CNBC‘s Erin Burnett discussing the tax deal on the Today show yesterday (12/7/10): “With capital gains and dividend taxes staying low, the half of Americans that own stocks get a benefit there as well.”
Oh, really? Here’s some figures from the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities (1/30/06):
Over half—54 percent—of all capital gains and dividend income flows to the 0.2 percent of households with annual incomes over $1 million. More than three-quarters—78 percent—of this income goes to those households with income over $200,000, which account for about 3 percent of all households.
In contrast, only 11 percent of capital gains and dividend income goes to the 86 percent of households with incomes of less than $100,000. Only 4 percent of this income flows to the 64 percent of households that have income of less than $50,000.
To be fair, The ultra-Rich have in the past used government for their own means . But, often the ending is quite bad- . In a not distant past, the Czars and other nobility have been subject to such a Correction of wealth! Concentration of wealth is dangerous for democracy.
the other part of this….at the top, there are lots of people whose income mostly comes from capital gains, making their effective income tax RATE lower than those in the upper-middle and middle class.
just a reminder, the top 1% of income earners earned 23% of all income last year, in 2000 that number was 15%.
Meanwhile Social Security taxes remain regressive, with ALL my income taxed, but only HALF the income of someone making more than $200K.
We also need to progress our Income Tax into the $5 million, and up to those billioniares in a graduated way. They also need to be paying social security on the rest of that money passed $106,000 that is not now taxed for it.
I will never understand governments acts of ownership of capital gains(profit made on risk taken)-
or unearned income like the estate tax.A man works his whole life.Pays taxes on everything he buys to run a business including his own salary.Socks away whatever is left over to take care of his family and live a good life.And upon his death the government wants half of that so they can take care of everyones family.It is as if the government owns everything- and simply lends it out for a bit of juice money.
Profit made on risk taken + Profit made on consumers beaten + Profit made from not taking responsibility for cleaning up the mess + Profit from other peoples work.
Quit crying and pay Caesar what is Caesar’s.
“A man works his whole life. Pays taxes on everything he buys to run a business including his own salary. Socks away whatever is left over to take care of his family and live a good life. And upon his death the government wants half of that so they can take care of everyones family. It is as if the government owns everything- and simply lends it out for a bit of juice money.”
Let me see, this man is brought into the world by a dcotor whose skills are certified by the state. He provides a tax benefit to his parent until adulthood, a subsidy provided by the childless. He lives in a house subsidized by those without. He drives on roads built and mantained by the state. His marriage is subsidized by all of the benefits society provides to those who are married. As a small businessperson, he is allowed to deduct business expenses, which means that, unlike employees, he is only taxed on the net, not on the gross. The state provides police to protect his business. The state provides health and food and safety standards so that he is not likely to die from eating a tainted hot dog. The state provides the subsidies that build his sports stadiums. The education for his children is subsidized by those who have no children but still pay taxes. The government provides tax benefits for his savings. These are only available to those with money to save. Those with more money to save have more benefits. As a businessperson, he has access to the courts to protect his property (and the civil courts are mostly devoted to business suits). If he is so lucky to have enough to be eligible for the estate tax upon his death (enough money to put him in the top 2% or so of households), he will have to pay so that we are less likely to develop an aristocracy. This is a lucky man. The basic question is whether he will be taxed on the basis of the benefits he has received from society and on the basis of his ability to pay. The conservative argument today is essentially that those who benefit the most from society should not pay their fair share, while those who lose in society should be on their own.
The state is not a parent that provides for its children.It is simply a manager of the funds we decide to give it.Nothing more.You talk about people being lucky (not hard work of course)for being given the magnanimous handouts of the state.Everything the state has to give us “WE” have already paid for.Those who benefit most should pay their fair share.But not their unfair share .We are the loaners to the government.Not they to us.We do not pay an estate tax to avoid an aristocracy.We pay it so the government can confiscate/redistribute wealth.Every word you wrote…every word in interpretation is unconstitutional.You need to read the constitution and see how your theory of government works.Read what it is that the state is ALLOWED to provide.Past that it is is effect- unconstitutional.I dont disagree that the sickness you speak of has infected this rugged individualist country.Where ultimate freedom is part and parcel with the freedom to succeed and fail on your own merits,without state interference.You need to study the term”The government provides”.Measure it against the yardstick of the constitution.
John if you feel that way”Pay government what is the governments”you are in the wrong country.You need to start from square one and begin again.Government works for us.We dictate what government does.They produce nothing.Own nothing.Create nothing.Government is simply another word in this country for We the people.Originally the founding fathers said”man shall not be taxed on his wage”.The term “Life liberty and the pursuit…. once had free and complete ownership of estate listed.”They would roll in their graves to know government had hold to 50% of a mans estate upon his death.
Let us use the estate tax as an example.What in your eyes would be fair to take of a mans worth once he is gone?In my eyes anything but a nominal amount(5%)is simply robbery.
