Here's a Subject They All Agree On!!!

[SassySue]

Is Carried Interest Simply a Tax Break for The Ultra Rich? (A Great Article):

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-s...ak-ultra-rich/

Read at your leisure and enjoy.

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by SassySue

Is Carried Interest Simply a Tax Break for The Ultra Rich? (A Great Article):

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-s...ak-ultra-rich/

Read at your leisure and enjoy.

But notice in the discussion section of the story where the wealthy guy says that tax breaks for the middle class actually stimulate the economy MORE than soaking the "rich " ( as defined by lying liberals Like shrillary and Nattering Nancy pug-ugli, that already have SOAKED the middle class for their lucre ! ). Libs will NEVER allow for a tax CUT ! It's always spend, spend, spend other peoples money for social welfare programs and any program that will get them reelected.

[i'va biggen]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-pai...92.html?ref=gs

[Guest123018-4]

There are no tax breaks there is only the tax code that the government has made so difficult to understand that it takes an army of tax lawyers and accontants to understand thus stimulating the economy with a totally nonproductive class of workers whose job it is to figure out how to correctly pay what is owed.
Get rid of the tax code. Go to a flat tax where everybody pays and there you have it, no more so called "tax Breaks" or "loopholes".

Who do you thinck makes the tax code? Republicans? You dont thinck Democrats had anything to do with it? Who traded what to get what they wanted?
hahahahahahaha

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Who do you thinck makes the tax code? Republicans? You dont thinck Democrats had anything to do with it? Who traded what to get what they wanted?
hahahahahahaha

Yes, I think CaptainMidnight in another thread mentioned how Chucky Schumer and the hildebeest as New York Senators both publicly came out against the treatment of carried interest (as cap gains rather than ordinary income) yet quietly voted in favor of it.

[SassySue]

Haven't really heard many constructive or critical replies yet. That's because they're really are none. Too bad.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by SassySue

Haven't really heard many constructive or critical replies yet. That's because they're really are none...

Oh, really? You don't think it is "constructive" to point out how two Democrats (including one current presumptive Presidential nominee) have been entirely hypocritical on this issue?

Why don't you give us your take, sassy? Keep it constructive and critical.

[CuteOldGuy]

The income tax will always be unfair, and will always favor the rich. Both Democrats and Republicans agree on that. That's where they get their money, by giving tax breaks to those with money.

[SassySue]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Oh, really? You don't think it is "constructive" to point out how two Democrats (including one current presumptive Presidential nominee) have been entirely hypocritical on this issue?

Why don't you give us your take, sassy? Keep it constructive and critical.

Okay, here's another article. It's kind of complicated, so you need to concentrate. It's also about huge profits made on carried interest at very low tax rates. Another huge loophole!

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...terest-dilemma

It's so easy to get rich this way, some guys even feel guilty.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by SassySue

Is Carried Interest Simply a Tax Break for The Ultra Rich? (A Great Article):

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-s...ak-ultra-rich/

Read at your leisure and enjoy.

Hello again, SassySue f.k.a. SeekingTruth f.k.a. HoustonMilfDebbie! How have you been?

Originally Posted by lustylad

Yes, I think CaptainMidnight in another thread mentioned how Chucky Schumer and the hildebeest as New York Senators both publicly came out against the treatment of carried interest (as cap gains rather than ordinary income) yet quietly voted in favor of it.

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=152

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=153

My view is that progressives' efforts and demagoguery tend to be concentrated elsewhere, since there may simply not be enough purely political benefit offered by going after the treatment of carried interest. Ambitious politicians (and they don't come any more ambitious than Clinton and Schumer!) have two bases to satisfy -- the voter base and the donor base. The latter understands, of course, that a few bones need to be tossed to the former from time to time. And all parties understand that it's often better to keep an issue alive as an ideological rallying cry than to actually solve a perceived problem. In the words of the great Aron Nimzowitsch, the threat of undertaking action is often more powerful than the execution thereof!

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The income tax will always be unfair, and will always favor the rich. Say what?? Both Democrats and Republicans agree on that. That's where they get their money, by giving tax breaks to those with money.

Huh??

