Skip to main content


Increase the Captial Gain Tax Rate -- that's a battle cry that can send the Right Wing World View go spinning off its axis ...


ABC Pushes for Tax Hike on Capital Gains, Ignores Likelihood of Tax Revenue Loss
by Brad Wilmouth, newsbusters.org -- January 29, 2011

On Friday’s World News, anchor Diane Sawyer set up that show’s piece:
And, moving on to this question of Wall Street versus outrage on main street in the United States, there was a jaw-dropping payday that caught our eye today: $5 billion made by one hedge fund manager last year. The Wall Street Journal first reported the phenomenal amount netted by John Paulson, which works out at $159 every second - every second of every day. And, as ABC's David Muir reports, this is just one of the many Wall Street paydays benefitting from a giant tax loophole.

After informing viewers of Paulson’s hefty income, correspondent David Muir injected class envy, noting that "some lawmakers" are "angry" about hedge fund managers getting "tax breaks."


Well actually David Muir was expressing more journalistic shock, than anger and envy, I thought if you actually listen to the ABC Clip ...

And Yes Brad, our historically low Capital Gain rates of 15%, amount to a Tax Loophole when you dig into the details.


Hedge Fund Manager John Paulson Takes Home Record $5 Billion in Profits in 2010
By DAVID MUIR, ABCNews -- Jan. 28, 2010

[Mobile Phone Transcript: the Diane Sawyer and David Muir report]

Capital Gains Taxed at Lower Rate

On top of that, a good portion of Paulson's profits are considered long-term capital gains, income that is taxed by the federal government at a rate of 15 percent.  Meanwhile, most Americans pay an income tax rate up to 35 percent.

The seeming disparity has some lawmakers angrily asking the question, Why are hedge fund managers benefitting from tax breaks that the average American family does not receive?

"I think it's outrageous," said Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich. "He should pay like everybody else does, ordinary income taxes.  He's simply managing other peoples' money, not his own."


Yes it is "Outrageous" -- $5 Billion dollars a year ... to one CEO ... for simply "changing-money."  

I think they call that "Churn" in the industry.  Where is the "Economic Productivity" in that?


Hedge Fund Manager John Paulson Takes Home Record $5 Billion in Profits in 2010
Jaw-Dropping Paydays Have Some Asking if Capital Gains Tax Rate Is Fair
By DAVID MUIR, ABCNews, Jan. 28, 2010

[Link has the actual Clip on the Diane Sawyer and David Muir report on John Paulson's $5 billion dollar payday.]

Hedge fund manager John Paulson made more than $5 billion in personal profits last year, the Wall Street Journal reported today. The jaw-dropping figure works out to roughly $159 rolling in every single second.
[...]


Closing Loophole Could Generate $25 Billion, Lawmaker Says

Levin argued that closing the loophole could bring in $25 billion in taxes over the next decade alone, but the lawmakers will have a tough time changing regulations with a White House focused on strengthening ties to the business community.
[...]

There are signs that the Obama administration is at least aware of the outrage. Just today, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke acknowledged to ABC News that Paulson's hedge fund payday is enormous.

"It's really part of the bizarre tax code that we have," Locke said.


"Bizarre" is one word for it.  And perhaps it's "fitting" too that,

John Paulson is making "$159 every second - every second of every day."

Especially when you consider that he is no doubt profiting from "Flash Trading" occurring on that same second Time Scale -- in the world Micro-second computer trading.  

Those Computer programs are super-smart, Right?


Macro Profits from Harvesting the Micro Economy -- What could go Wrong Here?


Gumball Automatic Trading Program

http://www.youtube.com/...

Now speed up that automated, computerized Trading Action by about a MILLION Times, across the entire universe of Tradeable Markets --  SIMULATANEOUSLY and in Real Time -- and you may get an inkling of what our "traditional" 401k's, our Mutual Funds, our Pension Funds, are up against.

They don't stand a (competitive) chance.

I hate to say it but --

The Machines (from the future) may have already won.

Don't Blink, Flash Trades may be Hiding, But They'll be BACK
Dec 26, 2010 -- by jamess


There is a solution to our Casino Capitalism economy -- It's called enacting a higher Capital Gains Tax Rate as Sander Levin is proposing.