And remember a wealthy man is not due unfair treatment because he is wealthy. Believing because he had a fortuitous life- gives the state the right to punitively tax him is the essence of class warfare.
Under the current agreement, someone leaving an estate worth $4.9 million pays no tax.
Someone leaving an estate worth $5.1 million would owe $35,000, an effective rate of .006%
Someone leaving an estate worth $10 million would owe $1,750,000, an effective tax rate of 17.5%
Ect, ect.
Obviously the government isn’t “hold[ing] 50% of a mans estate upon his death.”
Ann 6%?…..17.5%???
Obama just agreed to 35 % with a 5 mill deduction.Rep Levin said house Dems would accept going back to 2009s estate tax of 45% though they would like 55% on estates more than 3 million, and 7 for couples.And of course we need to clear small business so that if a man dies his family need not sell the business to pay the death tax.But if you are willing to have an effective rate of .006% i think i can speak for all the wealthy and say WELL TAKE IT!
All of the stock that I own is in my IRA which is not taxed at capital gains levels but at regular individual income tax levels when withdrawn. I believe that this is true for most Americans who own stocks.
“Obama just agreed to 35 % with a 5 mill deduction.” Yes, that’s the “current arrangement” i refer to in my comment posted at 10:59. We are taking about the same thing.
To use my first example, an estate worth $5,100,000 would have the first 5 million exempted, leaving only the remaining $100,000 taxed at 35%: resulting in a $35,000 bill. From there, $35,000 / $5,100,000 = 0.0068627451. Not a 6% rate, a 6 tenths of 1% rate.
An estate worth $6 million would be taxed at about 6% [$350,000 bill on $6,000,000 = 5.8%]
An estate worth $10 million would owe $1,750,000, an effective tax rate of 17.5%
The effective rate on an estate worth $100 million would be 33.25 %.
If we went back to 45% with only a $3 million deduction the effective rate on a $100 million estate would be 44.1%…. $10 million estate 31.5% rate ….$6 million estate 7.5% rate….$5.1 million would be .9% rate.
You’re new around here, aren’t you, Ms. Countant? Your keenly studied facts, with their notorious Liberal Bias, will get no truck from certain posters here. You have been warned, and if you don’t believe me, check the archives. Nice work, and please come back with more fun facts. (And, yes, you’ll be wasting your time if you point out that there’s no such thing as a “death tax.”
Ann And Tim, I have to agree with you, the “constitutional” arguement some conservatives rely on is ther crutch, perhaps similar to the far rights “christianity”plea when it comes to moral issues. Ben Franklin proposed to the Pennsylvania Legislature in 1775, that a hospital funded by taxes should be built, for all, no matter if they payed or were a citizen. The hospital still exists, today.
Ann …fuzzy math.It is taking into account the good stellar work of the republican anvil and hammer against this regime as if this is something the left would ever have done.THe libs are like the pig that when offered a finger- takes the knuckle.THis time they were thwarted.PLease explain why the president ,congress ,and senate is not selling this as these low figures you sight.It is because there are more loopholes and windows to jump through in all this than you can believe.If he sighted 9% figure he would be blown off the stage.
Rob to some of us TEa party people you would be surprise to know the constitution is not a crutch.It is a springboard to the potential of this country. Christianity likewise is not a plea or a bleet from the weak minded..It can be a good guide to many moral issues inspiring peace,charity and forgiveness.
Tim I also share your goal of no death tax or whatever you may call it.OR at most a nominal payment to a government that earned not one cent of a mans estate.
Just to be clear, not 9%, 0.9% [0 point 9] and it would ONLY apply to an estate worth $5,100,000 taxed at a 45% rate with a $3 million deduction.
I’m a number cruncher, not a politician, but i suspect they wouldn’t cite those numbers because they’re too specific to have a wide application.
The thing about the estate tax, there isn’t one fixed effective rate, [just a marginal rate] and as you can see from my examples, the larger the estate the higher the effective rate.
You wrote “loopholes,” but i suspect you meant “hoops.” Loopholes are things that let people avoid taxes. However there aren’t any hoops…every estate worth say, $10 million, is treated the same. At the moment they all would get the same exemption [$5 million] with the excess $5 million taxed at the same rate, 35%.
Your exactly right in that is why no politician would touch those figures.Find one instance where the government eviscerates a going concern personal or private by enforcing this and away we go.Take a look into a certain Miami sport franchise(family)that could not pay the death tax and lost the team.I loved that MR Stienbrenner died as he lived.A capitalist.And avoided the thieving governments hand in his pocket.
Remember Helen-there is nothing stopping liberals from paying any amount over that the government is now allowed to take.Bill Gates can raise his rates to 86% anytime he wants.And he can give 99% to the government at his death.I applaud and ask all liberals(especially rich ones)to move on this tonight.The rest of us…no not so much.Remember we do not have a fiduciary problem.WE have a spending problem.THe onus should be on the government.
