General Discussion

W_HAMILTON

(10,246 posts)

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

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 06:15 PM

Jan 2013

Last edited Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:09 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.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

152 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

FAIL. Obama LOWERED Capital Gains Tax from 40% to 20%! [View all] grahamhgreen Jan 2013 OP

The capital gains was 15% and went up to 20% BumRushDaShow Jan 2013 #1

The short-term rate ProSense Jan 2013 #7

not according to this: HiPointDem Jan 2013 #22

Do you have a link for that? grahamhgreen Jan 2013 #35

LOL! ProSense Jan 2013 #61

Isn't the lower rate on the first $250K of capital gains? kentuck Jan 2013 #80

Do you have a link to that data other than one of your own posts, like from the CBO, or the grahamhgreen Jan 2013 #85

They are right. The Capital Gains rate used to be 25%. The rate was decreased to 20% bluestate10 Jan 2013 #128

Obama said the rich would go back to the "Clinton rates" BlueStreak Jan 2013 #19

You say: truedelphi Jan 2013 #94

Case in point, right out of today's news BlueStreak Jan 2013 #110

What very sad news. truedelphi Jan 2013 #144

What it appears is that when the "Budget Control Act of 2011" went into effect at Midnight on the grahamhgreen Jan 2013 #38

Capital gains is ProSense Jan 2013 #2

Has anyone made the comparison of the deal vs. no deal? nm rhett o rick Jan 2013 #17

"No deal" would have raised more taxes and resulted in a more progressive tax system. W_HAMILTON Jan 2013 #24

That makes no sense. ProSense Jan 2013 #26

Yes, it does. W_HAMILTON Jan 2013 #31

Nonsense. ProSense Jan 2013 #36

Just because you say it's nonsense doesn't make it so. W_HAMILTON Jan 2013 #39

That chart doesn't prove your point. ProSense Jan 2013 #41

Your two-sentence responses aren't doing very much to further your position or this discussion. W_HAMILTON Jan 2013 #45

You think it is a good idea that the average middle class family would pay $2000 more in taxes per stevenleser Jan 2013 #50

Ouch. Good one, Steve! SunSeeker Jan 2013 #54

This message was self-deleted by its author rhett o rick Jan 2013 #147

If simply paying more taxes than you were before means a deal is not progressive... W_HAMILTON Jan 2013 #55

Hurting the middle class so we can also hurt the wealthy at the same time is not Progressivism stevenleser Jan 2013 #56

Exactly. And I think some who claim to be progressive are really just vindictive towards wealth. phleshdef Jan 2013 #59

It's not about "hurting" anyone. W_HAMILTON Jan 2013 #62

The payroll tax holiday was a temporary stimulus measure and has zero to do with a progressive code. phleshdef Jan 2013 #78

The Bush tax cuts were supposed to be temporary, too. W_HAMILTON Jan 2013 #97

He was explaining a progressive tax structure (http://bit.ly/Un4onH) grahamhgreen Jan 2013 #96

No one wants to "hurt poor and/or middle class people" and for you to suggest that rhett o rick Jan 2013 #146

It's not intellectually dishonest, it's right on point considering the feedback here. We won this stevenleser Jan 2013 #149

No cuts in SS is not a victory. This is a good example of where some Democrats are today. rhett o rick Jan 2013 #150

Wrong. The payroll tax cut as a long term tax cut would harm solvency of Social Security. phleshdef Jan 2013 #58

Eliminating the payroll tax holiday... W_HAMILTON Jan 2013 #65

Yes. If it is phased back in with triggers based on the unemployment rate BlueStreak Jan 2013 #63

How was it "less than half as much" as Obama was going for? phleshdef Jan 2013 #79

Obama was going for $1,600,000,000,000 of revenue -- "compromised" on about 1/3 that much BlueStreak Jan 2013 #81

I'm done at the word "backbone". Its being overused by a bunch of keyboard warriors.... phleshdef Jan 2013 #83

That was the NY Times using that phrase, not me. BlueStreak Jan 2013 #92

And? phleshdef Jan 2013 #111

Makes perfect sense. Tax would have been raised on the middle class but rhett o rick Jan 2013 #148

+1 Luminous Animal Jan 2013 #32

It would have raised more revenue, but would have been more regressive jeff47 Jan 2013 #42