And it's called levying a Financial Transactions Tax (FTT), as Peter DeFazio is proposing:

[...] a 0.25% tax on buying or selling a stock would be $25 on a $10,000 stock purchase, which would make little difference to someone intending to hold the stock for any period of time.
 [...]
Yet a modest tax, too small for most investors to even notice, could add $100 billion per year -- $1 Trillion over 10 years -- to Federal revenues.
All told it was a very GREEN Christmas for Wall Street, this Year
Dec 25, 2010 -- by jamess


It's called Tax Fairness.   It's called Economic Leadership.  

Yet ...

In this Brave, New, Brainless Era of "Shared Sacrifice" that we are mindless falling into

-- an Era where EVERYTHING is supposed to be on the Table ...

Our Social Security, Our Pensions, Our COLAs, Our hard-won Labor Rights --


IF all that is supposed to be on the Table -- then WHY aren't these BILLION DOLLAR, MICRO-SECOND Tax Loopholes -- NOT also On the Table?

Fair is fair.

-------------


I'll close with a rant, from one of my favorite writers ...
(someone has to frame some counter-arguments, lol.)

If EVERYTHING should be on the Table --


What about putting those Bush Tax Cuts, on the Table?

What about putting Capital Gains, on the Table?

What about putting the Estate Tax, on the Table?

What about putting the FICA Tax Ceiling, on the Table?


WHY is it a given, that the Income side of the National Ledger, is OFF the Table?


Why is Raising Taxes so Untouchable --

While our current and future security, of ordinary Americans, are not?

If Everything should be on the Table -- what about Taxes?
Jan 24, 2011 -- by jamess


Perhaps they should start looking at what's on OUR Kitchen Tables, eh?


In some parts of the Economy, the cupboards are getting kind of bare ...

Of course what kind of additional "Shared Sacrifice" would Austerity Hawks find there?

Those folks (the 99ers) already "gave at the office" -- Thank you very much!



Originally posted to Digging up those Facts ... for over 8 years. on Sun Feb 20, 2011 at 09:56 AM PST.

Also republished by Jobs Wages and Community Investment Working Group and Income Inequality Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The 15 percenters. (11+ / 0-)

    The new term for American billionaires--what they pay in tax.

    •  I like the frame (8+ / 0-)


      "The 15 Percenters"

      simple, direct.


      They are what have caused, the 99ers.

      thanks daulton.


      I dream of things that never were  -- and ask WHY NOT?
      -- Robert F. Kennedy

      by jamess on Sun Feb 20, 2011 at 10:05:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's before deductions. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        alizard, daulton, jamess

        One of the problems with corporate taxation may also be a problem here. What has been reported from time to time is the large number of larger corporations including Fortune companies who end up paying no taxes at all. It's also true in some states on state taxes. Because of all the bennies they get which are when received by individual treated as improper Federal payments, although the Feds never see the money, and therefore within range of anti deficit campaigns. Many of the extremely wealthy from Wall Street work hard to structure what they get to fit in this tax loophole or that one and don't pay fifteen percent either.

        What needs to be taxed here at income tax rates is everything a person receives as compensation in exchange for his or her work, at the one rate. It's true for company housing, and should be true for this. The wrinkle in the issue is whether the income thrown off from what is received in the form of some instrument that does throw off benefits hereafter, shold also be taxable. My answer to that is yes.

    •  We used to have separate rates for long (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      daulton, jamess, jfromga, Christy1947

      and short term capital gains.  Any profits reaped in under a six-month period should come with heftier tax rates than those held longer.

      Our government once understood that in order to get the rich to INVEST as opposed to GAMBLING there had to be a penalty for the gambling and a reward for the investment.

      The MSM won't go anywhere near capital gains unless it is to demean those who would suggest a more sane policy.

      There should also be a requirement for the rich who do not take a paycheck to pay into SS/Med like the rest of us do.  They should have to declare the first say $100K as income subject to ss/med.

      They skate all the way around on taxes and it needs to be recognized for what it is.   While the rich scream about lower-income people paying "no" taxes, they are referring of course to income tax.  Those low-income earners still have to pay in $7.65 of EVERY dollar they earn for ss/med and they certainly pay sales, gas and other taxes  that are conveniently left out of the conversation.

