I think you are confusing some issues between dividends and capital gains. Lets ignore the company situation. If you buy a vacant land in the middle of nowhere for $10, then sell it for $110, you have a $100 capital gain. That gain has not been taxed at any other level. Stock is bought and sold on a secondary market. There is no prior taxation of the gain. However, I agree that capital gains should be treated differently than other income because of the time value of money over the term of the investment. Currently, it is only divided between less than year and more than a year. It should have a wider span with varying rates depending on the number of years the investment is held. Dividends are subject to double taxation, which I think is wrong. However, I think the correction of that problem should be made on the corporate taxation side. That is, a company should be able to deduct dividends, which may encourage getting more money flowing. Individuals should then pay the same taxes on dividends, interest, and income from work.
Except Romney's company spent $$$ to hire a lobbiest to keep his tax rate at 13%. In 2010, a total of 3.51 billion was spent on lobbiest. There are studies that that top 30 companies annually spent more on lobbying then they pay in taxes. Mitt is In the camp that he would rather spend on lobbiest then pay his share of taxes. As an average joe, how much do you spend on lobbiest? What is your tax rate? There seems to be a DIRECT correlation between the two.
I think you're right. I can accept an argument that dividends be taxed at a lower rate (or not at all even) because that money was already taxed with the company while gains made on the sale of stock are taxed like earned income.
This double taxation argument doesn't make sense to me. The capital gains tax isn't a double tax on the money he used to make the original investment but a tax on the capital gain. It's not double taxation as he didn't previously have the capital gain to get taxed on. If there is no gain there is no tax. Whoops I see others have beat me to it.
Thanks for the article Sam..I especially like this quote from the summary paragraphs at the end... So are liberals stingier than conservatives?. The data has suggested that they are. One thing that I am unhappy with is that this data is somewhat dated with the most recent year being in 2004 for philanthropy stats from the Catalogue of Philanthropy. I am anxious to see if the trend has continued into the present and am eager to compare 2008 charity figures with red and blue states from the 2008 Presidential Election. Overall, I like how Kristof does not see the data as a negative, but a way to encourage more of his fellow liberals to contribute more. He states in his article, “Come on liberals, redeem yourselves, and put your wallets where your hearts are.” Also, one thing the article doesn't take into consideration..is just how many Christians actually Tithe. Currently its estimated at between 3% to 6% of Churchgoers - not very many. And since you don't think Churches are charitable organizations, keep these thoughts in mind.. The average Protestant Cleric in this country only makes about $40,000 a year. The number of churches with over 2,000 members accounts for 0.5% of churches - most are small - and many preachers have 2nd jobs. Most churches offer Counseling for parishoners..which is Free Many offer financial classes such as Dave Ramsey's Financial Peace University - from which the Church makes ZERO dollars The majority of Homeless shelters in this country are run by churches or denominations Many of these same shelters help people with finding jobs, housing etc. My last church (smaller church) houses and feeds homeless people every Thursday - They work with the local food bank on several projects a year, and host blood drives about once every 2-3 months..and by the way, they've been operating on deficit for several years. My current church does overseas missions to several Asian countries each year. My job is run like a Church - and therefore exempt from taxes...we have given over $60million to charitable organizations, missionaries, etc over the last 8 years - we've built trauma wings on poor hospitals, put roofs on orphanages in Africa and the Phillippines, fed the poor in India. 1 day after Hurricane Ike, I drove a truck down to Houston with over 6,000 gallons of water to give away at a church. We also gave away over 120 gallons of gas in individual gas cans, a $10,000 check for "Feed The Children", and we also gave away food as well. While there, we were covering a Church, which was giving away food and supplies to everyone who came by. Tax us, and that $60million figure drops significantly. I know there are some churches who are solely focused on growing, expanding, etc..but the vast majority do a LOT of CHARITABLE good in the community.
Absolutely agree with you. Many among the left hate Christianity, so they try to dismiss facts such as this one as "not counting".
Nobody “hates” Christianity you knucklehead. What they hate are people who use it as a cudgel for political expediency.
Yes, but they're not charities (by nature, as in, they're not actually required to be charitable) and should be taxed as such. That, or they should be forced to open their books. I don't want to subsidize an organization without having some transparency involved. Bottom line, they need a different set of rules for churches. Preferably stricter ones than regular charities. They don't need to be treated like businesses, but they should not be given more privileges than actual charities.
I agree with you here...I wouldn't want to give to a church that doesn't show me their budget. I want to know my money is being used properly too.
Dumb argument. Buffett's reputation is as clean as you can possibly get so slandering him makes you look silly. He's everything you want to be but aren't, except he's ok with giving something back instead of bathing in the money like Scrooge McDuck.
Does somebody here go to or know of a particular church that doesn't disclose to its congregation where it spends its money? My church discloses that information on a weekly basis. Up to? So, they don't actually have an adjusted rate for Romney. They seem to assume all the businesses he's invested in aren't availing themselves of tax loopholes. And, they conflate dividends, interest, and capital gains together.
Absolutely sure. Burlington is one of many railroads that will benefit if oil is shipped by rail instead of pipeline. Berkshire Hathaway touches many industries. This is assassination by innuendo. He has a 60 year public record that is unrivaled for its lack of wrongdoing. I've literally read 10+ books on Buffett. Dude is as clean as it gets. Why do you think the GOP is publicly saying they are tired of hearing about Buffett? They can't point to ANY wrongdoing on his part.
Mitt Romney's true tax rate: 44.75% man what a horribly silly argument. First off why would you assume that the corporations in which his carried-interest loophole vehicles are rampaging are paying the top marginal rate on all their income and not using tax shelters like, say Romney, who, you know is managing the thing, to pay a much lower (0 percent, or even negative in certain instances) rate? If so, I'd say those corporations need better management given the fees that they are probably shoveling out to Bain. Second, where/why do we stop with double taxation? It's like that picture of Colbert in front of a picture of Colbert. We can go up to triple/quadruple/x-inifity taxation on anything, so that's just plain stupid.
had W paid off one of his rich benefactors in this way, i suspect you'd be singing a much different tune.
To follow up on Sam's post above the other problem with that argument is even if corporations that Romney owns stock in are taxed that isn't a double taxation of Mitt Romney. Following the corporate personhood argument the corporation is a separate entity from Romney and all the other shareholders. The shareholders aren't getting double taxed on dividends anymore than if I paid interest to somebody for a loan the loaner is double taxed because I pay income taxes.
You're kidding, right? Burlington now stands to make millions of extra dollars (not addressing the trade off from the shipping they would have made money off of WITH the pipeline construction). That wouldn't even register on Buffett's PERSONAL fortune, much less Berkshire Hathaway's. To imply he'd risk his reputation for that paltry gain is to imply he's stupid. If your position is that Warren Buffett is stupid, please say so. And you can't slander me either. FACT: you can look back on the W/Haliburton discussions from Iraq. I defended their contracts since they were a natural choice/capable for the job, despite the clear Cheney/Haliburton connection. Back to the drawing board with you.
You couldn't make this stuff up. John Boehner has purchased stock in seven Canadian tar oil companies. Wow.
