Proud to say I haven't insulted anyone yet. Not unless you consider being disagreed with an insult.

"I'm guessing that you don't understand how offshore tax havens work because you don't want to understand, and if that's the case trying to have an honest conversation is a waste of time and energy."
"And my motives are to warn you that there's a crash coming that will make 2008 look like a walk in the park so that you aren't completely caught off guard"
"Nice job, Comrades."
"Either you can't understand how offshore tax havens work, or you refuse to. I just made and educated guess based on your past ability to seemingly grasp more complex concepts "
"Most likely because your arguments are based on misinformation"
"groupthink"

you say you haven't insulted anyone yet?
could you at least admit how condescending you sound?
and that some people feel insulted when people are condescending towards them?

anyone can say a stock market crash will happen as much as one can say it will rain. The one prediction that anyone can't state with accuracy is WHEN.

Obviously if you use AGI that's what you will come out with. How would you come out with anything otherwise in a progressive tax system?

That's not indicative of rich. That has nothing to do with net worth, merely how you earn your money. What does Warren Buffet pay in taxes? What did Trump pay?

https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/02/21/billionaire-warren-buffetts-secret-to-paying-a-low.aspx

From the billionaire himself.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

"Low" is relative, as is "high", "too much" and "not enough."  Compared to WHAT?

That "what" is what you refuse to answer.  What is the magic number YOU THINK is enough?  You keep arguing in general, ambiguous terms.  Specifically, how much is enough???

The problem with the phrase "this time it's different" is that it's been the harbinger of doom on so many occasions that it's become a morbid joke. It's a faith-based argument just like Invisible Hand that magically creates the ideal society using the powers of greed and selfishness. We are running increasingly erratic boom and bust cycles and the last meltdown was barely contained with vast amounts of helicopter money and fiddling with interest rates. Nobody went to jail, which means the lunatics who ran the world economy onto the reef are still at the helm and fully expect Uncle Sam to print all the money they need and bail them out when they do it again. If you want to see how fun the consequences of hyperinflation are then check out Venezuela.

You used a lot of words, but you said virtually nothing.

Trump is making a difference.  If you can't see that, do some research on all the positives he's accomplished -- both directly and simply by affecting confidence.

This time IS different.  Trump isn't in office to win the next election or to give "his" party power.  He's there to do the job the best he can.  I see it.  Anyone who doesn't see that has been watching CNN and MSNBC more than is healthy.  Why does Trump Tweet?  He has to in order to get his unfiltered words in front of the public.  Even then, the MSM tries to "interpret" what he implied, not what he said.

Give him the courtesy of at least three years before judging his effectiveness and the results of his actions.  To preach doom and gloom as you have been is nothing more than sour grapes.  You sound like you're still "with her".   

Some say the normal cycles (all highs and lows including crashes) of our economy are highly predictable. Yet we have surpassed the timeframe that these so called "experts" have been saying that the next market crash is going to occur. So now these so called "experts" are saying that we are so far passed due for the next crash that it will happen at any time. And when the crash happens, and it will, they will go around saying "I told you so". All ridiculous empty words. This has been going on for as long as I can remember (40+ years).

Any enlightened person knows our economy ebbs and flows and sometimes crashes. Knowing this, whose fault is it really if an investor gets caught with their pants down and loses half their wealth in a crash of some sort? I personally would blame myself. Especially if I didn't prepare properly for the inevitable. We have no control over how, why and when the market will crash. So it really is irrelevant if big banks or corporations get greedy and cause a crash. Just knowing it will happen should be enough to prepare for when it does. All we can do is to control our own investments. When investing in the stock market one should plan for crashes since we all know they occur. Stop loss orders will help reduce your losses if a crash occurs without any warning. And if properly placed will help you retain your wealth. And once you get out of the market you can ride out the crash in safe insured investments until the market recovers.

Being prepared makes crashes and the reasons for the crash irrelevant. There are plenty of tools and resources at your disposal to protect you if you choose to use them.  Don't let those who are crying out about big corporations and big banks and greedy CEO's distract you from protecting yourself from a crash that will occur someday. It is not as important to know why a crash occurs as it is to realize that a crash will occur. And being prepared makes you smarter than the persons who care more about blaming others.

"Low" is relative, as is "high", "too much" and "not enough."  Compared to WHAT?

That "what" is what you refuse to answer.  What is the magic number YOU THINK is enough?  You keep arguing in general, ambiguous terms.  Specifically, how much is enough???

