Senator Tim Scott's response to our mumbling fool of a president.

[grapedrink]

So that is why you tax the profits differently?

The profits are taxed differently because the investor class lobbies for it. That said, if the lower tax rates really do increase and encourage investment then I think that's a good thing. I'm not sure if this is true btw.

I think estates should absolutely be taxed, because those who receive it do literally nothing other than popping out of the right pvssy to earn it.

If we were to close some of these absurd loopholes that corps and the ultra rich take advantage of, it wouldn't even be an issue. The tough political sell is that those same interests also pander to the high salary earners who actually do get hammered, but don't have access to the same tax shelters that corporations and the uber wealthy do.

 

[grapedrink]

If the S&P 500 is negative from when you enter the work force in your 20s to when you retire in your 50s/60s, you have bigger problems than risk in your life I bet. Your life probably coincided with actual Visigoths sacking DC.

If you put it all on Enron or DOGE, that's a personal decision.

Agreed. Most will do fine over that time horizon with sensible fund choices, and then tap into those funds at retirement. Which is where taxing those gains again as regular income is a tough sell politically. I think taxing the upper tier more would be palatable for the majority.

Anyone who isn't first earning their investment money with a 'real job' and paying Earned Income tax rates is living life in the easy lane, financially.

Agreed 100%

 

[GromsDad]

If you complain about someone getting a tax cut you're a moron. Its just that simple. Having an adult conversation about tax policy is one thing but when you have someone who wants to knee jerk complain about tax cuts for anyone you just know you're dealing with a moron.

 

[Sharkbiscuit]

If you're happy with low quality/generic/one-size-fits-all investing, good for you. If you want to diversify into real estate, buying and selling businesses, precious metals, stocks, bonds, options, commodities, tax and retirement planning, you obviously do need to hire someone if you have anything of consequence. Which would be pretty tough bussing tables or mowing lawns.

Cheers! Personally, I'll take the S&P 500. IMHO it's a high quality generic one-size-fits-all method of investing. Aren't there plenty of fund managers who perform about the same?

Agreed. Most will do fine over that time horizon with sensible fund choices, and then tap into those funds at retirement. Which is where taxing those gains again as regular income is a tough sell politically. I think taxing the upper tier more would be palatable for the majority.

There is no easier sell politically than new spending, and there's no tougher sell than new taxes. IMHO need to make some tough choices on both sides of that. You're not going to jack taxes up 25-33% and not have a shitstorm any more than you're going to cut spending by roughly that and not have a shitstorm.

 

[afoaf]

speaking candidly, despite an appreciation of conservative ideology, I refuse to support the GOP
for all their transgressions, hypocrisy, and open bigotry-as-policy

for other folk in my cohort, it seems even more inconceivable that a black person would support
the GOP because those same flaws seem so much more acute when we imagine viewing them
through the lens of a person of color

we're losing our morals, principles, ethics, "north star", "moral compass". This foundation loss is a revolution against what our Country was founded on.

our country was not founded on morals, principles and ethics

it was founded on a series of inalienable rights

your statement is fear-mongering predicated on falsehoods that don't actually have
any empirical measurement or applicability

the foundation loss is not moral in nature, it is due to fundamental loss of understanding
of civics and the founding principles of free speech, debate, respectful disagreement, and
a underlying distrust of government power.

 

[afoaf]

I know.

Why would ANYONE, even die trying to get in, want to live here, it's so freaking racist?

The land of slavery and white supremacy, where no one else has even a glimmer of hope.

because there is more economic opportunity here than, say, Guatemala, American is not racist?

 

[hammies]

I think the buying and selling of stock shouldn't be called "investing" in a company. You are just buying a piece of ownership in the company from somebdy else, the company gets none of your money. Only in an IPO do you really directly provide capital to the company so it can grow.

If a lot of people buy stock in a company then the value of a company goes up, and they may have access to additional capital from banks based on that value, but they only get capital directly fron the owners (stockholders) at an IPO or SPO.

So taxing capital gains isn't directly hurting the companies whose stock values generated the cap gains.

IMO any money you make should all be taxed at the same rate. Eliminate cap gains all together and just tax it as income. Maybe everybody's rates can go down a little, which would be a win.

 

[Autoprax]

Long-Term vs. Short-Term Capital Gains Rates—Which Is More Favorable?

Understanding the differences between long- and short-term capital gains is crucial to ensuring that the benefits of your investment portfolio outweigh the tax costs.

www.investopedia.com

 

[Autoprax]

If you complain about someone getting a tax cut you're a moron. Its just that simple. Having an adult conversation about tax policy is one thing but when you have someone who wants to knee jerk complain about tax cuts for anyone you just know you're dealing with a moron.

Nice straw man, dummy

I said the Scott is disingenuous and misrepresenting what the GOP represents.

Remember, you are the guy that thinks people who think shooting elephants for fun is gross think this because they can't afford to engage in the hunt.

