Question re: Warren Buffet paying 10% tax

[Peregrine]

dreambig, I was nodding along until "The banks should have been left to burn..."

http://seekingalpha.com/article/188040-why-the-bank-bailouts-were-necessary

 

[JayJuanGee]

Tax the rich more, and use that money to invest in the creation of jobs in America with a living wage.

More taxes = More jobs is a complete logical fail. It has never worked and never will.

A few points:

1. Historically, governments are the worst investors of capital known to mankind.

2. The private sector creates wealth. Rich people own companies but there are plenty of small businesses that create jobs too. Whether the owners are rich or not is neither here nor there.

3. When taxes are increased, you take money from the private sector (the producer of wealth) and give it to the public sector which by default is a consumer of wealth (or destroyer depending on your outlook lol). Governments tend to spend whatever money they have (see below) so you want to minimise how much they get their dirty paws on, not increase it.

4. Most tax money ends up going towards the creation of new government jobs in warm offices (usually for women incidentally but that's for another discussion). This does nothing for the real economy while hurting business everywhere.

5. The money that is actually "invested" goes to government cronies such as banks or big corporations. Another reason not to increase taxes.

6. Businesses don't invest to create jobs. They invest to get a return on capital. Jobs for The People are a happy side effect but this is never the goal and nor should it be.

I think what your post was referring to was cronyism in the capitalist system. Sure there are a lot of problems. The banks should have been left to burn, in my opinion. I also hate the way citizens are sold out in favour of interest groups and big corporations but that has more to do with the faults of the legal/political world than "the rich" per se. Your target should be the government, not the rich.

I was arguing that trickle down does NOT work, and you seem to be suggesting that it does....

Probably, there are too many details, here to get into it b/c your starting point of the meaning of the role of taxes seems to be quite removed from mine. In that regard, we may NOT be able to come to an agreement.

I definitely do NOT think that people of modest means (of lets say less than $200,000 should be taxed any more than they currently are b/c in fact they are probably paying disproportionately b/c companies are failing to pay b/c they have been let off the hook, and for these people of modest means are likely they are overly taxed and overly burdened). I also do NOT believe in govt merely for the sake of it.

If we remove the govt, probably, we will be even more screwed by the rich. And, surely currently, the govt is being manipulated in too many ways by the rich.. too much money in politics. And, I do NOT want more of that. That is for sure.

I doubt that you are part of the rich, that I was referring to (even if we say those earning more than $200,000 a year), so I am unsure why you think that it is good to prevent the rich from paying their fair share of taxes with the money that, currently, they are NOT investing in America.... well mostly the ones guilty of this are earning multiple million a year, such as banks.. and those getting stimulus that does NOT seem to be invested.

I have NOTHING against people getting rich, so long as they pay their fair share.

And somehow you seem to think that govt is the problem.

Sounds to me as if you are arguing from an anti-govt ideology which is broad and conclusory and also NOT very specific about how we get from the point that we are IN to that ideological point of little to NO govt and will that new state benefit people?

And you are suggesting that the creation of jobs is NOT a goal of companies, and probably, we differ in that regard. I understand that companies can do whatever they want for the benefit of their shareholders; however, in my current thinking, if companies are NOT providing social good, such as jobs, then we as a society may consider that their licenses (charters) should be taken away. Devils in the details, here.

Again, if the private sector will NOT create jobs, then the govt should step in to accomplish such..... or at least to create the systems in which jobs can be created, and those are NOT govt bureaucrats... can be construction, driving all kinds of jobs can be created by public works projects... building roads, schools, future energy systems etc etc.

That seems to be the point that Buffet is making also that the rich should pay more taxes.


Govt is supposed to be the voice of the people and yes whether women should have a right to vote has already been established, so I am NOT sure how we are supposed to get rid of that. Currently, I believe in democracy rather than moneyocracy. Accordingly, people should be calling the shots, NOT money. Right NOW, the rich are calling too many of the shots in all sectors, including the influencing of the direction of govt.

 

[cardguy]

Anyone else agree that Capital Gains tax is double taxation (as detailed in my original post)?

Or perhaps it isn't double taxation since it only applies to any profits you make from your investment?

There have been some good points on this thread - but I feel I am back to square one in terms of not being sure which side is correct.

