Obama wants to raise taxes on the American people once again

[Flash]

Please explain how that works, if you don't mind. Let me see if I have this right. By reducing capital gain rates ( taxes ), the high income folks pay more in taxes? And, exactly how does "holding investments less" affect income and taxes? Do not high income folks change their investments, and the way they invest all the time? Whether they are invested in stocks, bonds, currency, real estate, commodities, etc., they keep up with the economic trends, move their money accordingly, and by doing so, they protect their investments ( money). Am I wrong here? If so, please explain where I failed to understand investments and taxes. Thanks.

If you have more money than what you need to live on you have two choices; either put it in your mattress or invest it in the hopes of making more money. If you invest it then jobs are created. Stocks and bonds are instruments to finance investments in growth. That is a good thing.

I would rather have the money in the hands of "the rich" so they can use it to make more money (i.e. invest to create jobs) than to have it in the hands of a government bureaucrat who was elected by special interest groups.

However, the better thing to do is not spend so much money on the government so that nobody gets taxed so much.

 

[Skylar]

It is not enough that the American people are already taxed to the hilt and that the filthy ass combined government already takes over 40% of the GNP for the cost of government but this piece of shit in the White House wants to once again raise taxes on the American people.

Yea, we really need more taxes now, don't we? The stupid idiots in the White House can't cut back on spending but they sure as hell can call for more taxes.

This is the type of bead government you get when you elect Democrats. Of course if history is any indication the Republicans will probably give him what he wants.

His stupid tax plan is taking money from Americans that earned the money and giving to Americans that didn't earn it while keeping spending and the tax burden at the already astronomical high. Stupid Libtardeconomics.

Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address Fox News

Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address

Why should capital gains taxes be so much lower than income tax rates? I can understand why politically.....most rich folks make their money that way. But practically, it makes no sense. We should go back to capital gains rates we had under Reagan. Treat Capital Gains like normal income.

Because capital formation is the lifeblood of business. Further, reducing capital gains rates actually increases the amount paid by high income people because the incentive to hold investments is less.
Even Obama understands this.

And it still will be. The current capital gains rates are ridiculously low, historically. During the rockin' years of Reagan and the economic surge of the 90s......capital gains were treated as either ordinary income or had a rate about double what it is now.

And clearly we did fine. So from a practical standpoint, this massive tax loophole used overwhelmingly by the very rich isn't particularly necessary.

Even ethically, it makes no sense for capital gains to be so much lower than the taxes on ordinary income. With the exception of the initial outlay of capital when a stock is first sold by the issuing company, stock trades add nothing to the economy. If you buy a stock and then sell it after it has risen in value, you don't benefit the company in any way. You've made nothing, performed no service, created no good, added in no significant way to the economy.

Whereas someone who works for a living and earns income through their labors does add to the economy. They build businesses. They make products. They provide services. In a very real way, they grow the economy.

And yet the essentially useless gains of stock speculation are taxed at a rate often less than HALF that of gainful additions to the economy provided by labor?

That's ridiculous. If anything, the reverse should be true.

 

[The Rabbi]

It is not enough that the American people are already taxed to the hilt and that the filthy ass combined government already takes over 40% of the GNP for the cost of government but this piece of shit in the White House wants to once again raise taxes on the American people.

Yea, we really need more taxes now, don't we? The stupid idiots in the White House can't cut back on spending but they sure as hell can call for more taxes.

This is the type of bead government you get when you elect Democrats. Of course if history is any indication the Republicans will probably give him what he wants.

His stupid tax plan is taking money from Americans that earned the money and giving to Americans that didn't earn it while keeping spending and the tax burden at the already astronomical high. Stupid Libtardeconomics.

Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address Fox News

Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address

Why should capital gains taxes be so much lower than income tax rates? I can understand why politically.....most rich folks make their money that way. But practically, it makes no sense. We should go back to capital gains rates we had under Reagan. Treat Capital Gains like normal income.

