U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-21-2011, 07:52 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,712 posts, read 11,084,277 times
Reputation: 5600

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
The hypocracy of you guys on the left is astounding... Let me see if I get this straight

You think the Bush tax cuts raised the deficits, even though it increased revenues, but you think cutting the payroll tax doesnt increase the national debt?
You main fallacy is that the Bush tax-cuts increased revenue. There is no empirical evidence that the claim is true and plenty of evidence that the claim is false.

Not even Mitch McConnell makes that claim. McConnell said, there is "No evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue." He wasn't saying it increased it; he said it didn't diminish it. But even that's wrong.

When the tax-cuts were passed, the CBO estimated that the 2001 tax-cut:
"would decrease governmental receipts by $70 billion in 2001, by $512 billion over the 2001-2006 period, and by $1.26 trillion over the 2001-2011 period";

AND:

"The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) and CBO estimate that H.R. 2 [the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003] would increase budget deficits by $60.8 billion in 2003, by $342.9 billion over the 2003-2008 period, and by $349.7 billion over the 2003-2013 period. "

The Congressional Budget Office said:

Quote:
The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year [2005]. Tax cuts account for almost half — 48 percent — of this $539 billion in increased costs.
How about the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget? Their budget calculator shows that the tax cuts will cost $3.28 trillion between 2011 and 2018.

How about George W. Bush's CEA chair, Greg Mankiw, who used the term "charlatans and cranks" for people who believed that "broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue." He continued: "I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't."

The bottom-line is that the Bush tax-cuts cut revenue: In 2000, federal tax revenues were $2,025.46 billion, nominal GDP was $9,951.5 billion. In 2003, these amounts were $1,782.53 billion and $11,142.1 billion. In other words, GDP rose 12% and federal revenues fell 12%.

Federal revenues eventually rose, to take out the 2000 peak in 2005 (2007 in real terms,) but this doesn't mean much. Revenues eventually catch up due to GDP growth and population growth regardless of policy. The economy grows 4-6% most years, unadjusted for inflation, so naturally the general trend of taxes is to rise about 4-6% each year. Being unable to return to a previous peak for five years, despite this built in trend strongly suggests tax cuts reduced revenue, ceteris parabus.

Looking at it graphically we see that after each of the Bush tax-cuts, revenue dropped. How anyone can deny this and claim that the tax-cuts increased revenues is astounding. In mid-2003, federal revenue was lower than in 1999.:



What this really does prove is that Paul Krugman wasn't exaggerating when he wrote last Friday,
Quote:
in Republican-world, down is up. The way to increase revenue is to cut taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and slashing government spending is a job-creation strategy. Try getting a leading Republican to admit that the Bush tax cuts increased the deficit or that sharp cuts in government spending (except on the military) would hurt the economic recovery.

Last edited by MTAtech; 11-21-2011 at 08:08 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-21-2011, 08:27 AM
 
27,903 posts, read 33,542,357 times
Reputation: 4016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
Yes I do see how that would hamper growth. That is the nature of taxes.

Your story could also apply to someone without any investments, trying to save up start a business by working a job, and is paying high rates of payroll / income taxes. Wage taxes are impairing his/her ability to save excess capital, with which to invest and create jobs.

The fact is , you're just talking about the earnings of richer folks vs. poorer folks. Us Po' Folk who earn wages for a living are just as likely to invest and create jobs as someone who made their money off the growth in their existing assets.

It's all built sort of an insulting, horse-sh*t premise to begin with, to suggest that some rich guy knows how to better invest his capital gains income, than I know how to invest my wage income.



Sure, a 0% capital gains tax would mean that the folks who already have capital would be able to build their facility more quickly.

However, it comes at the expense of the folks who have no capital, who may be trying to build something too, and are being forced to shoulder the tax burden instead. It works directly (as a tax), and also indirectly as an economic distortion (this capital gains tax preference draws more capital into assets, making them more expensive.)

In other words, it impairs income mobility by favoring the people who already have assets.
You totally missed the part about it requiring people to do the work, to build the facility (about 189 people to be exact), and all the income that brings in to the community and the revenue.

You see, without those evil "favored" rich people those people would be without jobs and those people would be added to the 10.5% UE rate and that revenue and income to the local stores and such around the job site would be losing out.

