Capital Gainst tax is a tax on the *profit* you gain from selling an asset. So if you buy a house for $100K you pay tax on it, but if you sell it for $200K you pay capital gains tax on the profit you made, not on the $100K. This is the way I understand it.

So you aren't paying tax twice.

So, let's follow this for a minute. I invest in a company (adding capital). The company produces a product. It pays taxes. (Let's forget the special deals in Seneca County for a minute.)LMAO! The company buys buildings and pays sales tax on the purchase. The company pays taxes on its buildings over time (property tax - I do understand that this goes toward community services, but still another tax). It also pays taxes on its revenues (sales tax). It pays it's employees' wages (who pay all kinds of taxes out of that). Then, I make a profit (because the company has grown) and sell my stock. ALL of the gain in my stock has been taxable in one way or another (at least once to this point), yet I have to pay ANOTHER tax on that profit.

You are right. We aren't paying taxes twice.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/12/0..._campaign=daily
President Obama opened for questions:

Ben Feller.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You’ve been telling the American people all along that you oppose extending the tax cuts for the wealthier Americans. You said that again today. But what you never said was that you oppose the tax cuts, but you’d be willing to go ahead and extend them for a couple years if the politics of the moment demand it.

So what I’m wondering is when you take a stand like you had, why should the American people believe that you’re going to stick with it? Why should the American people believe that you’re not going to flip flop?

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on a second, Ben. This isn’t the politics of the moment. This has to do with what can we get done right now. So the issue -- here’s the choice. It’s very stark. We can’t get my preferred option through the Senate right now. As a consequence, if we don’t get my option through the Senate right now, and we do nothing, then on January 1st of this -- of 2011, the average family is going to see their taxes go up about $3,000. Number two: At the end of this month, 2 million people will lose their unemployment insurance.

Now, I have an option, which is to say, you know what, I’m going to keep fighting a political fight, which I can’t win in the Senate -- and by the way, there are going to be more Republican senators in the Senate next year sworn in than there are currently. So the likelihood that the dynamic is going to improve for us getting my preferred option through the Senate will be diminished. I’ve got an option of just holding fast to my position and, as a consequence, 2 million people may not be able to pay their bills and tens of millions of people who are struggling right now are suddenly going to see their paychecks smaller. Or alternatively, what I can do is I can say that I am going to stick to my position that those folks get relief, that people get help for unemployment insurance. And I will continue to fight before the American people to make the point that the Republican position is wrong.

Now, if there was not collateral damage, if this was just a matter of my politics or being able to persuade the American people to my side, then I would just stick to my guns, because the fact of the matter is the American people already agree with me. There are polls showing right now that the American people, for the most part, think it’s a bad idea to provide tax cuts to the wealthy.

But the issue is not me persuading the American people; they’re already there. The issue is, how do I persuade the Republicans in the Senate who are currently blocking that position. I have not been able to budge them. And I don’t think there’s any suggestion anybody in this room thinks realistically that we can budge them right now.

And in the meantime, there are a whole bunch of people being hurt and the economy would be damaged. And my first job is to make sure that the economy is growing, that we’re creating jobs out there, and that people who are struggling are getting some relief. And if I have to choose between having a protracted political battle on the one hand, but those folks being hurt or helping those folks and continuing to fight this political battle over the next two years, I will choose the latter.

Could you even read from a teleprompter? For someone who seems to have the intellectual prowess of a chiapet, you talk a good game but never have anything positive to contribute.

Ahahahahah... Positive contributes to what?
You kissing the Antichrist's butt and how you left-wing nut jobs want to spend money that you didn't earn?
Or is it because I'm not sympathetic to your whinny crap that you spew?

But who gets to pay the bill?

So, let's follow this for a minute. I invest in a company (adding capital). The company produces a product. It pays taxes. (Let's forget the special deals in Seneca County for a minute.) The company buys buildings and pays sales tax on the purchase. The company pays taxes on its buildings over time (property tax - I do understand that this goes toward community services, but still another tax). It also pays taxes on its revenues (sales tax). It pays it's employees' wages (who pay all kinds of taxes out of that). Then, I make a profit (because the company has grown) and sell my stock. ALL of the gain in my stock has been taxable in one way or another (at least once to this point), yet I have to pay ANOTHER tax on that profit.

You are right. We aren't paying taxes twice.

Well with your logic, I pay income tax on my paycheck, then get taxed on that money when I use it to buy something (sales tax) and get taxed for owning property, so my money is taxed again for a property tax.