 

[Ensam]

To put it simply. Why should a guy be taxed for investing his earned money on creating jobs and growing buinesses? When he wouldn't be taxed at all if he just blew the money on hookers, alcohol, champagne, drugs, holidays, cars and hotels?

Unless he does it in New Hampshire he'd still be paying sales tax on the consumption (or should anyway - I don't know many hookers who bother to collect sales tax properly on their services).

 

[w00t]

To put it simply. Why should a guy be taxed for investing his earned money on creating jobs and growing buinesses? When he wouldn't be taxed at all if he just blew the money on hookers, alcohol, champagne, drugs, holidays, cars and hotels?

Since that is basically what the Capital Gains tax represents.

Yes it doesnt make any sense. If someone wants to build a business he has to deal with all kinds of regulations and business growth is slowed down by taxes. Meanwhile there is a whole shadow economy that makes criminal organizations rich ... completeley tax free.

Heres what Dan Kennedy has to say on the topic:

Our income tax system is an indefensible mess. A criminal mess. Kept in place by politicians who use it for social engineering, idiots, tax lawyers and the IRS. If it were replaced with something that makes sense, a whole lot of these people would be out looking for honest work. Either a flat tax or a national sales tax, accompanied by a constitutional amendment requiring a 75% majority vote of both houses of Congress to raise taxes or enact any new taxes of any kind - that's what I would push for. Capital gains tax and estate tax should be eliminated altogether. The money was already taxed once. Once is enough. States should be forced to keep their income, sales and property taxes within a sane range or be denied federal aid. No one should pay combined taxes taking away more than 30% of what they earn.

You might ask how the nation could possibly afford such a radical change and reduction in taxes. Easily, that's how. First of all, Presidents John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush ably demonstrated that income tax bracket reductions increase tax revenues. Second, the productivity and investment boom that would occur thanks to truly comprehensive tax simplification and relief would more than compensate. Third, I would put heavy surcharge taxes on vices. Fourth, I would take an axe to foreign aid and government waste. A big axe. You pay at least 400% more in taxes than you should, so everybody in the underground economy can enjoy tax-free income.

You pay excessive taxes so pimps and prostitutes, bookies, drug dealers, dealers in stolen merchandise, and layers and layers of organized crime and gang leaders can pay zero taxes. If you approve of that plan, you need to see a mental health professional. I actually think it could and arguably should be the other way around: you and I should pay zero income tax, and tax on those in vice businesses should support us. Essentially, Nevada operates that way. Zero income tax for its citizens. Taxes on the casino industry more than take care of the whole tab. Prohibition is a failure. The only segment of society that benefits in any way, shape or form from gambling, prostitution and marijuana being illegal is organized crime. It is asinine to continue these completely unsuccessful prohibitions, that suck up monstrous quantities of economic, law enforcement, judicial and penal resources. The entire mess is a gigantic cost to you and me, a gigantic opportunity for criminals. There has to be a better way, and we ought to find it.

 

[JayJuanGee]

To put it simply. Why should a guy be taxed for investing his earned money on creating jobs and growing buinesses? When he wouldn't be taxed at all if he just blew the money on hookers, alcohol, champagne, drugs, holidays, cars and hotels?

Unless he does it in New Hampshire he'd still be paying sales tax on the consumption (or should anyway - I don't know many hookers who bother to collect sales tax properly on their services).

Even though some guys in this thread seem to be restful about paying taxes, the point is that a guy is taxed on the income earned from his investments in different ways as compared with taxes on his consumption.

The guy investing to create passive income maintains an incentive to invest, and the more moneythat he has to invest, the more likely that he would be able to live strictly off that passive income, and NOT have to work.

Some kinds of investments benefit the society more than others, and I would NOT assume that all investments are equal. Probably, the investments that are in fact creating social benefits should be taxed at a lower rate than the investments (such as vulture investments) that are purely sucking the value out of some company and reaping the rewards for a few while the public bears the burden.

I am unclear about the question that is currently pending in this thread b/c it does seem that OP's question was answered, and it seems to be recognized as answered, but then asked again. The premise of the original question was clarified that capital gains is NOT double taxation b/c it merely taxes earnings on future investments rather than taxing the original principle.

 

[worldwidetraveler]

Anyone else agree that Capital Gains tax is double taxation (as detailed in my original post)?

