[QUOTE=Frank]
Total losses are deducted from total gains. The $3000 per year limit is not a maximum for total losses.
Blithering fool was too kind.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, you’re looking more and more the fool the deeper and deeper you suck on your Birkenstocks. The maximum gain you can be taxed on is unlimited. And sure, you can take losses against that for an aggregate total gain. No problem so far. But if you lose money-you’re in the red completely, with capital losses instead of gains, or losses that exceed your gains, the maximum you can write off in capital losses is $3K/year.
Blithering fool, huh? That implies that I’m wrong, but I’m not. Would you like your crow baked, boiled or fried?
[QUOTE=DanBlather]
Well since it was defined in the larger quote I cited, I thought I didn’t have to define it for you. But here goes (sorry about the large words): “the legal system under which family wealth was preserved by the exclusive right of the eldest son to inherit”.
[/QUOTE]
In other words, your preferred system (the government, not you, makes the decision).
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
I firmly believe that capital gains are a double tax. You’re taxed upon the income you invest, and then if that investment prospers, you’re taxed on it again.
[/QUOTE]
But doesn’t a capital gains tax mean you’re taxed only on the gains - the additional income you earn over and above the original income you invested? Where’s the double taxation?
[QUOTE=Bookkeeper]
But doesn’t a capital gains tax mean you’re taxed only on the gains - the additional income you earn over and above the original income you invested? Where’s the double taxation?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, you are right, and I do admit that that is a cogent counter to my argument and may sway some people, but again, I was stating an opinion. An individuals after tax income is theirs, and what they do with it is their business. If they grow it, great, good for them. The government’s already gotten their whack, they shouldn’t be lining up for more. As I said “I firmly believe”, IOW, MHO only.
[QUOTE=Clothahump]
Perhaps if the libs tried running someone who wasn’t a raving socialist and a fool to boot, y’all might have a better chance. But thanks for playing anyway.
[/QUOTE]
This is exactly the mindset that led to eight years of George W Bush (R - Fucktard)
[QUOTE=Cisco]
10% of the population is 30 million people, dingleberry.
[/QUOTE]
So you concede that most of the wealth is controlled by relatively few. Abject apology accepted.
[QUOTE=Merkwurdigliebe] Dan Blather,
**Face it red-state dopers, if McCain wins it will be because your bretheren can’t fucking vote in their own goddamned best interest for being too ignorant. Note I said ignorant instead of stupid. Ignorance is a choice, stupidity is inbred. They often go hand in hand, but it’s very possible to be a smart ignoramus. They are simply going to vote because they don’t want a black guy in office and they’ll use that motive to buy hook line and sinker every goddamned lie about him that comes out. **
[/QUOTE]
That is decidedly your opinion. McCain isn’t a water walker, and neither is Obama.
You are casting stones against glass houses in a neigborhood where all the houses are made of brick.
Yet again, another broad brush to paint the people that live between the apparently enlightened coasts.
What a load of fucking bullshit that is. I mean, really. Jesus Fucking Christ on a pogo stick.
Hopefully I’m allowed to say that about Jesus, especially since I apparently live in an area where the right-wing nazis are about to kill me for disparaging their God(s).
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
So you concede that most of the wealth is controlled by relatively few. Abject apology accepted.
[/QUOTE]
You’re an idiot. Since when is a financially responsible group of people that measures in the tens of millions grabbing food out of your mouth?
Here’s a hint..Democrats that have vast sums of money (GASP! They DO exist! Horror of horrors!) also invest in stocks and pay the same rate of taxation as those evil Republicans!
Where’s the honor in that? Something must be done! We can’t have economic equality amongst the political parties, otherwise our argument might be…
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
You’re an idiot. Since when is a financially responsible group of people that measures in the tens of millions grabbing food out of your mouth?
[/QUOTE]
Did I say that?
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
So you concede that most of the wealth is controlled by relatively few. Abject apology accepted.
[/QUOTE]
30 million people is not “relatively few”, on practically any scale.
And now take out dependents - most people under age 22 - who aren’t expected to own stock. Split married couples in half, since most don’t individually own their own stocks. Take out the elderly who have cashed out their stocks to live off of.