Because capital formation is the lifeblood of business. Further, reducing capital gains rates actually increases the amount paid by high income people because the incentive to hold investments is less.
Even Obama understands this.

And it still will be. The current capital gains rates are ridiculously low, historically. During the rockin' years of Reagan and the economic surge of the 90s......capital gains were treated as either ordinary income or had a rate about double what it is now.

And clearly we did fine. So from a practical standpoint, this massive tax loophole used overwhelmingly by the very rich isn't particularly necessary.

Even ethically, it makes no sense for capital gains to be so much lower than the taxes on ordinary income. With the exception of the initial outlay of capital when a stock is first sold by the issuing company, stock trades add nothing to the economy. If you buy a stock and then sell it after it has risen in value, you don't benefit the company in any way. You've made nothing, performed no service, created no good, added in no significant way to the economy.

Whereas someone who works for a living and earns income through their labors does add to the economy. They build businesses. They make products. They provide services. In a very real way, they grow the economy.

And yet the essentially useless gains of stock speculation are taxed at a rate often less than HALF that of gainful additions to the economy provided by labor?

That's ridiculous. If anything, the reverse should be true.

I already explained that taxing gains is taxing future prosperity. Many Asian countries understand this and have no capital gains taxes.
I also explained that if you really want to soak the rich then you lower rates because they will sell their investments and pay the tax.
If you dont understand that you dont need to be part of this discussion.

 

[Flash]

[. If you buy a stock and then sell it after it has risen in value, you don't benefit the company in any way. You've made nothing, performed no service, created no good, added in no significant way to the economy.

.

There is a market for stocks and it is all risk taking. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. You are betting that the money that the sell of the stock is going to be used wisely. Sometimes that doesn't work out like when that idiot Obama used taxpayer's money to invest in Solyndra.

The government should not be in the business of interfering in the investment market by using taxation as a method of influence. It should be a free market.

If the government was not so out of control with spending we wouldn't have to worry about raising massive amounts of revene and trying to pick out the right mix of winners and losers.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. You GOP assholes gave us 2008. When the President took office, he inherited an economy that was shedding over 500,000 jobs a month. A market headed straight down all the way to 6550. Now, after six years, the market is between 17,000 and 18,000. Unemployment down to 5.6% and still declining. Renewable energy directly competing with conventional fossil fuels. Electric autos, for which the homeowner can supply his own fuel, becoming a reality.

And, final proof of the correctness of our President's policies, ol' Mitt is starting to echo them.

 

[Skylar]

It is not enough that the American people are already taxed to the hilt and that the filthy ass combined government already takes over 40% of the GNP for the cost of government but this piece of shit in the White House wants to once again raise taxes on the American people.

Yea, we really need more taxes now, don't we? The stupid idiots in the White House can't cut back on spending but they sure as hell can call for more taxes.

This is the type of bead government you get when you elect Democrats. Of course if history is any indication the Republicans will probably give him what he wants.

His stupid tax plan is taking money from Americans that earned the money and giving to Americans that didn't earn it while keeping spending and the tax burden at the already astronomical high. Stupid Libtardeconomics.

Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address Fox News

Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address

Why should capital gains taxes be so much lower than income tax rates? I can understand why politically.....most rich folks make their money that way. But practically, it makes no sense. We should go back to capital gains rates we had under Reagan. Treat Capital Gains like normal income.

Because capital formation is the lifeblood of business. Further, reducing capital gains rates actually increases the amount paid by high income people because the incentive to hold investments is less.
Even Obama understands this.

And it still will be. The current capital gains rates are ridiculously low, historically. During the rockin' years of Reagan and the economic surge of the 90s......capital gains were treated as either ordinary income or had a rate about double what it is now.

And clearly we did fine. So from a practical standpoint, this massive tax loophole used overwhelmingly by the very rich isn't particularly necessary.

