patrick.net

Did you post this tongue in cheek? From the article you cited Quote "Who would get hurt? IRS data show that retirees and near-retirees who depend on dividend income would be hit especially hard. Almost three of four dividend payments go to those over the age of 55, and more than half go to those older than 65, according to IRS data.

But all American shareholders would lose. Higher dividend and capital gains taxes make stocks less valuable. A share of stock is worth the discounted present value of the future earnings stream after taxes. Stock prices would fall over time to adjust to the new after-tax rate of return. And if investors become convinced later this year that dividend and capital gains taxes are going way up on January 1, some investors are likely to sell shares ahead of paying these higher rates.

The question is how this helps anyone. According to the Investment Company Institute, about 51% of adults own stock directly or through mutual funds, which is more than 100 million shareholders. Tens of millions more own stocks through pension funds. Why would the White House endorse a policy that will make these households poorer?

Seldom has there been a clearer example of a policy that is supposed to soak the rich but will drench almost all American families."

morecowbell says

Seldom has there been a clearer example of a policy that is supposed to soak the rich but will drench almost all American families."

And that is because Wall Street tethered American retirement and investment to the market, then turned that market into a high speed casino where little real world value is expressed in the price of a financialized asset. Previous generations had defined pensions and even basic savings accounts would generate interest that consistantly beat inflation. The rich made sure that if their taxes were ever raised, they could take it out of the collective American hide. This will not change without some pain, but there will be more pain down the road if we stick with the status quo. Rip off the band aid and make the rich pay their fair share.

futuresmc says

Previous generations had defined pensions and even basic savings accounts would generate interest that consistantly beat inflation.

neither one of those statements was correct..

Savings earned 5% on a standard savings account and inflation was well north above 5% that for a long time from 1968 to 1984.

Defined pension plan was a bad idea, and frankly has never worked for both public/private works. GM car has $1500-2000 built into price to pay pensions. Look around you.. we are paying $100-200K a year defined pensions for govt workers.

Well in order to make defined pensions work requires higher returns and higher risks... so now the defined plans HAVE TO GO TO THE CASINO...

futuresmc says

The rich made sure that if their taxes were ever raised, they could take it out of the collective American hide. This will not change without some pain, but there will be more pain down the road if we stick with the status quo. Rip off the band aid and make the rich pay their fair share.

The Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 70 Percent of Federal Income Taxes

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/top10-percent-income-earners

Tongue in cheek of course.

thomas.wong1986 says

The Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 70 Percent of Federal Income Taxes

And what percentage of income did they "earn"?

Defining Earn...

1.Obtain (money) in return for labor or services: "earns his living as a truck driver".

2.(of an activity or action) Cause (someone) to obtain (money): "the win earned them $50,000 in prize money".

No! by some peoples definition, they did not 'earn' anything.

However, when you invest $100 (after tax) in a new operation which hires employees that earn a salary from that same $100 to generate revenues and profits, Fed, State, County, and City "also earn" their cut from taxes: Payroll, Property, Business, Sales and Uses Taxes not to mention State and Federal Income Tax from both Employer and Employee.

Is it worth investing and putting at risk that $100 and getting taxed at higher "earned" rates ? Maybe It will make a gain, maybe not !!! Do we want more investments to create jobs ?

Thanks for the definition, but what % of income did the top 10% earn?

tatupu70 says

Thanks for the definition, but what % of income did the top 10% earn?

unearned.. you mean not sweat and labor...

Oh im sure tax payers like Mick Jagger, Lady GaGa and the rest get FAT FAT FAT royality checks every day ... no sweat and labor needed.

thomas.wong1986 says

unearned.. you mean not sweat and labor...
Oh im sure tax payers like Mick Jagger, Lady GaGa and the rest get FAT FAT FAT royality checks every day ... no sweat and labor needed.

You can use whatever definition you'd like. Preferably the same one as you used for this statement

thomas.wong1986 says

The Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 70 Percent of Federal Income Taxes

Because stating what % they paid without also saying what % they earned is a bit misleading, wouldn't you agree??

tatupu70 says

Because stating what % they paid without also saying what % they earned is a bit misleading, wouldn't you agree??

http://www.therichest.org/

Considering Mitt Romney and the like pay a much lower rate in taxes than an average working man, I don't agree with Republican party outcry either.

I'm for a system where we have no loopholes and ALL income is taxed at the same rate, no special treatment for anyone. And I don't see either party going in that direction.

Passbook savings accounts used to be 5.25% by law. We didn't have to risk our futures to beat inflation. Now we have real rates of negative return and a stock market gambling casino to choose from.

FortWayne says

I'm for a system where we have no loopholes and ALL income is taxed at the same rate, no special treatment for anyone. And I don't see either party going in that direction.

Its really not a loophole, its built into the tax code for a reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_capital_gains_tax_in_the_U.S.