Capital Gains Rate now 23.8%

>> CC: in a democracy

CC, i guess you have to be reminded that the USA is NOT a democracy. Perhaps you will understand the flaws in your ensuing logic. I will explain it if you like.

>> nevertheless it is the only vehicle we have to solve the types
>> of problems that transcend the individual and even large businesses.

you see there CC... you plainly do not respect for our Federal system or our Constitution. i agree with you wholeheartedly that there are big problems that need to be addressed. but with respect to the USA being a federated system of government restricted by the rule of law there is a *proper* place for things to be done. now, if you want to change the system to expand the role of the federal government then ok...pass an amendment. but nooooo, why do that when you can just *ignore* it altogether.

so...now you're saying with a straight face that the us is not a democracy? and, what is the so-called proper place for things to be done?

by the way, you still haven't explained either your position or the general republican position on pre-existing conditions. let me repeat: is it desirable for our society to eliminate the ability for insurance companies to deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions?

>> no...how can you define what is routinely available in all major countries of the world as utopian?

oh sorry CC, i dont. and fine...i'll back off of Utopia. but the promises made to justify the spending is unrealistic i think. maybe i'm off but 2500 lower annual premiums on average, improved care, no exclusions, no caps, great care? also it's dishonest to shove 10 years of taxes for 6 years of benefits. but as much as i disagree on the fiscal merits it's the Constitutional issues are my primary focus.

>> and, note i did not discuss everyone getting quality care; ... grounds to deny insurance coverage.
fair enough, fair enough.

>> i also questioned the honesty of republicans who have suggested
>> numerous times that there is some way to handle this issue
>> without mandating coverage for all.

you're entitled :)

Sorry to disappoint you but this conversation has already strayed about as far as real estate as possible and I don't have the time to follow your ducking and weaving -- "Healthcare is unconstitutional... Well, it should be unconstitutional... Um, it is unconstitutional in my world view." Its turning into a bad Get Smart episode.

By the way, I buy my insurance from a company headquartered and based in Minnesota. Some times I use it to buy medicine when I travel to California. I don't know how else you would define interstate commerce.

660- you are missing a key point about the people you are arguing with. They have had little to no exposure to conservative/libertarian thinking. Their schools did not teach it, their newspapers do not cover or explain it. For certain their professors gave it no respect if they even bothered to try and teach it. Their entertainers will not include a respect for the difference of opinion in their works.

There is simply little to no exposure in their environment to what you believe. ON the other hand conservatives and libertarians understand the liberal point of view, and can explain it, much better. They are exposed to it. Especially if you live in NYC it permeates the air you breathe, the media you are exposed to and almost every conversation you will have with a friend, neighbor or workmate. So you can speak until you are blue in the face but they will still think that your views are different because you are not as smart, enlightened, or as exposed to the "Truth" as they are.

That they don't understand the difference is exposed in the very way they will denigrate a conflicting opinion, or throw it away. They can't really argue with it in a way we would consider substantive because they don't understand from where our beliefs come. They simply have no exposure to it.

>> you're saying with a straight face that the us is not a democracy

it's not CC...and i don't want to necessarily get bogged down in semantics or put words in your mouth either. but the USA is not a formal democracy. i guess "Constitutional Republic" would be something i could get behind :)

if i can expand....

* we have no national referendum that a pure democracy would have
* we do not employ across the board majority rule.
* we have protections for the minority, the rule of law, federation, separation of powers, things like that that depart from a classic democracy.
* we do not directly elect our president as you know. we have electors that do this for us.
* we do not practice direct legislation; we elect representatives that do this for us at the federal level (and states too..but there are some more democratic elements for sure)

ah...so now its about a formal democracy.

just humor me and answer the question i have now asked 8 times. thanks.

p.s. perhaps it is you that is living in a utopian fantasy?

> What a bunch of poor loser Republicans.

I'm not sure who putzface is talking to, but I think he's just projecting.
The guy is broke. I feel a little sorry for him.

> You guys had your chance for the last 8 years and you fucked it up royally

Putzface still doesn't know that the democrats have owned congress since 2006. I guess the guy can't afford cable.

> now you are trying to push the blame on others and it wont work.

Ironically, exactly what putzface has been doing for months. Democrats have both houses and the presidency, have been tripping on their own feet daily, and all he talks about is Republicans.

Sad.

> Tools who caused the 3 greatest financial collapses in this country's history think they are the
> only ones who know how to run an economy..