That's literally one of the richest people on earth telling you how it is.

My initial argument was about capital gains and how the ultra wealthy avoid paying taxes at a tier they're supposed to. Not sure what sort of quantitative response you want.

So again, how much are guys like Buffet and Trump paying? Talk about avoiding questions...

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I can't see why there isn't a flat tax. Govt. services should be the same for all and paid simple and fair by all.
Why do we keep targeting the "rich" for achieving? I'm not rich but if I attain it through my hard work and dedication I would find it unfair for the rest of society to target me because of that. Doesn't make sense. We see some people who homestead on low income housing and are happy at the level of assistance they get from the govt. They are happy to be just that - so why are we punishing those that decide to move up the societal ladder?

That's literally one of the richest people on earth telling you how it is.

My initial argument was about capital gains and how the ultra wealthy avoid paying taxes at a tier they're supposed to. Not sure what sort of quantitative response you want.

So again, how much are guys like Buffet and Trump paying? Talk about avoiding questions...

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Not trying to get in between your two discussion. Just understand that the article you posted was very clearly stated as an opinion piece. Not as a researched factual article. I just happened across this article from Forbes while researching something else. Thought you two might be interested.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/10/23/warren-buffetts-actual-tax-rate-is-31-while-his-office-workers-pay-21/#6fa910363279

I can't see why there isn't a flat tax. Govt. services should be the same for all and paid simple and fair by all.
Why do we keep targeting the "rich" for achieving? I'm not rich but if I attain it through my hard work and dedication I would find it unfair for the rest of society to target me because of that. Doesn't make sense. We see some people who homestead on low income housing and are happy at the level of assistance they get from the govt. They are happy to be just that - so why are we punishing those that decide to move up the societal ladder?

I agree with the flat tax. It is the only fair way to tax everyone equally.

That's literally one of the richest people on earth telling you how it is.

My initial argument was about capital gains and how the ultra wealthy avoid paying taxes at a tier they're supposed to. Not sure what sort of quantitative response you want.

So again, how much are guys like Buffet and Trump paying? Talk about avoiding questions...

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

You don't get to avoid my questions repeatedly, and then tell me I'm not answering yours.

I don't play those games.

Buffet is a billionaire who made all his money investing and getting paid to make investments for others.  If he wants to pay more in taxes, all he has to do is write a check.  That doesn't happen, though.  He wants everyone else to be forced to do the same.  In the meantime, he takes the same deductions and exemptions as all other wealthy people.  Hypocrite?

Trump doesn't pay zero taxes.  His business was able to write off losses, just like all other businesses who lose money. 

Trump paid 24 percent tax rate in 2005, reported $105 million write-down, his return shows.

The return shows that Trump paid $36.5 million in income tax, of which about $31 million was in the form of an "alternative
minimum tax," a supplemental tax designed to cut down on filers with excessive deductions. He also paid about $1.5 million
in Medicare and Social Security taxes.

Do some research on your own instead of parroting the lies MSNBC feeds you.  Trump did NOT pay zero taxes.

You don't get to avoid my questions repeatedly, and then tell me I'm not answering yours.

I don't play those games.

Buffet is a billionaire who made all his money investing and getting paid to make investments for others.  If he wants to pay more in taxes, all he has to do is write a check.  That doesn't happen, though.  He wants everyone else to be forced to do the same.  In the meantime, he takes the same deductions and exemptions as all other wealthy people.  Hypocrite?

Trump doesn't pay zero taxes.  His business was able to write off losses, just like all other businesses who lose money. 

Do some research on your own instead of parroting the lies MSNBC feeds you.  Trump did NOT pay zero taxes.

What question did you ask that I didn't answer? The nebulous "how much" question that had nothing to do with the conversation? Where did I quote MSNBC?

You're constantly throwing strawman arguments. And we don't know what Trump paid in taxes because he never released them. Despite saying he would. Furthermore, what sort of great businessman needs to carry forward that much operating losses? The kind that game the system. I don't blame him but it's hypocritical to think guys like Buffet do it while Trump doesn't. Every smart person would try to pay as little in taxes as legally possible. That's why we need to close the loopholes like the capital gains tax.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Also please quote where I said Trump pays zero taxes. Along with where I quoted MSNBC.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Not trying to get in between your two discussion. Just understand that the article you posted was very clearly stated as an opinion piece. Not as a researched factual article. I just happened across this article from Forbes while researching something else. Thought you two might be interested.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/10/23/warren-buffetts-actual-tax-rate-is-31-while-his-office-workers-pay-21/#6fa910363279

So they're adding C-corps taxes to an individual? No one does that. Even if one did, the current tax policy will substantially reduce corporate taxes so it makes an even stronger case for what Buffet is saying.

