FAIL. Obama LOWERED Capital Gains Tax from 40% to 20%!

[grahamhgreen]

Last edited Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:55 PM - Edit history (6)

Yes, it's a big win for the the ultra rich, who don't make money from earned income, but rather from what used to be called unearned income (http://bit.ly/131hXjd).

Capital gains are unearned income (this is the way most multimillionaires and billionaires get their money, they don't work for it).

So while a policeman may put his life on the line every day and have to pay 30% in taxes, some non-working trust fund baby who risks nothing except some money, will only have to pay 20%.

How did this happen?

When the Bush tax cuts expired on DEC 13, 2012 at midnight, the UNEARNED INCOME TAX (Capital Gains) WENT UP TO 39.5%!!! http://bit.ly/Rv5elj

But, when the "Grand Bamboozle" (fiscal cliff deal) was reached, those tax rates went back down from 39.5% to 20%. How is that fair?

Oh, and there's more presents for those who make unearned income:

Why do wealthy folks celebrate the Fiscal Gorge? Just this: If you’re Sheldon Adelson you really couldn’t care less about ordinary income. What matters most are estate taxes, dividend taxes, and capital gains taxes. Adelson makes $1 million a year in ordinary income, now taxed at a higher rate. No big deal. He makes billions of dollars in dividends and capital gains, now permanently taxed at 15% and 20% respectively. Now that’s a big deal. Now that’s cool.

Did you notice what happened to those taxes?

Estate Tax: The estate tax exemption rises to $5 million, up from the $1 million it would have been without a Fiscal Cliff deal, and up from $675K when George W. Bush came into office. The tax rate on inheritance locks in at 40%, down from 55% at the beginning of the Bush Administration. Throughout the Bush administration the estate tax exemption stepped up each year or two, and the estate tax rate stepped down every year or two. Under the Obama administration, with the new Fiscal Gorge law passed, the W. Bush-era generous estate tax rates become permanent. Richie Rich is so happy.

Dividends Tax: If you were Sheldon Adelson – which you are not, but let’s pretend you were – right now you would be celebrating a Happy New Year because you just took a special dividend payout in December 2012 from Sands Casino of an estimated $1.2 Billion, based on your ownership of 431.5 million shares and a declared dividend of $2.75 per share. Adelson took the dividend in December fearing that his 15% dividend tax rate might rise to something like the 35% or 39.5% ordinary income tax rates, which would cost him close to $300 million in additional taxes in 2012. He needn’t have worried. The Fiscal Gorge law makes a 15% dividend tax rate permanent, a pillar of the Bush administration’s tax cuts.

Capital Gains Tax – This tax rises from 15% to 20% under the Fiscal Gorge law. Given that top earners and top wealth holders benefit substantially from capital gains, the permanence of this change represents another victory for Bush-era tax cuts.

Read more: http://www.bankers-anonymous.com/blog/the-view-from-the-fiscal-gorge/#ixzz2Gw4zxOfK

At least, that's the way I'm understanding it. Am I wrong? Looks like a bad deal to me based on this data. Oh yeah, and the fact that Big War has been spared from any cuts even though it's 60-70% of our budget.

ON EDIT: Here it is from a reliable source, WaPo:

"5. Capital gains and dividends would be taxed at 20 percent for families with income above $450,000—a concession to Republicans: Boehner and Obama had already agreed to let taxes on capital gains rise from 15 to 20 percent weeks earlier for high-income Americans. Setting the dividend tax rate at 20 percent, however, is a significant concession to Republicans: Obama, in his most recent budget, proposed taxing dividends like ordinary income, with a top rate of 39.6 percent, as it’s scheduled to revert to after Dec. 31."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/31/five-facts-about-the-biden-mcconnell-deal/

Now they are calling it the 'dividend tax rate' and not 'capital gains' so there may be some distinction there....

Then there is this from Forbes:

"Capital gain rates are set to increase from 15% to ordinary income tax rates as high as 43.4% if you are in the top tax bracket and factor in the new Medicare tax on unearned income." http://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/2012/12/10/fiscal-cliff-strategy-3-tips-for-investors-as-rising-taxes-loom/

And Egalitarian Thug posted a great link to the Tax Foundation that showed the rate at 39.6%: http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-capital-gains-tax-rates-1988-2011

So there you have it, SHORT TERM capital gains went from 39.6% or 43.5% to 20 percent, yes, that is a FAIL in my book.

EDIT 2: I think I might have to eat a little crow here - it is looking like I like I should have included the words "SHORT TERM" before the words "capital gains" in my OP. But mind you, much, if not most, of the money made these days by the uber-rich is in short term capital gains, as exampled by high-frequency trading in which stocks are held for less than a second.

[BumRushDaShow]

1. The capital gains was 15% and went up to 20%

And no, I doubt they would have let the capital gains go back up to near 40%. Not this time around.

[ProSense]

7. The short-term rate

was taxed at the same rate as individual income (39.6 percent), but because of the health care law it also exceeds Clinton levels. It's now 43.4 percent. So the OP is wrong all around. Capital gains is at the highest rate in more than two decades, higher than Clinton rates.

[HiPointDem]

22. not according to this:

http://forbestadvice.com/Money/Taxes/Federal-Tax-Rates/Historical_Federal_Capital_Gains_Tax_Rates_History.html

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdf


please link to something supporting your claim.

[grahamhgreen]

35. Do you have a link for that?

From Forbes:

"Capital gain rates are set to increase from 15% to ordinary income tax rates as high as 43.4% if you are in the top tax bracket and factor in the new Medicare tax on unearned income." http://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/2012/12/10/fiscal-cliff-strategy-3-tips-for-investors-as-rising-taxes-loom/

But now capital gains is at 20%.....

[ProSense]

61. LOL!

"Capital gain rates are set to increase from 15% to ordinary income tax rates as high as 43.4% if you are in the top tax bracket and factor in the new Medicare tax on unearned income."

That is the rate short-term capital gains increased to under the deal: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022124531

You have no idea what your're posting.

[kentuck]

80. Isn't the lower rate on the first $250K of capital gains?

Does anyone know?

[grahamhgreen]

85. Do you have a link to that data other than one of your own posts, like from the CBO, or the

actual bill?

[bluestate10]

128. They are right. The Capital Gains rate used to be 25%. The rate was decreased to 20%

by Reagan and later to 15% under Clinton or Bush II.

[BlueStreak]

19. Obama said the rich would go back to the "Clinton rates"

When I pointed out on numerous occasions that Obama had every intention to capitulate on that point, the usual peanut gallery here said "Oh you should just trust Obama. Don't criticize until after he has already given it away." (I always found the argument quite peculiar that you not should raise your voice until after there is no point in expressing opposition.)