 

[Ifallalot]

The profits are taxed differently because the investor class lobbies for it. That said, if the lower tax rates really do increase and encourage investment then I think that's a good thing. I'm not sure if this is true btw.

I think estates should absolutely be taxed, because those who receive it do literally nothing other than popping out of the right pvssy to earn it.

If we were to close some of these absurd loopholes that corps and the ultra rich take advantage of, it wouldn't even be an issue. The tough political sell is that those same interests also pander to the high salary earners who actually do get hammered, but don't have access to the same tax shelters that corporations and the uber wealthy do.

Why should the government be able to take money that a parent is going to give their child? That's theft

 

[moby]

Cheers! Personally, I'll take the S&P 500. IMHO it's a high quality generic one-size-fits-all method of investing. Aren't there plenty of fund managers who perform about the same?

Yup. And no load funds perform as well as the funds with a load. Dirty little secret. If all you are doing is making annual contributions to a retirement account, it's a good strategy. Dollar cost averaging and a long time horizon will take care of you pretty well. Larger pools of money become more complex. As you get nearer to retirement age, it gets more complex. Potentially you could use a CFP instead of a fund manager. A PM is going to be more institutionally oriented. A CFP is for citizens.

Bottom line is pretty much EVERYBODY is against having their taxes raised. (there will be a forum moron that will claim otherwise, but hey. He's a fucking moron) They want someone else to pay higher taxes. Everyone wants it to be the other guy. I actually agree that people that are sitting on giant pools of money invested in low risk, low percentage investments (gotta preserve that capital) that are paying themselves scads of money through the magic of compound interest should be paying income tax rates. Probably because I ain't sitting on a giant pool of money. I'm comfortable, but I don't have "F you" money. After a certain stage you can't make the sh!t go away if you tried. It's largely dead money (although a few people are nibbling off the edges) It doesn't do much for the economy. I do think billionaires should be incentivized to riskier investments and discouraged from just parking it with low risk goals. And the corporate tax rate, that starts getting complicated. I don't really want to get into that here because of the complexity of the issue, but IMO, what a lot of Corps aren't paying in taxes, and the share of Corp profits that are NOT going to their workers anymore (this wasn't always the case) combined with the obscene amount top level management compensates themselves with... yeah. Fvck those guys. Because they aren't me!

 

[Sharkbiscuit]

Bottom line is pretty much EVERYBODY is against having their taxes raised. (there will be a forum moron that will claim otherwise, but hey. He's a fucking moron)

Fucking Forum Moron reporting for duty - given our current fiscal position, but strength given the dollar is currency numero uno, I am in favor of having taxes raised in general, which would include me.

I don't want to see what happens when the dollar isn't the reserve currency of choice. I've attended public school since 3rd grade, went to a public university with the state providing tuition and some book loot, and I have a father who has been on Social Security/Medicare for quite a while, and a freshly 62 mother who I expect will collect SS/Medicare as well. I feel like I've benefited handsomely from this and so don't begrudge throwing in on it.

I'm not celebrating the prospect of less money, but if the choices are a spending hair cut and a tax hike, and we get long term dollar stability in exchange for it, I'd count those blessings.

 

[Ifallalot]

Fucking Forum Moron reporting for duty - given our current fiscal position, but strength given the dollar is currency numero uno, I am in favor of having taxes raised in general, which would include me.

I don't want to see what happens when the dollar isn't the reserve currency of choice. I've attended public school since 3rd grade, went to a public university with the state providing tuition and some book loot, and I have a father who has been on Social Security/Medicare for quite a while, and a freshly 62 mother who I expect will collect SS/Medicare as well. I feel like I've benefited handsomely from this and so don't begrudge throwing in on it.

I'm not celebrating the prospect of less money, but if the choices are a spending hair cut and a tax hike, and we get long term dollar stability in exchange for it, I'd count those blessings.

You already are "throwing into it," a ridiculous proportion of your income in fact

The problem isn't revenue, it is spending

 

[moby]

Fucking Forum Moron reporting for duty - given our current fiscal position, but strength given the dollar is currency numero uno, I am in favor of having taxes raised in general, which would include me.

I don't want to see what happens when the dollar isn't the reserve currency of choice. I've attended public school since 3rd grade, went to a public university with the state providing tuition and some book loot, and I have a father who has been on Social Security/Medicare for quite a while, and a freshly 62 mother who I expect will collect SS/Medicare as well. I feel like I've benefited handsomely from this and so don't begrudge throwing in on it.

I'm not celebrating the prospect of less money, but if the choices are a spending hair cut and a tax hike, and we get long term dollar stability in exchange for it, I'd count those blessings.

My problem with that is the way our government spends/wastes money. There is NO amount of money that will ever be enough IMO. There is nothing our government can buy for a dollar that they will not spend $1,000 bucks for. And guess who is IMHO going to benefit hugely from increases in government spending? Them pesky billionaires again. If I had an ounce of confidence in our government to spend money in some manner that doesn't resemble a rapper in a strip bar, I might feel different. I guess you need to have faith. I have none. You do. I hope you're right.

