Naive. I don't think that I can explain this to you. Good luck taking just a little bit more of the extra money that business owners are just sitting on.
Please don't make me grovel
- Thread starter kjfreeze
- Start date
Naive. I don't think that I can explain this to you. Good luck taking just a little bit more of the extra money that business owners are just sitting on.
According to a 2013 Economic Policy Institute report, "to be in the top one percent nationally, a family needs an income of $389,436."
$515,000 today btw.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/12/how...e-in-the-top-1-percent-in-every-us-state.html
Sure. And there is another list for the top 1% in wealth. Regardless, the top of the top 1% in income make a hell of a lot more than $389,000. Like 1000 times or more as much.
If you're going by net worth, being a 1% means that your net worth is greater than the 99%.
Never, EVER, heard of anyone referring to a 1% as people who have more money than the 99% combined. No one has.
https://www.madisonadvisors.com/2020/02/18/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-one-percenter/
Read the link and argue with it.
https://www.madisonadvisors.com/2020/02/18/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-one-percenter/
My link shows there are different ways to measure it. Maybe you didn’t read the whole thing. It concludes net worth is a better measure.
Clarity Around the Top 1%
As you can imagine, since there are a few ways to define the top 1% the topic inspires a number of questions. I’ve done my best to address the most common questions around the American top 1% here.
I did. It confirmed what I've been trying to tell you.
Who are the top one percent by income?
$475,116 is the cutoff for a top 1% household income in the United States in 2019.
Who are the top one percent by net worth?
The top one percent of household net worth starts at $10,374,030.10.
Why? It’s a theoretical discussion on whether the top earners should pay a lower rate on capital gains than people that earn a salary. I’m not sure why you should be so offended. I get it. Nobody likes to pay more taxes.
According to you the rich pay zero taxes. Who's the idiot here?
Listen Einstein, whether you measure by income or net worth, it doesn't mean that 1 percenters have more money than the 99% combined. And that is what you said to @goldmom.
Yeah? I never argued that there is only one way to measure the top one 1%. Income is very misleading since not all wealth is reported as income. In fact, very little is.
But they probably do. The top 10% certainly do. I haven’t seen the exact amount though. I’m sure it’s available.
But I see your point. Not that it matters to this discussion.
Link? That’s just stupid. I said nothing of the sort. Just that capital gains, which mainly benefit the wealthy, are taxed at a lower rate than earned income. Argue that if you wish.
As I explained, it's not just the wealthy who pay capital gains. The first time I paid capital gains I was FAR from anyone's definition of wealthy.
I never said it’s only the wealthy. Just that is primarily the wealthy, as the link I provided showed.
Sure, others may earn capital gains.. But it pales in comparison to what the extremely wealthy earn. The guys I listed have earned hundreds of billions in capital gains.
I share way too much personal info on here...but maybe this will help.
The first time I paid CG's...
I paid $18k for a house. The comps were in the $105k range. I fixed the house up, spent $35k I didn't have and sold the house for $99,500.
I wasn't rich. Hell I didn't even own a real home of my own and I drove a 30 year old truck at the time...yet I did in fact pay capital gains on the profit. It was much higher back then btw.
The first time I paid CG's...
I paid $18k for a house. The comps were in the $105k range. I fixed the house up, spent $35k I didn't have and sold the house for $99,500.
I wasn't rich. Hell I didn't even own a real home of my own and I drove a 30 year old truck at the time...yet I did in fact pay capital gains on the profit. It was much higher back then btw.
You kind of just defeated your whole argument. You said that a higher capital gains rate
would impact what you do. It didn’t in that case. You still renovated a house and sold it for a profit. You made $45,000 Now today you would only be taxed at 20%. The same guy who worked a whole year for that $45,000 may be taxed at 30%. Does that seem fair to you?
You had better luck than me. I renovated a couple of houses and barely broke even. Bad timing and bad renters.
Last edited:
So, that same guy could have done what Bama did...risked money to make money. Bama allocated his limited resources, took a risk, and could have lost. He should be punished by confiscatory government taxes? You apparently understood risk v reward as well because you did it not once but twice. (you must have a steeper learning curve).
Had he been allowed to keep more of his gains he may have been encouraged to do it again. A few more reno'd houses to improve a neighborhood, at a price point more of those $45K a year workers might one day be able to buy.
If cap gains are low, one suspects that the tax rate overall is low. So I seriously doubt the 45K earner is giving $15k back to the government.
Who said anything about punished? You are all over the place. In actuality, you are punishing the guy that works for a living. You’re actually wanting a preference for certain types of income. All I’m saying is that both types of income should be taxed equally. Sitting on your ass watching your stock portfolio grow shouldn’t be taxed at a lower rate than the working man.
But thanks for the real estate lesson.
Preference? Are you serious? Money is money, honey.
Watching my stock portfolio grow...or shrink. Risk. Capitalism. Reward. Rate of return.
Pay attention. There will be a quiz...
And believe me, I also worked. More than 40 a week, by the way.
So you are for the Fair Tax where everyone is taxed at the same rate with no loopholes and everyone gets the same prebate to ensure that the poor can buy food etc tax free up to a point and that everyone is treated equally under the law.
Exactly. Money is money, honey. Therefore it should all be taxed the same. Why are you not understanding this simple concept.
I took all the quizzes needed while getting an MBA. You’re the one that thought 401k distributions are subject to capital gains taxes.
The point, which you seem to be missing on purpose, is that I wasn't rich yet I paid CG tax. I THINK it was something like 27% at that time which was a huge chunk of my profit. The margins, as you alluded to, are usually much lower which make the risks greater.
Not sure why we would want to disincentivize entrepreneurship. My efforts created a slightly larger tax base. We probably want more of that, no?
Now if you would like to carve out the advantages of full time investment houses so that they don't get the advantages of lower CG rates, fine but that renovation project was my part time hustle. I had a job and I took a pretty big risk with capital that I didn't actually have. We should be incentivizing that type of behavior.
bsc trying to talk economics is almost as amusing as when @bradleygator does. Dems think all businesses are sitting on a mountain of cash that they COULD give and share with their employees, but they are heartless bastards that want to stay rich and keep the employees poor.
The idea that it costs money to run a business never enters their minds. Probably because they've always worked for someone else and have no idea what they are talking about.
The idea that it costs money to run a business never enters their minds. Probably because they've always worked for someone else and have no idea what they are talking about.
There should be rewards for taking risks, or the person of even near average intelligence would never invest. The thought that income is just like job earnings is just wrong, but certainly very socialist ....i probably need to place you into the same box as Bradley, as thinking Wall Street is just greedy money pushers without the understanding of the absolutely VITAL necessity that sector is to nearly our entire economy
Yes I agree I misspoke about the CG on the 401. I confused some other assets I have, because I'm looking at liquidating some stocks I inherited when my husband passed.
If we incentivize investments by taxing gains differently, I'm okay with that. Because the risks associated with those investments are generally higher. I do hope you understand that...
So I take it you're opposed to such things as tax-free muni bonds? The ones that are used to fund needed public works and improvements?
Different issue but I'm fine with Munis. Plus the AMT limits those anyway.
And I might as well give a mea culpa on the 1%75% mistake.
Similar threads
