Ron Paul in 2012

[Shady]

So interest rates are not historically low right now because last year they were lower?

Yes, you could leave the modern era entirely and look at tax rates in the stone age too. But that might not be a logical or fair comparison.

But you shouldn't call people liars when you've been proven a fool. It's unbecoming and against forum rules.

31 > 28.

[punked]

Huh?

Only a small percentage of high earners rely on just investment income. Why btw, is already income that's been taxed at the income tax rate. Most high earners earn an income salary, just like everybody else.

No it really hasn't been taxed Shady.

Yes it is a small percentage in terms of numbers however a very large percentage in terms of wealth. The top 0.1% of the US (those who make over 2 million a year) make more then half of all the capital gains in the US. This is because they aren't paid the way most of us are so when you say they already paid income tax you are lying. BTW this 0.1% which pays taxes on their capital gains instead (which is taxes at 15% not 35% like income) of income also own around 25% of all the money in the US. So 25% of the Wealth in the US is taxed at a 15% rate Shady instead of 30.

[Shady]

No it really hasn't been taxed Shady.

Yes it is a small percentage in terms of numbers however a very large percentage in terms of wealth. The top 0.1% of the US (those who make over 2 million a year) make more then half of all the capital gains in the US. This is because they aren't paid the way most of us are so when you say they already paid income tax you are lying. BTW this 0.1% which pays taxes on their capital gains instead (which is taxes at 15% not 35% like income) of income also own around 25% of all the money in the US. So 25% of the Wealth in the US is taxed at a 15% rate Shady instead of 30.

But people making over $2 million dollars isn't the top bracket. It's people making $150,000 or more.

Anyways, like I've aleady said. Historically, income tax rates are not the lowest at the present time. It's fact, and it's math. I'm not sure why or how you people can argue math. But good luck.

[LonJowett]

31 > 28.

I didn't say the "lowest ever in historically". Just so you know, "historically low" would mean that, on average, comparing rates through history, they are low---it doesn't mean they are "the lowest". Economists use the same terminology for interest rates, etc.

Glad to help you out so you don't make such a foolish mistake again.

[Shady]

I didn't say the "lowest ever in historically". Just so you know, "historically low" would mean that, on average, comparing rates through history, they are low---it doesn't mean they are "the lowest". Economists use the same terminology for interest rates, etc.

Glad to help you out so you don't make such a foolish mistake again.

No, historically low doesn't mean on average. Where did you get that from?

[punked]

But people making over $2 million dollars isn't the top bracket. It's people making $150,000 or more.

Anyways, like I've aleady said. Historically, income tax rates are not the lowest at the present time. It's fact, and it's math. I'm not sure why or how you people can argue math. But good luck.

5

Nope people who make over two million Shady are in the Top 0.1% of the population, they have 25% of the US Wealth and almost exclusively earn their income through capital gains so they don't pay an income tax of 30% but a capital gains tax of 15%.

Like I said the top earners like Buffet and Romney are paying less today on their incomes in capital gains then they every have. They don't pay an income tax Shady. That is what this fight should be about. If you earn in the top 0.1% you pay less then under Ragean.

[msj]

5

Nope people who make over two million Shady are in the Top 0.1% of the population, they have 25% of the US Wealth and almost exclusively earn their income through capital gains so they don't pay an income tax of 30% but a capital gains tax of 15%.

Like I said the top earners like Buffet and Romney are paying less today on their incomes in capital gains then they every have. They don't pay an income tax Shady. That is what this fight should be about. If you earn in the top 0.1% you pay less then under Ragean.

Yes, the rise of the hedge fund managers.

They charge a management fee (low) and then structure their fees as X% of the funds profits.

Under the US tax code this structure becomes a capital gain rather than a management fee (which it really is) and taxed at 15% (hence Buffett's claim about the "rich" paying lower tax rates than his secretary).

It's an asinine system and some people just don't understand that Americans don't "hate the rich" but, rather, hate how certain people have made it.

