|
Quote:
you do with an art collection? there’s a reason why it’s never been tried. nice guess why i’m in a cubicle, you’ve kept alive your impressive streak of being wrong in everything. i’m in a cubicle because my goal was to find a job where i could live the way i live now, but not have to work a ton of hours. i’ve had opportunities to move into an office, but i don’t want the extra work hours. i dont need more money, i need more time with my kids. “tax capital gains at death”. which would force a huge number of people who inherited homes, to sell them because they can’t afford the tax. i would truly love all democrats to campaign on the promise of taxing unrealized capital gains. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
In 2018, the top 1% of households obtained 69% of realized long-term capital gains; the top 20% received 90% of the gains.
Although taxation on realization provides advantages with respect to liquidity and valuation, it also creates several problems. The underlying problem is that the current system does not tax a household’s economic income, which is the sum of the household’s consumption and the change in its wealth during the year. By this standard, all capital gains that occur in the year in question should be included—whether realized or unrealized. Also the tax rate on realized capital gains is lower than the tax rate on wages, if the asset was held for at least a year before selling. Realized capital gains face a top statutory marginal income tax rate of 20 percent plus a supplemental net investment income tax rate of 3.8 percent, for a combined total of 23.8 percent. Wages face a top marginal tax rate of 37 percent, plus a Medicare tax rate of 2.9 percent and a supplemental tax of 0.9 percent, for a combined rate of 40.8 percent. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
I have a question on school choice . Let’s say you have 2 households they pay the same property taxes both house hold incomes are the same . And both stay in the and town till the kid finish high. School Yet 1 house hold sends 1 child to public school and the other has 5 but wants them all to go to private school. Via school choices
So how much is in a school choice voucher worth I saw this On average, 8% of revenues are federal, 47% from the state, and 45% locally sourced. Since 2008, states have reduced their school funding from taxes by 12%, the most pronounced drop on record. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
the parents who opt for private school are happy that they made a better choice for their kid. the public school keeps the other $10k they were going to spend in my kid, ow they have more to spend on the remaining kids. And class sizes decrease. That’s a major over simplification I know. but it could work and be win-win for everyone except teachers unions, which is the only reason why democrats oppose it. despite referring to themselves as pro choice. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
by what logic would it not work? most poor people want school choice, so are you saying you don’t trust poor black parents to be able to decide what’s best for their kids? Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
You think $5000 is going to enable a poor family to send their kid to private school in any rural area or suburban area?
Would transportation be free? Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
In CT, transportation is free for kids who live in the same town as the private school. even if transportation were included, it’s still a win for the town. they can now spend more money per pupil, and there are now smaller class sizes, which is unanimously agreed to help improve the quality of education. Plus common sense suggests that if public schools are faced with competition, they’d step up their game. The only downside is to the teachers unions. Which is all that matters to the Democrats. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Maybe the kids from East Hartford could just go to their choice of schools in West Hartford.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Here is the problem: at least 85% of the problem we have in inner-city, high-poverty urban schools has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the quality of education, the qualifications of the teachers, or classroom management skills. Nearly ALL of the problems stem from two things: a total lack of effective consequences that the kids find worth avoiding, and laws that keep incorrigible kids in the classroom. PERIOD—that’s it. If we took care of both of these problems, then the VAST majority of our “failing schools” problem would cease to exist.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
you tell me, which political side would tend to go along with your proposal, and which would fight it. the liberals run the cities, and they run the state of CT, they could fix that today if they wanted. but my kids are now in private school because of one reason - the public schools are poorly run. unions often implement education policies that are completely at odds with what’s best for kids, and you don’t have union interference in private schools. one reason why they’re better. Pete, when i taught in an economically challenged suburb of new haven, we had problems with fights between classes. so the principal asked all the teachers to use the 5 minute break between periods to look in the hallways to keep an eye out for trouble. A reasonable request, right? That same day, the union told us to absolutely refuse to do that, because that 5 minutes was a contractually negotiated “break”, and that if the school wanted us to “work” during those 5 minutes, they’d have to pay us first. That is one thing eroding the quality of education that you left out. The unions are awful. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Because West Hartford is 80% white?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Union shop, you need to talk to the reps about what you’d like them to do. Common goals work. That’s the difference between manager and master. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Quote:
No, because many people work their butts off to be able to move from Hartford to West Hartford specifically for the schools, and they deserve that. Not many people like forced busing. |
Quote:
Pete, I have worked in an office and managed a team of as many as 8 actuaries. I was good at it, but now with kids I want to be done for the day at 5:00 every day. Unlike you, I also know how to discuss things without getting ignored from people as rational as Bryan and not get banned from starting threads. I've never believed that the total measure of a man is how high he is on the company org chart. You obviously feel differently. That mindset shows in the angry, pathetic, warped nature of your posts. And you inability to ever admit that anyone to the right of Pol Pot has ever been right about anything on this forum. I'm going to retire with a nest egg that will allow my wife and I to live on the interest, and leave every cent of principal for our kids. That's my goal. Having done what we need to do to achieve that, why would I want to work any longer hours than I have to? It's a flaw to take my kids off the school bus? id rather play catch with my kids until dark than work. Id rather coach little league than miss half the games. Read into that whatever you want. Shock you're a union guy. We're all shocked. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Aren’t we talking about voluntary school choice? Vermont has had that for years for high school and you have to deal with transportation yourself. Excludes marginally employed people Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
And I've been in a teachers union. Since we're talking about education, which is more relevant? "you need to talk to the reps about what you’d like them to do. Common goals work." Not in any teachers union. Not how it works. |
Quote:
And there are white people living in Hartford, and minorities in West Hartford. This is news to you? "Vermont has had that for years for high school and you have to deal with transportation yourself." Most blue states are adamantly opposed. Because teachers unions don't want the competition. How did your union construction guys like it when jobs were awarded to non-union shops? Did you shake the other guys hand and offer a sincere congratulations? I don't think so. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
But have worked with some great union guys. Unions aren't that scary. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Hearing voices again, I see. I also worked with union workers who were tireless heroes. But when you pay the worst teacher the same as the best teacher, every honest person knows what happens in the end. Then, with public unions, you have the insurmountable conflict interest that arises when the unions give big $$ to elect democrats, who then decide how much money to give to the unions they are beholden to. Again, it's easy to predict what happens there. Pete, the principal asked us to look in the hallway for a couple of minutes to help keep kids safe, and the union forbid us to do it. If that's OK with you, good for you. Pete, I have worked in an office and managed a team of as many as 8 actuaries. I was good at it, but now with kids I want to be done for the day at 5:00 every day. "8 guys, so you were kinda like a foreman?" I don't know what I was kinda like in your bizarre world, only what I actually was in my world. "Unions aren't that scary." Again, hearing whose voices. Not scary. But in the public sphere, they are deeply corrupt, and horribly expensive and inefficient. |
Quote:
A principal is an administrator and can't arbitrarily change work rules. That's not how it works. |
Quote:
Public sector unions are the scariest. Strictly in-shop private sector unions make the most sense and are not very scary. |
Rounding error #1
The simplest change would be to end basis step-up at death, eliminating the “Angel of Death” loophole. Eliminating basis step-up for heirs would result in a regime called “carryover basis.” The basis of an asset would not change when bequests are made. When the asset is later sold by an heir, the taxable basis would be the same as when the decedent owned it. Under a carryover basis system, capital gains tax would continue to be owed when the gain is realized. An asset that was purchased at $100, bequeathed and inherited at $300, and sold by the heir at $350 would have a capital gain of $250. Under the current system with step-up in basis, the capital gain would only be $50. Shifting to carryover basis discourages lock-in and tax shelters. The Joint Committee on Taxation staff calculate that a policy ending basis step-up implemented this year would raise $104.9 billion over the next 10 years. In addition, curtailing tax avoidance would allow policymakers to raise the capital gains tax rate and generate increased revenues, without generating as much tax avoidance as would occur with a higher rate under the current system. A carryover basis regime maintains the practice of taxing capital gains at realization and thus retains the advantages related to investor liquidity and ease of valuation. |
Quote:
|
Rounding error #2
