wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:34:23 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Heh.. that would be a pretty big assumption. The previous post indicated
"those making less than $65K" vs. "the rich."

Again, the assertion was the cap gains rate only benefits the rich. I
guarantee you there are a lot of people around here who are not rich
and benefit from this. To start with if they don't get a W-2 from
somewhere their SS payments are not taxed, That makes that $65k, more
like $110k. for a couple.
Granted I am talking about seniors, but they are the ones with about
80-90% voter turnout. That is not lost on politicians.


So what? It's not much of an assertion. Lots of people "benefit." This issue
is comparative benefit. Not sure what SS has to do with capital gains.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:47:54 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:34:23 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Heh.. that would be a pretty big assumption. The previous post indicated
"those making less than $65K" vs. "the rich."

Again, the assertion was the cap gains rate only benefits the rich. I
guarantee you there are a lot of people around here who are not rich
and benefit from this. To start with if they don't get a W-2 from
somewhere their SS payments are not taxed, That makes that $65k, more
like $110k. for a couple.
Granted I am talking about seniors, but they are the ones with about
80-90% voter turnout. That is not lost on politicians.


So what? It's not much of an assertion. Lots of people "benefit." This
issue
is comparative benefit. Not sure what SS has to do with capital gains.

SS only figures into this in the number of retired people who are
cashing in their investments to supplement their pensions and SS
payments. For them the cap gains rate is important and having it at 5%
is a great deal.


Again... it's a great deal if it's a big number. Small numbers are not a
"great deal" esp. compared to people making $250K with lots of cap. gains.

--
Nom=de=Plume