This should not have come as a surprise to anybody, not even our gallery of see-no-evil, hear-no-evil types here. Obama was extraordinarily careful to use language that talked about the "tax rate", thinking that he was cleverly excluding capital gains and dividends. Then he even went farther and, instead of talking about the Clinton rates, he started saying "the rich should pay 'a little more'".

And that is exactly what happened. They pay only a tiny bit more. It is estimated at a total of $60 billion a year, but that is bogus because the rich will just get more aggressive at sheltering their income, and the package does nothing to clamp down on abusive shelters.

[truedelphi]

94. You say:

And I quote:

(I always found the argument quite peculiar that you not should raise your voice until after there is no point in expressing opposition.)
####
I agree with you, but then it is important in a society wherein the Elite need to message control for their side of things, that such memes be employed.

Other tactics that allow for the Elites, (for whom the current President is a mere Official Spokesperson and Message Massager,) is the way that current TV programs are scheduled. We could have a TV program that educated people in the economic matters that are up for grabs right now. And why dopesn't that happen?

Examine this fact: Because, in part,of TV: Many of my friends admit they have no concept of what a billion or trillion bucks really is. And so some have ended up persuaded by Tea Party principles that the "debt" is bad. While others have been persuaded that if Obama and other Blue Dog Dems have to do CPI-chained Social Security cuts, well, those elected officials understand the economy and so it's best if they handle it. Meanwhile these same people know every single instance of when Lindsey Lohan screwed up. If all that TV energy were properly channeled, the nation would soon see some sensible policies be enacted. Which is why the TV shows will remain as they are.

[BlueStreak]

110. Case in point, right out of today's news

Current TV is one of the few networks where something like the truth was allowed to be discussed -- FAR more so than MSNBC, which is mostly in line with the CORPORATE agenda. My cable company, Comcast, parked Current inside one of those super-expensive digital packages that is over $200/month. I was not willing to pay that. But I notice that the basic cable has all the CORPORATE "news" networks and about 10 Christian networks, plus a bunch of others doing nothing but running trashy reruns 24x7.

So why was Current put in a place where it could reach on 40M households? Because the knowledge they present is a serious threat to the CORPORATE agenda.

And then today, when it is announced that Current is sold to al Jazeera, in a matter of hours, Time-Warner announces they are canceling Current altogether. This transaction gave the CORPORATE masters the opportunity they needed to get that threatening talk off the air.

These people are not messing around. And Obama is their junior partner, lesser of evils, but nothing more.

[truedelphi]

144. What very sad news.

I thought it was pretty cool regarding the Al Jazeera buyout, as that company has so many viewers all over the world. I hadn't thought about how it would then give an excuse to entities like Comcast to totally outlaw the programs!

[grahamhgreen]

38. What it appears is that when the "Budget Control Act of 2011" went into effect at Midnight on the

31st of 2012, the rates automatically went up to 39.6 percent or maybe even a little higher. Only the deal brought the cap gains back down to 20%.......

[ProSense]

2. Capital gains is

higher now than under Clinton:

Capital gains goes to 23.8 percent and a tax increase also applies to incomes at $250,000
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022116613

"Perhaps the best prism through which to see the Democrats’ gains is inequality."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022123732

Still, even with the facts wrong, that some desperate spin: to claim the President lowered it because the bill passed after December 31.

[rhett o rick]

17. Has anyone made the comparison of the deal vs. no deal? nm

[W_HAMILTON]

24. "No deal" would have raised more taxes and resulted in a more progressive tax system.

No one has been able to point to any additional revenue that was raised by this deal that wouldn't have already been raised through "no deal."

"No deal" would have resulted in higher taxes on the poor and middle class, but even higher taxes on the rich, thus resulting in a more progressive tax system than we had before the cliff and a more progressive tax system than we have now after the deal.

It's why you saw so many (relatively speaking) Republicans support the deal; it, in fact, did not raise ANY taxes and instead lowered them from the already higher rates that automatically took effect at midnight on January 1, 2013, after we had already gone off the fiscal cliff.

[ProSense]

26. That makes no sense.

"No deal" would have resulted in higher taxes on the poor and middle class, but even higher taxes on the rich, thus resulting in a more progressive tax system than we had before the cliff and a more progressive tax system than we have now after the deal.

It would not have. The tax system is now more progressive than since the 1980s because tax rate when back to Clinton era for high income earners and even higher for capital gains, and are lower for low- and middle-income Americans.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022124531

[W_HAMILTON]

31. Yes, it does.

And, no, our tax system is not more progressive than since the 1980s. It is not as progressive as it was for the 24 hours or so on January 1, 2013, before the current deal was signed into law.

"No deal" would have resulted in a more progressive tax system than we currently have in place with the deal that was negotiated. That is just fact. In a "no deal" scenario, taxes would have gone up on everybody, but more severely -- much more severely -- on the rich.

[ProSense]

36. Nonsense.

The lowest tax rate is 10 percent, not 15 percent and the highest tax rate is 39.6 percent.

It's more progressive because it lowers the tax burden on lower income individuals and raises it on higher income individuals, and the capital gains rate also increased to more than pre-Bush tax cut levels.

[W_HAMILTON]

39. Just because you say it's nonsense doesn't make it so.

Here's a chart I've been using in a few of these type of threads. It shows the impact of going off the cliff. "No deal" would have resulted in a more progressive tax system than we have today. And, as some have said, if it was inevitable that the Bush tax cuts would have been extended for incomes up to $250k, it would have made it an even more progressive tax system.

Fact of the matter is, our current tax system is more progressive than in 2012, but less progressive than had we simply done nothing. If you do not believe this to be the case, please show me additional revenue raised through the cliff deal that we would not have already gotten had we simply done nothing.

[img][/img]

[ProSense]

41. That chart doesn't prove your point.

In fact, it has nothing to do with your claim.

[W_HAMILTON]

45. Your two-sentence responses aren't doing very much to further your position or this discussion.

Do you not agree that "no deal" would have resulted in a more progressive tax system that we now have post-deal?

If you don't agree with this, please explain why.

[stevenleser]

50. You think it is a good idea that the average middle class family would pay $2000 more in taxes per

year? That is more progressive to you?

I think you dont understand what progressive means.

[SunSeeker]

54. Ouch. Good one, Steve!

[W_HAMILTON]

55. If simply paying more taxes than you were before means a deal is not progressive...

...then the current deal is not progressive either because the end of the payroll tax cut disproportinately affects low and middle class workers and results in them paying more in taxes than in the previous year.

To skip a few responses down the line in this process, I'm guessing your response (as others have replied regarding this) is that, "well, that's different because it was a temporary tax holiday and now we go back to fully funding Social Security, which means we won't have to cut it in the future."

To which I respond, says who? Did we get any agreement out of this deal that by allowing the temporary payroll tax cut to expire, Social Security won't be "reformed" (i.e., cut) in the near future? No? Have you been listening to Republicans after this deal? They already have their eyes on "entitlement reform" in the coming months. They say we've gotten the tax issue out of the way and now it's all about spending cuts, "tax reform" (i.e., cuts) and "entitlement reform" (i.e., cuts) from here on out.