Or perhaps it isn't double taxation since it only applies to any profits you make from your investment?

There have been some good points on this thread - but I feel I am back to square one in terms of not being sure which side is correct.

Of course it is double taxation. It is already taxed at the corporate level and then taxed on a personal level.

Same goes for gifts. If I were to give my parents 1 million dollars, they would have to pay personal income taxes on that even though I already paid personal taxes on that income.

Anytime money changes hands, it is taxed.

If the capital gains tax is raised more and more, business will just keep the money. There would be no incentives to paying out dividends which would also hurt the retirees. People think they can hurt the rich by increasing taxes on them but it normally only hurts the middle income families in the end.

 

[JayJuanGee]

Anyone else agree that Capital Gains tax is double taxation (as detailed in my original post)?

Or perhaps it isn't double taxation since it only applies to any profits you make from your investment?

There have been some good points on this thread - but I feel I am back to square one in terms of not being sure which side is correct.

Of course it is double taxation. It is already taxed at the corporate level and then taxed on a personal level.

In this thread, I thought that we were beyond this double taxation question when it comes to capital gains.

Let’s say that a guy earns $1 million from his job over the years and he had been saving that money. Thereafter, he decides that he is going to invest that $1 million into some passive investment, such as a stock index fund. Then 2 years later, when he withdraws $1.2 million from his investment, he is NOT taxed on the $1.2 million, he is only taxed on the $200,000, which is the gain from the investment. We may be getting our definitions mixed up, but I would NOT call that double taxation, and I would NOT call it a problem, especially for someone with that level of gain. It is more of a problem for the person with the smaller income, getting taxed here, there and everywhere.

Same goes for gifts. If I were to give my parents 1 million dollars, they would have to pay personal income taxes on that even though I already paid personal taxes on that income.

Gifts are a different story, and yes, that seems more like double taxation, and the rationale for gift taxes is different (and whether just or NOT is another story). If you gift less than $10k per year, then there is NO tax, and also there can be various loophole in hiding the gift - NOT always easy for guys trying to operate above board.

Anytime money changes hands, it is taxed.

This statement is NOT true b/c there are a lot of transactions that may NOT be taxed, but I would agree that regular people are taxed way too much, and if more of the tax burden was carried at the top of the income scale (such at those above $1million per year and get rid of some loopholes and corporate welfare subsidies), then maybe regular people earning less than $200,000 per year would NOT have to be nickled and dimed to death with all these bullshit taxes.

I am with YOU and a lot of guys on this thread that in many ways regular people are getting taxed too much, and to me, that this extra taxation seems to be happening because the very well to do have way too many loopholes and they are NOT paying their fair share. This taxation system is NOT the big bad govt running off with the taxes, but rather the wealthy failing and /or refusing to pay their fair share, and accordingly poning (shafting) the govt and the rest of the people.

 

[worldwidetraveler]

In this thread, I thought that we were beyond this double taxation question when it comes to capital gains.

Let’s say that a guy earns $1 million from his job over the years and he had been saving that money. Thereafter, he decides that he is going to invest that $1 million into some passive investment, such as a stock index fund. Then 2 years later, when he withdraws $1.2 million from his investment, he is NOT taxed on the $1.2 million, he is only taxed on the $200,000, which is the gain from the investment. We may be getting our definitions mixed up, but I would NOT call that double taxation, and I would NOT call it a problem, especially for someone with that level of gain. It is more of a problem for the person with the smaller income, getting taxed here, there and everywhere.

No one said he would be taxed on the 1.2 million in your example. We are saying that even if he is taxed on the 200k it was already taxed at the corporate level.

If he invested in stocks, they are part owners of the companies. The companies pay tax, send out money in the form of dividends which is also taxed.

Double taxation.

See that is the main problem and a lot of you guys can't seem to recognize it. You say it is ok for someone with more money because they can absorb the taxes easier but recognize that it isn't quite fair for someone with lower income because they feel it more.

That is bullshit reasoning.

You guys still haven't realized that when you call for changes it may start with rich people but those changes will trickle down to the masses.

Mainly to the middle income. Look at Obamacare... Many people were for it until they realized they had to pay for it. haha

Man, it is sort of like saying you agree with freedom of speech unless that speech is something that you don't agree with. You can't segregate people like that and say it is "ok". Everyone can take advantage of the same loopholes. You just need to start your own company and be profitable. The problem is most people can't do that or are lazy and would rather tell others they need to pay more. The funny thing is those people end up paying more in the end.

