Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Capital Gains. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Capital Gains. Sort by date Show all posts

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Brackets and the Debt Clock

[9-26-11 UPDATE: Tax Plan and "Fiscal Terrorism" A slight rearrangement and edit for clarity below. ]

[In might be easier if the links and asterisks are referenced later.***]

The whole issue of cuts over revenues * _ must be sorted out on two fronts. There is the issue of the so-called "progressive" tax code. Then there is the issue of the history of the tax code(see* pun), and how it impacts the debt clock.

The first regards the "Buffet Rule". There are the actual tax bracket rates(10% to 35%), and then there is the effective tax rate, which is further complicated(reduced) by captial gains tax rates(15%). Let us also be reminded that even the richest pay the same rates for their first brackets worth of income,(ZERO), let alone each bracket's worth of income. But since the capital gains tax is most of the income of the bulk of the rich, the effective tax rate will not be the actual sum of each bracket's worth. I will not bother to do some math here, but I hope it is clear. Basically the effective tax rate for the rich are not effective as "progressive" by a look at their brackets. They effectively get a lower tax rate, because capital gains are taxed less than the middle to top income brackets.

Second, there is the matter of the "Debt Clock", which should have its own brackets of sorts. The Bush wars, as well as his Medicare(fix), not to mention his tax cuts are off the clock so-to-speak. Not to mention the economic down turn which should probably reset the clock. If I was able to clarify the first issue, I don't mean to make up for it by complicating the second. But the "spending under borrowing" is more than a pun, it is an economic effect. For now I just mean to address the clock issue. Where I imagine that there could be some way to show previous administration's as well as the current administration's** debt clocks.

Now, I hope that I can get away with not providing more detail. But it is not so simple, as I almost closed the issue. It would not be simply an historical replay of their debt clocks, but a sorting of the debt from their budgets. So we would have several clocks at different brackets in time. This is the matter, where the devil is in the details. This almost becomes a matter for mathematical physicists in regard to the dynamics of budgets and time, in that each bracket in time has potential future impact where political economists would sit in for the mathematical physicists.

But, I hope that it can be imagined that each bracket in time, have two clocks. Their own budget and the debt that was not theirs. I will leave it for real economists or accountants to sort out whether there needs to be more than two, as I don't know if it is just my imagination, or the reality of the difficulty in sorting this out. In this regard, I mean the difficulty of sorting a budget's impact over time. But maybe it can be imagined from the effective impact that war and medicare can have on people and how dynamic that is over time, let alone the setting of tax rates. In fact, that is addressed by one or two instances alone. The Bush tax cuts were temporary. The Bush wars and the Medicare fix were not paid for.



[Please note that the links and image were inserted after completion of this blog post. They include, in order: The New York Times, FOX NEWS, No-Labels, and the Center for American Progress [9-26-11: OurFuture.org], where it was not my intent to lower the level of discourse nor bring more nuanced metaphor to light. But please note my No-Labels comment, in regard to the referees and what is on the table. Not to pun on a game buffet, but the neither the cuts sandwich nor the sand wedged in links were referenced for the writing of this post. But it may be suitable that brackets and clocks are used in games. This is a not so nuanced reference to the sports analogy of politics.]

*which alone needs some economic sorting: I mean "spending under borrowing", to pun a bit.
** oops, a whole new clock issue, why not bracket it by congresses?
*** not to mention by myself

[9-23-11 Update 'nuff s' Ed?] Iron Chef!

[9-29-11 update on timing, see comment 2. Speaking of timing,(darn) lost it for a moment.]

Monday, September 19, 2011

Nailed It! T-point Oh!

Tangent or Tetrahedron:

Not T-Rx or Too point Oh, but my segue from Jon Stewart and the T-Party to the Peas** Party, or the adult in the White House, also is symbolized in the 3* part response that is just the beginning of the Iron Chef.

*by 3, I mean, the joint session, the follow up and the long term, as represented in presentations of the Obama plan
** or Broccoli[!]

[Another T: Tangent or Tax issue see ** there ]
[BTW: It's MAD, I mean "math", but it is this simple. From T-boned to L-boned(an accidental vehicle metaphor) the Lincoln Labor / Capital reference is pertinent in a "fair and balanced" tax structure -- i.e. treat capital gains as income.]

[Not to make light of food or metaphors, but there may be something to the Cain and able of 9-9-9. The number may not be important or that it is the flip-flop of 6-6-6. but that there is nothing wrong with a flat tax, if there are flat, and sufficient but limited deductions and exemptions, as well as a sufficient safety net. Note no mention of capital gains which I read as considered income.]

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

...promote the general...

Welfare(the 29th word in the Constitution).



Pre-Obama^, starker contrast.

