On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:33:06 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 20, 1:37*pm, "
wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 03:49:54 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller





wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote in news:-
:

In article ,
*Doug Miller wrote:

Obviously you are, by your continuing insistence on the next sentence:

So, why do you continue to refuse to
acknowledge that those in the higher brackets pay a higher effective
rate overall than those in the lower ones?

Because it's a false statement. The truth is that *some* in the higher
brackets pay a higher
effective rate, and some don't. To imply, as you consistently have, and
continue to do, that
this is true of *all* of them is false.
* *WHen have I said that.

About six lines above, for example. "those in the higher brackets pay a higher effective
rate..." with no qualifiers such as "on average" or "some".

...or, of course, "all.

And I'm *still* waiting for you to admit that income from capital gains is taxed at a lower rate
than income from wages or salaries.

If you consider that capital gains has already been taxed as profit, you'd
likely be wrong.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There is only taxation involved if the capital gains stream came
from a business that involved profit that was being taxed. I think
what you're saying is that the business paid taxes over the years
so when the business or stock in the business is sold, the lower
rate is justified.

Dividends are also capital gains, and taxed (at least) twice.

You could have capital gains from the sale of a house, land,
coins, gold, corn futures, etc that don't involve an income stream.

True.