Tax loopholes. The rich use tax loopholes to avoid paying their fair share and leave the middle class to pick up the tab. Around 66% of the wealth earned by a person making over a million dollars a year is made in the stock market. Conversely those making under $100,000 a year only make 2% of their earnings through the stock market. Why would the rich invest so heavily in the stock market? Capital gains tax.
The rich will pay a tax rate of 15% on this 66% of their earnings instead of the 35% that they should pay. Another bothersome loophole exists for hedge fund managers. Never the bastions of fairness these greedy a-holes asked for and received a tax loophole that allows them to take a portion of their earnings and turn it into capital gains. That is an instant savings of $20,000 for every $100,000 in earnings that they chose to convert. Not only does this only benefit the really rich but it only benefits the really rich in one very specific and powerful industry. This is the exact opposite of free market.
President Obama supports a repeal of this specific tax loophole but Republicans and some Democrats wouldn't hear of it. These people are not fighting for you. They are fighting for the rich who will in turn drop loads of money back into campaign spending to keep their lap dogs in power. To add injury to insult they have convinced the very people who get screwed by this scheme that it is of paramount importance to a robust economy. This support is why the middle class has made almost zero gains in the last thirty years and the rich keep getting richer.
I have all the trappings of being a good Republican.
ReplyDelete1) I'm well to do 22 years USAF and wise value based investing. I used over 85% of my base pay in bull market of the late 80s and early 90s
Once you start making money with money it grows really quickly
2) I'm probably a bigger advocate of the 2nd amendment. Than most self proclaimed conservatives. I most likely also go armed more often than they do.
The biggest difference between the average teabagger an myself is pretty simple...
I actually know what "The investment class" actually do with their money.
I also know that keeping or allowing the Bush Tax cuts to expire will have little impact on me.
I'll still be well to do even if my effective tax rate would increase. The actual impact would be fairly small in real world terms.
Trust me if the current set of tax dodges and loopholes get closed. The people in "The investment class" will find or create new ones.
SC Rose,
ReplyDeleteAs a small business owner who is well invested in the stock market and owns a second house I too have often been asked why I am a Democrat.
The 2nd admendment is neither here nor there for me. I see value to onwership as well as certain restrictions.
As far as the tax loop holes are concerned I'm sure the rich will find ways to hide their money but taking the capital gains tax rates back to the Clinton era rates would level the playing field some while getting extra revenue for the government and should have little to no affect on activity in the stock market. What I really would like to see is more passion out of the middle class and force congress to close as many loopholes as possible. If we can prove that this is something we won't stand for elected officials would be hard pressed to ignore our demands.
The reason I mentioned my 2nd amendment stand is most people consider it a wedge issue that is firmly in the hands of the right wing.
ReplyDeleteExpanding on my actual stand I'm in favor or both concealed carry and mandatory safety classes.
Both purely selfish if the truth be told concealed carry is simple.
I think it's basically obnoxious and pretty pointless to brandish a weapon in this day and age...
Mandatory fire arms safety classes are equally as simple.
I don't want to be shot by a jack ass who owns a gun and doesn't know how to handle it without being a danger to themselves or others...
I made most of my money under the tax code of Bush 41 and Clinton.
ReplyDeleteBoth of those men did a great deal to restored fiscal responsibility.
Matter of fact they're pretty much the policies from the Eisenhower-JFK-LBJ-Ninox mold.
Using the semi voodoo economics of the Laffer curve.
Ascertaining the point we're actually on the curve is difficult at best.
The biggest problem is the real world evidence points that we're on the left side of optimal.
The Reagan tax cuts were far to deep and resulted in lost revenues
Matter of fact no less than five legislative tax increases were used to attempt to correct the tax rates to more optimal levels.
The tax rates of Bush 41 and Clinton seem to have a landed fairly close to the sweet spot in the Laffer curve.
The problem is the tax hawks and free market zealots.
Always say no matter how low the current tax rates are.
We must be to the right of the point of equilibrium thus taxes need to be lowered.
I'm partly playing devils advocate on this