Although there's much that may reasonably be considered "unfair" about the income tax, the notion that it "always favors the rich" is inexpressibly ridiculous. Do you realize that individuals in the top one percent of income earners pay approximately 40% of all federal income taxes? Do you realize that the capital gains tax rate (and thus the tax rate on carried interest) was increased to 23.8% three years ago?

And do you realize that the tax system you've been zealously promoting for years would be far and away the biggest tax reduction for wealthy individuals and high-income earners in modern history, and that it would therefore "favor" the "rich" to a far greater degree than any other tax plan imaginable? Good luck with that in today's political climate!
.

[DSK]

Carried interest could easily be defined as ordinary income rather than a capital gain, taxed thusly, and everyone would presumably be happy. Two things, though:

1. Does the waiting period to convert from ordinary income to a capital gain apply to both the carried interest and the investors interest?

2. If #1 is true, don't we want to incentivize the adviser as well as the investor to make long term investments, rather than churn the investments for short term gain?

BTW, the rich probably care greatly about picking the time for taxation, also. Make them accrue the gain immediately to ordinary income, much like an exercised stock option, if you really hate the rich and want them to suffer.

[Guest123018-4]

I had a great response to this bullshit.

"the issue is the tax code.
The solution is to get rid of it.
We had an opportunity to do that with Ted Cruz.

The problem is with people that cannot understand that the government does not create jobs that produce anything without first taking money from others to do it.

When you look at the government as "the people" we are allowing other people to take our hard earned money and then give it to others that have done nothing to deserve or earn it. In the process they take a cut for handling the transaction.
This is more fucked up than the tax code.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by SassySue

Okay, here's another article. It's kind of complicated, so you need to concentrate. It's also about huge profits made on carried interest at very low tax rates. Another huge loophole!

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...terest-dilemma

It's so easy to get rich this way, some guys even feel guilty.

Interesting article. Not complicated, except to people like you who don't understand the world of finance and investments. You say "huge profits (were) made on carried interest at very low tax rates"? No, that's not the way it works. The profits were made by private equity funds investing shrewdly in under-performing businesses and turning them around... carried interest merely refers to how those profits/gains are taxed. If there were no profits earned in the first place, we wouldn't be having this discussion! Get it now, sassy?

Also, I don't see anything in the New Yorker article suggesting it's "easy to get rich this way" or that some private equity managers feel "guilty" about what they do. If it's so easy, then why don't YOU try it, sassy? Are you afraid you might lose all of your investors' money and at the end of the day there would be zero profits (only losses) to be taxed at ANY rate? If that's your problem, perhaps you should apply for a job at the fund managed by Chelsea Clinton's husband - no profit-making skills are required there!

http://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1715070

When wealthy and successful people engage in philanthropy, they should be applauded, not stupidly accused of trying to absolve "guilt". Whether they spend money on businesses or charities, they invariably spend it more wisely and productively and accountably than government does.
.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

When you look at the government as "the people" we are allowing other people to take our hard earned money and then give it to others that have done nothing to deserve or earn it. In the process they take a cut for handling the transaction.
This is more fucked up than the tax code.

When you put it like that, it is amazing we Texans don't try to peacefully secede from the "Union".

[DSK]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Interesting article. Not complicated, except to people like you who don't understand the world of finance and investments. You say "huge profits were made on carried interest at very low tax rates"? No, that's not the way it works. The profits were made by private equity funds investing shrewdly in under-performing businesses and turning them around... carried interest merely refers to how those profits/gains are taxed. If there were no profits earned in the first place, we wouldn't be having this discussion! Get it now, sassy?

Also, I don't see anything in the article suggesting it's "easy to get rich this way" or that some private equity managers feel "guilty" about what they do. If it's so easy, then why don't YOU try it, sassy? Are you afraid you might lose all of your investors' money and at the end of the day there would be zero profits (only losses) to be taxed at ANY rate? If that's your problem, perhaps you should apply for a job at the fund managed by Chelsea Clinton's husband - no profit-making skills are required there!

http://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1715070

When wealthy and successful people engage in philanthropy, they should be applauded, not stupidly accused of trying to absolve "guilt". Whether they spend money on businesses or charities, they invariably spend it more wisely and productively and accountably than government does.
.

What she might find to be even more difficult is to get people to hand over their money for investment while they agree to pay you 2% per year plus 20% of the money you make for them.