Is this progressive to YOU?

[stevenleser]

56. Hurting the middle class so we can also hurt the wealthy at the same time is not Progressivism

I realize there is disagreement on exactly what Progressivism is but I can tell you that if you are happy to hurt poor and/or middle class people so you can also hurt the rich at the same time, that is definitely not being Progressive.

[phleshdef]

59. Exactly. And I think some who claim to be progressive are really just vindictive towards wealth.

I don't want to tax the wealthy more out of some sort of spite. I want to tax the wealthy more because: A. We need the money and B. We need to work on rebalancing the distribution of wealth and the tax code is a great tool for that. Giving people in the lower brackets less of a tax burden while simultaneously giving those in the higher brackets a higher tax burden is the best way to use such a tool. That's about as progressive as it gets.

[W_HAMILTON]

62. It's not about "hurting" anyone.

It's about a progressive tax system, which you seem to be misunderstanding the definition of.

If your definition of a progressive tax deal is not "hurting" the poor and middle class at all, you should not be in favor of this deal because it did nothing to address the payroll tax cut, which means most poor and middle class workers will now be paying 2% more in taxes than they did the previous year. This results in a disproportionate impact on the poor and middle class.

[phleshdef]

78. The payroll tax holiday was a temporary stimulus measure and has zero to do with a progressive code.

[W_HAMILTON]

97. The Bush tax cuts were supposed to be temporary, too.

That didn't keep a bunch of people in this thread supporting their indefinite extension so as to keep from hurting lower and middle class workers.

[grahamhgreen]

96. He was explaining a progressive tax structure (http://bit.ly/Un4onH)

not progressivism (http://bit.ly/131ZW4l)

[rhett o rick]

146. No one wants to "hurt poor and/or middle class people" and for you to suggest that

is intellectually dishonest. The fact is we need to raise taxes to pay for our wars and other debts. Progressives would love it not to tax the poor or middle class but get the needed taxes from the uber-wealthy. But that doesnt look possible. The second best would be to raise the taxes on the middle class a little and raise the taxes on the rich a lot. Even better would be to turn around and then lower taxes on the middle class. Not raising taxes is only an option to Norquist.

Which plan do you favor?

[stevenleser]

149. It's not intellectually dishonest, it's right on point considering the feedback here. We won this

round and we won it big. But folks here arent happy because we didnt get all the tax increases on the rich we wanted. We didnt have any cuts on entitlements, we have a bill that continues benefits to the unemployed, we got some tax increases on the rich, but some arent happy.

Some think we should have worked out a bill that hurt the middle class in order to get all the tax cuts on the rich we wanted. that is exactly what they are saying. And I call bullshit. Actually, I would say worse, but I have no interest in wasting a hidden post on those folks.

[rhett o rick]

150. No cuts in SS is not a victory. This is a good example of where some Democrats are today.

SS and Medicare shouldnt even be part of the negotiations. The cap should be raised and the Medicare age reduced to 55. That's where we should be bargaining from.

We went over the cliff. If this deal hadnt been done, taxes would have gone back to the pre-Bush cuts. So that's where we were bargaining from. The pre-Bush cuts levels. It was the Republican (Bush) argument that small tax cuts for the middle class were worth large cuts for the rich. That was bullcrap. And yet that's exactly what happened when Bush cuts taxes and that's what happened here. This time it wasnt Bush. Granted the rich didnt make out as good as via Bush, but they made out better than if the deal wasnt done.

We need to raise taxes. The Bush cuts EXPIRED. They were gone. So the Democrats should have submitted a bill to lower taxes on the middle class. But nooooo. They bargained using SS and Medicare. No cuts and the rich get a break. I cant believe you are happy with that.

And it is intellectually dishonest in a discussion to intimate that progressive want a bill that hurts the poor and middle class. You said, "if you are happy to hurt poor and/or middle class people so you can also hurt the rich at the same time, that is definitely not being Progressive." No progressive wants to hurt the poor or middle class. What you are saying is that ending the Bush tax cuts hurts the poor and middle class. Therefore you support the Bush tax cuts.

[phleshdef]

58. Wrong. The payroll tax cut as a long term tax cut would harm solvency of Social Security.

Harming the solvency of Social Security is not progressive.

[W_HAMILTON]

65. Eliminating the payroll tax holiday...

...with no agreement to keep Social Security "reform" (i.e., cuts) off the table does nothing to prevent Social Security from being "harmed" in the future.

We could have kept the lower payroll tax rate and lifted the cap to make up for it. I would have been in favor of that. The poorest would not have been impacted and it would not have "harmed the solvency of Social Security."

[BlueStreak]

63. Yes. If it is phased back in with triggers based on the unemployment rate

Going back to the Clinton rates would give us a balanced budget and eliminate the need to do the Draconian cuts that the Reps will keep forcing on us. That is good good for middle class families.

The corporatists love the 7-8% unemployment rate. That is their utopia. It is enough employment to where there are no riots in the streets, but enough unemployment so that they can get workers really cheap. That is BAD for middle class families and EXCELLENT for big corporations that have never been more profitable.

The correct strategy would have been to phase out the Bush tax cuts. The cuts for the rich -- ALL OF THEM -- could have ended now without hurting anybody. When we get to 7% unemployment, eliminate 25% of the cuts. When we get to 6.5%, eliminate 50% of the Bush cuts, and so on. As we approach 5%, salaries go up, so people can afford to pay that extra tax.

What we did instead was raise taxes a little on the rich, but less than half as much as Obama was going for. And we locked in the structural deficits with PERMANENT cuts for everybody else. That means that the game now is all about how many programs the Republicans can whack. Isn't it interesting that Republicans lost the election badly, they seem to be in complete disarray as a party, yet they achieved exactly the outcome they wanted?

[phleshdef]

79. How was it "less than half as much" as Obama was going for?

The difference between 250 and 400 it only 150k. Everyone from 400k - 70 BILLION still got the Clinton rate increases.

[BlueStreak]

81. Obama was going for $1,600,000,000,000 of revenue -- "compromised" on about 1/3 that much

See this article, ironically entitled "Showing Backbone on the Debt". We didn't get to see that "backbone" more than a couple of days, it seems.
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/showing-backbone-on-the-debt/

[phleshdef]

83. I'm done at the word "backbone". Its being overused by a bunch of keyboard warriors....

...who like to talk a lot of shit about something that, when compared to Obama, they don't have a fraction of.

[BlueStreak]

92. That was the NY Times using that phrase, not me.

[phleshdef]

111. And?

[rhett o rick]

148. Makes perfect sense. Tax would have been raised on the middle class but

raise a greater amount on the rich. If the middle class has to sacrifice a little more tax to get the rich to pay closer to their fair share, that is what we need. We have to raise taxes on someone and raising taxes only on the rich is not an option. And not raising taxes at all is only ok to Norquist.