Even ethically, it makes no sense for capital gains to be so much lower than the taxes on ordinary income. With the exception of the initial outlay of capital when a stock is first sold by the issuing company, stock trades add nothing to the economy. If you buy a stock and then sell it after it has risen in value, you don't benefit the company in any way. You've made nothing, performed no service, created no good, added in no significant way to the economy.

Whereas someone who works for a living and earns income through their labors does add to the economy. They build businesses. They make products. They provide services. In a very real way, they grow the economy.

And yet the essentially useless gains of stock speculation are taxed at a rate often less than HALF that of gainful additions to the economy provided by labor?

That's ridiculous. If anything, the reverse should be true.

I already explained that taxing gains is taxing future prosperity. Many Asian countries understand this and have no capital gains taxes.
I also explained that if you really want to soak the rich then you lower rates because they will sell their investments and pay the tax.
If you dont understand that you dont need to be part of this discussion.

And I've already provided you with overwhelming historic precedent that contradicts your assumptions. Massive tax breaks overwhelmingly for the wealthy aren't necessary for 'future prosperity'. During Reagan and Clinton's era we had higher capital gains taxes than we do now. If your Atlas Shrugged'esque version of the rich selling all their investments and going home if they don't get a rate often HALF of actual income scenario were valid, the rich would have done exactly this during Reagan and Clinton's eras.

They didn't. The idea that unless we give the rich a wildly enormous tax loophole to avoid paying taxes that they'll all divest is Ayn Rand inspired nonsense. History simply contradicts it.

Capital gains aren't created through products or services. They're overwhelmingly increases based on speculation. There's no particular reason to provide this massive tax loophole for the rich. By any rational measure, those performing labor....making goods, providing services, and genuinely adding to the value of the US economy....should be taxed at a lower rate than those who gain their income through stock speculation. As labor benefits the economy far more than speculation does.

 

[Flash]

Whereas someone who works for a living and earns income through their labors does add to the economy. They build businesses. They make products. They provide services. In a very real way, they grow the economy.

.

Most jobs in this country would not exist without the investment capital.

Except for small business labor alone does not create much. To create large employment you need capital. The "rich" people that have more money than they need to live on are the ones that supply that capital and god bless them. They are crucial to our economy and they should not be punished for investing.

If you have a 401K you are probably doing some investing in capital yourself. If you don't have a 401k you are probably part of the Free Shit Army so forget it.

 

[The Rabbi]

It is not enough that the American people are already taxed to the hilt and that the filthy ass combined government already takes over 40% of the GNP for the cost of government but this piece of shit in the White House wants to once again raise taxes on the American people.

Yea, we really need more taxes now, don't we? The stupid idiots in the White House can't cut back on spending but they sure as hell can call for more taxes.

This is the type of bead government you get when you elect Democrats. Of course if history is any indication the Republicans will probably give him what he wants.

His stupid tax plan is taking money from Americans that earned the money and giving to Americans that didn't earn it while keeping spending and the tax burden at the already astronomical high. Stupid Libtardeconomics.

Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address Fox News

Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address

Why should capital gains taxes be so much lower than income tax rates? I can understand why politically.....most rich folks make their money that way. But practically, it makes no sense. We should go back to capital gains rates we had under Reagan. Treat Capital Gains like normal income.

Because capital formation is the lifeblood of business. Further, reducing capital gains rates actually increases the amount paid by high income people because the incentive to hold investments is less.
Even Obama understands this.

And it still will be. The current capital gains rates are ridiculously low, historically. During the rockin' years of Reagan and the economic surge of the 90s......capital gains were treated as either ordinary income or had a rate about double what it is now.

And clearly we did fine. So from a practical standpoint, this massive tax loophole used overwhelmingly by the very rich isn't particularly necessary.

Even ethically, it makes no sense for capital gains to be so much lower than the taxes on ordinary income. With the exception of the initial outlay of capital when a stock is first sold by the issuing company, stock trades add nothing to the economy. If you buy a stock and then sell it after it has risen in value, you don't benefit the company in any way. You've made nothing, performed no service, created no good, added in no significant way to the economy.

