patrick.net

The wealthy make their money from capital gains, not payroll income. So why should they get a lower tax rate? It makes no sense. Actually, it does make sense - it's the Golden Rule. He who has the gold makes the rules. Change that, and the problem is solved, without taking food out of poor people's mouths or taking medical care away from the elderly.

Why do you want America to fail? ;-)

26 thomaswong.1986 2013 Oct 17, 11:57am

The wealthy make their money from capital gains, not payroll income. So why should they get a lower tax rate? It makes no sense.

the rich like everyone else earned their income once.. and it was taxed once.. the residual after

taxes are savings which can be reinvested back into purchases of newer assets.

therefore replacement of Machinery and other Assets if sold may leave a gain or loss..

so why not encourage early disposal / sale and purchases of newer modern assets

without triggering higher taxes.. therefore business (the rich!) provide demand from

factories and thus higher employment of labor.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS ?

27 thomaswong.1986 2013 Oct 17, 12:04pm

He who has the gold makes the rules. Change that, and the problem is solved, without taking food out of poor people's mouths or taking medical care away from the elderly.

Even the farmer, doctor, small business owner understand the tax code better since they are encouraged to purchase new capital equipment from factories which maximizes production and employment.

28

HydroCabron 2013 Oct 17, 12:08pm

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1221

Homeboy says

the rich like everyone else earned their income once.. and it was taxed once.. the residual after

taxes are savings which can be reinvested back into purchases of newer assets.

therefore replacement of Machinery and other Assets if sold may leave a gain or loss..

so why not encourage early disposal / sale and purchases of newer modern assets (durable

goods) without triggering higher taxes.. therefore business (the rich!) provide demand from

factories and thus higher employment of labor.

But that would be the government picking winners and losers, saying "this sort of income is more socially beneficial than that kind, so we'll give preferential treatment to this kind." Picking winners and losers sounds like socialism and social engineering to me.

Why do you love big government?

29 thomaswong.1986 2013 Oct 17, 12:12pm

HydroCabron says

But that would be the government picking winners and losers, saying "this sort of income is more socially beneficial than that kind, so we'll give preferential treatment to this kind." Picking winners and losers sounds like socialism and social engineering to me.

funds put at risk is not picking winners or losers.. if you modernize your business with new orders of assets.. it could be any asset you use in your business to generate income... it may be office equipment, manufacturing eq, or IT equipment.. there is NO winners or losers..

26 USC Â§ 1221 - Capital asset defined

30 thomaswong.1986 2013 Oct 17, 12:34pm

bgamall4 says

A wealth tax would not have to be yearly, just once in awhile to balance expenditures more closely and get the debt under 3 percent of GDP. We need some deficit spending or we would run out of treasuries as pristine collateral.

why not encourage more capital investment and more job formation and thus collect more in taxes..

why is govt from Russia to Brazil to Japan understand this and you dont ?

why do you thing they are growing ?

your going to tax US corporations more who hold the US treasuries which are due from the US Govt.

Collect from A in taxes to payback A which you borrowed...

31

HydroCabron 2013 Oct 17, 12:52pm

There is no such thing as objective reality. There is only conservatism. Any sentence may be stated on behalf of conservatism, which means sometimes one thing, sometimes its opposite, according to the needs of the wealthy at any point in time. Such sentences, however, are strictly for the consumption of potential recruits to conservatism, and are unneeded by confirmed disciples of conservatism.

Most generally, conservatism is a first principle, and not a philosophy derived from any higher principles, as there can be no such.

Therefore, conservatism is what one uses in an argument, but never something one argues about.

In no way does conservatism differ from a religion.

32

Homeboy 2013 Oct 17, 3:50pm

the rich like everyone else earned their income once.. and it was taxed once.. the residual after

taxes are savings which can be reinvested back into purchases of newer assets.

therefore replacement of Machinery and other Assets if sold may leave a gain or loss..

so why not encourage early disposal / sale and purchases of newer modern assets

without triggering higher taxes.. therefore business (the rich!) provide demand from

factories and thus higher employment of labor.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS ?

Understand? It's complete gibberish. The problem is that the elite in the financial sector earn their money through investment, not payroll. What part of that don't you understand? When you say they "earned their income once and it was taxed once", that has nothing to do with anything. Yes, capital gains are taxed once, and that one time they are taxed, it is at a LOWER rate than that person would pay on employment income. Therefore, Richie Rich, who makes his money through complex investment schemes that the working class doesn't even understand, pays a lower tax rate than Joe Middle Class, who works a 9-5 job. This is not right, and this is what's killing our economy. Your trickle down nonsense was tried and it FAILED. Trickle down doesn't work. Period.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?

33

Homeboy 2013 Oct 17, 4:03pm

Even the farmer, doctor, small business owner understand the tax code better since they are encouraged to purchase new capital equipment from factories which maximizes production and employment.

I AM a small business owner. The majority of my income is not derived from capital gains. What you are saying is complete bullshit.

80% of the population derives virtually no benefit from lower capital gains taxes.