As far as the “who’d I rather have a beer with,” I’d bet that more Americans would rather play basketball with Obama than hear endless, meandering stories from Old Man McCain.
[/QUOTE]
Prisoner of war and ex-Navy fighter pilot, versus nerdy guy who has spent his whole life in politics? I’ll take Old Man McCain any day of the week.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
So you concede that most of the wealth is controlled by relatively few. Abject apology accepted.
[/QUOTE]
Hey Fear Itself, I got a quick corollary question for you: what percentage of taxes are paid by those rich “relatively few”, hmm?
Oh, and while we’re at it, what percentage of stocks are held by the mutual funds, retirement accounts and 401Ks that most normal Americans count on to subsidize the meager SS benefits that they will get upon retirement? In your jealous zeal to somehow punish “fat cats” for being successful and rich, you’re ignoring all of the rest of us who work and invest for our futures in those same stocks that you hate so much. Typical class hatred bullshit.
[QUOTE=Cisco]
10% of the population is 30 million people, dingleberry.
[/QUOTE]
As has come up in the oil companies and windfall tax arguments, the absolute number doesn’t really address the issue.
Of course, my objection is rescinded if you’re in favor of a windfall tax on oil profits. And if so, that discussion should take place in a different thread…
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Hey Fear Itself, I got a quick corollary question for you: what percentage of taxes are paid by those rich “relatively few”, hmm?
Oh, and while we’re at it, what percentage of stocks are held by the mutual funds, retirement accounts and 401Ks that most normal Americans count on to subsidize the meager SS benefits that they will get upon retirement? In your jealous zeal to somehow punish “fat cats” for being successful and rich, you’re ignoring all of the rest of us who work and invest for our futures in those same stocks that you hate so much. Typical class hatred bullshit.
[/QUOTE]
Quite the strawman and proof that the pubs have succeeded in framing the debate. I don’t know any liberals who oppose 401Ks, nor do I think that requiring people to pay the same tax rates on capital gains as a factory worker pays on his wages is punishing the rich. The irony is that blue states are wealthier AND more liberal. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates both support the estate tax. This is not a case of poor, bitter liberals trying to soak the rich. It’s handful of fat cats who have succesfully convinced people to vote against their own (and the country’s) economic interest by using guns, god, and gays to create a smoke screen.
[QUOTE=jayjay]
There is no nuance. It has nothing to do with being a red-stater. It has everything to do with it being Clothahump.
[/QUOTE]
Don’t do dirt on the Clotha’. Remember, it is possible in the US to live entirely within a bunker of GOP run media and news. In parts, it’s hard not to.
Think of Clothahump as missives from within the bunker, so you are up to date on what they’re fed.
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Cut all that shit, I think it’d be a great idea. Well, most of it anyway, nothing wrong with the mail or the military, those are legitimate functions of government.
[/QUOTE]
You completely miss the point. *You * may think it’s a great idea to cut all this stuff, but history shows that showering pork swings votes. History also shows that politicians who say they stand for cut-my-taxes-and-leave-me-alone government gain votes by doing so.
You can’t be showered with pork by a cut-my-taxes-and-leave-me-alone government.
If there are people who will vote for politicians who are both pork barrellers and nominally in favour of cut-my-taxes-and-leave-me-alone government, those people are hypocrites or idiots or a bit of both.
**DanBlather ** is suggesting that there are many in red states who fit this description. If he’s right, then there are many in red states who are hypocrites or idiots or a bit of both.
[QUOTE=Sevastopol]
Don’t do dirt on the Clotha’. Remember, it is possible in the US to live entirely within a bunker of GOP run media and news. In parts, it’s hard not to.
Think of Clothahump as missives from within the bunker, so you are up to date on what they’re fed.
[/QUOTE]
Horseshit. At the very least **Clothahump ** has been fed links to a wide variety of news sources, and presented with alternate viewpoints, through these boards themselves for years. If he has discounted it all, that’s up to him.
But thanks for the props in the “In praise of Dopers who don’t normally get praised” thread, nonetheless