      •  We still have separate rates for short term (8+ / 0-)

        and long term rates.  If the asset has been held for a year or less, it's taxed at the top marginal rate, just like ordinary income.

        There should also be a requirement for the rich who do not take a paycheck to pay into SS/Med like the rest of us do.  They should have to declare the first say $100K as income subject to ss/med.

        If people are "1099 employees" or earn income through a partnership then that's exactly what they do (it's called the self-employment tax, and they pick up both the employee and the employer sides of the tax for a total 14% tax rate) .  Additionally, under the PPACA people will may Medicare tax on their investment income.
        •  Even if the wealthy end up paying into (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          daulton, jamess

          SS/Med, they aren't paying anywhere near the percentage of their actual income that lower-income people are paying.

          Marginal tax rates are the lowest they have been in recent history.  Most of the big players are paying in the 15-16% range through a variety of loopholes and shifting of funds from one class to another.  

          The spread between short and long term is miniscule.  We need to understand as a nation that the rich are making out like bandits and crying all the way to the bank while the average person is sucking up more and more of the taxes and getting less and less for their dollars.  

          Even with the favorable treatment the rich are getting, they want more.  There is no end to the greed.

  •  Republish to Income Inequality Kos ? (8+ / 0-)
  •  And lets not forget how many of them (7+ / 0-)

    get rich by having their corporations avoid paying US taxes as well. Multinational companies like Google and Apple use techniques like the "Double Irish" and the "Dutch Sandwich" (yes, they're really called that) to avoid paying taxes which jacks up their corporate profits and raise their stock prices. It's estimated that coporate tax cheating costs the US hundreds of billions every year.
    They cheat the government at every turn.

    This was never my sig line

    by ontheleftcoast on Sun Feb 20, 2011 at 10:09:25 AM PST

  •  I kinda doubt that (4+ / 0-)
    On top of that, a good portion of Paulson's profits are considered long-term capital gains

    If he's trading on CDSs, I'd think most of his income will be ordinary income taxable at the top marginal rate.  CDSs are, in the jargon, notional principal contracts, and payments on them are ordinary income / loss.

    Anyhoo, carried interest income should certainly be ordinary income just like any other compensation.  It's been proposed multiple times (Obama just included it in his recently released set of tax proposals for 2012), but (R)s will all oppose it and ya gotta assume (D)s in the hedge fund states of CT, NJ, and NY and in the venture fund districts of CA will oppose it, too.

    •  I suspect (6+ / 0-)

      Hedge Fund Managers
      have their grubby mitts,
      in many, many pies.

      Eeewhh!


      I dream of things that never were  -- and ask WHY NOT?
      -- Robert F. Kennedy

      by jamess on Sun Feb 20, 2011 at 10:18:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Can't he hide it behind a fund? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      m16eib, jamess, johnny wurster

      My understanding was the fund doesn't pay taxes on it's profits, rather when people cash out of the fund they pay the taxes on their shares. If he leaves his shares in the fund for more than 18 months he can claim it as "long term" when he realizes the gains.

      This was never my sig line

      by ontheleftcoast on Sun Feb 20, 2011 at 10:22:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, he pays taxes when the fund makes money. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, Justanothernyer

        So if I have a partnership that owns rental buildings, and the partnership makes $100, I pay tax on that $100 that year whether or not I get the cash.  Additionally, since it's ordinary income in the hands of the partnership, I report it as ordinary income on my return.

        Same for investment partnerships: if I have a hedge fund that just does high speed trading and nothing but that, I'll have nothing but short term gains (taxed at the top marginal rate) on my personal return that I pay tax on whether or not I actually get any money from the partnership.

        For tax purposes, it's as if the partnership doesn't exist; it "passes through" all its income to its partners, and they pay all the tax as its earned by the partnership.

        re: CDSs: it's actually not clear whether CDS termination payments are capital gains or ordinary.  I assume that means that in practice people claim it's long term cap gain and pay the lower rate.

      •  Partnerships are pass-through entities. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, jamess, ontheleftcoast

        Income/loss is taxed to the owners in the year it is earned.
          When a partner withdraws from the partnership, or if the partnership dissolves, the partner may have additional income or loss depending on their remaining basis in the partnership and how much cash is distributed.