Edited December 23, 2011 by msj

[cybercoma]

31 > 28.

No one said the current interest rate is the lowest it has ever been. They said the rates are historically low. When you look at the interest rates over history, this is undoubtedly a low period. Stop being pedantic.

[cybercoma]

No it really hasn't been taxed Shady.

Yes it is a small percentage in terms of numbers however a very large percentage in terms of wealth. The top 0.1% of the US (those who make over 2 million a year) make more then half of all the capital gains in the US. This is because they aren't paid the way most of us are so when you say they already paid income tax you are lying. BTW this 0.1% which pays taxes on their capital gains instead (which is taxes at 15% not 35% like income) of income also own around 25% of all the money in the US. So 25% of the Wealth in the US is taxed at a 15% rate Shady instead of 30.

Even if someone did pay income tax on their money, interest is additional income, hence capital gains tax.

[Shady]

No one said the current interest rate is the lowest it has ever been. They said the rates are historically low. When you look at the interest rates over history, this is undoubtedly a low period. Stop being pedantic.

I didn't know anyone was talking about interest rates anyways.

[punked]

Here is a whole write up on this issue and yes the people at the top pay less taxes on their income then they did under Reagan anyone who tells you different is either lying to you willfully or is to ignorant to do the research.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/09/millionaire_tax_rates.html

[Shady]

Here is a whole write up on this issue and yes the people at the top pay less taxes on their income then they did under Reagan anyone who tells you different is either lying to you willfully or is to ignorant to do the research.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/09/millionaire_tax_rates.html

Sorry punked, but you're the one that's lying. In terms of income tax, that just isn't the case. You're conflating income taxes with captial gains taxes. Probably on purpose. The vast majority of even the 1% pay incomes taxes because that's what their income is. You're pretending that hedge funds make up the majority of earners in the top bracket. That's just not true. Liar, liar, pants on fire.

As the math proves, income tax rates are higher now than they were in the late 80s and early 90s. Also, state income tax rates are a lot higher too. So anyone saying that people in the top bracket pay less in income taxes now than in the past is a complete and utter liar.

Take for instance someone living in Connecticut. in 1990 they would have paid 28% federal income taxes and zero state income taxes. Today that same individual, in the top bracket, pays 35% in federal income taxes, and 7% in state income taxes. That's 14% more of their income taken in taxes. The math doesn't lie.

Edited December 23, 2011 by Shady

[punked]

Sorry punked, but you're the one that's lying. In terms of income tax, that just isn't the case. You're conflating income taxes with captial gains taxes. Probably on purpose. The vast majority of even the 1% pay incomes taxes because that's what their income is. You're pretending that hedge funds make up the majority of earners in the top bracket. That's just not true. Liar, liar, pants on fire.

As the math proves, income tax rates are higher now than they were in the late 80s and early 90s. Also, state income tax rates are a lot higher too. So anyone saying that people in the top bracket pay less in income taxes now than in the past is a complete and utter liar.

Take for instance someone living in Connecticut. in 1990 they would have paid 28% federal income taxes and zero state income taxes. Today that same individual, in the top bracket, pays 35% in federal income taxes, and 7% in state income taxes. That's 14% more of their income taken in taxes. The math doesn't lie.

Do that vats majority of the 0.1% pay any income tax at all? 1,470 households reported income of more than $1 million in 2009 but paid zero federal income tax on it. That is just a fact.

What I am confusing is the federal income tax with the taxes paid on incomes in America. Just like in Greece where there is a sustainable income tax level but no one pays taxes on their income because they use a verity of loop holes Americas top 0.1% do the same. The income tax doesn't amount to a hill of beans if no one is paying it. That is the problem Shady you are being disingenuous again trying to shape an argument you can win instead of one based on the facts. That is the whole problem isn't it?

Fact is the top income earners are paying less taxes on income now then they were in 1990. Doesn't matter how high the income tax is because they aren't paying income taxes.