Don't like it? Go save your money and partner with others that have saved their money and you, too, can be a job creator. You do want people to have jobs don't you?

Someone has to do it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2011, 08:33 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,712 posts, read 11,084,277 times
Reputation: 5600
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
You totally missed the part about it requiring people to do the work, to build the facility (about 189 people to be exact), and all the income that brings in to the community and the revenue.

You see, without those evil "favored" rich people those people would be without jobs and those people would be added to the 10.5% UE rate and that revenue and income to the local stores and such around the job site would be losing out.

Don't like it? Go save your money and partner with others that have saved their money and you, too, can be a job creator. You do want people to have jobs don't you?

Someone has to do it.
This argument is just fact-less opinion. Where is the evidence that low capital gains tax-rates increase investment? Surely, with a century of data with all different capital gains rates, you should be able to prove, with evidence, that high capital gains rates discourage investment.

Unfortunately, you will not find such evidence as the supposition that capital gains taxes discourages investment is false. Warren Buffett said it clearly:
Quote:
Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2011, 08:43 AM
 
3,458 posts, read 3,006,504 times
Reputation: 1532
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
You totally missed the part about it requiring people to do the work, to build the facility (about 189 people to be exact), and all the income that brings in to the community and the revenue.

You see, without those evil "favored" rich people those people would be without jobs and those people would be added to the 10.5% UE rate and that revenue and income to the local stores and such around the job site would be losing out.

Don't like it? Go save your money and partner with others that have saved their money and you, too, can be a job creator. You do want people to have jobs don't you?

Someone has to do it.
you obviously didn't read a word i said, because you sure didn't rebut any of my points.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2011, 09:27 AM
 
27,903 posts, read 33,542,357 times
Reputation: 4016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
you obviously didn't read a word i said, because you sure didn't rebut any of my points.
That's because they're the typical whining left talking points crying about how life isn't fair and why someone didn't give you what you want.

There was no need.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2011, 09:29 AM
 
3,458 posts, read 3,006,504 times
Reputation: 1532
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
That's because they're the typical whining left talking points crying about how life isn't fair and why someone didn't give you what you want.

There was no need.
Try reading it, maybe you'll learn something.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2011, 10:04 AM
 
Location: 22 months till retirement and I can leave the hell hole of New Yakistan
23,467 posts, read 13,125,846 times
Reputation: 5922
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTHokieFan View Post
For the middle class investors, capital gains will be lowered to 10%, the rich will have their capital gains raised to 50%. Thoughts?
how about lower all taxes to 10-15%

if the government cant run on 10%-15% of all incomes (total REPORTED incomes in the usa is around 18 trillion, with an estimated of unreported income between 3 to 6 trillion)...or about 2-3 trillion worth of revenue....then there is a problem

why do liberals want to discriminate...tax everyone at the same low rate, and simplify the tax laws
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2011, 10:16 AM
 
69,372 posts, read 53,840,354 times
Reputation: 9357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
correct.
That would make you wrong as usual
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
Bush tax cuts didn't increase tax revenues. Increased tax revenues over that period were due to lending $1.5 trillion / year in mortgages to anyone rumored to have a pulse.
Me giving you a mortgage does not generatqe tax revenues. BORROWED MONEY IS TAX FREE
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
No, I didn't say that. I just think the Bush tax cuts make the tax system less equitable,
Here we finally agree, because it allowed far too many lower and middle income americans REBATES on money they didnt earn and that wasnt their, and allowed a substantial number of americans to escape income taxes completely. Tell me Cletus, why do you hate the poor and want their taxes raised by reversing their tax cuts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
and the payroll tax cuts make the tax system more equitable.
No it doesnt
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
Bush tax cuts included capital gains cuts. Payroll tax cuts did not.
And?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
Given that half of all capital gains go to the top 0.1% of the nation, I'd say this policy of lowering cap gains rates below that of wages is just a giveaway to the rich.
The Bush tax cuts were FAR MORE THAN JUST CAPITAL GAINS. Why do you only focus on part of it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2011, 10:18 AM
 
27,903 posts, read 33,542,357 times
Reputation: 4016
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
This argument is just fact-less opinion. Where is the evidence that low capital gains tax-rates increase investment? Surely, with a century of data with all different capital gains rates, you should be able to prove, with evidence, that high capital gains rates discourage investment.