34 thomaswong.1986 2013 Oct 17, 5:29pm

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1221

I AM a small business owner. The majority of my income is not derived from capital gains. What you are saying is complete bullshit.

you misunderstand the tax laws here.. its not for for the benefit of 1% but 100% of the people.

26 USC Â§ 1221 - Capital asset defined26 USC Â§ 1221 - Capital asset defined

As a small business owner you already paid TAX for your past net earnings,

Retained Earnings can be reinvested in non-inventory asset purchases..

capital equipment.. and what else to motivate new capital orders..hire more workers..

Maybe you want to sell that business or buy a new one.. be it Corporate

or Partnership.. that too is also based on valuations of your tax basis..

Some is ordinary income and some at lower capital gains from original capital

contributed. Lower capital gains, are created to incentive investments into

business/industries.. if you suffer a loss, there are deductions to provide

relief...

yep... the 1% got taxed lower rate, and here you are doing this fucking internet thing..

cause some rich jackass put his after tax money at risk..... Aint Life Grand !

You think he should of bought 1,000,000 lotto tickets instead ?

If your a small business owner, then your Accountant (CPA) will spell it out once again.

If your some Occupier.. sorry, your a lost cause...

35 thomaswong.1986 2013 Oct 17, 5:33pm

trickle-down wong.1986 says

80% of the population derives virtually no benefit from lower capital gains taxes.

too busy chasing housing bubbles.. they never save a single dime to call their own.

had 99 % said no to higher housing prices and simply walked away from the commissioned

realtors... dont you think everything would have turned different ? Yes.. you would have had

a lower priced house and some savings earning a divided and long term capital gains.

36

Homeboy 2013 Oct 17, 6:30pm

As a small business owner you already paid TAX for your past net earnings,

Retained Earnings can be reinvested in non-inventory asset purchases..

capital equipment.. and what else to motivate new capital orders..hire more workers..

Trickle down bullshit. The evidence shows that the rich HOARD their money; they don't reinvest it into the economy.
thomaswong.1986 says

Lower capital gains, are created to incentive investments into

business/industries.. if you suffer a loss, there are deductions to provide

relief...

Nope. Created to keep the 1% in the 1%. The rich get richer; the middle class gets fucked in the ass.

and here you are doing this fucking internet thing..

cause some rich jackass put his after tax money at risk..... Aint Life Grand !

You think he should of bought 1,000,000 lotto tickets instead ?

Blah, blah, blah. "Should HAVE", jackass. Learn English for Christ's sake.

Trickle down doesn't work. Never has, never will. Deal with it.

sorry, your a lost cause...

Your, you're. Are you fucking retarded? It's hard to believe you know anything about economics when you can't even spell. You probably inherited some money and think you're the fucking chosen one. Nope, you're just lucky.

37

Homeboy 2013 Oct 17, 6:37pm

too busy chasing housing bubbles.. they never save a single dime to call their own.

They weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouth. They want to live in a house, but the game is rigged by the god damn 1 percenter assholes with their favorable tax treatment.

I waited out the bubble and managed to buy a house by the skin of my teeth, right at the exact bottom of the market, before the new fake bubble started inflating. This is bullshit. It shouldn't be like this. In the 1950s, a family could buy a house off of ONE income. Now with husband and wife BOTH working, they're lucky if they can afford anything at all. And you fucking LIKE it. FUCK YOU.

38

Homeboy 2013 Oct 17, 6:39pm

a lower priced house and some savings earning a divided and long term capital gains.

A savings account doesn't even earn half of a percent right now. What planet do you live on?

39 bob2356 2013 Oct 17, 8:37pm

the rich like everyone else earned their income once.. and it was taxed once.. the residual after

taxes are savings which can be reinvested back into purchases of newer assets.

therefore replacement of Machinery and other Assets if sold may leave a gain or loss..

so why not encourage early disposal / sale and purchases of newer modern assets

without triggering higher taxes.. therefore business (the rich!) provide demand from

factories and thus higher employment of labor.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS ?

Even by Twrong standards this makes no sense. Demand from factories? Replace machines? Manufacturing is 11% of GDP. All the rich are in the FIRE sector. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?

40

freak80 2013 Oct 17, 9:59pm

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Comptroller says

Therefore, Richie Rich, who makes his money through complex investment schemes that the working class doesn't even understand, pays a lower tax rate than Joe
Middle Class, who works a 9-5 job. This is not right, and this is what's killing our economy. Your trickle down nonsense was tried and it FAILED. Trickle down doesn't work. Period.

WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM??!!! WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA??!!!

41

freak80 2013 Oct 17, 10:06pm

Homeboy,

Tom Wong is a Foxbot or a Rushbot. He is incapable of independent thought. He's a lost cause. You're not going to change his mind. He's been programmed.

The "ignore" feature is a wonderful thing. :-)

42 bob2356 2013 Oct 19, 3:56am

I always thought Tom Wong was a brilliant parodist, satirizing the demented ravings of a glue-addicted teabagger or something in a hybridized persona, crossing Norm Crosby with Sarah Palin.

I wondered about that too. Let all hope that this is true since the other option would be that he actually is a glue addicted teabagger who believes in what he says, truly a disturbing thought. Either way he's fun to bat around, sort of like shrek without all the histrionics.