[Luminous Animal]

32. +1

[jeff47]

42. It would have raised more revenue, but would have been more regressive

The tax credits for the poor would have also ended if there was no deal, raising their effective tax rate much more than the headline number.

it, in fact, did not raise ANY taxes and instead lowered them from the already higher rates that automatically took effect at midnight on January 1, 2013, after we had already gone off the fiscal cliff.

False. The $400/450k bracket is 39.6%, and would be 39.6% without a deal. In addition, capital gains taxes are higher than with no deal, which affects that bracket significantly.

[W_HAMILTON]

46. You are completely wrong.

The chart I posted took into account the elimination of tax credits and all other tax benefits that would have ended.

As for your comment about the $400k/$450k bracket, the threshold with "no deal" would have been lower and thus resulted in greater revenue. The income tax rate remains the same, but now impacts fewer people.

As for your comment about capital gains taxes being higher than with no deal, that is absolutely false and is probably the worst part of this deal.

Again I ask, will anyone please show me concrete evidence of any part of this deal that INCREASED taxes FURTHER than they would have been if no deal had been achieved? No one has been able to do it. I've looked myself and haven't been able to find anything. The fact that it received any Republican support probably furthers this point, because they would not have voted for any meaningful tax increases. As it stands, the agreed-to deal simply lowered taxes or kept them at the same rate as we would have had had we done nothing.

[jeff47]

77. Apparently, you can't read your own chart

The "top" payers on your chart effectively went over the cliff.

Everyone else didn't.

Which one results in a more progressive tax code? The one that makes everyone pay more, or the one that makes only the top payers pay more?

Plus, your chart only covers rates. It doesn't cover tax credits. Credits like the EITC massively aid the poor - you can actually pay negative taxes if you make sufficiently little income. No deal means those credits go away and the bottom brackets pay LOTS more in taxes.

As for your comment about the $400k/$450k bracket, the threshold with "no deal" would have been lower and thus resulted in greater revenue.

Um...no.

The top bracket was $400/450k before the deal and after the deal. In both cases, it went up to the same rate.
The next bracket is at $200/250k. That one does not go up due to the deal, but would go up in no deal....along with all the other brackets. I'm really not sure why you think people making $18k/year paying a ton more is more "progressive".

As for your comment about capital gains taxes being higher than with no deal, that is absolutely false and is probably the worst part of this deal.

You apparently don't know the difference between short-term and long-term capital gains. Short term are taxed at the "normal income" rate. Long-term have been taxed at a lower rate since the 1980s.

You are claiming long-term capital gains would be taxed at the normal rate under "no deal". That is wrong. Long-term capital gains would be taxed at the Clinton rate, which was 18%. Instead, they are being taxed at 20%. 20% is more than 18%.

Again I ask, will anyone please show me concrete evidence of any part of this deal that INCREASED taxes FURTHER than they would have been if no deal had been achieved?

Long term capital gains are being taxed at 2% higher.

However, most of those "lower" taxes fall on the bottom brackets. I'm really not sure why you want to completely fuck over people making $20k/year in order to mildly inconvenience people making $300k/year.

No one has been able to do it.

Actually, we repeatedly have. However, your understanding of our tax code is so poor you don't understand.

[W_HAMILTON]

95. Please don't accuse me of not being able to understand something...

Last edited Thu Jan 3, 2013, 08:09 PM - Edit history (1)

...I've been reading up on for quite some time now.

The "top" payers did not "effectively go off the cliff." Their taxes are now the same or lower than would have been had we gone off the cliff.

- The income tax rate for "top payers" is the same post-deal / no-deal (although there are fewer "top payers" impacted due to the deal's $400/$450k threshold).

- The tax rate on capital gains and dividends is lower post-deal than with no-deal.

- The estate tax is lower post-deal than with no-deal.

Why do you think the markets reacted favorably to this deal? Why do you think you had Republicans voting for this deal? It's because it either reduced the tax burden or kept it the same as had there been no deal. You honestly think Republicans would vote against "Plan B" (with a threshold around $1m) but then vote FOR this deal, with a threshold of $400k/$450k?

The chart takes into account all tax aspects if we had gone off the cliff, including the EITC you claim it doesn't factor in. It then converts the amount of taxes that would be paid into an average federal tax rate. Here is another chart breaking down by category (e.g., payroll tax cut, estate tax, income tax cuts, etc.) that is underlying the percentages in the first chart.

[img][/img]

Regarding your claims about the impact on capital gains, again, you are wrong. I don't know where you are getting the 18% number from. Maybe you should read up on http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/412666-toppling-off-the-fiscal-cliff.pdf , particularly page four that refers to the taxes you are talking about. Long-term capital gains are not being taxed 2% higher by virture of this deal than they would have been had no deal been reached.

As for your final comment, please humor me by once again by "repeating" all this additional revenue created the deal that would not have already been in place had no deal been reached.

[jeff47]

99. Repeating the same errors doesn't make them true.

- The tax rate on capital gains and dividends is lower post-deal than with no-deal.

This is utterly, completely, 100% false.....and you're now confusing different things that used to be taxed as capital gains but are now taxed differently.

Long-term capital gains:
What was the rate before the deal? (15%)
What would the rate go to with no deal? (Clinton-era rate, 18%)
What is the rate with the deal? (20%).

20% > 18%.

Dividends:
Before the deal - taxed like long-term capital gains.
With no deal - taxed like normal income
With the deal - taxed like normal income.

normal income = normal income

- The tax rate on capital gains and dividends is lower post-deal than with no-deal.

Yes....and all 6 people that pay that will be paying less. There's a saying among the wealthy: If you're paying the estate tax, fire your tax attorney. It's trivial to avoid due to trusts and other financial tools.

Why do you think the markets reacted favorably to this deal?

Because it means the sequester isn't going into effect. And austerity is a terrible idea in a bad economy.

Why do you think you had Republicans voting for this deal?

Because it means the sequester isn't going into effect. And austerity is a terrible idea in a bad economy. Plus, they're not interested in cutting military spending, which going over the cliff would require.

It's because it either reduced the tax burden or kept it the same as had there been no deal.

You seem to have forgotten that this deal had more than tax rates in it.

You honestly think Republicans would vote against "Plan B" (with a threshold around $1m) but then vote FOR this deal, with a threshold of $400k/$450k?

Plan B only dealt with taxes. Not the sequester. So yes it had the higher threshold, but it didn't stop the defense spending cuts.

The chart takes into account all tax aspects if we had gone off the cliff, including the EITC you claim it doesn't factor in.

Seriously, you need to start reading your charts.

What's the title of the chart? Change in Average Federal Tax RATE.

Let's look over at the legend. Hey look! No entry for the tax credits I'm talking about! EITC and such pre-date "stimulus" credits.