Yeah, amazing that they still let Barney Frank do anything when he screwed it up so badly. Even more amazing that Perfitz never learned that Clinton repealed Glass Steagall either...

> "Jobs creation has come from non-union states and industries."

> More BS. One of the few industires creating jobs right now is HEALTH CARE. And health care is
> heavily unuionized. You have tons of SEIU nurses and home health aides out there.

Jeez, alpo, don't open your mouth when you don't know anything.

You're talking about jobs created by GOVERNMENT. If you think thats the way to build an economy, you are as dumb as you look.

Sorry toots, but thats not sustainable. If the only job creation comes from taxing and spending, it means we're SCREWED.

"I grew up in a union household and my parents are no big fans of unions... You have no first hand information about unions and are groslly unqualified to speak about them. "

Alpo, you are simply a liar.

Not to mention, you don't have firsthand information about unions.

You just described SECONDHAND information.

Sorry, toots.

Wrong again.

"It's interesting that while regularly attacking unions, somewherelese has not named a single union. Why? Because he can't. He supposively knows so much about unions, but can't name a single one without Google."

Alpo, I guess you can't read either.

Another lie.... anybody who knows how to use a search box (obvious not you) can find my specifics posts on specific unions.

Again, dude, you should not talk about things you know nothing about.

"So you think that money invested in the stock market (the single largest capital market, no?) goes to pay salaries? And you think *I* don't know how things work? And even if you are directly investing in a company, you better hope it's the company's INCOME STREAM which is paying those things,"

Yes, I think we've proven you don't know how these things work.

If you think salaries are paid out of income.... you need an accounting class.

And if you think money raised doesn't go toward salaries (among other things), I just have to say... WOW.

"And speaking of economics courses, so you are saying the less capital there is available, interest rates go DOWN? I think you have it backwards, as capital dries up and there is less of it to go around, it GETS MORE EXPENSIVE NOT LESS EXPENSIVE."

Wow, you have it backward again.

You are confusing cause and effect. We're not talking about market changes, we're talking about rationale for the government to manually move artificial rates.

That you think there is too much capital out there is still quite funny.

> http://www.mybanktracker.com/bank-news/2010/03/24/commercial-real-estate-market-to-bottom-out-in-2010/

Dude, you need to READ the links you post.

Point #2 is the LIMITS on CREDIT are a barrier to recovery.

Seriously, dude, you're proving yourself wrong...

>> the general republican position on pre-existing conditions.
no position. i'm told they are for common sense reforms that lower cost, tort reform, and reduction of government control and regulation. can't tell if pre-existing conditions are in there or not.

this is key: don't make the mistake and think that if I reject Obamacare that I would substitute it for some Republican scheme or any other top-down approach. and don't make the mistake and think that because i don't want a top-down solution that i don't the issues addressed.

our differences in view, i think, are that you want federal top-down control, coercion, and force to get your result. i do not. i hope states do whatever works for them as that is legitimate from a constitutional perspective and would tend to produce the best results through trial and error. by its nature top-down command and control cannot benefit from the diversity of approaches i'm talking about.

places like MA, TN, and HI have more government involvement in this arena than say...utah, or montana, or nevada. and that's fine. if you want to live somewhere where government takes care of you then move there...it's a free country. if you don't want government involved in those choices then you are *free* to move somewhere else.

but you see how your position rejects freedom CC and mine preserves it? you happily trade your freedom for security and that's fine. but don't YOU try to trade MY freedom for MY security. that is force. see my point?

>> is it desirable for our society to eliminate the ability for
>> insurance companies to deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions?

not necessarily; an insurance company is a just a private entity selling instruments that address the risks to one's health or life. it's their choice who they cover and dont. if i drive like a madman i also cannot get car insurance under 5,000/year because i have a much different risk profile than someone else.

this reform package is not about care or health...this is about increased dependency on govt and control. it's about forcing everyone to have the same level of care as everybody else (except the president, congress, and senior staff). notice how individuals are mandated to purchase insurance...and you have to have govt approved insurance. oh...and if you have too much insurance we're going to punish you for having a better package then the guy down the street.

malthus, jeez. i gotta grab a drink. but understand the purpose of the commerce clause is to *restrict* the States from impeding commerce with all manner of bizarre discriminatory local taxes an/or regulation. it's there to *promote*...understand???? PROMOTE orderly commerce occurring over state lines. it's not there as an avenue for the government to control and/or torment the population and private entities as you assert.