This statement is NOT true b/c there are a lot of transactions that may NOT be taxed, but I would agree that regular people are taxed way too much, and if more of the tax burden was carried at the top of the income scale (such at those above $1million per year and get rid of some loopholes and corporate welfare subsidies), then maybe regular people earning less than $200,000 per year would NOT have to be nickled and dimed to death with all these bullshit taxes.

Name some transactions that don't have taxes attached.

I am with YOU and a lot of guys on this thread that in many ways regular people are getting taxed too much, and to me, that this extra taxation seems to be happening because the very well to do have way too many loopholes and they are NOT paying their fair share. This taxation system is NOT the big bad govt running off with the taxes, but rather the wealthy failing and /or refusing to pay their fair share, and accordingly poning (shafting) the govt and the rest of the people.

Rich people pay the majority of all taxes. I keep hearing they don't pay their fair share when they pay 70% of all taxes. People are considered rich when they make over 200k a year now. What is fair? Should rich people pay 90% of all taxes?

 

[Dr. Howard]

In this thread, I thought that we were beyond this double taxation question when it comes to capital gains.

Let’s say that a guy earns $1 million from his job over the years and he had been saving that money. Thereafter, he decides that he is going to invest that $1 million into some passive investment, such as a stock index fund. Then 2 years later, when he withdraws $1.2 million from his investment, he is NOT taxed on the $1.2 million, he is only taxed on the $200,000, which is the gain from the investment. We may be getting our definitions mixed up, but I would NOT call that double taxation, and I would NOT call it a problem, especially for someone with that level of gain. It is more of a problem for the person with the smaller income, getting taxed here, there and everywhere.

No one said he would be taxed on the 1.2 million in your example. We are saying that even if he is taxed on the 200k it was already taxed at the corporate level.

If he invested in stocks, they are part owners of the companies. The companies pay tax, send out money in the form of dividends which is also taxed.

Double taxation.

This statement is NOT true b/c there are a lot of transactions that may NOT be taxed, but I would agree that regular people are taxed way too much, and if more of the tax burden was carried at the top of the income scale (such at those above $1million per year and get rid of some loopholes and corporate welfare subsidies), then maybe regular people earning less than $200,000 per year would NOT have to be nickled and dimed to death with all these bullshit taxes.

Name some transactions that don't have taxes attached.

I am with YOU and a lot of guys on this thread that in many ways regular people are getting taxed too much, and to me, that this extra taxation seems to be happening because the very well to do have way too many loopholes and they are NOT paying their fair share. This taxation system is NOT the big bad govt running off with the taxes, but rather the wealthy failing and /or refusing to pay their fair share, and accordingly poning (shafting) the govt and the rest of the people.

Rich people pay the majority of all taxes. I keep hearing they don't pay their fair share when they pay 70% of all taxes. People are considered rich when they make over 200k a year now. What is fair? Should rich people pay 90% of all taxes?

1. Double taxation. No its not, its entity structure. A person earning that same money via an S-corporation or self employment would pay about 45% with self employment tax and their tax bracket. The dividend recipient from a C corp gets to that same level when adding capital gains tax and the corporate tax.

2. Non taxable transactions, you can actually go higher on the gifts. 5 million in a lifetime. You and a spouse can trade money without it being a gift. Put money into a business, land, home, sell a primary residence with up to $200k gain. Education savings, health insurance, retirement. Pretty much the whole business private tax advisors is helping people with non taxable transactions.

3. Tax parity and fairness. I don't think its fair. Bring back Herman Cain's 9-9-9. That shit was plain and fair, everyone had the same rules. I think 'fair' just means equal, whether everyone pays 10% or 40%

 

[Ensam]

You guys are conflating dividends and capital gains.

Dividends are corporate profits that are paid out to investors. You can make the argument that dividends are double taxed because the corporation paid taxes on their profit. Of course all money is taxed multiple times if you use that logic. A non taxed exchange is the exception rather than the rule. The justification I like is that the government provides the rule of law that allows you to make such exchanges and thus is entitled to a cut. And don't think people who have blackmarket jobs don't pay taxes, they just pay them in different ways. Bribes, payoffs, protection money, etc. are all things respectible citizens don't have to worry about. We just pay taxes.

