Raise Capital Gains tax rates, get lower revenues. Cut Cap Gains Rates = higher revenue

[Recliner Pilot 61]

It's all about class warfare and "fairness", not cutting the deficit and increasing revenues.

 

But the Obamabots will eat it up with a spoon.

 

 

 

 

A history lesson on capital gains taxes..

 

In "Annie Hall," Woody Allen tells the joke of two women complaining about a restaurant. The first says the food here is awful and the second replies, yes, and they serve such small portions. Sounds like President Obama's proposal to raise the capital-gains tax: It will hurt the economy and it won't raise much new revenue.

 

Mr. Obama's plan would raise the capital-gains rate on January 1 to 20% on those who earn more than $200,000 ($250,000 for couples), plus a 3.8% investment surtax to finance ObamaCare. That 23.8% rate amounts to a nearly 60% increase from the 15% rate in effect since 2003. And that's without his new "Buffett rule," which would take the rate to 30% for many taxpayers.

 

This and other rate hikes aimed at higher-income earners are supposed to raise about $700 billion in tax revenues over the next decade. Fat chance. Ever since the famous 1978 bipartisan capital-gains tax cut sponsored by the late William Steiger of Wisconsin, the same pattern has repeated itself: raising the capital-gains rate reduces revenues, and lowering it leads to revenue increases.

The nearby chart shows the 35-year trend in capital-gains revenue and tax rates—through 2008, the last year data are available. The Steiger amendment cut the top rate to 28% from nearly 40% in what was a watershed moment in U.S. tax policy and a preview of the Reagan era. Revenue from capital gains quickly jumped to $11.8 billion in 1979 from $9.1 billion the year before.

 

Congress cut the rate again in 1981 to 20% as part of the Reagan tax cuts, and the striking fact is that revenues didn't fall in 1982 despite the steep recession. By 1983 they were rising again, to $18.7 billion, and they kept rising along with the Reagan boom.

 

The next policy break came in 1986, when Congress returned the capital-gains rate to 28% as part of tax reform. A funny thing happened: Revenues soared in 1986 to $52.9 billion as investors cashed in their gains before the tax increase hit in 1987. But then revenues plunged, despite the higher tax rate, to $33.7 billion. They rose slightly in 1988 but then stayed flat for nearly another decade.

 

In 1997, Bill Clinton and the Gingrich Republicans cut the rate back to 20%, and revenues really took off—doubling to $127.3 billion in 2000 from $66.4 billion in 1996. These were also the years of a stock-market boom, and investors cashed in their gains along the way.

 

Capital-gains revenues fell amid the dot-com bust, but in 2003 George W. Bush and Republicans in Congress chopped the rate to 15%. Even at that lower rate revenues started to climb again (along with the economy), rising from $51.3 billion in 2003 to $137.1 billion in 2007. They understandably fell again in 2008 as the recession hit and stock values fell.

 

The data clearly show that the overall economy is the single biggest factor in capital-gains realizations and revenue. But the data also show that time and again revenue has multiplied despite a lower rate, and arguably because of it.

 

The capital-gains levy is an elective tax on owners of stock and other assets. Investors only pay the tax when they sell their assets, so they can hold unrealized gains until the tax rate falls. This is called the "lock-in effect" of high capital-gains tax rates. It reduces economic efficiency because at a higher tax rate capital hibernates in older companies with lower growth potential and isn't available to new ventures with higher returns. A higher capital-gains tax also makes equity ownership less valuable (because of the lower after-tax returns), so there is less appreciation in stock values when the tax rate is higher.

Congress shouldn't be fooled by government forecasters who predict a revenue boom from a higher capital-gains rate. They have blown this call every time. After Bill Clinton signed the 1997 cut, revenues came in about one-third higher than the government had predicted from 1997-99. The same thing happened with the 2003 rate cut. The government's forecasts of tax collections were too low for 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. From 2005-2007 tax collections from capital gains were at least 40% higher than originally predicted.