insurance, health care, and reimbursement occurs almost entirely within state lines though the activity of consumers, their physicians, and whatever corporate entities provide those reimbursements in your local state.

putting that aside, lets say the federal government was empowered to regulate ALL commerce. and lets say that I chose to NOT purchase insurance. NO REGULATION IS POSSIBLE IF NO COMMERCE OCCURRED. Forcing citizens to purchase insurance products is not regulation of commerce...it's FORCE. it's illegitimate. it's not that hard to understand

>> p.s. perhaps it is you that is living in a utopian fantasy?

na, the Peoples Republic of Brooklyn. good talking to everyone...till next time

Yes, Republicans are strongly in favor of tort reform. They don't like lawsuits of any kind...except when they want to sue the federal government over HC or when they want to establish a special prosecutor to investigate whether or not the POTUS got a bj in the oval office.

Gotta love that ability to focus on the big picture....

"And if you think money raised doesn't go toward salaries (among other things), I just have to say... WOW"

I'm done with this idiocy because after the stock leaves the Corp's hands, not one single penny of the money on any stock trade goes to the Corp, it goes from one shareholder to a new shareholder. So if you are arguing IPO's, perhaps. But arguing that all stock trades are from corporately held or newly issued shares is so totally absurd that I can only think you're being a troll on purpose, so I'm done arguing with a moron.

but 660: all your happy talk comes down to one thing--tough shit on everyone else. luckily, many, many people in this country don't feel that way. so you're upset because this new form of protection is gonna get shoved down your throat; wonder how you'll feel if you ever need it.

"it goes from one shareholder to a new shareholder"

sorry, it goes from the purchasing shareholder to the selling shareholder.

That is interesting 660. My copy of the Constitution doesn't use the word "promote" in connection with the commerce clause. It says "regulate". I know how that word must stick in the craw of freedom loving libertarians everywhere but there it is, right there in our constitution! Article I, Section 8. The document you love so much that you haven't bothered to look at it.

Then there is this other thing that says that Congress has the right to make all laws which shall be "necessary and proper" to accomplish such regulating, among other things.

The Constitution is pretty cool. You should check it out. Its online now.

malthus, the next thing you're going to tell us is that this "Constitution" that you speak of says that everyone in America has the right to have an AK-47 because of some "ammendment" that was written a couple of hundred years ago. Sure...I will go look for this "Constitution". If it's on-line it must be true.

"Jeez, alpo, don't open your mouth when you don't know anything.

You're talking about jobs created by GOVERNMENT. If you think thats the way to build an economy, you are as dumb as you look."

Really, all healthc are jobs are govt. jobs? You mean all those peopel at Mount Sinai, NY Presberterian, and Continuum are govt. employees? You are a typical dumb teabagger.

Did Alpo "the market is NOT down 20% SHOW ME JUST ONE EXAMPLE" Moron just try and call someone else dumb?

I love it.

Not to mention, you are lying again. I didn't say they were government jobs... I said they were jobs created by government spending (and the government even admits it).

They're not sustainable.... and you are a moron for not getting that.

> I'm done with this idiocy

apparently not.... because you followed that with yet another post....

> because after the stock leaves the Corp's hands, not one single penny of the money on any stock
> trade goes to the Corp, it goes from one shareholder to a new shareholder.

And without that, the company would not likely have been able to raise the money in the first place. Its called liquidity, and its part of why people are willing to invest. The ability to generate a return, is the other, which is hurt by higher taxes, WHICH IS THE POINTS

I can't believe that someone (supposedly) educated in this country thinks that higher capital gains taxes are good for (non-government) job creation.

Well, someone besides alpo the king of morons.

> But arguing that all stock trades are from corporately held or newly issued shares is so totally
> absurd that I can only think you're being a troll on purpose

I agree, so its a good thing I didn't say that, and its only you making up BS strawman arguments because you are pissed you are wrong.

> so I'm done arguing with a moron.

Thanks for the confirmation that you get you were wrong here.

"They're not sustainable.... and you are a moron for not getting that."

So doctors and nurses are not sustainable jobs? You mean there are no baby boomers with increasing medical needs?

And I am done with thsi thread and arguing with the BS spewed by somewherelese. In another thread, someone has a neighvor who smokes pot everyday. I think we know who that neighbor is now.

"So doctors and nurses are not sustainable jobs? You mean there are no baby boomers with increasing medical needs?"

Jesus, you idiot, we're talking about jobs where the funding comes only from the government. If there aren't other jobs out there to support it, the government has no money to cover the jobs anymore.

