I don't have a dog in this fight, but...

[classicman]

There is a difference between the two. Wasn't the Cap gains rate initially established to incent people into saving more?
Has it gotten out of hand? Absolutely.
Does something need to change? Definitely.
Romney is a perfect example of that.
Interesting how when you compare Romney's #'s to Obama's #'s, the REAL difference is from where the income is derived.
Heck, I've been saying this for over a year.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by classicman

There is a difference between the two. Wasn't the Cap gains rate initially established to incent people into saving more?
Has it gotten out of hand? Absolutely.
Does something need to change? Definitely.
Romney is a perfect example of that.
Interesting how when you compare Romney's #'s to Obama's #'s, the REAL difference is from where the income is derived.
Heck, I've been saying this for over a year.

Seriously?

No, I fully believe the lower cap on capital gains was established because the people who earn capital gains wanted to pay less in taxes and had the political mojo to make that happen.

When you save your money, you know, like "regular" people do, in a savings account or some such, the interest you earn is regular income. not Capital gains. You have to be much more bux up to get capital gains.

Or, do some other thing with your money, like, buy stock low, sell stock high, that profit is capital gains. But you're not doing that with your "savings".

[classicman]

Originally Posted by BigV

Seriously?

Yes

I fully believe the lower cap on capital gains was established because the people who earn capital gains wanted to pay less in taxes and had the political mojo to make that happen.

Believe what you will.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by classicman

There is a difference between the two. Wasn't the Cap gains rate initially established to incent people into saving more?

A rather belated reply, but as I was reading back over this thread, I saw your statement and wondered if it was true. According to Wikipedia, you are incorrect.

This {the lower cap on capitol gains} is intended to provide incentives for investors to make capital investments, to fund entrepreneurial activity, and to compensate for the effect of inflation and the corporate income tax.

Well, I'm glad someone gets a break on the rising rate of inflation. People dependent on Social Security have not seen an adjustment in their benefits until this year, after 3 years of stagnant income because the government claimed there was no inflation during this period. Workers earning minimum wage have not seen an increase since 2009. Does Corporate Congress give a damn about them? Not hardly. Plus, corporations are now paying LESS tax than they did before the Bush tax cuts. Did their capitol gains taxes go up to compensate for the lower taxes big corporations now enjoy? God forbid we tax the "job creators" who are busily creating ever more jobs in China while unemployment in the US remains unacceptably high.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by SamIam

A rather belated reply, but as I was reading back over this thread, I saw your statement and wondered if it was true. According to Wikipedia, you are incorrect.

intended to provide incentives for investors to make capital investments, to fund entrepreneurial activity, and to compensate for the effect of inflation and the corporate income tax.

This is basically what I meant - people saving/investing.