Its not two different animals at all...capital gains taxes directly affect savings accounts in many ways. Banks are one of the biggest investors and by raising their taxes directly affect the customers like with any tax. Banks will pass these taxes on in the way of new fees or lower saving rates.
In EVERY case regardless of the NAME of a tax it directly takes money from the economy and makes goods or services more expensive.

this may be slightly off topic....but could someone explain how the cap (118,000 for 2015) on taxable earnings for social security (fica) is fair to all...?

round numbers here for ease of math...

i earn 100,000 and pay in 6% ...i pay 6,000 dollars on my total earnings
ceo draws a salary of 1 million dollars....he pays in, you guessed it...
6,000 dollars only on his first 100,000 of income...the other 900,000 of income he enjoys without contributing anything to ssa...this is six tenths of his total income....how is this fair ? and how large a chunk of change would this be, if the cap was eliminated entirely..?..

this may be slightly off topic....but could someone explain how the cap (118,000 for 2015) on taxable earnings for social security (fica) is fair to all...?

round numbers here for ease of math...

i earn 100,000 and pay in 6% ...i pay 6,000 dollars on my total earnings
ceo draws a salary of 1 million dollars....he pays in, you guessed it...
6,000 dollars only on his first 100,000 of income...the other 900,000 of income he enjoys without contributing anything to ssa...this is six tenths of his total income....how is this fair ? and how large a chunk of change would this be, if the cap was eliminated entirely..?..

fair is hard to quantify here,, there are some taxes which one bracket may enjoy a cap on and that same tax bracket may simultaneously be held to a higher tax rate for other taxes


or, a lower tax bracket may have to continue paying on certain taxes, while paying significantly less than their higher bracket counterparts in other taxes


its not cheap to maintain a country like ours,,,

everyone arguing about this,lol... it won't happen, it just something the democrats throw out there for ratings, nothing else... trying to make obarry look good again... if they really wanted to raise the taxes, they would have snuck it on page 18 of another bill with a high public profile without telling the public like they always do...

this is the first thing remotely in line with what I have studied

banks are huge investors and THEY pass on to their customers

but an inheritance tax is going to be far removed from what manufacturers/retailers/ producers have to charge for products

so an inheritance tax wont have an impact on goods and services,, as you said, its from the work of another person to start with, so it has little impact on what profit can be made by the heir in selling unrelated products


taxes take money out and reinvest them into the society,,, and then the process starts all over

yeah, its a shame those democrats can't learn a damn thing from the republicans isn't it ??

Slow to see this but have to disagree. It may not have as much of direct impact but even the inheritance tax takes money from commerce and free trade.By taking your example the government is taking an extra $40,000.00 from you. You multiply that by several thousand people a year. Although none of us would complain about getting a clear 720k, that extra 40,000 would buy a lot of goods and services in the economy and indirectly lower prices for consumers. The more commerce the cheaper prices become.The less competition(less people working or selling a service) the more expensive the products or services become...again making it harder on the poor. Agreed its not
as cut and dry as a direct tax on corporations but it still takes money from the economy and hurts the poor who may have been hired or paid for goods by that extra 40 grand.

lol...

everyone arguing about this,lol... it won't happen, it just something the democrats throw out there for ratings, nothing else... trying to make obarry look good again... if they really wanted to raise the taxes, they would have snuck it on page 18 of another bill with a high public profile without telling the public like they always do...

Slow to see this but have to disagree. It may not have as much of direct impact but even the inheritance tax takes money from commerce and free trade.By taking your example the government is taking an extra $40,000.00 from you. You multiply that by several thousand people a year. Although none of us would complain about getting a clear 720k, that extra 40,000 would buy a lot of goods and services in the economy and indirectly lower prices for consumers. The more commerce the cheaper prices become.The less competition(less people working or selling a service) the more expensive the products or services become...again making it harder on the poor. Agreed its not
as cut and dry as a direct tax on corporations but it still takes money from the economy and hurts the poor who may have been hired or paid for goods by that extra 40 grand.

Not a democrat or republican problem...both are guilty of tax and spending and both have been right about cutting taxes to spur the economy(JFK and Ronald Reagan). Hopefully they'll wake up again and do the right thing.

Who said life is fair? LOL
First , SS was not a tax to begin with. It was originally a voluntary "savings plan" until the politicians saw how much money they could extract from people.But to answer your question...That same ceo is asking why he has to pay 32% of income($320,000.00) and you only have to pay 15-20%($15,000-$20,000)bracket depending on your deductions.
The answer is FICA has a limit because it is not an income tax but rather what you should contribute to your "retirement fund" and that is where the descretion lies.

weren't the rates Reagan cut to about equal to the rates Obama is proposing now?

weren't the rates Reagan cut to about equal to the rates Obama is proposing now?

I don't live and have never been interested in Venezuela

so I haven't kept up with or studied their economy,,,

,.,,,just to be honest

In 1981 Ronald Reagan cut the top regular tax rate on unearned income and reduced the maximum capital gains rate to only 20%—its lowest level since the Hoover admin. Later, congress(they ultimately have final say on tax law) raised this to the same level as earned income which was only 28%. Obama on the other hand although this proposal may raise the rate to the same as Reagan's for capital gains, under this administration these top earners are already paying a 39% income tax compared to the 28% under Reagan.