Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"Finally concede"?? WTF? I never said lowering the rate to zero would increase revenue from that tax. You are trying to weasel out of your own fucktard stupidity.You must have failed reading. In the third grade.Every time the rate has been lowered, it has produced more revenue. Every time it has been raised it produces less revenue. Are you disagreeing withObama?Even Obama understands that raising cap gains taxes produces LESS revenue to the Treasury. But he doesnt care about that.
No cause and effect EVER proven, but go ahead and try.
How about we lower the cap gains tax to ZERO? Then show us how much MORE cap gains revenue you would collect.
lol
A zero rate would produce the most benefit to the economy.
A zero capital gains tax rate would produce more capital gains tax revenue?
Are you more retarded than most of us thought?
I wrote a zero cap gains tax would benefit THE ECONOMY the most. You understand the economy is no tthe government,r ight?
Okay so you finally concede that lowering the cap gains tax to zero would not increase cap gains tax revenue.
What if we lower to 1% from the current level. Will that increase cap gains tax revenue?
Those "tax cuts" were narrowly targeted giveaways to special interests. So your ppoint is a fail.It was 870 something billion and that probbaly only counts ARRA, not cash for clunkers and other programs.please explain where that TRILLION dollars for BO's great stimulus plan for infrastructure went exactly.....Losertrains have no right to bitch about the economy. How is cutting funding for infrastructure, science and investment that generally helps our country = a good idea??? Seriously, you people are nuts.
Actually, it wasn't quite a trillion, it was something like 782 billion.
Yeah, "O" didn't plan his shovel ready jobs too well, there were no shovels. It's too bad he screwed up so bad, our infrastructure is sucking big time and does need serious repairs and updates.
288 billion of that were tax cuts, which you people count as a COST, despite your incessant claims that tax cuts are not a cost.
Make up your mind.
Every time the rate has been lowered, it has produced more revenue. Every time it has been raised it produces less revenue. Are you disagreeing withObama?Even Obama understands that raising cap gains taxes produces LESS revenue to the Treasury. But he doesnt care about that.If you shift the tax burden to regular income,
Shift the burden?
If you raise capital gains tax rate, you'll collect less capital gains tax, less corporate tax and less income tax.
No cause and effect EVER proven, but go ahead and try.
How about we lower the cap gains tax to ZERO? Then show us how much MORE cap gains revenue you would collect.
lol
A zero rate would produce the most benefit to the economy.
That's not cause and effect.
After the Clinton tax increase in 1993, revenues went up. By your own argument, that PROVES that raising taxes increases revenues.
After the Clinton tax increase in 1993, revenues went up.
Clinton raised the cap gains tax? Are you sure?
That's senseless. There's no demand for your goods or services until you offer the services. Business create the demand and consumers respond if it's something they want and are willing to pay for.Consumers are the first link in the chain because without a demand for your goods and services there's no point in starting or expanding a business.
So you walked door to door and let the folks know. Fascinating.I started a sole proprietorship whose product was information with nothing but sweat equity and myself as an employee. I didn't need capital for any of it.
It was 870 something billion and that probbaly only counts ARRA, not cash for clunkers and other programs.please explain where that TRILLION dollars for BO's great stimulus plan for infrastructure went exactly.....Losertrains have no right to bitch about the economy. How is cutting funding for infrastructure, science and investment that generally helps our country = a good idea??? Seriously, you people are nuts.
Actually, it wasn't quite a trillion, it was something like 782 billion.
Yeah, "O" didn't plan his shovel ready jobs too well, there were no shovels. It's too bad he screwed up so bad, our infrastructure is sucking big time and does need serious repairs and updates.
You're just desperate here not to be a complete fool, and you're failing badly.Every time the rate has been lowered, it has produced more revenue. Every time it has been raised it produces less revenue. Are you disagreeing withObama?Even Obama understands that raising cap gains taxes produces LESS revenue to the Treasury. But he doesnt care about that.
No cause and effect EVER proven, but go ahead and try.
How about we lower the cap gains tax to ZERO? Then show us how much MORE cap gains revenue you would collect.
lol
A zero rate would produce the most benefit to the economy.
That's not cause and effect.
After the Clinton tax increase in 1993, revenues went up. By your own argument, that PROVES that raising taxes increases revenues.
After the Clinton tax increase in 1993, revenues went up.
Clinton raised the cap gains tax? Are you sure?
I'd have said that if I meant to say that.
Are you now narrowing your opinion of tax cuts to claim that ONLY cap gains tax cuts increase revenues?
NO OTHER TAX CUTS DO, in your opinion?