But let's pretend this graph actually includes what you think it does. That graph is just going over the cliff. So the top payers more-or-less got the hit like in the graph. Everyone else is at or near the 0 axis. 0% tax increase on the lowest quintile is a hell of a lot more progressive than a 4% increase.

Regarding your claims about the impact on capital gains, again, you are wrong. I don't know where you are getting the 18% number from.

How 'bout here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maximum_Federal_Tax_Rate_on_Long_Term_Capital_Gains_(1972_-_2012).jpg ?

Maybe you should read up on http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/412666-toppling-off-the-fiscal-cliff.pdf, particularly page four that refers to the taxes you are talking about. Long-term capital gains are not being taxed 2% higher by virture of this deal than they would have been had no deal been reached.

Page 4 agrees with me.

What rate do you think long-term capital gains are taxed at after the deal? Do you erroneously believe dividends are still taxed as long-term capital gains post deal?

As for your final comment, please humor me by once again by "repeating" all this additional revenue created the deal that would not have already been in place had no deal been reached.

You're unable to read the posts above? All the other posts explaining how you are wrong? They're all here for you to read.

[W_HAMILTON]

123. Well, that's the first thing I'll agree with you on: the title of your post.

You are so all over the place you are just being confusing.

(1) You are wrong on long-term capital gains reverting to a "Clinton era rate, 18%." I don't know what Clinton era rate of 18% you are referring to, and the chart you provided as proof shows no 18% rate, either. As I posted in the previous link, long-term capital gains would have reverted to the 20% rate. This means post-deal and no-deal, the rates are the same.

(2) Regarding dividends, qualified dividends post-deal are now taxed at a maximum rate of 20%. With no-deal, these dividends would have been taxed as ordinary income, meaning the top tax rate would have been 39.6%. That is a huge difference.

(3) You think the markets and a decent number of Republicans supported this deal because it staved off sequestration for a measly two months? They don't give a damn about that -- the rich and the Republicans want to cut spending. Spending cuts have just been delayed two months. What they didn't want is taxes to skyrocket and this deal prevented that. In some cases, while taxes are higher than in 2012, they are not as high as they would have been had no deal taken place.

(4) I know that there were other facets to this deal, but this thread was prompted by talks of a progressive tax system. That's why we are focusing on taxes here. If you want to know my opinion about the other facets of the deal, I think it was a similar sham to get the relatively short extension in unemployment benefits when compared to the indefinite extension of beneficial tax legislation for the rich.

(5) Regarding the chart, as I explained before, it converts actual taxes paid to a rate. It is not referring to actual income tax rates, it is referring to the average rate of taxes paid (i.e. total taxes paid divided by taxable income). As for the effects of the EITC, if you read the link I posted, it is included. As for your comments about the chart basically showing that the rich went off the cliff while other people didn't, that is simply wrong. As I've said time and time again, almost all of the tax provisions of the deal either kept taxes the same or lowered them for the rich than would have been the case had we gone off the cliff. On the opposite end, for all intents and purposes, the poor and middle classes did "go off the cliff" in terms of the payroll tax cut that was not extended. The payroll tax cut was the second most impactful tax provision for the poor and middle class, yet unlike several other adjustments in the deal that benefited tax provisions regarding the rich, nothing was done to limit the impact of the payroll tax "increase" on poor and middle class workers.

(6) I've been reading them and not one has shown with any proof additional tax revenue being raised as a result of the deal as compared to the additional revenue that would have been raised had there been no deal. Taxes automatically went up on January 1, 2013. Show me anywhere in this deal where taxes were raised above and beyond what had automatically occurred as of January 1, 2013. Please do.

[jeff47]

142. You're still not bothering to find out what's actually in the deal

(2) Regarding dividends, qualified dividends post-deal are now taxed at a maximum rate of 20%. With no-deal, these dividends would have been taxed as ordinary income, meaning the top tax rate would have been 39.6%. That is a huge difference.

Wrong. They're regular income. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_dividend

(3) You think the markets and a decent number of Republicans supported this deal because it staved off sequestration for a measly two months? They don't give a damn about that -- the rich and the Republicans want to cut spending. Spending cuts have just been delayed two months

First, "the market" understands austerity is bad - they've lost a pile of money on Europe.
Second, the people you're complaining about only want social spending cuts. They do not want defense spending cuts.
Third, the market went up slightly. Hardly a boom.

(4) I know that there were other facets to this deal, but this thread was prompted by talks of a progressive tax system.

And yet you still claim raising taxes on everyone is more progressive than only raising taxes on $400/450k. Could you explain how that works in your head?

(5) Regarding the chart, as I explained before, it converts actual taxes paid to a rate.

Again, look at the legend. The only thing that says "credit" is "stimulus credits". The EITC is from 1975. Hardly a "stimulus credit".

As for your comments about the chart basically showing that the rich went off the cliff while other people didn't, that is simply wrong. As I've said time and time again, almost all of the tax provisions of the deal either kept taxes the same or lowered them for the rich

If only you actually provided any evidence for this claim. Instead, you keep posting the effects of going over the cliff, but don't bother posting anything about the deal.

And given that you're utterly wrong about dividends, we should trust your analysis why?

On the opposite end, for all intents and purposes, the poor and middle classes did "go off the cliff" in terms of the payroll tax cut that was not extended.

I'm having trouble believing you're this stupid. Your own chart shows the payroll tax cut was a small component of the cliff. Yet you now claim it is the entirety of the cliff.

Taxes automatically went up on January 1, 2013.

Nope. The deal is back-dated. Thus taxes on all the lower brackets did not go up.

[NoOneMan]

25. Thats also what I am curious about

I read elsewhere the "deal" added another 4 trillion to the deficit compared to no deal (according to CBO). Not sure about rates though.

[W_HAMILTON]

34. I don't know the exact numbers, but that's probably true.

This deal ends up adding to future deficits and the debt. It essentially is just extending indefinitely the vast majority of the Bush tax cuts, and we already know how that impacted our current debt level.

That's another reason I do not like this deal; it does nothing to address the deficit/debt, which means we will continue to run deficits and rack up debt, and when future debates take place on how to fix the mess, critics will claim we already "raised" taxes and it did nothing to impact our debt, therefore we need to cut even more spending.

And Democrats are championing this bill? It's ridiculous.

[NoOneMan]

40. Yes, I noticed that

I wrote an OP similar to that. The US told the entire world that it is not serious about its fiscal situation (after admitting months ago it was a serious issue), and that it has no intention to get its house in order. Despite an unsustainable, unsatisfactory economy supported entirely by perpetual government intervention, the US cannot recognize this as a big enough problem to take seriously.

This same pattern is repeated with a plethora of issues like gun control and climate change. The government and its politicians grow increasingly irrelevant at creating solutions to our problems because they are products of an age gone by.