If government creating jobs really worked long term, why not create a billion jobs.

Oh, cause it DOESN'T work.

> And I am done with thsi thread

All evidence to the contrary... you posted two more times!

"and arguing with the BS spewed by somewherelese" = alpo loses another argument.

Alpo, has there been a topic you weren't a moron on yet?
"The market is NOT down 20%"

I still love that one.

hi malthus, that's fine. i yield nothing to you. nothing you've asserted grants legitimacy to Congress compelling a citizen to enter into a private contract with another private entity. to assert that the current action by Congress and this President is somehow "regulating commerce between states" or is "necessary and proper" to implement anything in section 8 is fraudulent.

i understand very well what i'm talking about and i think you know very well that i do. i simply recognize the clear limits to federal power while you do not. i've expressed where those limits are and you ignore and reject them as it stands in the way of the results that you want to achieve. but please do tell where you think the lines are drawn if you *do* acknowledge some limits. and be honest as anything you tell me i'll use it to counter it where i find it elsewhere :)

hopefully the Court has some integrity and sees it my way. should be interesting, no?

and politics aside, i really do hope that you start to respect your own liberty as well as the liberty of others. have a good night and be safe

respect your own liberty?

be safe?

you are full of shit.

Hey el presidente, Obama and the boys will soon just take the wealth of the "rich". The income tax is so outdated.

660, I don't agree with you ideologically, but thank you for your contributions to this thread. They're informative, straightforward and even-tempered, without the sarcasm or sad attempts at wit (from both sides) that turn a lot of these posts into so much chaff for me. I look forward to reading more from you, and hopefully an appropriate counterpart from the other side.

30 yrs - while you are right that publicly traded stock involves no money implicitly going to the corporation, having a liquid market in that stock is fundamental to the ability of a corporation to raise money by issuing stock in the first place. Not having an "exit strategy", a way to get your invested money back, is the single largest obstacle to raising capital. Publicly traded shares solve this problem by providing a liquid market in which an investor can then sell his shares.

So if you want to argue that profits made from trading public shares is not the same as initially invested capital, that is fine. I would say there is even a greater argument that there should be NO taxes on dividends (or no taxes on corporations) since the income of the corporation has already been taxed. (If any readers do not understand that dividends are taxed twice, please say so and I will be happy to explain).

I guess one can say that dividends, IPO's, company sales and profits from stock trading are all different classes of profits that today are lumped as capital gains. But one thing is true, all of it was money that stemmed from income which had been taxed once already.

somewhere else:

beck/rush/hannity talking points delivered thorugh hissy-bitch blogstyle

peppered with a load of sh!t about his educational pedegree

ick

woops through...pedigree before we get all hissy about my spelling!!!

ubottom, amen.

AvUWS:

It is simply false to say that dividends are taxed twice. In an income tax system, each taxable individual's income is taxed. If I hire you to clean my house, I pay income tax on my income and you pay income tax "again" on my income when it becomes your income. That's not double taxation; it's just INCOME taxation.

Corporations are separate from their shareholders. That's why shareholders are free to walk away if the corporation breaches its contracts, commits torts, violates the law, or causes environmental damage. That's also why the corporation has no obligation to pay dividends to its shareholders. That's why shareholders have no right to corporate assets or to make corporate decisions. And that's why shareholders don't have to file tax returns or pay taxes on corporate income.

For this reason, the income tax system has always regarded corporations as taxable entities. Corporations pay tax on their income (except when they are able to lobby for unfair exemptions giving them special privileges). Shareholders pay tax on their income (at reduced rates, because the Congress accepted claims that increased trading on the stock market generates jobs despite the complete absence of any evidence). This is not double taxation. On the contrary, the reduced income tax rate for unearned income is a tax subsidy given to investors in the hope that it will induce them to invest more.

"somewhere else:
beck/rush/hannity talking points delivered thorugh hissy-bitch blogstyle
peppered with a load of sh!t about his educational pedegree
ick"

Funny, ubottom, you, what two weeks ago said you were "over it" and I "wasn't worth your time", and here you are, another bjw, completely obsessed with me. Pretty pathetic.

somewhere else:
beck/rush/hannity talking points delivered thorugh hissy-bitch blogstyle
peppered with a load of sh!t about his educational pedigree
ick

kinda captures your sh1t pretty well, no?

thank god we have no live dealings with you

somewherelse, paranoia can't be fun.

Where did I mention my educational pedigree in this thread?
Note that alpo actually tried to drop his pedigree, and I challenged it (and his grammar) without mentioning my own.