So is the infrastructure better off now that Obama has spent money on airports to nowhere and skunk bridges?It was 870 something billion and that probbaly only counts ARRA, not cash for clunkers and other programs.please explain where that TRILLION dollars for BO's great stimulus plan for infrastructure went exactly.....Losertrains have no right to bitch about the economy. How is cutting funding for infrastructure, science and investment that generally helps our country = a good idea??? Seriously, you people are nuts.
Actually, it wasn't quite a trillion, it was something like 782 billion.
Yeah, "O" didn't plan his shovel ready jobs too well, there were no shovels. It's too bad he screwed up so bad, our infrastructure is sucking big time and does need serious repairs and updates.
Infrastructure constantly breaks down and needs to be maintained. Of'course, you people don't consider maintaining this country.
"Finally concede"?? WTF? I never said lowering the rate to zero would increase revenue from that tax. You are trying to weasel out of your own fucktard stupidity.You must have failed reading. In the third grade.Every time the rate has been lowered, it has produced more revenue. Every time it has been raised it produces less revenue. Are you disagreeing withObama?No cause and effect EVER proven, but go ahead and try.
How about we lower the cap gains tax to ZERO? Then show us how much MORE cap gains revenue you would collect.
lol
A zero rate would produce the most benefit to the economy.
A zero capital gains tax rate would produce more capital gains tax revenue?
Are you more retarded than most of us thought?
I wrote a zero cap gains tax would benefit THE ECONOMY the most. You understand the economy is no tthe government,r ight?
Okay so you finally concede that lowering the cap gains tax to zero would not increase cap gains tax revenue.
What if we lower to 1% from the current level. Will that increase cap gains tax revenue?
I dont know what the effect would be. It would probably raise revenue to the Treasury overall though,
Huh? That's why we are taxed. Don't blame conservatives if it gets spent on snail darter sex change therapy.Infrastructure constantly breaks down and needs to be maintained. Of'course, you people don't consider maintaining this country.
You're just desperate here not to be a complete fool, and you're failing badly.Every time the rate has been lowered, it has produced more revenue. Every time it has been raised it produces less revenue. Are you disagreeing withObama?No cause and effect EVER proven, but go ahead and try.
How about we lower the cap gains tax to ZERO? Then show us how much MORE cap gains revenue you would collect.
lol
A zero rate would produce the most benefit to the economy.
That's not cause and effect.
After the Clinton tax increase in 1993, revenues went up. By your own argument, that PROVES that raising taxes increases revenues.
After the Clinton tax increase in 1993, revenues went up.
Clinton raised the cap gains tax? Are you sure?
I'd have said that if I meant to say that.
Are you now narrowing your opinion of tax cuts to claim that ONLY cap gains tax cuts increase revenues?
NO OTHER TAX CUTS DO, in your opinion?
You want so desperately to believe that raising cap gains will produce more revenue you will twist just anything. But it is a fact that the opposite is the case: lowering capital gains taxes produces more tax reveniue, as well as helping the economy by unlocking capital for further investment. It's such a simple concept only a libtard would argue against it.
Geezus, are you fucking retarded? Is there some disability you have that makes you unable to read? What part of "raise revenue to the treasury overall" is unclear to you??"Finally concede"?? WTF? I never said lowering the rate to zero would increase revenue from that tax. You are trying to weasel out of your own fucktard stupidity.You must have failed reading. In the third grade.Every time the rate has been lowered, it has produced more revenue. Every time it has been raised it produces less revenue. Are you disagreeing withObama?
A zero rate would produce the most benefit to the economy.
A zero capital gains tax rate would produce more capital gains tax revenue?
Are you more retarded than most of us thought?
I wrote a zero cap gains tax would benefit THE ECONOMY the most. You understand the economy is no tthe government,r ight?
Okay so you finally concede that lowering the cap gains tax to zero would not increase cap gains tax revenue.
What if we lower to 1% from the current level. Will that increase cap gains tax revenue?
I dont know what the effect would be. It would probably raise revenue to the Treasury overall though,
Seriously? You're now claiming that lowering the cap gains tax to 1% would increase revenues.
So lowering the top rate on long cap gains from 20% to 1% would produce a net increase on cap gains revenues collected on those incomes?
lol
No. Every timethe rate was lowered revenue increased. Do you think Obama was lying when he said so?You're just desperate here not to be a complete fool, and you're failing badly.Every time the rate has been lowered, it has produced more revenue. Every time it has been raised it produces less revenue. Are you disagreeing withObama?
A zero rate would produce the most benefit to the economy.
That's not cause and effect.
