Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Again, I disagree. What is wrong with selling, taking your profits, paying your fair share of taxes and moving on to work for the government??? Nothing. This is simply a rule to allow "rich" people to avoid or delay paying their fair share of taxes. Since I am not "rich" this outrages me. The playing field is not even.
|
I'm not either and probably never will be but I still don't see anything wrong here. It is no different than him taking a job elsewhere and not selling his stock. That puts the govt at a disadvantage when looking for certain types of people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Do you not understand, the motivation was not to serve the American people but to save $100 million in taxes in less than two years? We would have been better off having Paulson pay his taxes and do something else.
|
He's only "saving" on his taxes if he would have sold the stock over the next two years. Otherwise there was no change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Do you really think Paulson is going to pay $100 million in taxes? Do you really think that??? I guess everything is relative, perhaps he would pay that much but it depends on the income or asset base, $100 million on $1 billion is one thing, $100 million on $10 billion is something else. My argument is, just have a fair tax code across the board without the incentives to hide or shelter money at certain income or asset levels.
|
When he cashes out his govt securities he will be taxed at the typical rate using the prices he paid as the basis for calculating his capital gains taxes.
I'm all for having a fair tax code and taking out loopholes that are wrong but I don't see this as one of those kinds of loopholes.