So... lets get rid of the income tax and just tax capital gains. Sound ok? Im all for only getting taxed once. Why not just tax capital gains, and not income? Im not taxed on my paycheck, but I get taxed when I sell stock or my house. ok?

Here is another example of why capital gains taxes make no sense.

If my company buys equipment for, let's say $100,000, then uses and depreciates it for 10 years and the value is now 0. I am interested in upgrading so I find out equipment to replace it is now $150,000. I can sell the old equipment for $50,000. Ok, it would make sense to sell my old epuipment and buy the new stuff. Nope, forgot that because my equipment was worth $0 I would have to pay capital gains on that $50,000. It no longer makes sense to buy new as long as my old works.

Your equipment isn't worth $0 just because you depreciated it on your books. Used equipment increases in value because of inflation too you know. If new equipment still cost $100K like it did the first time, your used equipment might be worth say.. 10% of its original value. That's $10K.

But now new equipment costs $150K, so the old equipment will sell for $15K (or at least, will sell for more than it did if new equip still only cost $100K). Through inflation you should be making more money too, because the price of the product you are selling has increased... unless of course your company exists in a country that breaks unions and encourages a high income gap and you end up with the bulk of your citizens having stagnant wages, then businesses find it hard to increase the sell price of their product because people just can't afford it... and it causes economic problems.

kind of like how the US is right now.

also:

"Why do we have a preference for capital gains in the first place? The main argument is that lower taxes on capital gains boost investment. But the evidence on that point is iffy at best, and there are better ways to spur investment, like, say, the investment tax credit. Besides, lower taxes on capital gains reduce the tax bills of the rich relative to the rest of us — after all, they own most of the capital. But in this age of hyper-inequality, shouldn’t we be making the tax code more progressive, not less?
A far more important objection is that the tax preference for capital gains undermines capitalism — a system in which capitalists, not the state, are supposed to make the investment decisions. When I discuss this issue with my Economics 101 students, I show them an example of a proposed investment that loses money before tax (and which, therefore, should be rejected) but which actually turns a profit after tax because of the preferentially low capital gains rate. (Accountants and tax lawyers live this example every day.) The government thus induces people to make bad investments."

Read more: http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/mar...x#ixzz17eWZ8ACk

Rich people run the country, is it any wonder you are parroting their arguments as to why you should reduce their tax burden?

I hope to convince the govt to take from some neighbors and give to others.

I'd be a bit more concerned with the Fed bailing out Europe to the tune 3.3 trillion

3.3 Trillion Bail Out to Europe...


It is sad that there are news stories about the bail out mega bucks going to European banks. Sad because that was common knowledge at the time and most paid little attention to it in the glow of the election of the messiah to office as President. All people saw was a free ride for everyone with bail outs galore. It was not so then, it will not be so now. People need to be aware!




A major chunk of the bail out money went overseas to keep European banks afloat and while some argue this helps America, it is just not the truth.
The USA provided, 3.3 TRILLION in credit to those banks from the Federal Reserve, which some people STILL fail to realize is a NOT a federal agency at all but a private institution controlling much of the US money policies.
The bailed out institutions of Wall Street, big banks and European banks are the ones who caused the financial crisis. Americans were not bailed out of anything and lost much as a result. The American public will shoulder this debt that benefited them not at all.
The "too big to fail" idea is one foisted on the public by the Federal Reserve.


A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men ... We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men. (Woodrow Wilson)

Wilson signed the Fed into existence in 1913 and they have "debauched" the currency of the US on a steady ongoing basis.
As John Maynard Keynes stated,

“There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic laws on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one in a million is able to diagnose.”


One can note that men like Soros and the Wall street boys have actually changed our society. In fact Soros himself has brought down a few nations in just that way!
Our founding fathers all warned of the dangers of a central private bank creating money by fiat. It would lead to the downfall of the nation. Money talks my friends and those who control the money , control the nations.
Wilson was right, the creation of the Federal Reserve was a huge mistake.
The fact is these private bankers are not concerned with the welfare of the nations to any extent at all except as those nations make money for them. They, like George Soros etc, view nations and their populations as get rich quick schemes. It is all about lining the pockets and line them is exactly what these men do. They live off the people who are left lean and starving while they live sumptuous lives of greed.

You can read more about these massive amounts given away at the Financial Times.

And more about this colossal rip off of the American people at the Washington Post and HERE

Always look at what the other hand is doing while they keep you occupied with some other nonsense.