43 upisdown 2013 Oct 19, 4:30am

What's a shame is for all the whining the republicans do about regulations and how it distorts/punishes parts of the economy, they don't feel the same way about how subsidies distort/reward other parts of the economy.

It's really hard to take their arguments serious when they won't apply the same theory/logic to the whole economy.

44 bob2356 2013 Oct 19, 8:27am

It's really hard to take their arguments serious when they won't apply the same theory/logic to the whole economy.

To misquote Mae West "logic has nothing to do with it".

45 upisdown 2013 Oct 19, 8:50am

bob2356 says

To misquote Mae West "logic has nothing to do with it".

Mae West(you ever notice how Christina Aguilara emulates her looks) ? I remember seeing her on the Sunday morning Comedy Classics, but Jennifer Aniston is my gal.

46 thomaswong.1986 2013 Oct 19, 9:38am

Jennifer Aniston is my gal.

about as bland a woman you can get... you ever wonder why other guys
like Brad Pitt dumped her and never looked back.

47 thomaswong.1986 2013 Oct 19, 9:41am

What's a shame is for all the whining the republicans do about regulations and how it distorts/punishes parts of the economy, they don't feel the same way about how subsidies distort/reward other parts of the economy.

that depends on what do you call a subsidy and what is actual normal accounting treatment like
deferring costs associated oil drillers. Not all that different for Software companies FAS 86
or R&D costs FAS 2. As such shouldnt be considered tax subsidies.

48 upisdown 2013 Oct 19, 9:44am

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Comptroller says

that depends on what do you call a subsidy and what is actual normal
accounting treatment like
deferring costs associated oil drillers. Not all
that different for Software companies FAS 86
or R&D costs FAS 2. As such
shouldnt be considered tax subsidies.

Not tax treatment, outright government payments or rewards because of lobbyist efforts.

And you knew that, or you should if you're the second coming of "The Donald", like you've claimed before.

49 thomaswong.1986 2013 Oct 19, 9:54am

I always thought Tom Wong was a brilliant parodist, satirizing the demented ravings of a glue-addicted teabagger or something in a hybridized persona, crossing Norm Crosby with Sarah Palin.

glue sniffing Liberals .. but since when did even Liberals would elect a former coke sniffer.

Barack Obama "I inhaled frequently" "That was the point"

http://www.youtube.com/embed/cpBzQI_7ez8

50 thomaswong.1986 2013 Oct 19, 9:57am

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/newsgraphics/2012/0115-one-percent-occupations/

Not tax treatment, outright government payments or rewards because of lobbyist efforts.

And you knew that, or you should if you're the second coming of "The Donald", like you've claimed before.

oh yes.. there are certainly "gov payments" but as has been said many times endessly it is blurred and confused by the left with Accounting treatment which isnt a lobbist effort or subsidy.

You of course can list all the Lobbist efforts for so called Govt Payments...

real Govt Payments ....

51 thomaswong.1986 2013 Oct 19, 10:02am

bob2356 says

Even by Twrong standards this makes no sense. Demand from factories? Replace machines? Manufacturing is 11% of GDP. All the rich are in the FIRE sector. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?

it makes plenty of sense and has worked given extra funds to small business to purchase capital goods for business.

the so called 1% many talk of are not in the FIRE sector as you proclaim.

52 thomaswong.1986 2013 Oct 19, 10:05am

thomaswong.1986 says

a lower priced house and some savings earning a divided and long term capital gains.

A savings account doesn't even earn half of a percent right now. What planet do you live on?

there are plenty of funds that paid a healthy 5% pre-bubble.. had people not created the housing bubble and continued with rational pricing as was the case in the 90s , many would
have had a much higher savings rate with some invested in stocks and bonds.. we can only
wish it was rational thinking by the public... this did not happen. Those of use who bought in the 90s and been plowing it back into investments did well.. We worked at it.

53 thomaswong.1986 2013 Oct 19, 10:11am

https://www.pwcmoneytree.com/MTPublic/ns/nav.jsp?page=historical

Trickle down bullshit. The evidence shows that the rich HOARD their money; they don't reinvest it into the economy.

and yet how do you explain the billions flowing into new managed ventures every quarter?
its no wonder money has created new industries and jobs... where did it come from
but the rich... heck even Paul Allen started several companies by himself with his
Vulcan Fund.. One being stated in my town of Los Gatos called Ricochet which
was leading into the WiFi Wireless networks.

Below is a chart showing Venture Capital funding for the past 20 years.

54 upisdown 2013 Oct 19, 10:20am

oh yes.. there are certainly "gov payments" but as has been said many times
endessly it is blurred and confused by the left with Accounting treatment which
isnt a lobbist effort or subsidy.

You of course can list all the Lobbist efforts for so called Govt Payments...

Oh, I could go on endlessly about one subsidy in particular, but you are clueless to the real world, and the fantasy one in general. There's way TOOOOOOOOOOO many examples and proof of it, and if you were quite the 'mogul' that you claim to be, you would name it before I did. But you won't, not now, or ever.

55 thomaswong.1986 2013 Oct 19, 10:21am