Together with the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years
Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration â┚¬” tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan â┚¬” accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for almost $7 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019, including the associated debt-service costs. (The prescription drug benefit enacted in 2003 accounts for further substantial increases in deficits and debt, which we are unable to quantify due to data limitations.) These impacts easily dwarf the stimulus and financial rescues. Furthermore, unlike those temporary costs, these inherited policies (especially the tax cuts and the drug benefit) do not fade away as the economy recovers
Without the economic downturn and the fiscal policies of the previous Administration, the budget would be roughly in balance over the next decade.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036
Helen im with ya on the prescription drugs.As far as the war cost you are mile off base.Look at the cost of maintaining an army in peacetime then minus that from the war costs.Look at deaths in peactime Clinton years in the military then minus it from the same 8 years of Bush.Then look at the percentage of pentagon budget rises during the war.These are the real costs.Not zero sum costs as you state.Then off course look at the fact that Iraqi investment is fast paying down that wars cost(though not in human loss)Afghanastan is a sink hole probably,though who can gauge the cost of more attacks even worse than 911 coming from there if we had sat by.The cost of the sub prime meltdown and the stym ..bailouts…tarp,and massive gov spending are like comparing a grain of sand to the oceans.And of course the constitution gives strong directive to cost being primary in the defense of this country as guided by the president.To believe the military broke the bank is false.We had plenty with which to protect our concerns.We now have nothing.Trillions less than nothing.So you will be happy to know that in the future we will not be able to protect ourselves or anyone else for that matter.At a time when China is building nuclear subs one after another and Russia just built 1500 fallout shelters.You see our nuclear deterrent is outdated,and vulnerable.Hold on to your hat Helen.ou may see how good America WAS…in your lifetime.
And you also give a lot of weight to a balanced budget.Clinton left with a balanced budget(thanks to a R congress)and yet we were quickly slipping into recession.He spent.Bush spent.Obama spends like drunken sailors.Each worse than the one before.Till that stops the next decade will have nothing good to show our children.
China and Russia aren’t military threats to us. China’s not about to drop nukes on one of their leading trade partners. [Nevermind what it would do to the value of their dollar holdings]
The leading threat to world stability is small groups of men with chatter guns and cell phones; non-state actors. The Pentagon budget now nearly equals all other countries defense budgets combined, and that includes all of our allies.
Tarp happened while Bush was still President.
The problem isn’t spending, it’s tax receipts. We could cut almost all discretionary spending, from defense to food stamps to the National Endowment to the Arts and still be running a deficit.
For FY 2010, tax receipts were $2.381 trillion while mandatory spending totaled $2.184 trillion.
PS
Another reason budgets were brought into balance during the clinton years were the paygo rules, first passed in 1990, and reaffirmed in 1993 and 1997. The GOP let them lapse in 2002. By then, Bushonomics had turned surpluses into deficits.
Helen by some estimates the actual dept…the real dept….is many many many oodles of many trillions of times more than what we hear or even dream about.Listen to Ron Paul who may be a pain in the ass at times but is pretty clear on the economy.By accounts if we confiscated ALL the worth in this country 3x over it would not pay the interest on the interest of the dept.I feel like your saying”just a little more in taxes and we will be Ok”.It is like stopping the ocean with a wet sponge.Clintons surpluses and Bushes deficits were both grains of sand in that ocean.I feel as if you don’t see the magnitude.You act as if with adjustment we could fly this plane again.Its like we both look at the dept and i say to you that Barrock has not bought as many suits this year so we will be ok.It is damn near time to break into scary cackling laughter that goes on and on growing louder.
As far as China….there is a reason for them building endless nuclear attack subs…. beyond your military guarantees of them needing us.China has decided we are fiscally insane and is learning how to deal in a post us world.Russia……her leaders changed suits.To believe they are no threat is mindless
Michael (anonymous ) E sends 8 messages … all spewing Chicago School of Economics shock & awe which did not work in Chile,Nicaragua and Iraq… in fact there is no where the Hayek anti-government drivvle ever worked except in the agricultural country that Hayek was writing about when 90% of the workers were working on the farms.
This tripe, which is followed by the Republican party (when convenient) and endorsed by the voters this year is driven by slaveholder Thomas Jefferson’s idea that government is best which is the least and the hope that the rich will not have to pay taxes.
They also endorse the idea that $l80 Billion for the rich against $60 billion for the unemployed
is a fair compromise when in fact it is the rich holding the poor hostage. i.e.:
if you don’t give me $180 Billion to add to my pile I won’t pay your unemployed and they can starve even ‘tho they are unemployed because Wall St wrote $600 Trillion worth of gambling paper
Welcome to the right wing oligopoly where the Bill of Rights will soon be reduced to the right to be greedy
@Jim Green…yeah, it’s a mix of Chicago school, a glib understanding of Austrian school, Randian nonsense and FauxNews bs.