Capital gains are the profits from selling a security for more money than you bought it. The underlying company might not have paid taxes at all that year - or any of the years you held the security. Plenty of stocks go up in value even though the companies themselves haven't yet generated any cash flow to be taxed.

 

[worldwidetraveler]

You guys are conflating dividends and capital gains.

Dividends are corporate profits that are paid out to investors. You can make the argument that dividends are double taxed because the corporation paid taxes on their profit. Of course all money is taxed multiple times if you use that logic. A non taxed exchange is the exception rather than the rule. The justification I like is that the government provides the rule of law that allows you to make such exchanges and thus is entitled to a cut. And don't think people who have blackmarket jobs don't pay taxes, they just pay them in different ways. Bribes, payoffs, protection money, etc. are all things respectible citizens don't have to worry about. We just pay taxes.

Capital gains are the profits from selling a security for more money than you bought it. The underlying company might not have paid taxes at all that year - or any of the years you held the security. Plenty of stocks go up in value even though the companies themselves haven't yet generated any cash flow to be taxed.

No, we are, or at least I am, talking about qualified dividends which is taxed at the same rate as long term capital gains.

That was the point I was making all along, we get taxed pretty much every time money changes hands.

 

[worldwidetraveler]

2. Non taxable transactions, you can actually go higher on the gifts. 5 million in a lifetime. You and a spouse can trade money without it being a gift. Put money into a business, land, home, sell a primary residence with up to $200k gain. Education savings, health insurance, retirement. Pretty much the whole business private tax advisors is helping people with non taxable transactions.

Dude, which retirement vehicle has you paying no taxes when you take it out. You got me interested.

As for the other stuff, I know there are exemptions for gifting but still think it is bullshit that you are limited.

 

[JayJuanGee]

No one said he would be taxed on the 1.2 million in your example. We are saying that even if he is taxed on the 200k it was already taxed at the corporate level.

If he invested in stocks, they are part owners of the companies. The companies pay tax, send out money in the form of dividends which is also taxed.

Double taxation.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the scenario that is being described? I am presenting a straight-forward scenario in which I believe capital gains would apply. And, in my described scenario, the $200 K is only being taxed once. Maybe you want to outline the dividends and corporate tax that would also apply in that situation, b/c I do NOT see it. You mention that a guy is getting dividends and being taxed on it, and the company was also taxed on the dividends. That is a different scenario than the one that i I presented.

If a guy wants to structure his income that way, then yes there is going to be some double taxation. I am NO expert, but I would imagine that there are ways to structure income in order NOT to have that double taxation problem, and if double taxation is the best that you can do, then so be it. getting into business complications rather than straight forward capital gains, which is beyond my expertise, if any.

Name some transactions that don't have taxes attached.

I'm NO expert, but off the top of my head, gifts of under $10k per year (this can be big, if set up over many years and given to many entities), and Wiscanada referred to this. Inheritance of under $1 million (or whatever the current number is). trusts can be created in which NO tax applies. deals in cash in which they are NOT reported. There are a lot of sharing arrangements that can be entered into in which No tax applies, even though wealth is transferred. Some kinds of services can be paid without tax on the end of the payer

Rich people pay the majority of all taxes. I keep hearing they don't pay their fair share when they pay 70% of all taxes. People are considered rich when they make over 200k a year now. What is fair? Should rich people pay 90% of all taxes?

I used $200K as a number that most of us in this thread probably do NOT make in a year anyhow - even though $200k is no where near where most of the real wealthy are. My point is that as income rises, more of that money should be taxed - and probably regular people... below $200k should NOT have to be taxed in great ways. I am saying regular people are below $200k, and NOT that wealthy are above $200k - As income goes up, then more tax needs to be levied as on the margins b/c that is what is fair to support the infrastructure.

This is NOT an argument to give money to big inefficient govt but a means to make sure that infrastructure is built and maintained.

3. Tax parity and fairness. I don't think its fair. Bring back Herman Cain's 9-9-9. That shit was plain and fair, everyone had the same rules. I think 'fair' just means equal, whether everyone pays 10% or 40%

Wiscanada,

I agree with your whole post, except flat tax just is NOT fair, especially on the extreme ends. It is regressive on the poor b/c poor people need a lot larger percentage of their income just for basic necessities, and on the extremely wealthy side it does NOT tax enough - b/c once a guy gets into the filthy rich category of income of multimillions a year, he does NOT need that much income b/c there are only so many yachts that a guy needs to buy, and guys do NOT need 100 servants and guys do NOT deserve to be buying islands and countries.