You are completely wrong. W_HAMILTON Jan 2013 #46

Apparently, you can't read your own chart jeff47 Jan 2013 #77

Please don't accuse me of not being able to understand something... W_HAMILTON Jan 2013 #95

Repeating the same errors doesn't make them true. jeff47 Jan 2013 #99

Well, that's the first thing I'll agree with you on: the title of your post. W_HAMILTON Jan 2013 #123

You're still not bothering to find out what's actually in the deal jeff47 Jan 2013 #142

Thats also what I am curious about NoOneMan Jan 2013 #25

I don't know the exact numbers, but that's probably true. W_HAMILTON Jan 2013 #34

Yes, I noticed that NoOneMan Jan 2013 #40

why do you need to manipulate the facts to make your point? MjolnirTime Jan 2013 #3

It went up significantly less than it would have had nothing been done. Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #69

You are wrong about the Capital Gains tax, it would not have been raised had Obama bluestate10 Jan 2013 #132

OK fine, I'm tired of arguing minutiae. That still doesn't change the fact that overall revenues Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #137

No 'fail;' you are wrong. elleng Jan 2013 #4

The question is not this year vs last year, but deal vs no deal. grahamhgreen Jan 2013 #43

You're wrong, and ProSense Jan 2013 #47

That's not correct. I think maybe some of the confusion pnwmom Jan 2013 #66

So you're saying the short term capital gain went from 39.6% to 20%, grahamhgreen Jan 2013 #100

No, short term gains are still taxed as normal income jeff47 Jan 2013 #106

Right. And that is a big change for dividends. n/t pnwmom Jan 2013 #109

No, that's not I'm saying -- or, really, Bloomberg. pnwmom Jan 2013 #108

20%, instead of 40%. It was supposed to go to 40%. All that revenue was just given to the rich. robinlynne Jan 2013 #127

No it wasn't. bluestate10 Jan 2013 #134

Actually, the max. CG rate HAS been at or above 40% spooky3 Jan 2013 #141

"Bankers Anonymous"? Tarheel_Dem Jan 2013 #5

That's exactly what I said: tosh Jan 2013 #27

how come all the graham's on DU have OP that fail? snooper2 Jan 2013 #6

They're all crackers. Ikonoklast Jan 2013 #8

my name is bob and while not mean i do get easily irritated leftyohiolib Jan 2013 #9

My uncle Bob always said his name was short for Back Off, Bud. DFab420 Jan 2013 #15

You Better Believe It!! nt msanthrope Jan 2013 #13

Blast from the past!!! LOL! JoePhilly Jan 2013 #82

Wrong Cali_Democrat Jan 2013 #10

This is the sort of OP that makes me wish we still had an "unrec" button... regnaD kciN Jan 2013 #11

You Better Believe It!! nt msanthrope Jan 2013 #12

op fail bigtree Jan 2013 #14

I'm beginning to find people who invent silly names like The Grand Bamboozle for important issues.. DFab420 Jan 2013 #16

You should be more concerned about the lie in "Fiscal Cliff" JackRiddler Jan 2013 #88

I stand with you on that one, Jack! n/t truedelphi Jan 2013 #93

How 'bout "Grand Bargain"? grahamhgreen Jan 2013 #101

Um.. the FAIL is all on you. HappyMe Jan 2013 #18

Capital Gains Taxes Applies to Folks Selling Their Homes to Pay Their Retirement Yavin4 Jan 2013 #20

If you roll the proceeds into any approved retirement account all the taxes are deferred. Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #71

I don't think this is correct. Do you have a link? spooky3 Jan 2013 #87

And real estate proceeds. When the accounting pro comes home I'll double check. n/t Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #91

I thought the capital gain on a home is forgiven ... JustABozoOnThisBus Jan 2013 #76

The first $250k of gains is tax free spooky3 Jan 2013 #89

I didn't know that, thanks JustABozoOnThisBus Jan 2013 #135

There is a chapter in Al Frankens book about what you are doing Renew Deal Jan 2013 #21

wow.. there's a lot of FAIL in this OP... try harder next time graham. dionysus Jan 2013 #23

This tax thing has only just started & BO is NO fool about what AMERICAN jobs look like. nt patrice Jan 2013 #28

President Obama raised the capital gains tax. Another anti-President Obama slant. graham4anything Jan 2013 #29