After the Clinton tax increase in 1993, revenues went up. By your own argument, that PROVES that raising taxes increases revenues.
After the Clinton tax increase in 1993, revenues went up.
Clinton raised the cap gains tax? Are you sure?
I'd have said that if I meant to say that.
Are you now narrowing your opinion of tax cuts to claim that ONLY cap gains tax cuts increase revenues?
NO OTHER TAX CUTS DO, in your opinion?
You want so desperately to believe that raising cap gains will produce more revenue you will twist just anything. But it is a fact that the opposite is the case: lowering capital gains taxes produces more tax reveniue, as well as helping the economy by unlocking capital for further investment. It's such a simple concept only a libtard would argue against it.
And yet you cannot produce one cause and effect example of that actually working.
ONE
Genius if you sell an appreciated property it can easily push you up into the top rate, which is 20% plus an add on for Medicare sur tax.The tax rate on most net capital gain is no higher than 15% for most taxpayers. Some or all net capital gain may be taxed at 0% if you are in the 10% or 15% ordinary income tax brackets.
chances are the RW dolts on this thread pay 0% anyway,
No. Every timethe rate was lowered revenue increased. Do you think Obama was lying when he said so?You're just desperate here not to be a complete fool, and you're failing badly.That's not cause and effect.
After the Clinton tax increase in 1993, revenues went up. By your own argument, that PROVES that raising taxes increases revenues.
After the Clinton tax increase in 1993, revenues went up.
Clinton raised the cap gains tax? Are you sure?
I'd have said that if I meant to say that.
Are you now narrowing your opinion of tax cuts to claim that ONLY cap gains tax cuts increase revenues?
NO OTHER TAX CUTS DO, in your opinion?
You want so desperately to believe that raising cap gains will produce more revenue you will twist just anything. But it is a fact that the opposite is the case: lowering capital gains taxes produces more tax reveniue, as well as helping the economy by unlocking capital for further investment. It's such a simple concept only a libtard would argue against it.
And yet you cannot produce one cause and effect example of that actually working.
ONE
Fuck you. I've posted the vid of Obama saying this many times.No. Every timethe rate was lowered revenue increased. Do you think Obama was lying when he said so?You're just desperate here not to be a complete fool, and you're failing badly.After the Clinton tax increase in 1993, revenues went up.
Clinton raised the cap gains tax? Are you sure?
I'd have said that if I meant to say that.
Are you now narrowing your opinion of tax cuts to claim that ONLY cap gains tax cuts increase revenues?
NO OTHER TAX CUTS DO, in your opinion?
You want so desperately to believe that raising cap gains will produce more revenue you will twist just anything. But it is a fact that the opposite is the case: lowering capital gains taxes produces more tax reveniue, as well as helping the economy by unlocking capital for further investment. It's such a simple concept only a libtard would argue against it.
And yet you cannot produce one cause and effect example of that actually working.
ONE
link
No. Every timethe rate was lowered revenue increased. Do you think Obama was lying when he said so?You're just desperate here not to be a complete fool, and you're failing badly.That's not cause and effect.
After the Clinton tax increase in 1993, revenues went up. By your own argument, that PROVES that raising taxes increases revenues.
After the Clinton tax increase in 1993, revenues went up.
Clinton raised the cap gains tax? Are you sure?
I'd have said that if I meant to say that.
Are you now narrowing your opinion of tax cuts to claim that ONLY cap gains tax cuts increase revenues?
NO OTHER TAX CUTS DO, in your opinion?
You want so desperately to believe that raising cap gains will produce more revenue you will twist just anything. But it is a fact that the opposite is the case: lowering capital gains taxes produces more tax reveniue, as well as helping the economy by unlocking capital for further investment. It's such a simple concept only a libtard would argue against it.
And yet you cannot produce one cause and effect example of that actually working.
ONE
Fuck you. I've posted the vid of Obama saying this many times.No. Every timethe rate was lowered revenue increased. Do you think Obama was lying when he said so?You're just desperate here not to be a complete fool, and you're failing badly.I'd have said that if I meant to say that.
Are you now narrowing your opinion of tax cuts to claim that ONLY cap gains tax cuts increase revenues?
NO OTHER TAX CUTS DO, in your opinion?
You want so desperately to believe that raising cap gains will produce more revenue you will twist just anything. But it is a fact that the opposite is the case: lowering capital gains taxes produces more tax reveniue, as well as helping the economy by unlocking capital for further investment. It's such a simple concept only a libtard would argue against it.
And yet you cannot produce one cause and effect example of that actually working.
ONE
link