Whereas someone who works for a living and earns income through their labors does add to the economy. They build businesses. They make products. They provide services. In a very real way, they grow the economy.

And yet the essentially useless gains of stock speculation are taxed at a rate often less than HALF that of gainful additions to the economy provided by labor?

That's ridiculous. If anything, the reverse should be true.

I already explained that taxing gains is taxing future prosperity. Many Asian countries understand this and have no capital gains taxes.
I also explained that if you really want to soak the rich then you lower rates because they will sell their investments and pay the tax.
If you dont understand that you dont need to be part of this discussion.

And I've already provided you with overwhelming historic precedent that contradicts your assumptions. Massive tax breaks overwhelmingly for the wealthy aren't necessary for 'future prosperity'. During Reagan and Clinton's era we had higher capital gains taxes than we do now. If your Atlas Shrugged'esque version of the rich selling all their investments and going home if they don't get a rate often HALF of actual income scenario were valid, the rich would have done exactly this during Reagan and Clinton's eras.

They didn't. The idea that unless we give the rich a wildly enormous tax loophole to avoid paying taxes that they'll all divest is Ayn Rand inspired nonsense. History simply contradicts it.

Capital gains aren't created through products or services. They're overwhelmingly increases based on speculation or interest. There's no particular reason to provide this massive tax loophole for the rich. By any rational measure, those performing labor....making goods, providing services, and genuinely adding to the value of the US economy....should be taxed at a lower rate than those who gain their income through stock speculation. As labor benefits the economy far more than speculation does.

You havent provided anything except cherry picked talking points.
Reagan lowered the cap gains rate and collections went up.
Clinton raised it and they went down.
Bush lowered it and they went up again.
Lowering cap gains rates produces more income. Even Obama knows this.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh yeah, Rabid, I am just ever so sure that you would be delighted to see the same gap between the very wealthy and the workers as exist in the Asian nations.

 

[The Rabbi]

Whereas someone who works for a living and earns income through their labors does add to the economy. They build businesses. They make products. They provide services. In a very real way, they grow the economy.

.

Most jobs in this country would not exist without the investment capital.

Except for small business labor alone does not create much. To create large employment you need capital. The "rich" people that have more money than they need to live on are the ones that supply that capital and god bless them. They are crucial to our economy and they should not be punished for investing.

If you have a 401K you are probably doing some investing in capital yourself. If you don't have a 401k you are probably part of the Free Shit Army so forget it.

You always need capital to start a business. I dont care if it's a lemonade stand. You have to start by buying equipment and supplies.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hey Rabid, if that is the case, why did the deficit go way down under Clinton?

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh, Rabid, what you are saying is that there was no capital for starting a business in the '50's when the taxes were much higher. Glory be, how was it that was a period of major growth.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hey Rabid, if that is the case, why did the deficit go way down under Clinton?

Theres a reason I have you in ignore. You're fucking stupid.
You understand that cap gains is not the sole source of revenue to the government,r ight? Idiot.

 

[Flash]

And I've already provided you with overwhelming historic precedent that contradicts your assumptions. Massive tax breaks overwhelmingly for the wealthy aren't necessary for 'future prosperity'. During Reagan and Clinton's era we had higher capital gains taxes than we do now. If your Atlas Shrugged'esque version of the rich selling all their investments and going home if they don't get a rate often HALF of actual income scenario were valid, the rich would have done exactly this during Reagan and Clinton's eras.

They didn't. The idea that unless we give the rich a wildly enormous tax loophole to avoid paying taxes that they'll all divest is Ayn Rand inspired nonsense. History simply contradicts it.

Capital gains aren't created through products or services. They're overwhelmingly increases based on speculation. There's no particular reason to provide this massive tax loophole for the rich. By any rational measure, those performing labor....making goods, providing services, and genuinely adding to the value of the US economy....should be taxed at a lower rate than those who gain their income through stock speculation. As labor benefits the economy far more than speculation does.