[MjolnirTime]

3. why do you need to manipulate the facts to make your point?

The Capital Gains Tax went up. That's a fact.

[Egalitarian Thug]

69. It went up significantly less than it would have had nothing been done.

Same thing with the inheritance tax.

[bluestate10]

132. You are wrong about the Capital Gains tax, it would not have been raised had Obama

not raised it. To me, the inheritance tax is a non-issue because most rich people mostly get around that tax by living wealth transfer to their children.

[Egalitarian Thug]

137. OK fine, I'm tired of arguing minutiae. That still doesn't change the fact that overall revenues

are almost 2/3 less with this deal than they would have been had we done nothing, nor does it change the fact that the people who have captured ~80% of the economic gains of the last 30 years, who wrecked the economy, and whom have paid nothing for doing it, got another huge payday in exchange for a temporary band-aid for a very few of their most recent victims.

[elleng]

4. No 'fail;' you are wrong.

Rates on Long-Term Gains and Dividends: The tax rates on long-term capital gains and dividends will also remain the same as last year for most individuals. However, the maximum rate for higher-income folks increases to 20% (up from 15%). This change only affects singles with taxable income above $400,000, married joint-filing couples with income above $450,000, heads of households with income above $425,000, and married individuals who file separate returns with income above $225,000.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/cracking-the-2013-tax-code-2013-01-03

[grahamhgreen]

43. The question is not this year vs last year, but deal vs no deal.

And it looks like no deal meant a capital gains tax rate of around 40%.... not 20%

[ProSense]

47. You're wrong, and

I think you know it. The information isn't hard to understand.

Long-term capital gains taxes were not going up to 40 percent. They were not 40 percent during the Clinton years.

[pnwmom]

66. That's not correct. I think maybe some of the confusion

may be due to the fact that the lower capital gains tax only kicks in if property has been held for a year.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-28/breaking-down-the-cliff-the-bush-tax-cuts.html


Bush's 2003 tax-cut package accelerated many of the original law's tax changes. It also eliminated the long-term capital-gains tax on individuals and couples in the two lowest marginal income brackets, and the 20 percent capital-gains tax bracket fell to 15 percent. And it eliminated the capital gains tax treatment for assets held longer than five years, folding it into the standard long-term rate, which is accessible at one year. Qualified dividends shifted from tax treatment as ordinary income into capital gains.

[grahamhgreen]

100. So you're saying the short term capital gain went from 39.6% to 20%,

but the very long term gain (over 5 years), simply stayed at 20%? (ref: http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-capital-gains-tax-rates-1988-2011)

Perhaps I should have included the words "short term" in the OP?

In any case, most of the money that the ultra rich are making these days are from short term capital gains and not long term, as I understand it. In fact, with high frequency trading, they are often holding the assets for less than a second.

[jeff47]

106. No, short term gains are still taxed as normal income

Holding it for a year makes it a long-term gain. Holding for 5 years used to cause different treatment, but hasn't since the Bush cuts.

The big change for both the deal and the cliff is dividends are no longer long-term capital gains. Instead, they're regular income.

[pnwmom]

109. Right. And that is a big change for dividends. n/t

[pnwmom]

108. No, that's not I'm saying -- or, really, Bloomberg.

What Bloomberg says below is that during the Bush years, the standard long-term rate became "accessible" at one year instead of five; and the rate was reduced from 20 percent to 15%.

So now the new legislation has raised the long-term (over one year) rate again, to 20%.

This article does not address short-term capital gains, but I believe that that continues to be taxed the same as ordinary income, which now has been raised for those individuals at the highest income levels.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-28/breaking-down-the-cliff-the-bush-tax-cuts.html


Bush's 2003 tax-cut package accelerated many of the original law's tax changes. It also eliminated the long-term capital-gains tax on individuals and couples in the two lowest marginal income brackets, and the 20 percent capital-gains tax bracket fell to 15 percent. And it eliminated the capital gains tax treatment for assets held longer than five years, folding it into the standard long-term rate, which is accessible at one year. Qualified dividends shifted from tax treatment as ordinary income into capital gains.

[robinlynne]

127. 20%, instead of 40%. It was supposed to go to 40%. All that revenue was just given to the rich.

[bluestate10]

134. No it wasn't.

The capital gains rate has never been 40%. The capital gains rate would not have changed if the Bush II rates had be defaulted back to because that rate was not changed to 15% by Bush, it was already at 15% - Bush left that rate unchanged.

[spooky3]

141. Actually, the max. CG rate HAS been at or above 40%

Several times-- most recently in the 1970s.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdf

[Tarheel_Dem]

5. "Bankers Anonymous"?

[tosh]

27. That's exactly what I said:

"Bankers Anonymous"?

[snooper2]

6. how come all the graham's on DU have OP that fail?

Is that kind of like never meeting a man named Bob who was mean?

[Ikonoklast]

8. They're all crackers.

[leftyohiolib]

9. my name is bob and while not mean i do get easily irritated

[DFab420]

15. My uncle Bob always said his name was short for Back Off, Bud.

[msanthrope]

13. You Better Believe It!! nt

[JoePhilly]

82. Blast from the past!!! LOL!

[Cali_Democrat]

10. Wrong

There are two types of cap gains....short term and long term. Long term went from 15 to 20 percent. Short term is taxed at your income level so because the tax rate went up for high earnings, they will be paying more taxes on short term also. Dividend rates also went up.

[regnaD kciN]

11. This is the sort of OP that makes me wish we still had an "unrec" button...

Utter B.S., but it still makes the Rec List.

[msanthrope]

12. You Better Believe It!! nt

[bigtree]

14. op fail

poster fail

[DFab420]

16. I'm beginning to find people who invent silly names like The Grand Bamboozle for important issues..

Tend not to be the most serious of thinkers.

[JackRiddler]

88. You should be more concerned about the lie in "Fiscal Cliff"

[truedelphi]

93. I stand with you on that one, Jack! n/t

[grahamhgreen]

101. How 'bout "Grand Bargain"?

[HappyMe]

18. Um.. the FAIL is all on you.

[Yavin4]

20. Capital Gains Taxes Applies to Folks Selling Their Homes to Pay Their Retirement

Not all Capital Gains is rich bankers.

[Egalitarian Thug]

71. If you roll the proceeds into any approved retirement account all the taxes are deferred.

just like your paycheck. Once you begin drawing on your retirement account you do pay taxes on it as you use it just like all other deferred income.

[spooky3]

87. I don't think this is correct. Do you have a link?

Generally you can rollover only funds from a qualified retirement program under sec. 401.

[Egalitarian Thug]

91. And real estate proceeds. When the accounting pro comes home I'll double check. n/t

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

76. I thought the capital gain on a home is forgiven ...

... if it's a primary (or secondary) residence.

If it's a rental property, then yes, gains are taxed.

Do I have it right?