In our view the optimal capital-gains tax rate is one that leads to the most capital investment, jobs and wealth gains for American workers. That economically optimal rate is somewhere close to zero and would lead to more overall tax revenue as the economy grew faster. But if Congress wants a capital-gains tax, history suggests the revenue maximizing rate is closer to 15% than to 23.8%.

 

As John F. Kennedy put it in 1963 when he endorsed a cut in this tax: "The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital" as well as "the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy."

 

Today's Democrats in Washington are no Jack Kennedys. As President Obama told Charlie Gibson of ABC News in 2008, whether or not a higher capital-gains tax raises more revenue is irrelevant to him. He wants a higher rate as a matter of "fairness." The soup may be lousy but he wants more of it.

 

 

 

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203918304577241513296604128.html?mod=rss_opinion_main#printMode

[parrot 789]

Why are there big peaks and valleys across both the 20% and 15% ranges? Could it be because revenues have a lot more to do with the natural fluctuations in the business cycle than they do with capital gains rates?

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Today's Democrats in Washington are no Jack Kennedys. As President Obama told Charlie Gibson of ABC News in 2008, whether or not a higher capital-gains tax raises more revenue is irrelevant to him. He wants a higher rate as a matter of "fairness." The soup may be lousy but he wants more of it.

 

I agree with this sentiment. I don't care if it lowers revenue, tax the fockers because its the fair thing to do.

 

Oh, and if you wrote a coherent tax codes that prevented the fockers from hiding it overseas in tax shelters and whatnot, it would fix that problem too.

[Mungwater 588]

I agree with this sentiment. I don't care if it lowers revenue, tax the fockers because its the fair thing to do.

 

Oh, and if you wrote a coherent tax codes that prevented the fockers from hiding it overseas in tax shelters and whatnot, it would fix that problem too.

 

I don't get the "it's fair". They'll just take their ball somewhere else. So I have saved my money and invest it, you don't think I should be able to keep most of my money, in getting paid for taking the risk.

 

And let's seriously be honest here, do you think that even the president (before he was pres). Said to his accountant "I make too much, no exemptions for me, just take it". Hell no.

 

This is just an election bullet.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I agree with this sentiment. I don't care if it lowers revenue, tax the fockers because its the fair thing to do.

 

Silly me, I thought the stated purpose of taxes was to raise revenue to fund the very limited powers given the Fed Govt by the Constitution. I didn't realize the purpose of taxes was to be "fair".

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

I don't get the "it's fair". They'll just take their ball somewhere else. So I have saved my money and invest it, you don't think I should be able to keep most of my money, in getting paid for taking the risk.

 

And let's seriously be honest here, do you think that even the president (before he was pres). Said to his accountant "I make too much, no exemptions for me, just take it". Hell no.

 

This is just an election bullet.

 

 

Silly me, I thought the stated purpose of taxes was to raise revenue to fund the very limited powers given the Fed Govt by the Constitution. I didn't realize the purpose of taxes was to be "fair".

 

I understand that rich people, since they wrote the tax code to suit themselves, will simply take their ball and go home. Fine. Fock em.

 

A responsible government wouldn't let em get away with that sh!t. A responsible government would erect tarrif barriers to protect its workers from competition from overseas slave labor. A responsible government would by god MAKE the rich people pay fair taxes on their capital gains.

 

But since our government is bought and paid for, instead all the rich structure their affairs where they have ZERO "income" and all their income is called "capital gains." Thus they pay less than they should.

 

And their threat? Tax us fairly and we'll just leave. Fine. Don't let the door hit you in the ass. But be warned... you don't get to have your cake and eat it too. You wanna park your money and your jobs overseas, you will have to pay a heavy premium to access this market with your sh!tty slave made products.

 

But of course, our government is owned by the rich. Hell they ARE the rich. So instead, they will keep chokefocking the goose that lays the eggs until it dies.

 

Quite frankly, I don't really give a damn anymore. This country has nothing to offer humanity. We are pathetic in every way. Maybe a few generations of privation and turmoil will let us be reborn into a society worth giving a fock about.

 

 

(BTW, since I know I'll get "wealth envy" crap as backlash, let me be clear... I don't envy the Mitt Romneys of the world. I despise them. They are pathetic lowlife parisitic sacks of sh!t and we'd be better off if they'd die in a fire.)

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

I don't get the "it's fair". They'll just take their ball somewhere else. So I have saved my money and invest it, you don't think I should be able to keep most of my money, in getting paid for taking the risk.

 

And let's seriously be honest here, do you think that even the president (before he was pres). Said to his accountant "I make too much, no exemptions for me, just take it". Hell no.

 

This is just an election bullet.

 

To answer your fair point, yes, you should be paid. Nobody is advocating a 100% capital gains tax. But you should pay the same tax on the money you earn that way as the guy who earned it working does. HOW you earned the money should not be a factor in what rate you pay.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Someone is having a bad day.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

To answer your fair point, yes, you should be paid. Nobody is advocating a 100% capital gains tax. But you should pay the same tax on the money you earn that way as the guy who earned it working does. HOW you earned the money should not be a factor in what rate you pay.

 

I guess to be really fair, the rich should pay the same as the poor.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Someone is having a bad day.

 

No. Its just the older I get, the more I find this entire culture pathetic. Our "arts" are pathetic. Our politics are disgusting. Our people are self indulgent ignorant slobs. I just really am tired of even caring about it. Our society is the hot chick at the bar... vapid, arrogant, mean, spiteful and really only worth sticking your d!ck in.

 

 

I guess to be really fair, the rich should pay the same as the poor.

 

Sure by your warped view of justice, I'm sure it is.

[DankNuggs 305]

I agree with this sentiment. I don't care if it lowers revenue, tax the fockers because its the fair thing to do.Oh, and if you wrote a coherent tax codes that prevented the fockers from hiding it overseas in tax shelters and whatnot, it would fix that problem too.

Statements like this remind me how dumb the general population really is. And why politics is basically trying to hash intellectually complicated matters down to a 2nd grade level where most of our citizenry resides...

 

And the problem with excessively high tax rates is that it drives capital flight...just like uncompeitive business climates drive job flight overseas... America doesn't operate in a vaccuum, it globally competes, and that competition is raping and pillaging our economy...

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Statements like this remind me how dumb the general population really is. And why politics is basically trying to hash intellectually complicated matters down to a 2nd grade level where most of our citizenry resides...

 

And the problem with excessively high tax rates is that it drives capital flight...just like uncompeitive business climates drive job flight overseas... America doesn't operate in a vaccuum, it globally competes, and that competition is raping and pillaging our economy...

 

There are only two ways to compete with countries that allow you to pollute their Earth and to use their children as $1 a day slaves.

 

1. You tarriff the sh!t out of their products to make it so that the products made there are not, in the end, cheaper.

 

or

 

2. You join them. Let them pollute OUR land and abuse OUR people.

 

Sadly, our country has decided to drift toward the latter.

 

NEWS FLASH: Free trade was in our best interest in the 19th century when WE were the cheap labor market with natural resources to burn. It ain't in our best interests anymore.

[DankNuggs 305]

To answer your fair point, yes, you should be paid. Nobody is advocating a 100% capital gains tax. But you should pay the same tax on the money you earn that way as the guy who earned it working does. HOW you earned the money should not be a factor in what rate you pay.

investing money is a risk... Its a risk that you don't get your initial principle back... Getting paid a salary isn't a risk... you take your wage, pay the govt piper their due, and move along...

 

So now that we've established that investing is inherantly risky, and that we want to encourage that risky behavior because it is the backbone of economic growth, how would one incentivize someone to invest?

 

Despite liberals and their failed ideology, America WANTS people to be entreprenuers, to grow private industry, grow jobs, grow salaries, and the whole Adam Smith invisible hand..etc..etc...

 

You basically believe that we shouldn't incentivize private growth, that we should curtail it to augment govt spending... Its just abject fail of an ideology... its inferior, and it is a long term loser...

[DankNuggs 305]

There are only two ways to compete with countries that allow you to pollute their Earth and to use their children as $1 a day slaves.

 

1. You tarriff the sh!t out of their products to make it so that the products made there are not, in the end, cheaper.

 

or

 

2. You join them. Let them pollute OUR land and abuse OUR people.

 

Sadly, our country has decided to drift toward the latter.

 

NEWS FLASH: Free trade was in our best interest in the 19th century when WE were the cheap labor market with natural resources to burn. It ain't in our best interests anymore.

If you weren't endebted to china to pay for our Social Engineering Experiment, you could tariff the zhit out of china and make a level playing field... But the precious out of control govt spending overrides absolutely everything we as a country are trying to do...

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

investing money is a risk... Its a risk that you don't get your initial principle back... Getting paid a salary isn't a risk... you take your wage, pay the govt piper their due, and move along...

 

So now that we've established that investing is inherantly risky, and that we want to encourage that risky behavior because it is the backbone of economic growth, how would one incentivize someone to invest?

 

Despite liberals and their failed ideology, America WANTS people to be entreprenuers, to grow private industry, grow jobs, grow salaries, and the whole Adam Smith invisible hand..etc..etc...

 

You basically believe that we shouldn't incentivize private growth, that we should curtail it to augment govt spending... Its just abject fail of an ideology... its inferior, and it is a long term loser...

 

No. This is not true. I am not a communist. In most sectors, I am not even a socialist (health care being the big exception).

 

But a buisnessman whos entire income is based of capital gains should not get to pay all his taxes at a lower rate.

 

I'd be ok with it if they were required to report a certain percentage of total income as income. Like be required to pay themselves a salary or something.

 

Instead they just call it something else, and cheat the system. That's not right. End of story.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

If you weren't endebted to china to pay for our Social Engineering Experiment, you could tariff the zhit out of china and make a level playing field... But the precious out of control govt spending overrides absolutely everything we as a country are trying to do...

 

No arguments from me there. If I were made king of America, the budget would be slashed like a motherfocker. I'd do the following, to start...

 

1. Phase out Social Security. Replace it with a requirement to bank a certain percentage of earnings into a conservative investment account. Basically the Bush plan, one of the few things he tried I agreed with.

 

2. Close the United States Postal Service. Let UPS, Fed Ex, et al do it better and cheaper.

 

3. Basically nationalize health care, like the British, Canadians, and other countries have done.

 

4. Slash the military to the focking bone. Only what we need to actually defend OURSELVES not the whole focking globe.

 

5. Fire a huge percentage of federal employees. Streamline regulation to make it actually effective, while less intrusive.

 

6. Get out of the student loan and housing loan business utterly.

 

7. Legalize weed and tax the bejeezus out of it.

 

8. Term limit Congress

 

9. Figure out a way to end pork spending. (that one's gonna be tough).

 

10. Shut the focking border, and deport all illegals.

 

That would be a good start. There would be more.

[DankNuggs 305]

No arguments from me there. If I were made king of America, the budget would be slashed like a motherfocker. I'd do the following, to start...

 

1. Phase out Social Security. Replace it with a requirement to bank a certain percentage of earnings into a conservative investment account. Basically the Bush plan, one of the few things he tried I agreed with.

 

2. Close the United States Postal Service. Let UPS, Fed Ex, et al do it better and cheaper.

 

3. Basically nationalize health care, like the British, Canadians, and other countries have done.

 

4. Slash the military to the focking bone. Only what we need to actually defend OURSELVES not the whole focking globe.

 

5. Fire a huge percentage of federal employees. Streamline regulation to make it actually effective, while less intrusive.

 

6. Get out of the student loan and housing loan business utterly.

 

7. Legalize weed and tax the bejeezus out of it.

 

8. Term limit Congress

 

9. Figure out a way to end pork spending. (that one's gonna be tough).

 

10. Shut the focking border, and deport all illegals.

 

That would be a good start. There would be more.

Sounds good to me, send me a lawn sign for your campaign and i'll stick it in the yard...

[Bert 1,095]

But you should pay the same tax on the money you earn that way as the guy who earned it working does. HOW you earned the money should not be a factor in what rate you pay.

 

The average amercian pays less on their earned income than the current capital gains rate. But your hypocritical ass doesn't want to see the average american's tax rate increased so that they pay as much as Romey and Buffett.

[BudBro 117]

No. This is not true. I am not a communist. In most sectors, I am not even a socialist (health care being the big exception).

 

But a buisnessman whos entire income is based of capital gains should not get to pay all his taxes at a lower rate.

 

I'd be ok with it if they were required to report a certain percentage of total income as income. Like be required to pay themselves a salary or something.

 

Instead they just call it something else, and cheat the system. That's not right. End of story.

titans, there can be a case made that the current capital gains tax rate is too high. maybe instead of raising it, the code should lower it further and take away the ability to deduct any losses. if private industry had to go to banks for to raise capital, there wouldn't be very much r&d in america because the banks wouldn't loan on uncertainty. if we raise the penalty for helping businesses grow, then investors will either invest in gold and silver or take their money offshore and invest in the r&d of other countries. if the guy with the ball goes home, there is no longer a chance to play a game.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

The average amercian pays less on their earned income than the current capital gains rate. But your hypocritical ass doesn't want to see the average american's tax rate increased so that they pay as much as Romey and Buffett.

 

Sure, if you raise the taxes on the average American (who is already underpaid in 99% of cases) he just has to cut back on petty crap like food, medical care, housing, transportation and whatnot.

 

We really should loosen the screws on people like Romney and Buffet. It's not cool to only have one gulfstream and four palatial estates. They deserve better.

 

(Much of the profit our corporate overlords "earn" SHOULD be going one of two places...

 

1. Into the worker's pocket

 

2. Back into the consumers pocket.)

[DankNuggs 305]

Sure, if you raise the taxes on the average American (who is already underpaid in 99% of cases) he just has to cut back on petty crap like food, medical care, housing, transportation and whatnot.

 

We really should loosen the screws on people like Romney and Buffet. It's not cool to only have one gulfstream and four palatial estates. They deserve better.

 

(Much of the profit our corporate overlords "earn" SHOULD be going one of two places...

 

1. Into the worker's pocket

 

2. Back into the consumers pocket.)

or the small businessmen who flow business profits through ordinary income and then use that money in their business.... Instead of taking absurd extremes, how about looking at it from the prospective of the majority of people it will hurt the most... And the trickle down effect of that...

[Bert 1,095]

Sure, if you raise the taxes on the average American (who is already underpaid in 99% of cases) he just has to cut back on petty crap like food, medical care, housing, transportation and whatnot.

 

We really should loosen the screws on people like Romney and Buffet. It's not cool to only have one gulfstream and four palatial estates. They deserve better.

 

(Much of the profit our corporate overlords "earn" SHOULD be going one of two places...

 

1. Into the worker's pocket

 

2. Back into the consumers pocket.)

 

They sure as hell won't cut back on lottery tickets, alcohol and tobacco. Always find it interesting when talking about taxes liberals always mention people paying for food but they never mention lottery tickets, alcohol and tobacco which the "poor" always have money to buy.

 

If we are going to be fair like the idiot in the white house wants everyone paying the same rate is the only fair thing to do. That doesn't meet your or his agenda so I don't expect you to understand.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

or the small businessmen who flow business profits through ordinary income and then use that money in their business.... Instead of taking absurd extremes, how about looking at it from the prospective of the majority of people it will hurt the most... And the trickle down effect of that...

 

I'm starting a spermoff thread... chime in over there.

[Phurfur 70]

Sure, if you raise the taxes on the average American (who is already underpaid in 99% of cases) he just has to cut back on petty crap like food, medical care, housing, transportation and whatnot.

 

We really should loosen the screws on people like Romney and Buffet. It's not cool to only have one gulfstream and four palatial estates. They deserve better.

 

(Much of the profit our corporate overlords "earn" SHOULD be going one of two places...

 

1. Into the worker's pocket

 

2. Back into the consumers pocket.)

 

 

You are a whiney baby. No one has ever had it as good as present day Americans unfortunately we are about to crash and burn our society.

 

In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims.

-Thomas Sowell

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

You are a whiney baby. No one has ever had it as good as present day Americans unfortunately we are about to crash and burn our society.

 

In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims.

-Thomas Sowell

 

Oh don't get me wrong. I agree, Americans have it great. That doesn't mean there aren't inequites though.

 

And lauding focking slash and burn parasites like Mitt Romney as "job creaters" is the same kind oh bullsh!t your quote references.

[MDC 5,902]

You are a whiney baby.

 

Hello there Mr. Pot! :lol:

[penultimatestraw 473]

They sure as hell won't cut back on lottery tickets, alcohol and tobacco. Always find it interesting when talking about taxes liberals always mention people paying for food but they never mention lottery tickets, alcohol and tobacco which the "poor" always have money to buy.

 

If we are going to be fair like the idiot in the white house wants everyone paying the same rate is the only fair thing to do. That doesn't meet your or his agenda so I don't expect you to understand.

I'm also amazed at people's poor priorities, but at some point their situation becomes so hopeless they give up. That mentality needs to change; some suggest we enable it with entitlement programs. Not sure whether that is true, nor do I have a good answer to the culture of poverty.

 

A flat tax rate of 15-20% isn't going cure skewed priorities. But it will dramatically reduce both the discretionary and essential income of the poor. Meanwhile, the rich will get richer - how will this help the societal bottom line?

[Voltaire 4,567]

I understand that rich people, since they wrote the tax code to suit themselves, will simply take their ball and go home. Fine. Fock em.

 

A responsible government wouldn't let em get away with that sh!t. A responsible government would erect tarrif barriers to protect its workers from competition from overseas slave labor. A responsible government would by god MAKE the rich people pay fair taxes on their capital gains.

 

But since our government is bought and paid for, instead all the rich structure their affairs where they have ZERO "income" and all their income is called "capital gains." Thus they pay less than they should.

 

And their threat? Tax us fairly and we'll just leave. Fine. Don't let the door hit you in the ass. But be warned... you don't get to have your cake and eat it too. You wanna park your money and your jobs overseas, you will have to pay a heavy premium to access this market with your sh!tty slave made products.

 

But of course, our government is owned by the rich. Hell they ARE the rich. So instead, they will keep chokefocking the goose that lays the eggs until it dies.

 

Quite frankly, I don't really give a damn anymore. This country has nothing to offer humanity. We are pathetic in every way. Maybe a few generations of privation and turmoil will let us be reborn into a society worth giving a fock about.

 

 

(BTW, since I know I'll get "wealth envy" crap as backlash, let me be clear... I don't envy the Mitt Romneys of the world. I despise them. They are pathetic lowlife parisitic sacks of sh!t and we'd be better off if they'd die in a fire.)

 

 

For the record, not everybody who supports raising the capital gains tax wants to be tied in with this TBBOM rant or his others in this thread. You can filter through and find good points.

[DankNuggs 305]

I'm also amazed at people's poor priorities, but at some point their situation becomes so hopeless they give up. That mentality needs to change; some suggest we enable it with entitlement programs. Not sure whether that is true, nor do I have a good answer to the culture of poverty.

 

A flat tax rate of 15-20% isn't going cure skewed priorities. But it will dramatically reduce both the discretionary and essential income of the poor. Meanwhile, the rich will get richer - how will this help the societal bottom line?

Boom economy = more jobs...

 

 

I think the most important thing to do to get people off entitlements is to raise the gap as much as possible between minimum wage and being on welfare... The more you can incentivize someone to make that leap, the better...

[Phurfur 70]

I'm also amazed at people's poor priorities, but at some point their situation becomes so hopeless they give up. That mentality needs to change; some suggest we enable it with entitlement programs. Not sure whether that is true, nor do I have a good answer to the culture of poverty.

 

 

When you take from people who work and give it to people who don't work, fewer people will work.

[Kozz 0]

This whole debate is Bull..

 

 

First, I earned my money and paid taxes on it (about 35%)...... After paying my bills, I have for example $10,000 left.

 

I can put it into a bank and collect 2% interest.

 

Or I can Invest it into companies, stocks, etc...... The difference is THERE IS RISK!!!! I could easily lose that money. So If I make a profit (there is no guarantee that I will), I pay 15% of that profit in taxes. If you were to charge me 35% Tax on this profit (If I make money and do not loose it), I would be less likely to invest it and just keep it in the bank.

