Renewing the "Bush tax cuts"

[Bees Knees]

No one earned anything.

If each one is on the cash method of accounting, each one earned $100 that night.

[JohnH]

But only Clarise owes tax, because she can't offset the gross income with Cost of Goods Sold or Depreciation Expense.

[newbie]

I think Congress, both houses AND both parties, need to consider cutting expenses and entitlements versus raising taxes.

We can't keep spending and spending and spending and expecting those classified as "rich" to continue paying for this uncontrolled spending.

My income is limited to what my business makes. I budget my income for needs (food, home, insurance, medical, retirement, etc.

Congress spends and spends and liberals and those receiving the entitlements want to raise taxes.

This has got to stop.

I wish I could make up my budget, with lots of fun stuff in it, and then charge AND get what it takes to cover that. But in a real world that won't happen due to competition.

Yes, it's a spending problem, not a revenue problem, before November 2nd it was "cut the earmarks", and after it's cut the earmarks UNLESS it's for the best interest of your State, as Rand Paul said, or based on merit not muscle, as Eric Cantor said. Cut the entitlements but give out more corporate welfare and let it trickle down. So congress will continue to spend and spend, what's going to change?

I think it has to stop, but BOTH sides are guilty, it's not just the liberals! Both sides need to work together and cut the spending. Sick and tired of this us against them mentality. JMO

[David1980]

Increase Jobs? We are talking personal income tax rates. What guarantee TP’s earning over $250K+ of TI will create jobs with more disposable income opposed to adding to their yachts and/or classic cars and/or vacation homes etc. What, the honor system, give me a break.

I've never liked the argument that lower tax rates on investment income create jobs myself either. In your example, the guy that either puts his money into business and creates jobs or buys luxuries like yachts and/or classic cars and/or vacation homes etc.

Obviously if he puts money into business that business can expand, creating jobs. But why wouldn't jobs be created if he buys a yacht? Someone made that yacht. Yes, the yacht may be imported from a foreign country. That would move US currency from within the US to whatever country the yacht was built in. Someone there now has US currency, which is useful if you wanted to say, buy US goods. This can happen directly, or indirectly through money exchanges. You increase US currency abroad either people use it to buy our stuff and it comes back, or they don't and the value of the dollar falls and our goods become more affordable and they buy from us.

Personally, I'd like to do away with special lower tax rates for investment income. I'm pretty sure I'm a minority.

[veritas]

remember Microsoft?

I've never liked the argument that lower tax rates on investment income create jobs myself either. In your example, the guy that either puts his money into business and creates jobs or buys luxuries like yachts and/or classic cars and/or vacation homes etc.

Obviously if he puts money into business that business can expand, creating jobs. But why wouldn't jobs be created if he buys a yacht? Someone made that yacht. Yes, the yacht may be imported from a foreign country. That would move US currency from within the US to whatever country the yacht was built in. Someone there now has US currency, which is useful if you wanted to say, buy US goods. This can happen directly, or indirectly through money exchanges. You increase US currency abroad either people use it to buy our stuff and it comes back, or they don't and the value of the dollar falls and our goods become more affordable and they buy from us.

Personally, I'd like to do away with special lower tax rates for investment income. I'm pretty sure I'm a minority.

Never paid any dividends until the tax rate was dropped on dividend income?

15% of something is better than 28% of nothing

[JohnH]

I prefer that a company not pay dividends if it's strong, solid, & growing. Increasing share value is the same as cash being paid out of the company, plus you control when you pay tax on the distributions by selling shares when you need cash rather than being forced to pay tax on dividend payments you can't control.

Not as much of an issue while we have favorable tax treatment of dividends, but if dividends revert to being taxed as ordinary income while LTCG's receive favorable tax treatment, that's important. (At least that's how Warren Buffet thinks, and I do like the way the man's mind works)

[David1980]

Not as much of an issue while we have favorable tax treatment of dividends, but if dividends revert to being taxed as ordinary income while LTCG's receive favorable tax treatment, that's important. (At least that's how Warren Buffet thinks, and I do like the way the man's mind works)

I didn't think Warren Buffet was in favor of LTCG's receiving favorable tax treatment either. A quote from his interview with Tom Brokaw:

"Most of my income is taxed at 15 percent, and-- and doesn't pay a payroll. Mainly it’s dividends and capital gains. And if you look at the For-- Forbes 400, a bunch of my fellow rich guys-- they will-- their tax rate overall to the federal government will be less than that of their receptionist. And I challenge anybody. If they want to make me a bet on that, and I've urged Congress, both the Senate and the House, to get the figures anonymously from the IRS. Just look at that Forbes 400. Takes a billion three to get on the Forbes 400 this year. And the aggregate wealth is just staggering. And those people are paying less percentage of their total income to the federal government than their receptionists are."

[veritas]

Warren has a point

I didn't think Warren Buffet was in favor of LTCG's receiving favorable tax treatment either. A quote from his interview with Tom Brokaw:

"Most of my income is taxed at 15 percent, and-- and doesn't pay a payroll. Mainly it’s dividends and capital gains. And if you look at the For-- Forbes 400, a bunch of my fellow rich guys-- they will-- their tax rate overall to the federal government will be less than that of their receptionist. And I challenge anybody. If they want to make me a bet on that, and I've urged Congress, both the Senate and the House, to get the figures anonymously from the IRS. Just look at that Forbes 400. Takes a billion three to get on the Forbes 400 this year. And the aggregate wealth is just staggering. And those people are paying less percentage of their total income to the federal government than their receptionists are."

The receptionists are paying too much.

[JohnH]

Warren is always free to pay more tax if he really means to say he should be paying more. Same for anyone else in his shoes. All he has to do is follow the 1040 instructions on how this is done any time he cares to actually practice what he preaches concerning the fairness of the tax system.

But laying aside my disagreement with him on this particular issue, his investing record & philosophy is unassailable - the facts speak for themselves. And as a practical matter, he runs BH in exactly the manner I describe - no dividend in 40 years. And the actual result of this method of investment management is to convert all income to LTCG's, which was my original point.

[RitaB]

In a nutshell

The receptionists are paying too much.

Bingo.

And I just discovered that responses must be at least 10 characters.

[Davc]

Bingo.

And I just discovered that responses must be at least 10 characters.

But they can all be periods.

[RitaB]

Hmm

Oh........