Both Clinton and Reagan increased taxes, grew the size of the government and increased the debt. (...and yes the cumulative debt was greater when Clinton left office than when he was elected)

The only difference between the two is that Reagan used the money a little more wisely and created a booming economy for awhile that Clinton inherited. Clinton's economy (even with the help of Newt) busted the last two years.

Our economy could have done so much better in the last 100 years without this massive government, especially post WWII.

The government takes massive amounts of money from the productive economy and gives very little in return.

The answer is not to change the way we collect taxes because all that does is change the mix of winners and losers. The answer is to stop spending so much money on government and then everybody benefits besides the special interest that elects the government bureaucrats.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Oh, Rabid, what you are saying is that there was no capital for starting a business in the '50's when the taxes were much higher. Glory be, how was it that was a period of major growth.

Bring back the same regulations, the same tax loopholes

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh, Rabid, what you are saying is that there was no capital for starting a business in the '50's when the taxes were much higher. Glory be, how was it that was a period of major growth.

The reason you are on Ignore is because you are a fucking moron.

 

[rdean]

It is not enough that the American people are already taxed to the hilt and that the filthy ass combined government already takes over 40% of the GNP for the cost of government but this piece of shit in the White House wants to once again raise taxes on the American people.

Yea, we really need more taxes now, don't we? The stupid idiots in the White House can't cut back on spending but they sure as hell can call for more taxes.

This is the type of bead government you get when you elect Democrats. Of course if history is any indication the Republicans will probably give him what he wants.

His stupid tax plan is taking money from Americans that earned the money and giving to Americans that didn't earn it while keeping spending and the tax burden at the already astronomical high. Stupid Libtardeconomics.

Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address Fox News

Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address

Cut back on what dipshit? I bet you get ten kinds of government help. Tards have difficulty functioning without government help.

 

[Flash]

[

Cut back on what dipshit? I bet you get ten kinds of government help. Tards have difficulty functioning without government help.

There are many ways to cut back on government spending, shithead.

Ron Paul produced a proposed budget called Restore America Now that cut back on federal spending a trillion year while increasing defense, maintaining social security and Medicare.

Of course it would eliminate things like the filthy greedy unions sucking the blood out of America with Davis Bacon.

I think that was a good start and could probably be reduced by another trillion a year.

http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/RestoreAmericaPlan.pdf

 

[Vandalshandle]

[

Cut back on what dipshit? I bet you get ten kinds of government help. Tards have difficulty functioning without government help.

There are many ways to cut back on government spending, shithead.

Ron Paul produced a proposed budget called Restore America Now that cut back on federal spending a trillion year while increasing defense, maintaining social security and Medicare.

Of course it would eliminate things like the filthy greedy unions sucking the blood out of America with Davis Bacon.

I think that was a good start and could probably be reduced by another trillion a year.

http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/RestoreAmericaPlan.pdf

Ron Paul managed to get one bill of his passed in his entire decades long service in Congress, and it was an exemption for some wetlands being protected in a federal reserve, as a favor to some of his pals in Texas.

Ya got to love how the tea party picks their heroes.....

 

[mudwhistle]

It is not enough that the American people are already taxed to the hilt and that the filthy ass combined government already takes over 40% of the GNP for the cost of government but this piece of shit in the White House wants to once again raise taxes on the American people.

Yea, we really need more taxes now, don't we? The stupid idiots in the White House can't cut back on spending but they sure as hell can call for more taxes.

This is the type of bead government you get when you elect Democrats. Of course if history is any indication the Republicans will probably give him what he wants.

His stupid tax plan is taking money from Americans that earned the money and giving to Americans that didn't earn it while keeping spending and the tax burden at the already astronomical high. Stupid Libtardeconomics.

Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address Fox News

Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address

So once again, he shows us what a lying POS he is.