        My Karma just ran over your Dogma

        by FoundingFatherDAR on Sun Feb 20, 2011 at 01:27:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Chuck Shumer opposed the proposed law changes (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, jamess

      along with Republicans a few years ago.  He claimed that such changes would drive hedge funds away from NY.
        What most non-tax people don't realize is that the "carried interest" "loophole" in subchapter K that allows hedge fund managers to get CG treatment on some of what should be ordinary income is applicable to mom & pop sized partnerships as well.

      My Karma just ran over your Dogma

      by FoundingFatherDAR on Sun Feb 20, 2011 at 01:23:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  FFDAR - that was Chuck's point (0+ / 0-)

        Shumer pointed out that the way "carried interest" is determined is the same for all partnerships, small as well as large ,and across many types of assets. Schumer was willing to look at partnership taxation on a larger scale, but did not think that carving out hedge funds was fair. While there are some notable exceptions, hedge fund managers tend to hold their assets for shorter periods and therefore are less likely to qualify for the 15% long term capital gains treatment.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Sun Feb 20, 2011 at 07:31:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  tick, tick, tick (7+ / 0-)


    Robot Traders of the NYSE
    60 Minutes, Overtime Staff -- Oct 10, 2010

    In Steve Kroft's "60 Minutes" report on high-frequency trading, you heard how most stock trades in the U.S. are no longer made by humans, but by computers capable of buying and selling stocks at warp speed.

    High-frequency trading played a supporting role in the mini market crash last spring that saw the Dow Jones industrial average plunge 600 points in 15 minutes, and yet most people know very little about this type of high-speed automated trading.

    http://cnettv.cnet.com/... />
    http://www.cbsnews.com/...

    Announcer: Not only is the building running itself, many of the trades are conceived and executed by the Computers themselves. The Computers are programmed to decide with stocks to buy and sell. It's called "High Frequency Trading".


    I dream of things that never were  -- and ask WHY NOT?
    -- Robert F. Kennedy

    by jamess on Sun Feb 20, 2011 at 10:28:09 AM PST

  •  Preferential tax rates on uber-wealthy elites are (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emal, alizard, jamess, CMYK, LoreleiHI

    We need to treat Capital Gains and Dividends as regular income to return some semblance of fairness to the American tax system.

    A number of Democrats have shown that they're enemies of tax fairness, and therefore enemies of working Americans.

    Group of House Democrats Support Tax Preferences for Wealthy Investor Class that President Reagan Ended

    These Democrats would preserve the historically low income tax rate of 15 percent for capital gains and stock dividends for the wealthiest taxpayers. This stance places them to the right of Ronald Reagan and llustrates a surprising lack of familiarity with history and economics.

    Very generally, a “capital gain” is the profit you have if you sell an asset for more than you paidto purchase it. Capital gains are a type of income and are therefore subject to the federalincome tax. For people who spend most of their time buying and selling assets, capital gains are most of their income. It would make sense to tax this income just like any other income.

    Unfortunately, lawmakers have, at various points in history, decided to tax capital gains at lower rates than apply to other types of income. The explanation for this is not so much in any sound view of economics as in the disproportionate influence that wealthy investors have
    always had on the political process.

    Reagan's Good Deed and the Democrats Who Undermine It

    But the wealthy investor class is not politically invincible. In 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Tax Reform Act that ended the tax preference for capital gains and taxed all types of income at the same rates. Conservatives have long complained about this Reagan tax reform, and have even incorrectly claimed that capital gains tax revenue actually fell as a result of it.

    Actually, right before the Reagan reform took effect, capital gains tax revenue rose temporarily as many people sold their assets to recognize gains before the new rates went into effect. Not surprisingly, reported capital gains fell from this artificial high point for a few years thereafter. But by the 1990s, taxable capital gains began to rise rapidly along with the Clinton-era stock market, and eventually reached record highs. They have since fluctuated along with prices of stock and real estate.

    Today, conservative critics of President Reagan have been joined by a group of House Democrats who also seem to feel that Reagan was not sufficiently devoted to tax preferences for the wealthy investor class.