[spooky3]

89. The first $250k of gains is tax free

If you meet certain requirements re: sale of primary residence. The limit is $500k for qualified couples.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

135. I didn't know that, thanks

I may have seen those limits, but dismissed them from my mind. I'm in no danger of realizing a $250k or $500k gain, and don't have any family/friends in that situation.

I need to broaden my perspective on this stuff, if I'm going to recognize important changes coming up in Congress.

[Renew Deal]

21. There is a chapter in Al Frankens book about what you are doing

[dionysus]

23. wow.. there's a lot of FAIL in this OP... try harder next time graham.

[patrice]

28. This tax thing has only just started & BO is NO fool about what AMERICAN jobs look like. nt

[graham4anything]

29. President Obama raised the capital gains tax. Another anti-President Obama slant.

Congratulations to President Obama for roping the dopes yet again.
Every single time.
Best president we will ever have from 2008-infinity
Wish we could have him for another 1-2-3-4-5 terms after the 2nd one is complete.

[abelenkpe]

30. Capital gains and dividends should be taxed at the exact same rate as income nt

[patrice]

33. What part of, "The Right is lining up DROOOLING at the chops for 2016 already" don't you get?????

[indepat]

37. Republicans won't rest until BHO's tax cuts for the most affluent have been paid for

by cuts to social security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It's almost as certain as the sun rising in the east tomorrow.

[tjwash]

44. Funniest thread all week!

[Egalitarian Thug]

48. You didn't make it clear that those would have been the rates had we stepped off the fiscal curb.

So all the determinedly obtuse are blitzing the thread with figures from last year, the bush giveaway numbers. The team players will brook no criticism even as their pockets are picked.

Capital Gains would have gone back to 39.5%, now they're fixed at 20%.

The inheritance tax would have gone back to 55% on everything over $1M, now it's fixed at 40% over $5M.

And as you correctly point out, the fact that income taxes went up a bit on salaries, earned income, means almost nothing to the Big Winners. This deal was another huge giveaway to those that have already stolen everything.

Now we can hear about how cuts are absolutely essential and that we will have to tighten our belts some more. At least those of us that still have a belt.

[ProSense]

51. No, they would not have been the rates. The entire thing is false.

"So all the determinedly obtuse are blitzing the thread with figures from last year, the bush giveaway numbers. The team players will brook no criticism even as their pockets are picked."

And you have a lot of nerve to call other people "obtuse."

[Egalitarian Thug]

57. No deal, the cuts expired. That is completely documented. You can pretend otherwise all you

like, but that doesn't make it true.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/11-08-12-FiscalTightening.pdf

It's only 16 pages long.

[ProSense]

60. It expired? What the hell does that have to do with the fact that the rate was never 40 percent? n/t

[Egalitarian Thug]

68. Which rate are you talking about? Here's another sheet from FactCheck

http://factcheck.org/2012/11/facing-facts-on-fiscal-cliff/

Here's a source so you can look up the capital gains rates going back to 1988

http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-capital-gains-tax-rates-1988-2011
1999-2000 Rate was 39.6%

[ProSense]

72. 1999-2000, long-term rates were 20 percent and short-term rates were 39.6 percent

Those rates are not 23.8 percent and 43.4 percent, respectively.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022124531

[Egalitarian Thug]

74. You link to your post which links to 3 more of your posts, none of which says

what you keep trying to convince people that they say. Additionally, none of the links in the second post the the first post links to provide any factual data. One is the White House PR page and the other two are opinion pieces that you edited.

So, if you want to argue over the specifics of the capital gains tax code form fiscal year 1999 - 2000, we can. But your repeated assertion that the data is incorrect is a distortion at best.

I've shown you the CBO report, FactCheck.org's fact sheet and the IRS tax tables from the years in question. All three of these sources clearly show that had nothing been done the capital gains rates would have gone higher than they did in this so-called deal. Had nothing been done revenues were projected to rise $1.6T, the President wanted $800B and got $600B, a little more than a third of what we would have realized doing nothing.

Now, do you want to argue about the inheritance tax giveaway?

[ProSense]

86. The information is from your second link.

Did you not see what you posted?

[Egalitarian Thug]

90. Yes. The short term capital gains rate was 39.6%. So what about it? The 4/10ths?

I understand your desire to put the best face possible on this, but the overall facts remain. Step by step things just get better and better for the ruling class while things get worse and worse for everybody else. It's not like the rich were suffering under horrible conditions at the end of Clinton's term, but we could have at least got that much in exchange for the screwing we're getting. Even Bernie Sanders, who ended up voting for this, said it's a bad deal.

We got a couple of temporary band-aids while the owners got permanent gifts and their political employees got to pretend that they are doing their jobs.

[ProSense]

105. You clearly don't

"I understand your desire to put the best face possible on this, but the overall facts remain."

...have a clue what the facts are.

[Egalitarian Thug]

129. You have yet to show one single fact in this whole thread, as I pointed out.

Your links go to your own posts, which link to more of your own posts, which link to nothing but spin, opinion, and conjecture.

[jeff47]

107. Short-term capital gains are still taxed as regular income

With the deal, going over the cliff, or with all of the Bush tax cuts, short-term capital gains are regular income.

Meaning 39.6% for the top bracket with the deal, or going over the cliff.

[RomneyLies]

49. See post 87. eom

[samsingh]

52. i thought it went from 15 to 20%

[grahamhgreen]

102. Here's the thing, at midnight on the 31st, short term capital gains went up to 39.6%,

it was only after the deal was struck that they went down to 20%.

[ProSense]

103. You are ridiculously wrong

Short-term capital gains are taxed as ordinary income and the top rate is now 39.6 percent. With the additional 3.8 percent health care tax, it's 43.4 percent.

You're wrong.

[grahamhgreen]

118. Link?

[Neon2012]

53. At least it went up at all.

Maybe it'll keep going up.

[pnwmom]

64. Bloomberg reports Bush lowered long term capital gains tax from 20 to 15. Obama restored it to 20.

The long term rate applies to anything held more than a year.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-28/breaking-down-the-cliff-the-bush-tax-cuts.html

Bush's 2003 tax-cut package accelerated many of the original law's tax changes. It also eliminated the long-term capital-gains tax on individuals and couples in the two lowest marginal income brackets, and the 20 percent capital-gains tax bracket fell to 15 percent. And it eliminated the capital gains tax treatment for assets held longer than five years, folding it into the standard long-term rate, which is accessible at one year. Qualified dividends shifted from tax treatment as ordinary income into capital gains.

[budkin]

67. Totally wrong.

Next time do your research before you post this stuff.

[Carnage251]

70. Where is the unrec button?

[demwing]

73. Have a child, quickly

raise him or her to be a perfect person. I'm sure you can handle that task, right?