For the record, I'm actually for the corporate tax reduction. That tax was one of the highest in the world and was a big impediment to growth.

My gripe is with individuals making their money on asset appreciation, no matter how much, being taxed lower than the upper tier salary brackets.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

What question did you ask that I didn't answer? The nebulous "how much" question that had nothing to do with the conversation? Where did I quote MSNBC?

You're constantly throwing strawman arguments. And we don't know what Trump paid in taxes because he never released them. Despite saying he would. Furthermore, what sort of great businessman needs to carry forward that much operating losses? The kind that game the system. I don't blame him but it's hypocritical to think guys like Buffet do it while Trump doesn't. Every smart person would try to pay as little in taxes as legally possible. That's why we need to close the loopholes like the capital gains tax.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Did you not tune in to Rachel Madcow when she built up her show saying she had Trump's tax return all over the promos?  She spent her show going through all the details, only to show he did IN FACT PAY TAXES.

She was so bummed, it was delicious!

Yes, Trump did not release his tax return, but someone leaked it.  Your comment "we don't know what Trump paid in taxes because he never released them" is only half right.  We do know -- at least for the year that was leaked.

When you gamble big money, there is never a guarantee you won't lose it.  The Trump property in Atlantic City was making money until 9/11.  Just like Vegas, Atlantic City was hit hard with losses due to a massive downturn in tourism.  I guess he should have predicted that, huh?  He wasn't "gaming the system".  Every business that loses money uses the same tax laws to protect against complete loss.  It's called bankruptcy.  It's in the law for a reason.  Businesses don't operate in an annual vacuum void of year-to-year causes and effects.  The laws are there to allow businesses to spread both losses and windfalls across multiple years to avoid a huge loss one year, a huge profit the next, and a massive tax bill. based on only the profit.  It isn't good for the business, the employees, the economy, or the IRS if the company has to go out of business.

You're comparing apples to oranges.  Trump owns real property, creates thousands of jobs, and invests the profits in new projects.  Buffet made his money investing in the stock market.  The capital gains rates (not "loopholes") don't apply to Trump's losses or carry-over to other years as they relate to the Taj Mahal.

The only reason you're calling my question re: how much is enough for the "wealthy" to pay in taxes "nebulous" is because you know the answer is what's nebulous -- not the question.

You can't name a number, percentage or relative amount because THERE ISN'T ONE.  All the tax rates, ceilings and limits, including deductions and exemptions, are arbitrary.  Some finance "experts" in the government sit down and try to figure out what balance of those elements, along with deductions and expected revenues, will generate the needed revenues to pay the country's bills.  There's no magic number that's fair -- not for the workers to pay, and not for the "wealthy" to pay.  I put quotes on wealthy because that, also, is open to arbitrary interpretations based on relative income/wealth.

The problem you have is understanding the simple fact that the wealth created in this country has an effect other than making people who own the investments profits.  They create jobs.  People with jobs pay taxes.  They sell things.  Retail collects more taxes.  They provide capital.  Capital permits renting buildings, building new buildings, renting and buying large equipment, manufacturing that equipment, etc, etc, etc.  All those activities get taxed at all points exchange and at many levels.

With all that taxing going on, you still believe the person making it all possible should be punished MORE than the people earning a paycheck?  Take away the incentive to invest, and those paychecks stop.  But you still won't get it.

You have been brainwashed into resenting the wealthy.  I get it.  You don't. 

I'm done trying to open your eyes.  Can't make a horse drink.

I agree with the flat tax. It is the only fair way to tax everyone equally.

The flat tax sounds fair on the surface, but you have to look at the greater cost burden placed on society. Wealth inequality has an inverse relationship with overall economic performance. The more the rich get richer they effectively lock up capital in their Scrooge McDuck vaults. Sure they let a little trickle out here and there and wear their philanthropic activities on their sleeve, but if what your are saying about re-investing in society is true then Wealth Inequality would have solved itself by now. Yet it continues to get worse.

So they're adding C-corps taxes to an individual? No one does that. Even if one did, the current tax policy will substantially reduce corporate taxes so it makes an even stronger case for what Buffet is saying.

For the record, I'm actually for the corporate tax reduction. That tax was one of the highest in the world and was a big impediment to growth.