    George W. Bush’s Policy to Let Paris Hilton Pay at a Lower Tax Rate than You

    By the time President George W. Bush took office, the capital gains rate had been lowered to 20 percent. Meanwhile, stock dividends were still taxed just like any other income. In 2003, Bush and his allies in Congress lowered the top rate for capital gains to 15 percent and created a brand new tax preference for stock dividends by also taxing them at a top rate of 15 percent — 20 percentage points below the top rate on regular income, which was set at 35 percent. One problem with the rate reductions for capital gains and stock dividends is that most of this income goes to the very rich.3 Citizens for Tax Justice estimated that in 2009 over 70 percent of the benefits of these tax cuts went to the richest 1 percent of taxpayers. 4 A second problem with these rate reductions is that it is fundamentally unfair that a person who lives off of his or her investment income can pay taxes at a lower rate than someone with
    equal or less income who works for a living. (See the box below for an example of this.)

    The Unfairness of Lower Tax Rates for Investment Income

    Imagine that a woman who is the heiress of a hotel chain is so wealthy that she does not have to work. She has a huge amount of stocks and other investments. She gets an excellent income from two sources. She receives stock dividends, and when she sells assets (through her broker, of course) for more than their original purchase price, she enjoys the profit, which is called a capital gain. On these two types of income, she only pays a tax rate of 15 percent, thanks to the tax cuts enacted under President Bush.

    Now let’s imagine a receptionist that works in the brokerage that handles some of the heiress’s dealings. Let’s say this receptionist earns $50,000 a year. Unlike the heiress, his income comes in the form of wages, becausehe has to work for a living. His wages are taxed at progressive rates, and a portion of his income is actually taxed at 25 percent. (In other words, he faces a marginal rate of 25 percent, meaning each additional dollar he earns is taxed at that amount).

    But that’s just the federal income tax. He also pays the federal payroll tax of around 15 percent. (Technically he
    pays only half of the payroll tax and his employer pays the other half, but economists generally agree that it’s all ultimately borne by the employee.) So he pays taxes on his income at a higher rate than the heiress who lives
    off her wealth. Most Americans would say this sounds pretty unfair, and they’d be right.

    "Those old Wall Street boys are putting up an awful fight to keep the government from putting a cop on their corner." - Will Rogers

    by Lefty Coaster on Sun Feb 20, 2011 at 10:50:56 AM PST

    •  A quick comment: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, jamess, Justanothernyer
      Unfortunately, lawmakers have, at various points in history, decided to tax capital gains at lower rates than apply to other types of income.

      Not at various points, but at virtually all points and and across virtually all OECD countries.  The universality of lower rates for capital gains is pretty striking.

      A lot of the policy arguments for it are pretty weak, although the lock-in argument is pretty decent (when rates are high, people just don't sell, which results in bad economic results and lower tax revenues.)

      Interestingly, as an historical matter the modern tax system comes from the UK.  When their tax system was first developed capital gains weren't considered "income."  Income was defined as regular, steady income, while a gain from sale was an "extraordinary event" which didn't fit that definition.  (GAAP accountants, of course, should recognize that term as a term of art in financial reporting)

      •  the ultimate argument in favor (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, jamess

        of lower capital gains rates is that the non-eductability of capital losses discourages investment disproportionately.

        •  Net CL (after offset against CGs) IS deductible (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jamess

          but limited per year.

          My Karma just ran over your Dogma

          by FoundingFatherDAR on Sun Feb 20, 2011 at 01:29:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  And is the very root of the Wall Street scam. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jamess

          This is what has turned our economy upside down. Investing in a business is inherently risky, that why you get all the disclaimers in the prospectus. The risk is offset by the potential of a higher return.

          Anonymous safe investing in a business is what banks are for, and if that's what a person wants to do they can invest in a bank. But of course, when you invest in a bank you will get a much lower return.

          The main advantage of this from a national economic perspective is that it promotes controlled growth and economic stability, and that is exactly why Wall Street hates the idea.

