Reconsidering the wisdom of home ownership

[Clev]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Not entirely true. A wealthy person who gets most of their income as earned income pays a much higher rate than the average taxpayer: 35% on everything over $379,150 for a single person. On the other hand, if you have an income less than about $35K (again, for a single person) you pay zero tax on capital gains - and there are probably a lot of retired folks in this position.

The answer to that is simple: treat capital gains as any other kind of income. If that retired person is making zero "income", but bringing in $100,000 in capital gains, they pay zero taxes right now. Oh, and by the way, that single person making $379,150 doesn't pay 35%. That's only on income OVER $379,150, and AFTER all of his deductions and credits. (And if he's earning $379,150, you can bet he has some high-dollar accountant that helps him hide half of that.) Oh, and don't forget that he only pays SS taxes on the first $106,800 and SDI on the first $93,316.

In either case, whether the income is earned or CG, the typical rich person will pay a far higher amount of tax...

and will take home a far higher amount of money, don't forget...

...but don't get anything more (and probably less) from government "services" than anyone else. So where is the fairness in expecting them to pay, not just more because they have more income, but a higher rate?

So you're saying that they use the public roads, fire service, police protection, military and public waterways less than a poor person? That 6,000 pound Land Cruiser (more wear and tear on roads, more oil consumption), yacht and instant police response that comes with living in an 'affluent' neighborhood disagree. And I'm certainly sure that they're going to be using medicare and social security just as much as the poor.

Seems to me that's just a majority wanting to freeload off the more successful minority.

You mean that top 1% who control more than 50% of all wealth? If you don't see something wrong with that picture, you're blind.

And of course there is a bit of self interest here: once that majority sucks the rich dry, who will they turn to next?

The rich like Warren Buffett, who paid a 17.4% effective tax rate last year? And the 400 wealthiest persons in America who paid, on average, less than 20% in taxes last year? And who pay little to no SS, Medicare and SDI taxes, but still are free to collect when they retire? Those poor rich that are getting sucked dry?

The not rich but above average people like me, that's who.

Ah, now we're at the crux of the argument. "GIVE ME THAT, IT'S MINE!"

[dcb]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

Given the context of your response, those with whom you disagree are the equivalent of "leaches (sic) and tics".

That's called insult by insinuation. My, how clever...

Again you suffer a logic fail. Disagreements about efficiency are fine and normal. Those who use an efficiency forum for their personal politics (despite the rules) are leaches and tics and should not be ignored, irregardless if you think they should just be ignored by "productive" members.

Go save some gas, or help someone else save some gas, and accept that you are acting like a leach when you deviate from efficiency discussions to whine political. It isn't that hard to comprehend.

[Clev]

Originally Posted by dcb

Go save some gas, or help someone else save some gas, and accept that you are acting like a leach when you deviate from efficiency discussions to whine political. It isn't that hard to comprehend.

That's his M.O. Complain about politics, and then accuse everybody else of "bringing politics into it" when they call him on it.

[dcb]

Well Frank deserves a serious punch in the arm for pulling the pin on this one methinks It was remotely eco(nomical), but all about taxes, and yadda yadda.

[Frank Lee]

I had to vent about the latest assessment somewhere; doing it at city hall or in letters to the editor of the local rag are just as unproductive.

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I had to vent about the latest assessment somewhere; doing it at city hall or in letters to the editor of the local rag are just as unproductive.

...ha,ha!

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by dcb

Again you suffer a logic fail. Disagreements about efficiency are fine and normal. Those who use an efficiency forum for their personal politics (despite the rules) are leaches and tics and should not be ignored, irregardless if you think they should just be ignored by "productive" members.

Go save some gas, or help someone else save some gas, and accept that you are acting like a leach when you deviate from efficiency discussions to whine political. It isn't that hard to comprehend.

Here is my original post in response to Arragonis, to which you responded insinuating that I am a leech (which you do not know how to spell) or a tick (which you also cannot spell):

Look - having any discussion means that differing opinions must be tolerated and heard.

If this bothers you so much, why don't you simply unsubscribe from the thread and stop reading it? Instead of posting chronic whining about it and pleading for others not to respond as you often do... or worse, playing the game of saying you are leaving, then returning, then leaving again...

Now you get to explain how my comment has anything, even remotely to do with politics. It doesn't and you and everyone reading this can see that there is nothing I said that is in any way political. Yet if you repeat it often enough, you seem to think your big lie will somehow be influential. Unfortunately for you and your buddies, everyone here can read and comprehend English, and see through your smokescreen. To quote your condescending comment "It isn't that hard to comprehend".

This thread topic itself has absolutely nothing to do with efficiency or saving gas. You are off base by insisting that it must. But you and your cohorts will contend that "I" am the problem for responding at all, or responding in kind. Who the hell do you think you are to act in an authoritarian way, telling me what to say or what not to say here?

Get used to it. I play tit for tat. If you are allowed to sling mud, so will I.

Since your fallback mode automatically reverts to being condescending and spouting insults and innuendo, I will tell you the same as I did the antagonistic Arragonis: "Same to you, fella!"

Insults are all you know, and nothing less than the return of them is what you deserve. So bug off and try to bite someone else, Mr. Tick. (And that also goes for your 'attaboy' buddy, the leech named Clev.)

[dcb]

"For the way off-topic topics (lighter stuff). Please - no political/religious discussion."

you don't understand the basics, there is no hope of explaining anything to you.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by Clev

The answer to that is simple: treat capital gains as any other kind of income. If that retired person is making zero "income", but bringing in $100,000 in capital gains, they pay zero taxes right now.

"Zero taxes?" Absolutely FALSE. (But what else should we expect from someone who constantly spouts lies and bull****?)

Read this, and realize why this is a lie (click here).

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by dcb

"For the way off-topic topics (lighter stuff). Please - no political/religious discussion."

you don't understand the basics, there is no hope of explaining anything to you.

Did I say anything remotely political or religious? You know damn well I didn't.

Go ahead. Continue being an authoritarian "wannabe" moderator and continue making an ass of yourself in print.

I'm glad you realize you can't "explain" your way out of this one.