Capital gains and dividends should be taxed at the exact same rate as income nt abelenkpe Jan 2013 #30

What part of, "The Right is lining up DROOOLING at the chops for 2016 already" don't you get????? patrice Jan 2013 #33

Republicans won't rest until BHO's tax cuts for the most affluent have been paid for indepat Jan 2013 #37

Funniest thread all week! tjwash Jan 2013 #44

You didn't make it clear that those would have been the rates had we stepped off the fiscal curb. Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #48

No, they would not have been the rates. The entire thing is false. ProSense Jan 2013 #51

No deal, the cuts expired. That is completely documented. You can pretend otherwise all you Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #57

It expired? What the hell does that have to do with the fact that the rate was never 40 percent? n/t ProSense Jan 2013 #60

Which rate are you talking about? Here's another sheet from FactCheck Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #68

1999-2000, long-term rates were 20 percent and short-term rates were 39.6 percent ProSense Jan 2013 #72

You link to your post which links to 3 more of your posts, none of which says Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #74

The information is from your second link. ProSense Jan 2013 #86

Yes. The short term capital gains rate was 39.6%. So what about it? The 4/10ths? Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #90

You clearly don't ProSense Jan 2013 #105

You have yet to show one single fact in this whole thread, as I pointed out. Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #129

Short-term capital gains are still taxed as regular income jeff47 Jan 2013 #107

See post 87. eom RomneyLies Jan 2013 #49

i thought it went from 15 to 20% samsingh Jan 2013 #52

Here's the thing, at midnight on the 31st, short term capital gains went up to 39.6%, grahamhgreen Jan 2013 #102

You are ridiculously wrong ProSense Jan 2013 #103

Link? grahamhgreen Jan 2013 #118

At least it went up at all. Neon2012 Jan 2013 #53

Bloomberg reports Bush lowered long term capital gains tax from 20 to 15. Obama restored it to 20. pnwmom Jan 2013 #64

Totally wrong. budkin Jan 2013 #67

Where is the unrec button? Carnage251 Jan 2013 #70

Have a child, quickly demwing Jan 2013 #73

I understand. I'm not saying he is a total loser, just that this deal was not the best he could grahamhgreen Jan 2013 #116

They went up 5%. They need to go up another 40%. raouldukelives Jan 2013 #75

Wall street profits the most from short term capital gains rates being low. They were 39.6% just grahamhgreen Jan 2013 #114

FAIL. Rex Jan 2013 #84

DU used to have rules about intentionally misleading OPs. Is that all in the past? Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #98

It's disingenuous ProSense Jan 2013 #104

No, it's true. Although I will admit I have learned from the discussion that it is SHORT TERM grahamhgreen Jan 2013 #113

Completely ProSense Jan 2013 #115

They were reduced, on midnight of DEC 31st, 2012, the grahamhgreen Jan 2013 #117

Learn to read. ProSense Jan 2013 #120

If you read further, it says grahamhgreen Jan 2013 #122

"I'd love for you to be right, just prove it to me!" ProSense Jan 2013 #124

I have not seen a link to the short term cap gains rate being taxed at 39.6% post deal. grahamhgreen Jan 2013 #131

How ironic that you have the nerve to jump on this point. Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #139

Post removed Post removed Jan 2013 #112

Bless your heart. DevonRex Jan 2013 #119

short term capital gains are taxed as ordinary income magical thyme Jan 2013 #121

You clearly don't understand what Capital Gains are. bluestate10 Jan 2013 #125

It was 15%, not 40% BlueDemKev Jan 2013 #126

The long term rate was reduced to 20 percent from 1997 to 2000. ProSense Jan 2013 #130

Okay, thanks for clarifying that. BlueDemKev Jan 2013 #133

FAIL. Adelson's estate is in the BILLIONS. The difference between ... 11 Bravo Jan 2013 #136

But the difference between 40% and 55% is $3.24 billion. You think he doesn't care about that? n/t Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #138

What? I couldn't hear that. n/t Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #145

HELLO??? backscatter712 Jan 2013 #140

Yes, that change cost us 200 billion... grahamhgreen Jan 2013 #143

Capital gains The revenge Jan 2013 #151

This is an opportunity for state governments to impose higher taxes on those types of income. JDPriestly Jan 2013 #152