          "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

          by Greyhound on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 07:01:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  jamess - carried interest & capital gains (3+ / 0-)

    I will be out for the day today but will write a longer comment when I return this evening. These are two separate issues, although they are connected. Two thing to keep in mind, how carried interest is taxed for hedge fund managers or any other partnership manager, has not changed in fifty years so it's not a "loophole". That does not mean that it could not be changed or modified. The second point of raising capital gains tax rates has historically not led to an increase in capital gains tax revenues. Even President Obama has acknowledged this fact. There are some theories about why this is true, and I will comment on them tonight.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Sun Feb 20, 2011 at 10:56:48 AM PST

    •  yeah but (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lefty Coaster, CMYK

      "raising capital gains tax rates"

      is easy for people to understand,

      and might restore some Sanity to Wall Street.


      "carried interest"  is the real Revenue ticket, eh?

      OK, I guess I got a new {confusing} topic, to start researching,


      thx VClib  {I think}
      I look forward to your explanations on the topic.


      I dream of things that never were  -- and ask WHY NOT?
      -- Robert F. Kennedy

      by jamess on Sun Feb 20, 2011 at 11:07:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  So Jamess - a question.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jamess

      a large investment firm has big computers (like Watson) that do the actual transactions at the speed of light, while the "managers" sit back sipping their lattes and still can use the capital gains loophole to reduce their taxes and pay as little as a  15% tax rate on their incomes?  And with their huge bonuses, they can probably afford a really terrific tax attorney to find even more loopholes to maybe reduce their taxes to zero.  Boy...did I ever go into the wrong profession.....

      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." A. Einstein

      by moose67 on Sun Feb 20, 2011 at 11:16:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  While those sections of subchapter K haven't (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jamess

      changed in decades, the aggressive positions valuing carried interests have.   It is the ever more aggressive  lowball valuations (based on presumed high risk) that enable hedge fund managers to minimize the ordinary compensation income portion, and maximize the capital asset portion, of their investment in the fund.

      My Karma just ran over your Dogma

      by FoundingFatherDAR on Sun Feb 20, 2011 at 01:34:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  imo the small transaction tax is the answer (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alizard, jamess

    it would bring in revenue and slow down the market to a human pace again as those instant trades to earn a fraction of a cent per share would no longer be profitable.....

    Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
    I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
    Emiliano Zapata

    by buddabelly on Sun Feb 20, 2011 at 11:45:23 AM PST

    •  some economists argue (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buddabelly, CMYK

      FTT would spur more Long-term investments too

      instead of the constant chase for more frothy Micro-profits.

      ie bets, gambling, commoditizting at the Capital Casino.


      thx buddabelly for reading.


      I dream of things that never were  -- and ask WHY NOT?
      -- Robert F. Kennedy

      by jamess on Sun Feb 20, 2011 at 11:56:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why have you got Kitchen Tables in your tags (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alizard, jamess

    but not the kitchen sink? ;)

    At any rate, this is a story that would/should have been on the recc list with hundreds of reccs on DK3.  Apparently you're not in enough 'streams' yet.

    •  thanks for your vote Ezekial 23 20 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      alizard

      better luck next time, as they say.


      I still think it's largely a matter of timing.


      The Recently Rec'd list is a big improvement imo,

      it lengthens the average "exposure window",

      even when you don't make the list.

      for ex. this diary got 34 Rec's
      over on DK3 I doubt it would have gotten 20 recs.


      I dream of things that never were  -- and ask WHY NOT?
      -- Robert F. Kennedy

      by jamess on Sun Feb 20, 2011 at 05:26:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  While the tax break is certainly offensive (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alizard, jamess

    it isn't new news.  It has been mentioned and was one of the tax fixes mentioned to help cut deficits at one time. How can the media just now be discovering this?

    Is this going to be the kind of farce that plays out as an intentionally blind media wakes up to the fact that there is no way they can continue to hide certain grossly inequitable tax loopholes from the larger public?  They pretend it is new and shocking news to them?

  •  If they were serious about eliminating the deficit (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess, cameoanne

    and paying down the debt this is one of the two simple changes that would eliminate them and produce a revenue surplus in less than a decade.

    The tiny Wall Street transaction tax and striking all the various categories from income. If you get it, it is income, period.

    Then everything earned or taken by everybody is treated the same way and taxes are owed on it.

    I would also like to see businesses and individuals taxed equally as well, but the previous two changes would be sufficient.

    "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

    by Greyhound on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 06:52:03 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site