 

[worldwidetraveler]

That is why I need to stop discussing this stuff. It tends to be the poorer people who think in a particular way. The guys who work for someone else and haven't taken the risks and sacrifices necessary to build wealth. They don't see how guys can sacrifice for a decade to hit it big and then the vultures come out saying they need to pay their fair share even though they pay more in a year than most would in a lifetime.

Everyone has access to the same infrastructure but the wealthy needs to pay for it. Fuckin funny shit.

 

[worldwidetraveler]

I agree with your whole post, except flat tax just is NOT fair, especially on the extreme ends. It is regressive on the poor b/c poor people need a lot larger percentage of their income just for basic necessities, and on the extremely wealthy side it does NOT tax enough - b/c once a guy gets into the filthy rich category of income of multimillions a year, he does NOT need that much income b/c there are only so many yachts that a guy needs to buy, and guys do NOT need 100 servants and guys do NOT deserve to be buying islands and countries.

Cmon Jay, I am sure there are a lot of things in your life you don't need or deserve. I think it is time you sell them and pay your fair share man.

Why do you get to tell people what they deserve or need when you sit back and probably watch your television, listen to your stereo, type forum posts on your laptop, drive a nice car, wear nice clothes, etc...

 

[Veloce]

I don't see cap gains as double taxation because I don't think about taxes that way. Taxes are a constant, not a single integer. If you write off business expenses does that equal half-taxation? Add some capital gains and you're at 1.5x taxation? Doesn't make sense.

I've been extolling the virtue of hustles for a while now. I'm at higher risk because of it but no risk no reward. I pay 99% of my daily living expenses in cash and the rest of it goes straight to investments with about 25% in money market.

The rich stay rich because of legal hustles. For working class hustles you're gonna have to bend the rules a little.

 

[Veloce]

Cmon Jay, I am sure there are a lot of things in your life you don't need or deserve. I think it is time you sell them and pay your fair share man.

Why do you get to tell people what they deserve or need when you sit back and probably watch your television, listen to your stereo, type forum posts on your laptop, drive a nice car, wear nice clothes, etc...

Horribly faulty logic. You can't compare the income disparity between lower and middle class to the income disparity between middle class and upper class.

 

[JayJuanGee]

That is why I need to stop discussing this stuff. It tends to be the poorer people who think in a particular way. The guys who work for someone else and haven't taken the risks and sacrifices necessary to build wealth. They don't see how guys can sacrifice for a decade to hit it big and then the vultures come out saying they need to pay their fair share even though they pay more in a year than most would in a lifetime.

Now, you are treading on the boarders of a form of ad hominem to suggest that someone cannot have input into these wealth distribution and taxation matters b/c he has NOT been in your exact same shoes.

I doubt that you are part of the group of filthy wealthy that I refer to, and frequently guys that struggle to build something, such as a business, are getting screwed by the same elite that are setting the various rules that cause regular and smaller business entities to be overly burdened and these elite want you to think that the "poor" are the problem. and they also want you to think that the blacks and the women are the problem. and the immigrants.. etc etc...

The truth is that the filthy wealthy have been engaged in this wealth redistribution towards the top since the 80 and continuing to date, through republicans and democrats. And, accordingly, people on the lower end are getting taxed too much and think the solution is to NOT tax.. which is the whole nontax experiment that we have been trying since the 80s, and trickle down does NOT work.

 

[worldwidetraveler]

Cmon Jay, I am sure there are a lot of things in your life you don't need or deserve. I think it is time you sell them and pay your fair share man.

Why do you get to tell people what they deserve or need when you sit back and probably watch your television, listen to your stereo, type forum posts on your laptop, drive a nice car, wear nice clothes, etc...

Horribly faulty logic. You can't compare the income disparity between lower and middle class to the income disparity between middle class and upper class.

Not at all. I think if people made their money they should be able to spend it any way they want without someone telling them they don't deserve it or need it.

It is typically haters and jealous people that have a problems with how others are living their lives.