PS, I believe if most people added up what they are currently paying in federal/state tax, cap gains, property taxes, stupid government "money for nothing" fees, luxury taxes, (Let them eat cake) and sales tax, etc etc? They would be shocked.

 

[Sharkbiscuit]

You already are "throwing into it," a ridiculous proportion of your income in fact

The problem isn't revenue, it is spending

My effective rate hasn't ever exceeded 30%; I am sure of that. It's higher than Mitt Romney, but hey. I'm more of a patriot than he is.

I disagree that the problem is entirely revenue or spending. If you held a gun to 350 million people's heads and the had two hours to balance the budget, I think you're going to find way more than half wind up cutting both spending and taxes.

I don't see a trillion dollars in cuts out there. You snip that from SS/Medicare, you will have a massive senior poverty problem overnight. Just like before social security. You snip it from support for younger impoverished people, good luck not getting mugged.

I know it's fashionable to pick these other departments for cancellation, but I go back to Energy. Half the Energy Department's budget is dealing with the nuclear arsenal, and nuclear research for sh!t like submarine engines. It's a place to hide Defense Spending. I think you'd find the same scattered throughout departments like Biowarfare in Health and Human Services.

 

[Ifallalot]

My effective rate hasn't ever exceeded 30%; I am sure of that. It's higher than Mitt Romney, but hey. I'm more of a patriot than he is.

I disagree that the problem is entirely revenue or spending. If you held a gun to 350 million people's heads and the had two hours to balance the budget, I think you're going to find way more than half wind up cutting both spending and taxes.

I don't see a trillion dollars in cuts out there. You snip that from SS/Medicare, you will have a massive senior poverty problem overnight. Just like before social security. You snip it from support for younger impoverished people, good luck not getting mugged.

I know it's fashionable to pick these other departments for cancellation, but I go back to Energy. Half the Energy Department's budget is dealing with the nuclear arsenal, and nuclear research for sh!t like submarine engines. It's a place to hide Defense Spending. I think you'd find the same scattered throughout departments like Biowarfare in Health and Human Services.

30% is ridiculous, and is that just your income? Are you counting every other fee and tax you're paying in on as well?

I disagree on the trillion dollars as well, we could cut a trillion without dropping a single program. Government inefficiency and waste is so common it's cliche

 

[Sharkbiscuit]

My problem with that is the way our government spends/wastes money. There is NO amount of money that will ever be enough IMO. There is nothing our government can buy for a dollar that they will not spend $1,000 bucks for. And guess who is IMHO going to benefit hugely from increases in government spending? Them pesky billionaires again. If I had an ounce of confidence in our government to spend money in some manner that doesn't resemble a rapper in a strip bar, I might feel different. I guess you need to have faith. I have none. You do. I hope you're right.

PS, I believe if most people added up what they are currently paying in federal/state tax, cap gains, property taxes, stupid government "money for nothing" fees, luxury taxes, (Let them eat cake) and sales tax, etc etc? They would be shocked.

LOL I must have really come across as an optimist with that one.

I get what you are saying. I don't know that I have faith either; I was born a few weeks before Carter lost so by the time my parents could dodge a stream of my ****, I've been living in a deficit spending-financed fantasy universe, except for half an hour in the 90s.

I guess I'm just saying I'd prefer a return to fiscal sanity vs a sh!t-fan moment, and I expect the best case actual fiscal sanity moment would be pretty painful in its own right vs. deficit spending playtime.

 

[Ifallalot]

LOL I must have really come across as an optimist with that one.

I get what you are saying. I don't know that I have faith either; I was born a few weeks before Carter lost so by the time my parents could dodge a stream of my ****, I've been living in a deficit spending-financed fantasy universe, except for half an hour in the 90s.

I guess I'm just saying I'd prefer a return to fiscal sanity vs a sh!t-fan moment, and I expect the best case actual fiscal sanity moment would be pretty painful in its own right vs. deficit spending playtime.

Did you graduate in 1998 as well? I think we're the same age

 

[kidfury]

Love it or leave it. Don't let the door hit you in the ass.

There you go. That's a reasonable sentiment.

 

[GromsDad]

My problem with that is the way our government spends/wastes money. There is NO amount of money that will ever be enough IMO. There is nothing our government can buy for a dollar that they will not spend $1,000 bucks for. And guess who is IMHO going to benefit hugely from increases in government spending? Them pesky billionaires again. If I had an ounce of confidence in our government to spend money in some manner that doesn't resemble a rapper in a strip bar, I might feel different. I guess you need to have faith. I have none. You do. I hope you're right.

PS, I believe if most people added up what they are currently paying in federal/state tax, cap gains, property taxes, stupid government "money for nothing" fees, luxury taxes, (Let them eat cake) and sales tax, etc etc? They would be shocked.

Very well said.