My gripe is with individuals making their money on asset appreciation, no matter how much, being taxed lower than the upper tier salary brackets.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

That is not quite how I read this. Maybe I am wrong, but as one third owner of the corporation he gets paid a salary from the profits (minus all applicable corporate and payroll taxes) of the corporation. And that money is taxable as earned income. And according to this article he conveniently left out this source of income when he wrote his opinion piece. Like I said, that is how I read this article. I could be wrong, but it makes sense to me.

I know you probably have been through all of this with Flapp. So if you don't want to answer my questions, I understand. Sorry, but I have have not been able to understand where your other conversation has been going. Here are my questions:

1. What are your objections to anyone who invests any amount of money being taxed at a lower rate through capital gains than the upper tier salary brackets?
2. Also, you do realize that asset appreciation also occurs with homes? So what is your objection to people who own homes having to pay for the profit they make when they sell their home?
3. You said you are all for lowering the corporate tax rate, I am curious as to why? The reason I ask is I am for a lower capital gains tax for the same reason you are for the lower corporate tax. So for me your reason for the lower corporate tax rate also affects anyone who is taxed through the capital gains tax. The money from an individual used to invest in stocks and other vehicles is used predominantly used for growth of the company that receives that investment. I see these two taxes, when high as an impediment to growth. So maybe you can elaborate for me the difference between high corporate tax being an impediment to growth, but a high capital gains tax is not an impediment to growth?

Thanks!

Being prepared makes crashes and the reasons for the crash irrelevant. There are plenty of tools and resources at your disposal to protect you if you choose to use them.  Don't let those who are crying out about big corporations and big banks and greedy CEO's distract you from protecting yourself from a crash that will occur someday. It is not as important to know why a crash occurs as it is to realize that a crash will occur. And being prepared makes you smarter than the persons who care more about blaming others.

What about the people who lose their jobs and houses because of a credit freeze? What about the people who paid into their pensions and 401k's all those years just to see them wiped out? The last crash was papered over with printed money, but still had huge consequences for people who have nothing to do with Wall Street. Remember furlough Fridays?

Don't we owe it to everyone around us to at least examine the causes and consider ways to prevent it from happening again? It seems like the more responsible thing to do rather than time our next jump off the greed train.

That is not quite how I read this. Maybe I am wrong, but as one third owner of the corporation he gets paid a salary from the profits (minus all applicable corporate and payroll taxes) of the corporation. And that money is taxable as earned income. And according to this article he conveniently left out this source of income when he wrote his opinion piece. Like I said, that is how I read this article. I could be wrong, but it makes sense to me.

I know you probably have been through all of this with Flapp. So if you don't want to answer my questions, I understand. Sorry, but I have have not been able to understand where your other conversation has been going. Here are my questions:

1. What are your objections to anyone who invests any amount of money being taxed at a lower rate through capital gains than the upper tier salary brackets?
2. Also, you do realize that asset appreciation also occurs with homes? So what is your objection to people who own homes having to pay for the profit they make when they sell their home?
3. You said you are all for lowering the corporate tax rate, I am curious as to why? The reason I ask is I am for a lower capital gains tax for the same reason you are for the lower corporate tax. So for me your reason for the lower corporate tax rate also affects anyone who is taxed through the capital gains tax. The money from an individual used to invest in stocks and other vehicles is used predominantly used for growth of the company that receives that investment. I see these two taxes, when high as an impediment to growth. So maybe you can elaborate for me the difference between high corporate tax being an impediment to growth, but a high capital gains tax is not an impediment to growth?

Thanks!

Glad to answer, thanks for the civil response.

1) It's a difference between productivity and passive accumulation. Paris Hilton can contribute nothing to society and get richer, at a 20% tax rate. A heart surgeon can save hundreds of lives and be taxed at nearly double the rate. Who is the more productive member of society? We should be rewarding accretive behavior.

2) Most residences allow for capital gain exemptions or deferment.

3) I'm for lower corporate tax rates because US rates where high compared to the rest of the world. This evens things up a degree.

As I mentioned, the top 1% OF the 1% make up HALF of all capital gains. Think about that for a second. The ultra wealthy despite being a miniscule fraction make up half of cap gains. And get taxed at a favorable 20%. And that's something never on the table because it's easier to stand back and let the wage earners fight each other. It's no surprise politicians rarely bring it up, they understand where the rich really make their money and how to shelter those gains. You don't throw your biggest donors under the bus.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk