Obama wants to raise taxes on the American people once again

[Skylar]

You havent provided anything except cherry picked talking points.

AKA, historic contradictions of your assumptions.

If the rich would divest from the stock market unless they get a wildly lower rate than actual income....then why didn't they?

You have no explanation. I do: you're wrong. You're offering us an Any Rand inspired fantasy that has no historical precedent and is in fact contradicted by history. There's no reason for capital gains to be at the ridiculously low rate they are now. Capital gains should be taxed as regular income at the very least.

Reagan lowered the cap gains rate and collections went up.

Reagan increased the capital gains rate. It went from an effective rate of 15% to 22%. And federal revenues went up as he did so, jumping 11% from 769 billion to 854 billion.

And remember, Capital Gains were taxed as regular income. If, as you claim, taxing capital gains as regular income would result in divestment from the stock market by the rich.....why didn't they divest under Reagan?

........?

Clinton raised it and they went down.

You may want to check history again, because its clearly not following your script. Federal revenues increased every single year of Clinton's term. His tax increases when into effect in 1994. In 1993, federal revenues were 1.154 trillion dollars. In 1994, the first full year of Clinton's tax increases, they were 1.258 trillion. That's an increase of over 100 billion dollars. And by about 100 billion the next year. And the next. And the next.

The exact opposite of your claims.

And not just federal revenues. But Capital Gains revenues as well. In 1993, capital gains revenues were 36 billion. By 1996, when the capital gains tax had risen to 25%, they had risen to 66 billion.

Exactly opposite of your claims.

Bush lowered it and they went up again.

Far lower than they would have without the tax and capital gains cuts. The CBO has estimated 2 trillions of dollars in lost revenue due to the Bush tax cuts.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/06-07-ChangesSince2001Baseline.pdf

With Bush's tax cuts grossly knocking out of proportion the increases in revenue compared to the increases in the economy:

Further, Bush's people knew the tax cuts wouldn't pay for themselves when they advocated them;

Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues

Tax Cuts Don t Boost Revenues - TIME

Lets elaborate a little on Greg Manwik's position, as he gets quite specific. And quite official, as he's citing Bush's own economic reports.

My other work has remained consistent with this view. In a paper on dynamic scoring, written while I was working at the White House, Matthew Weinzierl and I estimated that a broad-based income tax cut (applying to both capital and labor income) would recoup only about a quarter of the lost revenue through supply-side growth effects. For a cut in capital income taxes, the feedback is larger--about 50 percent--but still well under 100 percent. A chapter on dynamic scoring in the 2004 Economic Report of the President says about the the same thing.

Greg Mankiw s Blog On Charlatans and Cranks

This is the man who GW appointed to chair the 'Council of Economic Advisors', the president's own agency that advises him on economic issues. And he explicitly contradicts your claims, indicating that less than half of the cut to capital gains and roughly a quarter of the gains in income tax cuts were recouped as revenue. And he's hardly alone:

You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.

Andrew Samwick
Vox Baby A New Year s Plea

This is the chief economist for Bush's Council on Economic Advisors. And he too utterly obliterates your claims of causality between increased revenue and tax cuts.

Tax cuts don't increase revenue. They decrease it. Even Bush's own economics confirm as much.

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[Vandalshandle]

The sum total of Ron Paul's legislative successes:

Paul defends light legislative record - POLITICO.com

 

[Skylar]

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 inherited a booming Reagan economy? I think you may be forgetting something. Like the entire Bush I administration.

Early 1990s recession

The recession of the early 1990s describes the period of economic downturn affecting much of the world in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Early 1990s recession - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Under Bush, the economy was lackluster, increasing with an annual rate of about 1.5%......growing from 8.85 trillion in real dollars in 1989 to 9.41 trillion in 1992. While under Clinton, we saw a 11% increase in GDP, with the economy growing from 9.65 in 1993 to 10.74 in 1996. It was Clinton's second term where the economy took off.

From 1993 when Clinton took office to 2000 when, the economy grew 31%, or roughly 4% per year. More than double the 4 year average of Bush 1. By any consistent logic, if Reagan were the creator of the good economy, the effects would grow stronger the closer in time you came to Reagan.

Instead, we see the exact opposite, with the economic results weaker the closer we get to Reagan. And stronger the farther we get away. Which simply obliterates your claims.

Clinton's economy (even with the help of Newt) busted the last two years.

I'm not sure if you're revising history, or are actively not aware of it. Either way, your claims are startlingly wrong.

From 1998 to 2000 the economy increased in size from 11.7 trillion to 12.68 trillion. An increase of 8.4%. That's a per annum average about 60% higher than Bush's 8 year per annum average.

If that's busted, I'll take it any day.

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

Then why did we see far *more* recessions and depressions in the pre-war era than we did the post war? Why did the rate of recession and depression drop so starkly to roughly half its prewar levels? Would you like to compare the 70 years before the war to the 70 years after?

You won't like the results. As they contradict you to an almost absurd degree.

 

[kiwiman127]

Considering our highways are ranked in the mid to high thirties world wide, how are we going to make our highway system competitive on the world stage? Bad highways hurt our businesses competitiveness with other developed countries. Plus our highways are becoming more dangerous as we rank 37th in highways safely re: deaths per capita.

That's a joke, right? So a company will decide to use German highways instead of US highways? Please.

I honestly think you need to step away from your addiction of reading only partisan/biased talking point resources.
Go to Google and type in "benefits of good infrastructure" and maybe, just maybe you'll learn something, that is if you can open your mind.

In other words you cannot defend your statement. We got it.

Why would I want to waste my time on a lazy, closed-minded no-mind. It's quite evident you are clueless on the subject. So instead of educating your self on the subject, you decided it was less work to continue with posts that contribute nothing to this thread.

Your surrender here is noted.
You can't possibly explain it,beyond "money in the hands of consumers drives the economy"--a nonsense statement if there ever was one.

I had some pretty good interactions with intelligent conservatives today, they were great and they were conducted in an adult format.
Then you pop in, act like you always act, immature and we get echo chamber comments. No substance at all. You are a complete waste of time. And will you please quite stalking me, it's pretty creepy.

 

[Clementine]

You didn't read what I wrote, did you? Pay better attention next time.

"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."

If that shithead thought the middle class needed a tax break then he shouldn't have raised taxes to support Obamacare, should he?

This idea that the only way to "give the middle class a tax break" is to raise taxes on other people so that bloated government spending can stay at its astronomical high levels is nothing more than idiotic Libtard economics. The kind of economics that screws up our country.

Instead of raising taxes on other people to fund middle class tax breaks why not reduce spending? Don't you think that would be the much better thing to do or are you one of these idiots that thinks the government is spending its money wisely?

Liberals will never even consider reducing spending. Despite some serious waste, people like Pelosi insist that there is no where to cut spending. Except the military. That is always a favorite thing to reduce, but it doesn't save money since they just funnel it into their pet programs.

We are facing huge bills for Obama's amnesty if he gets away with it. Welfare seems to expand at a rapid and constant pace. Liberals are always looking for new ways to spend our money and they act like school yard bullies who expect you to hand over your money when they demand it.

The left claims that big companies get welfare because they don't pay higher taxes. You'd think all the money belongs to government and they are generous for allowing people to spend some of their own money. We could make some serious cuts and eliminate billions in waste. Foreign aid, amnesty, congress wages and benefits, pork spending and other ridiculous expenses. We could streamline welfare programs instead of having so many different ones that promote fraud.

I wish congress and the president would stop act like they are doing us a favor by letting us keep more of what we earn.

 

[OnePercenter]

This is nothing more than another political stunt designed to paint the GOP as a party of the "rich." It is is what we get when we elect a two-bit politician from Chicago. Bad policy becomes good policy if it helps buy votes.

The GOP IS the party of the rich.

The following is brought to you buy Republicans

How The Super Rich Avoid Paying Taxes
If you're one of the 1% of Americans who control over 40% of the country's wealth, life is full of choices. Among them -- how best to keep all that money away from the government? The U.S. economic system offers no shortage of loopholes allowing the ultra-rich to shortchange Uncle Sam.

Tax rates for those making >$1 million level out at 24%, then declines for those making >$1.5 million. Those making $10 million a year pay an average income tax rate of 19%. $70-$100 billion is the estimated tax revenue lost each year due to loopholes. So how exactly do the super rich hide that much money from the government every year?

1. Put It in the Freezer

• Trust Freezing: A way to transfer valuable assets to others (such as your children) while avoiding the federal estate tax.
• "Freeze" the value of assets many years before you plan to pass them on to exclude all asset appreciation from the estate, and any taxes.
• Popular method: Trade common for preferred stock.
• Problem: If you sell your common stock you might owe a large amount of capital gains tax.
• Solution: Trade your common stock for preferred stock, then put some of the preferred stock in a trust and live off the dividends.

2. Send It Overseas

• Tax havens: Registering your business or putting your money in an account in another country with lower taxes.
• ~$21 trillion is being hidden in offshore tax havens.
• David Bowie, U2 and the Rolling Stones have all benefited from tax havens at one time or another.
• Popular cash hideout: The Cayman Islands, home to >85,000 companies -- making it home to more registered organizations than people.

3. Stock It Up in Options

• By taking part of your compensation in stock options you can control when and if you pay taxes, since most options are only taxed when they are exercised.
• Execs who have opted for options: Howard Schultz (Starbucks), Fred Smith (FedEx), William Weldon (Johnson & Johnson) and many others.

4. Play Shell Games with It

• Shell company: A type of company that only exists on paper, allowing you to funnel money through it and avoid paying taxes.
• Has a legal existence but typically provides few or no actual products or services.
• Often used for buying and selling to avoid reporting international operations conducted, and avoid taxes on the profits.
• Shady business: Mitt Romney caught some flak for allegedly using a shell company in Bermuda to avoid taxes.

5. Swap It Out

• Equity swap: An agreement that allows 2 parties to exchange the gain and loss of assets without actually transferring ownership.
• The swap avoids transaction costs, and typically, local taxes on dividends.

6. Play Dodgeball with It

• Capital gains tax: A tax on the profits from a sale of non-inventory assets originally purchased for a lesser amount, such as stocks, bonds, property or precious metals.
• Popular loophole: Purchasing stock options, which sets the share price at a fixed rate, then borrowing money from an investment bank using the shares as collateral.
• The borrower then repays the loan either with money made with the money borrowed or by handing over the shares, avoiding the capital gains tax.

7. Go Corporate with It

• Problem: being in a higher income tax bracket has less tax advantages than being a corporation.
• Solution: You can incorporate your own personal brand, which allows you to: 1. Channel wages through a nominal "corporation"; 2. Pay yourself an interest-free wage; 3. Claim expenses; 4. Reduce your income taxes.
• Mitt Romney claimed the management fee of his corporation as a capital gain rather than income, reducing his tax rate significantly.

8. Kick It Down the Road

• You can put part of your payday in a deferred-compensation plan, instead of taking it all at once.
• This allows your earnings to continue growing tax-deferred for +10 years.
• 79% of CEOs at Fortune 100 companies were offered deferred compensation plans.

9. Give It Away

• Gift-giving and charitable donations are a real win-win: Avoid taxes and look and feel good doing it!
• Gifts to anyone of up to $13,000 are tax-excluded, with an unlimited exclusion for gifts given to a spouse.
• Allows you to circulate cash within the family as "gifts" while writing it off.
• Popular donation tactic: Deduct the fair market value of a donated item from your tax liability.
• Example: 1. Buy a sculpture for $1,000; 2. Have it appraised at $10,000 some years later; 3. Donate it and deduct the $10,000 from that year's taxable income.Score!

10. Make It Luxurious

• Owning a yacht or multiple homes aren't just status symbols -- they offer tax benefits as well!
• Popular earner: Claim your "second home"
• Spend at least 2 weeks of the year on your yacht, outfit it like a home, and categorize it as a second home for tax purposes.
• If the home's value appreciates over time, the profits from selling it can be considered capital gains and taxed at a lower rate than salary or other investment income.
• A second home can be rented for up to 2 weeks a year without requiring the owner to claim the rent as income!

 

[OnePercenter]

Liberals will never even consider reducing spending. Despite some serious waste, people like Pelosi insist that there is no where to cut spending. Except the military. That is always a favorite thing to reduce, but it doesn't save money since they just funnel it into their pet programs.

We are facing huge bills for Obama's amnesty if he gets away with it. Welfare seems to expand at a rapid and constant pace. Liberals are always looking for new ways to spend our money and they act like school yard bullies who expect you to hand over your money when they demand it.

The left claims that big companies get welfare because they don't pay higher taxes. You'd think all the money belongs to government and they are generous for allowing people to spend some of their own money. We could make some serious cuts and eliminate billions in waste. Foreign aid, amnesty, congress wages and benefits, pork spending and other ridiculous expenses. We could streamline welfare programs instead of having so many different ones that promote fraud.

I wish congress and the president would stop act like they are doing us a favor by letting us keep more of what we earn.

Let's reduce spending! No more Walmart subsidies!!!

 

[Kosh]

That's a joke, right? So a company will decide to use German highways instead of US highways? Please.

I honestly think you need to step away from your addiction of reading only partisan/biased talking point resources.
Go to Google and type in "benefits of good infrastructure" and maybe, just maybe you'll learn something, that is if you can open your mind.

In other words you cannot defend your statement. We got it.

Why would I want to waste my time on a lazy, closed-minded no-mind. It's quite evident you are clueless on the subject. So instead of educating your self on the subject, you decided it was less work to continue with posts that contribute nothing to this thread.

Your surrender here is noted.
You can't possibly explain it,beyond "money in the hands of consumers drives the economy"--a nonsense statement if there ever was one.

I had some pretty good interactions with intelligent conservatives today, they were great and they were conducted in an adult format.
Then you pop in, act like you always act, immature and we get echo chamber comments. No substance at all. You are a complete waste of time. And will you please quite stalking me, it's pretty creepy.

This coming from a far left drone..

That ignores the two biggest tax cuts in the modern era came from two Democrats JFK and Carter and carter has a far left Congress backing him..

 

[Kosh]

Liberals will never even consider reducing spending. Despite some serious waste, people like Pelosi insist that there is no where to cut spending. Except the military. That is always a favorite thing to reduce, but it doesn't save money since they just funnel it into their pet programs.

We are facing huge bills for Obama's amnesty if he gets away with it. Welfare seems to expand at a rapid and constant pace. Liberals are always looking for new ways to spend our money and they act like school yard bullies who expect you to hand over your money when they demand it.

The left claims that big companies get welfare because they don't pay higher taxes. You'd think all the money belongs to government and they are generous for allowing people to spend some of their own money. We could make some serious cuts and eliminate billions in waste. Foreign aid, amnesty, congress wages and benefits, pork spending and other ridiculous expenses. We could streamline welfare programs instead of having so many different ones that promote fraud.

I wish congress and the president would stop act like they are doing us a favor by letting us keep more of what we earn.

Let's reduce spending! No more Walmart subsidies!!!

Sure however let us start with all the far left subsidies first..

 

[orogenicman]

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

Do the 1% qualify as "The American People"? While most, no doubt are American citizens, to suggest that they constitute anything other than the tiny minority that they are is rather absurd.

 

[Kosh]

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

Do the 1% qualify as "The American People"? While most, no doubt are American citizens, to suggest that they constitute anything other than the tiny minority that they are is rather absurd.

 

[orogenicman]

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

Do the 1% qualify as "The American People"? While most, no doubt are American citizens, to suggest that they constitute anything other than the tiny minority that they are is rather absurd.

Your response did not address my question. Care to try again?

 

[The Rabbi]

You havent provided anything except cherry picked talking points.

AKA, historic contradictions of your assumptions.

If the rich would divest from the stock market unless they get a wildly lower rate than actual income....then why didn't they?

.

This is completely meaningless. The rich do not divest from the stock market. Nor are stock gains the only capital gains in existence.
The rest of your post is equal gibberish. I just dont have time to sit and go through every fallacy there. No one could unfuck it, frankly.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's a joke, right? So a company will decide to use German highways instead of US highways? Please.

I honestly think you need to step away from your addiction of reading only partisan/biased talking point resources.
Go to Google and type in "benefits of good infrastructure" and maybe, just maybe you'll learn something, that is if you can open your mind.

In other words you cannot defend your statement. We got it.

Why would I want to waste my time on a lazy, closed-minded no-mind. It's quite evident you are clueless on the subject. So instead of educating your self on the subject, you decided it was less work to continue with posts that contribute nothing to this thread.

Your surrender here is noted.
You can't possibly explain it,beyond "money in the hands of consumers drives the economy"--a nonsense statement if there ever was one.

I had some pretty good interactions with intelligent conservatives today, they were great and they were conducted in an adult format.
Then you pop in, act like you always act, immature and we get echo chamber comments. No substance at all. You are a complete waste of time. And will you please quite stalking me, it's pretty creepy.

You're the one who pops in on my posts, junior.
You are an intellectual retard. You post crap you cannot defend and then get butthurt when called on it. You deflect when your lack of logic is noted.
I honestly pity someone as stupid as you are.

 

[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

Do the 1% qualify as "The American People"? While most, no doubt are American citizens, to suggest that they constitute anything other than the tiny minority that they are is rather absurd.

Your response did not address my question. Care to try again?

Do you think American citizens paying taxes in America are somehow not Americans? Of course 1% constitues a minority. Why wouldn't you think that? Bad at math?

 

[Kosh]

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

Do the 1% qualify as "The American People"? While most, no doubt are American citizens, to suggest that they constitute anything other than the tiny minority that they are is rather absurd.

Your response did not address my question. Care to try again?

Actually it does, but it fails to work on far left drones not connected to reality..

 

[Sonny Clark]

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.

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.

Look, Im not here to educate you on basics. But even Obama understands that lowering the cap gains tax produced more revenue because it unlocked gains in older investments.

Oh, so you can't explain it? I thought so. I really didn't think you'd be able to.

 

[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.

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.

Look, Im not here to educate you on basics. But even Obama understands that lowering the cap gains tax produced more revenue because it unlocked gains in older investments.

Oh, so you can't explain it? I thought so. I really didn't think you'd be able to.

Let's just say I can't explain it in a way you could understand. This is because I never took Special Ed.

 

[Sonny Clark]

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.

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.

Look, Im not here to educate you on basics. But even Obama understands that lowering the cap gains tax produced more revenue because it unlocked gains in older investments.

Oh, so you can't explain it? I thought so. I really didn't think you'd be able to.

Let's just say I can't explain it in a way you could understand. This is because I never took Special Ed.

Very cute. And I suppose that little cutie is suppose to make you right? What is your score card telling you now? I have an idea. Just take a stab at the answer and see if I can get the picture. What could it hurt? At least give it a try.