 

This would cause less investment capital in companies, stocks etc....

 

Simple.

[gocolts 300]

This whole debate is Bull..

 

 

First, I earned my money and paid taxes on it (about 35%)...... After paying my bills, I have for example $10,000 left.

 

I can put it into a bank and collect 2% interest.

 

Or I can Invest it into companies, stocks, etc...... The difference is THERE IS RISK!!!! I could easily lose that money. So If I make a profit (there is no guarantee that I will), I pay 15% of that profit in taxes. If you were to charge me 35% Tax on this profit (If I make money and do not loose it), I would be less likely to invest it and just keep it in the bank.

 

This would cause less investment capital in companies, stocks etc....

 

Simple.

:thumbsup:

 

Plus, money invested by folks was earned at some point before it was invested and already taxed once.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Boom economy = more jobs...

 

 

I think the most important thing to do to get people off entitlements is to raise the gap as much as possible between minimum wage and being on welfare... The more you can incentivize someone to make that leap, the better...

The trickling hasn't been happening as predicted. Only increase in the wealth disparity/maldistribution. You're right about minimum wage.

[penultimatestraw 473]

When you take from people who work and give it to people who don't work, fewer people will work.

Any objective proof of this? Song lyrics don't count.

[penultimatestraw 473]

This whole debate is Bull..

 

 

First, I earned my money and paid taxes on it (about 35%)...... After paying my bills, I have for example $10,000 left.

 

I can put it into a bank and collect 2% interest.

 

Or I can Invest it into companies, stocks, etc...... The difference is THERE IS RISK!!!! I could easily lose that money. So If I make a profit (there is no guarantee that I will), I pay 15% of that profit in taxes. If you were to charge me 35% Tax on this profit (If I make money and do not loose it), I would be less likely to invest it and just keep it in the bank.

 

This would cause less investment capital in companies, stocks etc....

 

Simple.

Aren't capital losses tax deductible? If the average rate of return minus tax rate exceeds the pathetic bank rates, people will still invest - they want to make more $, after all.

:thumbsup:

 

Plus, money invested by folks was earned at some point before it was invested and already taxed once.

Gains they make on their investments weren't taxed, only the amount they initially invested.

[Phurfur 70]

Aren't capital losses tax deductible? If the average rate of return minus tax rate exceeds the pathetic bank rates, people will still invest - they want to make more $, after all.Gains they make on their investments weren't taxed, only the amount they initially invested.

 

In a nut shell: Capital losses have a maximum amount that can be claimed per year, the remaining balance is carried over to the next year

 

 

 

If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, you can deduct the excess on your tax return to reduce other income, such as wages, up to an annual limit of $3,000, or $1,500 if you are married filing separately.

 

If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.

 

[penultimatestraw 473]

In a nut shell: Capital losses have a maximum amount that can be claimed per year, the remaining balance is carried over to the next year

I am aware of that - but they're still deductible, which mitigates the risk. Also, I agree with Parrot, who suggests external forces have a much greater impact on revenue than the taxation rate.

[Phurfur 70]

Gains they make on their investments weren't taxed, only the amount they initially invested.

 

Gains they made creating jobs for all the abused workers in this country.

 

A society that demonizes the successful and glorifies the non contributors cannot survive. Have fun with that in the future.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Gains they made creating jobs for all the abused workers in this country.

 

A society that demonizes the successful and glorifies the non contributors cannot survive. Have fun with that in the future.

 

Societies that allow the few to destroy the many don't do too well either.

 

You wanna point at Soviet Russia to prove your point, I will respond that the Russian Revolution was an overreaction to the injustice of the Czarist system.

 

We are moving the way of pre-revolution France. Let them eat cake will only fly so far...

[penultimatestraw 473]

Gains they made creating jobs for all the abused workers in this country.

 

A society that demonizes the successful and glorifies the non contributors cannot survive. Have fun with that in the future.

Nor can a society where wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few.

 

I am contributing BTW. Where do you see yourself on the successful - non-contributor continuum?