But, hey, what's a little lie from a stalker like you?

I think the 2 of those guys are pretty fing stupid. But, hey, it wouldn't be the first time a whiny liberal tried to bucket anyone who calls them on their crap as a right wing republican.

Its pretty funny, though. When folks like you and perfitz just don't understand the dialogue, they assume the "propaganda for dummies" stance. Nice job!

> thank god we have no live dealings with you

Yes, I get that you would have trouble dealing with the real world. Lucky for you that you don't have to face it!

somewhereelse:
top "producer" of douchy drivel on this board
hands down

Dona't argue with somewherelese guys. The #1 rule of forums: Don't feed the troll. Cut off his food and he wil eventually leave. ALL trolls leave when you ignore them enough.

Alpo would know, given he's a troll....

"somewhereelse:
top "producer" of douchy drivel on this board
hands down"

Very meaningful coming from someone who doesn't add a thing, just follows folks around and goes for personal insults.

Wish we could all be like bottom boy!

somewhereelse

it's really scary the extent to which you drivel so douchily and so endlessly

do you ever read your own shit?

get meds

maybe when i check back in a few weeks med blood levels will be sufficient to have quieted your garbage

that's me in your mirror

Financeguy - "It is simply false to say that dividends are taxed twice. In an income tax system, each taxable individual's income is taxed. If I hire you to clean my house, I pay income tax on my income and you pay income tax "again" on my income when it becomes your income. That's not double taxation; it's just INCOME taxation. "

There is a number of issues with what you say. First, the amount of income declared by those who you pay cash to do household work for you amounts to a tiny percent of the amounts actually paid in the economy. This is why even so many politicians and other figures get caught in this particular embarrasing situation. To say that that is the law flies in the face of the fact that close to no one does it, including politicians and bureaucrats who are likely to have their financials examined.

If you want to argue that all financial transactions should have their profit taxed then you are arguing for a VAT. While a lot of people would love that (what better than to hide the taxation from those being implicitly taxed) there is no question that it will have a deleterious effect on business dynamism. If you don't know this then it is possible you don't have the same exposure to business that I have.

If you want to merely argue how things OUGHT to work I would challenge you to tell me how much you spend on your housecleaning/nannying/massages/dog walking/etc, to who, and what all the relevant social security #'s are so we could make sure that the proper taxes are being paid. And if you do, more power to you, but you are in the tiny minority.

i think you've missed the point. this is not about whether or not people withhold and pay payroll taxes for domestic help.

> somewhereelse
> it's really scary the extent to which you drivel so douchily and so endlessly

The ironic part is, however much "drivel" it is, nothing is more pathetic than the person who follows it around. How sad must your life be to be SO concerned with it.... to keep posting your nonsense over and over, and then lying about it too.

Thats pretty pathetic.

> do you ever read your own shit?
Apparently its all you do.

> get meds
pot, kettle...

> maybe when i check back in a few weeks med blood levels will be sufficient to have quieted your
garbage

Few weeks? Dude, you can't go minutes without reading whatever i post and responding.

> that's me in your mirror

Yes, as I said, stalker.

Its quite an obsession you have.

Financeguy - "It is simply false to say that dividends are taxed twice. In an income tax system, each taxable individual's income is taxed. If I hire you to clean my house, I pay income tax on my income and you pay income tax "again" on my income when it becomes your income. That's not double taxation; it's just INCOME taxation. "

This is REALLY bad logic.

Its the SAME income taxed twice (so, in your example, it would be taxes THREE times in total). If I used my salary and pay someone else for something, yes tax their income. But in this case MY income is taxed twice (and then their income is still taxes). Thats 3x. But I am taxed twice. Its still ONE MORE layer of taxes.

A sole proprietor will be taxed on his income. If he creates a C-corp and does the same exact work... and end of year has profit over the salary he paid himself, he pays that out in dividend.

Scenario 1, he pays his income tax. Scenario 2, corp pays its tax... and then the dividend is taxed.

Thats double on the SAME INCOME STREAM as if it were a sole proprietor.

You introducing the third person getting paid for a DIFFERENT SERVICE is a red herring, and leads to poor logic.
If

Baier said "thank you for your contributions"

thanks Baier; i try :) not many of my friends or family agree with me on these issues so i'm used to being in the minority...which is fine. and i also learn a lot from some of the more progressive liberal posters here...albeit but not that much or often :). they'll keep trying and that is also good.