And this is^^^ pre-Romney's Rough Road on MSNBC.
Jobs First? But not foremost.  Running from politics. 
His best defense is his cuff and hope he is phoney and fisher of men.
(I won't go there.) But the map is looking familiar. 
Fixing News(pun on breaking news): Carney(Obama "we are in this together").

Ari Melber is almost there where I haven't gotten yet. That is, what is actually taken from the paychecks of the middle class.  Payroll tax. NOW Alex Wagner is almost there.  Not only do the top 4%* get the same tax deductions and breaks as the bottom brackets(a. how many %) they get a break from the payroll tax from a second and third point. (b. over $97,500  c. capital gains ) 






[Now please take no offense at the significance of any Cretans.]

* 96% should be the Obama "entitle" R's [!]**

NOTE: Charts are being filled out here. See PAGES (right column)
NOTE: Charts of Sorts.( Tetra Heed Rons, and Wedges & Corny Copy Yeah)

** rough math but look at the right side of the second chart and see on the left that $250,000 -- and now John Sununu is doing the W'rithatic on Andrea Mitchell, but it goes to the arithmatic that is wrong -- it should be clear that the middle class is well below what Romney thinks it is and the President is for the bottom 96% well more than the 47% Romney thinks supports Obama.

^ missing link as to how I stumbled on this one (but there is a mixing of metaphors for horses and Teddy(Obama^^) Bulls
^^

^^^ inserted post charts et al
[Last Word ? Yeah right ! Or Left ! Re: Cycle ? R ! Not !]
[Brilliance of Democracy.]

[Strategic Pause: News Nation: No, Time is not a-side ! ]

[What the heck is the point?  It is the process and the purpose.]

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Who Are They Calling Elitist?

By Eric Altermann
[now fully read]
My reply:
Who are the "cultural elite"? I think it is pretty "fair and balanced" to say that it is "people who only think they know better than you". It is also a label brought to you by people who don’t think they need to, and don‘t know they are, but don‘t either. The same people who brought you the "culture warrior". The same people who brought you "trickle down" * . The same people who brought you "lift yourself up by your own bootstraps". The same people who now probably don’t have boot straps, no matter how much they rely on the bottom line. The same people who think the bottom line is all that matters. The same people who don’t see people as the bottom line. The same people who see corporations as people. The same people who put people under the trickle down, rather than in the first line of the constitution. The same people who can’t read the second line of the constitution but can read the second amendment, and don’t worry again about the 1st amendment. Of course unless you are far enough above the line to own a corporation. And then of course it is best to forget about what people are, or what one owns, until of course, it comes to democracy. Then it is stay the course of course, don’t ask the people. But more important is, don’t ask, don't tell...US.

* (nfr) - This is an actual footnote from Wikipedia **:
"A major feature of these policies was the reduction of tax rates on capital gains, corporate income, and higher individual incomes, along with the reduction or elimination of various excise taxes. David Stockman, who as Reagan's budget director championed these cuts but then became skeptical of them, told journalist William Greider that the term "supply-side economics" was used to promote a trickle-down idea.[4]
It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory. [5] - David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director "

And from the other "fair and balanced" perspective called denial, Thomas Sowell wrote of The "Trickle Down". Economics Straw Man (nfry), and claimed: "No such theory can be found in even the most voluminous and learned books on the history of economics. It is a straw man." Who apparently is not elite enough to be an economist ***, but was allowed into the ranks of politicians, businessmen and budget directors.
** Now, Wikipedia should not be considered the most authoritative source, but it is usually sourced, so don't be elitist. And reading footnotes might put you in that crowd or is it not needing them.
***(The strawman and Stockman (nfry), not Sowell (nfry) .)

Monday, July 09, 2012

Mitt's BO*Son

Not to get too physicsCal,
but the Mitt Flop of mass theory is Political.
Is it the Tetrahedron of Won't or Wont?

Share ’N Angle
Issa Coverup Committee
Cain TV
Rance Priebus


The Devo Incar-n8?

You do the math.
Or Revoo due the math !

Why is Raw Money a uniter not a divider, because they can't do the math. 
[Ctrl F Intents Post B.S.]

* past particle pun

[7-10-12 Pardon my pun getting lost in the physics, boss. 
Speaking of bookin'** or book ends.***]

 ** tan gent (or ge oh me try***)
*** not gun a go there
[but Kan'T : A Brief Incite?]
[I may have smoothed the edges of my pairaGone.]
[Speaking of NOW: DWS "Class Act" What about capital gains? People v. R-Money. (Share 'n Angle v. Robbin' Hood)  Those poor 1,2,3%!]
[NTM: Jansing &Co.][CW: Caricature Writer @DWS.cc]
[P. S.]