taxes to an average effective tax rate of 21% by cutting subsidies to farmers and corporations, eliminating special tax benefits for hedge fund managers and private equity firms, increasing capital gains tax rates, increasing the highest marginal tax rate, clamping down on tax evasion, and even increasing taxes on everyone but at the same time cut military spending as well as benefits provided?

Or do as Romney has proposed in his tax plan by cutting taxes even further (especially for the wealthy) increasing benefit cuts to about 60%?

Or do as Gingrich proposes by going with a flat tax (except for capital gains which will be taxed at 0%) and increase benefit cuts to about 60%?

Or do like Greece and just wait until the government goes bankrupt?

Hiro11

This is what drives me nuts about this whole fabricated "revelation":
1. Romney already paid taxes on his investments when he earned the money as income. Catching him at this point in his life when he makes his income on investments is completely misleading without taking this fact into consideration.

2. The tax code is designed to encourage people to save and invest money. Is this a bad thing? It helps anyone who prudently saves and invests money , not just rich people. Once you've retired and are (hopefully) living on your savings, your tax rate goes down. Romney's return is a little distored because he has so much invested and retired (from his private career) relatively early in life, but you can't fault him for that.

3. Romney's effective tax rate is low because he donates a massive amount to charity. Again: is this a bad thing? is this something we want to discourage?

This is a rich guy witch hunt. It's fine to hate Romney because he's rich (if that's what floats your boat), but don't try to make this a policy discussion.

Giantaxe

How so? He's paid tax on his investment, not on any capital gain he's made on that investment. As I've asked before, why should income in the form of a capital gain be taxed more lightly than other forms of income?

So why is an IRA taxed as ordinary income regardless of what it's been invested in? Why is interest income taxed as ordinary income? After all, money that earns interest is money that's lent to someone (a bank, for example) that then will often then loan it to a business. Why is interest on a corporate bond taxed as ordinary income?

It's primarily low because it's mainly income in the form of capital gains.

I disagree. It's an issue of tax fairness and the justification for taxing one particular form of income at a lower rate than others.

scrubbedexpat099

Have you taken this matter up with your Representatives?

Giantaxe

What do you think that would achieve?

Michael

Most of his earned income was taxed at a very favourable rate of a maximum of 15% when he worked at Bain Capital that no one else can get except for hedge fund managers. Why aren't we all taxed at that very favorable rate? Answer: Because we don't have lobbiest to get such a good tax rate.
You and I can only contribute about $5,000-$6,000 per year into an IRA. A 401K can have a higher cap but still less than $20,000 per year. How was Romney able to accumulate as much as $101 million in his IRA? Answer: Rich people have loopholes that are not available to the average person.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...80N04E20120124

As far as savings is concerned (the government does not considered investments as savings), there isn't any tax breaks. Why aren't there tax breaks on savings when the government wants people to save? Answer: Rich people don't save.

No it isn't a bad thing but why do chartable contributions not have a deduction and are not reduced by AMT but medical expenses have to exceed 7.5% of a persons income before any deduction is allowed and can be reduced by AMT? Answer: Rich people don't have medical expenses.