Accrual taxation represents a major break from the current system as a move away from the realization principle, and it has several advantages. It would eliminate the lock-in effect, the use of capital-gains-bearing assets as tax shelters, and most of the incentive to shift labor income into capital gains. Because it restricts avoidance, accrual taxation would allow for a significantly higher tax rate on capital gains without inducing significant avoidance. Accrual taxation brings the tax system in line with the basic definition of income outlined above. It would increase the tax base and thus raise revenues. Using Survey of Consumer Finance data, Batchelder and Kamin calculate that accrual taxation (a) on marketable assets only and (b) limited to the top 1 percent of households would raise $1.7 trillion over ten years, even after allowing for a 15 percent avoidance rate. |
Quote:
rules” when you’re in a union, something they wouldn’t have to ask twice if teachers in a private school. That’s the difference. It’s a big difference to many people. It’s indicative that public teachers answer to the union, while private school teachers answer to the families they serve, and that difference in mindset, is precisely why private schools are so much better. it’s why people have disdain for the unions. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Rounding error #3
Income for the top 20 is 9 Trillion, I'm not looking for the defined numbers The overwhelming majority of realized capital gains go to the highest income households. In 2018, the top 1 percent of households ranked by income obtained 69 percent of realized long-term capital gains; the top 20 percent received 90 percent of the gains. the tax rate on realized capital gains is lower than the tax rate on wages, if the asset was held for at least a year before selling. Realized capital gains face a top statutory marginal income tax rate of 20 percent plus a supplemental net investment income tax rate of 3.8 percent, for a combined total of 23.8 percent. Wages face a top marginal tax rate of 37 percent, plus a Medicare tax rate of 2.9 percent and a supplemental tax of 0.9 percent, for a combined rate of 40.8 percent. |
Quote:
It's a change, and I suppose I could just tell my insurance company that I want a little more coverage, they wouldn't want compensation. You seem to think since you work in the private sector, you are entitled to a higher income with less responsibility. And those who teach should just be grateful for the opportunity and behave correctly. |
Quote:
Check your math. Those numbers are wrong. Nobody has income of $450 billion, which is what your math implies. There aren't 20 people whose combined *income* is $9 trillion. "The overwhelming majority of realized capital gains go to the highest income households. " Duh! Because they have the most money to invest. Would you pass a law setting a cap for how much someone can invest? If Jeff Bezos invests in the stock market, does that harm you somehow? If those wealthy people took all their money out of the stock market and buried it in their backyards, who would be better off? No one. Absolutely no one. So why do you care? You're fixated on a small number of uber wealthy people whose wealth may not ne equitable, but it isn't hurting anybody. I notice that you ALWAYS post how big of a piece of the pie is owned by those at the top, but you NEVER post the share of the total tax burden currently paid by them. Why is that? Answer - the truth doesn't fully support your narrative that they are freeloaders who aren't paying their fair share. "the tax rate on realized capital gains is lower than the tax rate on wages" And there's a darn good reason for that...investing involves risk. Lots of risk, many different kinds of risk. It's good if we incentivize people to invest. I posted a link showing that the top 1% had 20% of the total income, but paid 40% of the total tax. In total, we have a progressive tax system. We can talk about tweaking the rates to make it work better, but we don't have a regressive tax system, not even close. You never, ever include that part. Because you ignore everything which doesn't serve the liberal Narrative. I don't like the idea of billionaires living near people who can't afford medical care, I hate that. But the math could not be more clear, you can't help large numbers of people by taking more from a small number of zillionaires. Re-distribution is part of the solution obviously, but you also need to give more people at the bottom the tools and the incentive, to lift themselves up. Liberals tend to purposely ignore that part. It's not that hard to do in most cases. A strong family with great parents is 95% of what's needed. Liberals won't admit that, either. |
Quote:
If you're not insulted (and you aren't) that she deliberately appropriated the unfathomable misery your ancestors endured for her own personal gain, then please spare me your fake outrage at my remark. If you give her a pass for what she did (and we all know you do), my remark is nothing. Either it's wrong to exploit Native Americans, or it's OK. But you believe it's ok when liberals do it, and wrong when conservatives do it, and it doesn't work that way, sorry. You have to choose whether it's OK or not, and apply that standard to everyone, or else you don't actually have a principled position. |
Quote:
If a man had five children by three different baby mamas, would that be ok? Or Rep. Cawthorn who now calls for holy war: “It’s time for us to stand up and declare boldly that, as men & women of faith, we have a duty to stand against tyranny .. It is time for the American Christian church to come out of the shadows .. (against) people who hate the things we believe in.” (He's got a couple of closets also) |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:05 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com