[Shady]

Do that vats majority of the 0.1% pay any income tax at all? 1,470 households reported income of more than $1 million in 2009 but paid zero federal income tax on it. That is just a fact.

What I am confusing is the federal income tax with the taxes paid on incomes in America. Just like in Greece where there is a sustainable income tax level but no one pays taxes on their income because they use a verity of loop holes Americas top 0.1% do the same. The income tax doesn't amount to a hill of beans if no one is paying it. That is the problem Shady you are being disingenuous again trying to shape an argument you can win instead of one based on the facts. That is the whole problem isn't it?

Fact is the top income earners are paying less taxes on income now then they were in 1990. Doesn't matter how high the income tax is because they aren't paying income taxes.

There you go again punked. Conflating income tax with capital gains tax. When the vast majority of the top tax bracket pays income taxes because their salary is regular income and not capital gains. Tsk, tsk.

[punked]

There you go again punked. Conflating income tax with capital gains tax. When the vast majority of the top tax bracket pays income taxes because their salary is regular income and not capital gains. Tsk, tsk.

They don't pay income tax Shady. That is the point. Hold on what do you define as income Shady?

[Shady]

They don't pay income tax Shady. That is the point. Hold on what do you define as income Shady?

The way its defined by the law.

[monty16]

Now that Ron Paul has been outed with his racist leaning, what will happen to his candidacy now? Will his followers really even care? Probably not and that says something about them!

[punked]

The way its defined by the law.

So please help me understand what do you consider income?

[bud]

Now that Ron Paul has been outed with his racist leaning,

how has he been outed as a racist?

[maple_leafs182]

how has he been outed as a racist?

Some people are claiming the Ron Paul the civil libertarian is a racist because of some newsletter he didn't write in the 90's. It really doesn't make much sense and all the Ron Paul supporters I have talked to see right threw the BS. I guess the MSM doesn't really have any dirt on Ron Paul because he has been so consistent so they have to take things that other people have said in the name or Ron Paul and claim it as Ron Paul saying it.

[Michael Hardner]

Some people are claiming the Ron Paul the civil libertarian is a racist because of some newsletter he didn't write in the 90's. It really doesn't make much sense and all the Ron Paul supporters I have talked to see right threw the BS. I guess the MSM doesn't really have any dirt on Ron Paul because he has been so consistent so they have to take things that other people have said in the name or Ron Paul and claim it as Ron Paul saying it.

Yes, this is an old accusation. It shows Paul as either naive or disorganized but not racist - those weren't his views.

[monty16]

how has he been outed as a racist?

Oh, you know bud. Why should I need to repeat all the dirt?

[monty16]

Some people are claiming the Ron Paul the civil libertarian is a racist because of some newsletter he didn't write in the 90's. It really doesn't make much sense and all the Ron Paul supporters I have talked to see right threw the BS. I guess the MSM doesn't really have any dirt on Ron Paul because he has been so consistent so they have to take things that other people have said in the name or Ron Paul and claim it as Ron Paul saying it.

Yeah maple leaf, he stood behind the remarks and made big money off them. And his story changed a few times too when questioned about the remarks. He's been had pal but like I say, his supporters won't care. And ya know why dont' ya! It has something to do with them approving of his racism.

Like father like sonny. Rand Paul was outed ages ago. We have no place for that kind of racism in Canada ya know. Be careful what you promote. Just a friendly warning.

[monty16]

Yes, this is an old accusation. It shows Paul as either naive or disorganized but not racist - those weren't his views.

Righttttt Michael, he knew nothing at all about the whole thing even though the newsletters were produced under his name. Michael, there's a really nice bridge in Alaska that doesn't go anywhere but I can let it go at a really, really good ........

But the really bad, bad thing about all this Michael is that Ron Paul's racist dirt is going to rub off on all the people that continue to support him after learning the truth. And especially because they aren't even the least bit interested in learning more about his dirty leanings.

[cybercoma]

I didn't know anyone was talking about interest rates anyways.

You know I meant taxes, rather than interest rates.