Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[Arthur Dent]

It doesn't punish any more than working, the money has already been taxed though. It shouldn't be taxed again. I did say that it favors the wealthy, but it also "punishes" those that are relying on their investments to retire, especially the non-wealthy people out there. You can't deny that.

The whole "twice taxed" distinction is pretty meaningless, but in any case, it doesn't even apply here. The capital gains tax applies only to the gain in value, not the original amount invested (which was already taxed). If you buy something for $1000 and later sell it for $1500, you must pay tax on the $500 because that is new income. And, yes, I can argue that it is not seriously punishing people (like me) who plan on relying on investments to retire. My investments are in tax exempt retirement accounts.

(EDIT: not that it matters at this point since these accounts all currently have pretty massive losses.)

I didn't know about the 1 million/person. Thanks for that. I still don't think it's right to be able to take a family's wealth after the head of the household dies if they've been paying taxes as Uncle Sam requires throughout their life.

The exemption is kind of important to the issue. There's a reason the estate tax opponents managed to fail to mention it.

[PujolJunkie]

Uh oh.

North Carolina(PPP) - Obama 50, McCain 44, Barr 2 (O +6)

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

And, yes, I can argue that it is not seriously punishing people (like me) who plan on relying on investments to retire. My investments are in tax exempt retirement accounts.

(EDIT: not that it matters at this point since these accounts all currently have pretty massive losses.)

Then you're not paying the capital gains tax and not a person I'm talking about. But, say your money has doubled since you've put it in there and you're paying 20% on that 50%. How would you feel if your portfolio just lost another 10% before you could even touch it?

[GatewaySnayke]

It's going to be interesting to see the polls on Thursday and Friday, because they should reflect what everybody thinks of the Obama-Ayers stuff. If it backfires, Obama won't even need to play up the relationship between McCain and G. Gordon Liddy.

[Michael]

It's going to be interesting to see the polls on Thursday and Friday, because they should reflect what everybody thinks of the Obama-Ayers stuff. If it backfires, Obama won't even need to play up the relationship between McCain and G. Gordon Liddy.

Given the market events today I think the attacks will largely be ignored, which is good news for the Obama camp.

[Arthur Dent]

Then you're not paying the capital gains tax and not a person I'm talking about. But, say your money has doubled since you've put it in there and you're paying 20% on that 50%. How would you feel if your portfolio just lost another 10% before you could even touch it?

You specifically referenced "those that are relying on their investments to retire". Those people can put their investments in retirement accounts. The people paying the capital gains tax are primarily people who are using their investment income for something other than retirement. As to how I'd feel about it, I feel about the same as I do about any other taxes I pay. I'd be happy to pay less but am also fine with doing my part.

[Leroy]

I think it is because the people are investing and earning capital gains. They are assuming risk. They can deduct their losses, but only $3,000 a year.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Then you're not paying the capital gains tax and not a person I'm talking about. But, say your money has doubled since you've put it in there and you're paying 20% on that 50%. How would you feel if your portfolio just lost another 10% before you could even touch it?

You specifically referenced "those that are relying on their investments to retire". Those people can put their investments in retirement accounts. The people paying the capital gains tax are primarily people who are using their investment income for something other than retirement. As to how I'd feel about it, I feel about the same as I do about any other taxes I pay. I'd be happy to pay less but am also fine with doing my part.

So, everyone can make their investments tax free by rolling them into an IRA? Even so, what if you want to retire before you can touch your IRA's? What if you want to live feebly off the 1 million I talked about earlier starting at an age of say 53 since you think your health won't hold out?

[BenNX74205]

I'm not sure what is so bad about capital gains tax. If you take your money and invest it, and it earns money, then people should be taxed for that. It's like earning a salary--when you make money, it gets taxed. I don't think people are arguing against an income tax.

And the problem of having to pay the capital gains tax when you take the money out for retirement or living or whatever--it's taxed then because it's (1) the easiest way to do it, and (2) it just makes more sense to do it. The other option is to tax the person every year on the small(er) amount. This is much more likely to force someone to liquidate the asset to pay the tax.

And besides, the capital gains tax rate is significantly lower than the income tax rate. I don't see capital gains tax as "double tax"--as was said earlier, only the gain is being taxed.

As for the estate tax, I'm torn because nowadays it is a very small percentage of overall tax revenue. But with the exemptions (currently $2 million/person; up to $3.5 million/person next year, but who knows what it will be come 2011), the estate tax really only affects the extremely wealthy. And really, it's not a tax on death; it's a tax on transfer of wealth--basically everything that is taxed falls into that category.

It's a bit harsh-sounding when it's called the estate tax, but it's really a VERY large gift tax situation. If someone gave all their property away before death, it would be taxed. Even if it was given to relatives.

And transfers at death aren't all bad, either. When assets are transferred at death, the receiver gets a "basis" of the current fair market value of that asset at the time of death. This is opposed to someone who gets a gift "before death," where the "basis" is what the giver paid for the asset when the giver purchased it. So, if your Dad bought Microsoft stock for $1, and gave it to you today, when you sell it your gains would be "A LOT OF MONEY" less the $1 "purchase price." That would mean paying a whole lot of taxes. But if the stock is received through a will or as a result of death, the gains on sale would be much smaller, because the "basis" in the property is much higher than $1 (unless the market really is THAT far down)...

I hope that all made sense.....

[PujolJunkie]

Rasmussen polls out in 8 minutes. OH, FL, VA, CO, MO. And David Shuster says the NBC national poll coming out tonight is a big shocker.