Instill in them perfect progressive values, incredible oratorical skills, and irresistible charm. Give them unconditional love, and teach them to trust your judgement. Pull this off, and they will take ALL of your advice, because that's what children do.

It might help if you mate with someone with perfect bone structure, great hair, and nice teeth and skin.

After they turn 35, have them run for and win the presidency. I'm confident you can pull this off, you strike me as being very.

Then cry, because your "perfect" candidate will still not give you everything that you want, and you will still suffer untold disappointment as a result.

That's because the problem isn't the candidate, it's you (or rather, your expectations). You can't have everything you want, not without sacrificing something that someone else wants. Those folks will want stuff too, and they'll get some of it. Some of what they get will require a sacrifice of some of the stuff you were expecting. The only way this works is if people learn to compromise, and not just when the compromise is an easy one.

Compromising does not equate to being compromised

[grahamhgreen]

116. I understand. I'm not saying he is a total loser, just that this deal was not the best he could

have achieved by any means, at least, not the best deal for the American people.

No deal was a better deal, IMHO.

I want him/us to do better in the future.

That's not going to happen if we don't point out how he/we can do better.

[raouldukelives]

75. They went up 5%. They need to go up another 40%.

With the stipulation that 30% of the extra tax goes to trying to remediate the incalculable damage done by Wall St and its supporters over the last century to our natural world and to the future of all living things.

[grahamhgreen]

114. Wall street profits the most from short term capital gains rates being low. They were 39.6% just

two days ago, now they are 20.

[Rex]

84. FAIL.

[Buzz Clik]

98. DU used to have rules about intentionally misleading OPs. Is that all in the past?

The OP was rank bullshit, particular the title.

Damn -- talk about FAIL.

[ProSense]

104. It's disingenuous

ODS crap. Seriously.

[grahamhgreen]

113. No, it's true. Although I will admit I have learned from the discussion that it is SHORT TERM

capital gains that were reduced, and regular capital gains stayed the same (from the enacted Budget Control Act of 2011, ie no deal).

[ProSense]

115. Completely

"Although I will admit I have learned from the discussion that it is SHORT TERM capital gains that were reduced "

...disingenuous. You've been told over and over that the short-term gains were not reduced.

[grahamhgreen]

117. They were reduced, on midnight of DEC 31st, 2012, the

Budget Control Act of 2011 went into effect, thus enacting the prior short term capital gains rate of 39.6% (http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-capital-gains-tax-rates-1988-2011), then after the deal was passed those rates were reduced to 20%.

[ProSense]

120. Learn to read.

Your own friggin link shows the short-term rates are 39.6 percent, which is the top rate for ordinary income.

[grahamhgreen]

122. If you read further, it says

"This table presumes.... the Bush tax cuts will expire", which they did not.

I'd love for you to be right, just prove it to me!

[ProSense]

124. "I'd love for you to be right, just prove it to me!"

People have been trying that the entire thread. You don't seem to care and prefer your false claim.

Short-term income is taxed as ordinary income. The top rate went up to 39.6 percent under the deal, same as prior to the Bush tax cuts. Additionally, there is a 3.8 percent health care tax on capital gains for top earners. Total: 43.4 percent.

I look forward to your ignoring the facts.

[grahamhgreen]

131. I have not seen a link to the short term cap gains rate being taxed at 39.6% post deal.

Can you link it or link it again?

An I will eat crow.

[Egalitarian Thug]

139. How ironic that you have the nerve to jump on this point.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2125813

Disingenuous, indeed.

[DevonRex]

119. Bless your heart.

My RW sister didn't even try to pull this one off. And lookit all the recs you got! Golly! Personally, I'm happy the rates went from 15% to 20%. That's 5% more on a helluva lot of money.

[magical thyme]

121. short term capital gains are taxed as ordinary income

Long term capital gains have 2 rates: 0% for those who's income tax bracket is </= to 15% and 15% for those in >15% income tax bracket.

I just went through training for my financial call service job. We heard nothing about any changes to changes in capital gains taxes.

[bluestate10]

125. You clearly don't understand what Capital Gains are.

Any security that is held two years or longer qualify for the capital gains rate, that rate was 15%. Obama got the rate increased to 20%. Any security that is sold with a gain but not held for 24 months generates what is called a short term gain, that gain is taxes at roughly the taxpayer's tax rate.

Rich people make money and pay at the capital gains rate of 20% instead of their 39.5% rate because they seldom, if ever, sell earlier than 2 years due to the amount of money that they have.

You should be crying about the difference between treatment of capital gains and gains from investment in businesses that actually end with people being hired and getting benefits. The tax rate on business investment is taxed at the corporate tax rate, which is around 10% higher than the new capital gain rate. But I doubt that there will be complaint because some on DU prefer to bash any thing that is remotely related to capitalism.

[BlueDemKev]

126. It was 15%, not 40%

The capital gains tax rate was 28% under Clinton. It was cut to 15% by the Bush tax cuts in 2001, and has now been raised to 20%. I do wish it had been restored to 28% however, we do not control the House and therefore we have to compromise with the Rethugs.

[ProSense]

130. The long term rate was reduced to 20 percent from 1997 to 2000.

So it was going back to that rate.

[BlueDemKev]

133. Okay, thanks for clarifying that.

[11 Bravo]

136. FAIL. Adelson's estate is in the BILLIONS. The difference between ...

an estate tax rate based on 1 million as opposed to 5 million is a fraction of a percentage point in terms of his tax liability. I doubt he's sporting a chub over that particular tidbit.

[Egalitarian Thug]

138. But the difference between 40% and 55% is $3.24 billion. You think he doesn't care about that? n/t

[Egalitarian Thug]

145. What? I couldn't hear that. n/t

[backscatter712]

140. HELLO???

[grahamhgreen]

143. Yes, that change cost us 200 billion...

"While many executives or employees who are able to negotiate their salaries often have a decision to get paid in stock holdings, people with middle or lower incomes usually do not.

"They really aren't given the opportunities like that to convert your income," he said. "How many teachers have big long-term capital gains to take advantage of?"The Treasury Department reported in its budget for the 2013 fiscal year that increasing the capital gains tax rate to 20 percent would bring in about $36 billion in tax revenue over 10 years. Taxing dividends as ordinary income would bring in an even larger piece of the pie: $200 billion over 10 years." http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/12/13/-capital-gains-tax-what-average-americans-should-know/

[The revenge]

151. Capital gains

To the op.
Your generalization of people who EARN capital gains is really unfair.
See my folks worked their fingers to the bone at a personal business there whole lives. Too tired to work as hard they decided to retire. They sold the business and owner financed the real estate. That's their income now. Now they have to pay capital gains. The drastic rate increase would greatly effect their monthly budget.
They worked hard for that income.

[JDPriestly]

152. This is an opportunity for state governments to impose higher taxes on those types of income.

I hope they take the opportunity. It's so important to elect Democrats to state offices because state tax policies are more important than people realize.