Unfortunately, you will not find such evidence as the supposition that capital gains taxes discourages investment is false. Warren Buffett said it clearly:
You have no clue what you're talking about. The only conclusion that we can come to is you are purposefully lying spreading propaganda or you're just way out of your league and have no clue how to interpret data.

(dollar amounts in millions)
Quote:
1980
Total Realized Capital Gains - $74,132
Taxes Paid On Capital Gains - $12,459
Average Effective Tax Rate - 16.8
Realized Gains As A Percentage Of GDP - 2.66
Maximum Tax Rate On Long Term Gains - 28.00
Quote:
1981
Total Realized Capital Gains - $80,938
Taxes Paid On Capital Gains - $12,852
Average Effective Tax Rate - 15.9
Realized Gains As A Percentage Of GDP - 2.59
Maximum Tax Rate On Long Term Gains - 28.00/20.00
Notice the initial change.

Quote:
1982
Total Realized Capital Gains - $90,153
Taxes Paid On Capital Gains - $12,900
Average Effective Tax Rate - 14.3
Realized Gains As A Percentage Of GDP - 2.77
Maximum Tax Rate On Long Term Gains - 20.00
Now I know a 12.5% increase in capital is disgusting to you and all but you'll see the eventual effects as it starts to speed up.

Quote:
1983
Total Realized Capital Gains - $122,773
Taxes Paid On Capital Gains - $18,700
Average Effective Tax Rate - 15.2
Realized Gains As A Percentage Of GDP - 3.47
Maximum Tax Rate On Long Term Gains - 20.00
Holy crap? Really? 26% from the previous year? Those evil rich bastards really do invest more with the more they get to keep.

Quote:
1984
Total Realized Capital Gains - $140,500
Taxes Paid On Capital Gains - $21,453
Average Effective Tax Rate - 15.3
Realized Gains As A Percentage Of GDP - 3.47
Maximum Tax Rate On Long Term Gains - 20.00
Quote:
1985
Total Realized Capital Gains - $171,985
Taxes Paid On Capital Gains - $26,460
Average Effective Tax Rate - 15.4
Realized Gains As A Percentage Of GDP - 4.08
Maximum Tax Rate On Long Term Gains - 20.00
Quote:
1986
Total Realized Capital Gains - $327,725
Taxes Paid On Capital Gains - $52,914
Average Effective Tax Rate - 16.1
Realized Gains As A Percentage Of GDP - 7.35
Maximum Tax Rate On Long Term Gains - 20.00
I'm sure it was just dumb luck...

Quote:
1987
Total Realized Capital Gains - $148,449
Taxes Paid On Capital Gains - $33,714
Average Effective Tax Rate - 22.7
Realized Gains As A Percentage Of GDP - 3.135
Maximum Tax Rate On Long Term Gains - 28.00
Quote:
1988
Total Realized Capital Gains - $162,592
Taxes Paid On Capital Gains - $38,886
Average Effective Tax Rate - 23.9
Realized Gains As A Percentage Of GDP - 3.19
Maximum Tax Rate On Long Term Gains - 28.00
"Read my lips, no new taxes!"

Quote:
1989
Total Realized Capital Gains - $154,040
Taxes Paid On Capital Gains - $35,258
Average Effective Tax Rate - 22.9
Realized Gains As A Percentage Of GDP - 2.81
Maximum Tax Rate On Long Term Gains - 28.00
Quote:
1990
Total Realized Capital Gains - $123,783
Taxes Paid On Capital Gains - $27,829
Average Effective Tax Rate - 22.5
Realized Gains As A Percentage Of GDP - 2.13
Maximum Tax Rate On Long Term Gains - 28.00
Quote:
1991
Total Realized Capital Gains - $111,592
Taxes Paid On Capital Gains - $24,903
Average Effective Tax Rate - 16.1
Realized Gains As A Percentage Of GDP - 1.86
Maximum Tax Rate On Long Term Gains - 28.93
Quote:
1992
Total Realized Capital Gains - $126,692
Taxes Paid On Capital Gains - $28,983
Average Effective Tax Rate - 22.9
Realized Gains As A Percentage Of GDP - 2.00
Maximum Tax Rate On Long Term Gains - 28.93
Quote:
1993
Total Realized Capital Gains - $152,259
Taxes Paid On Capital Gains - $36,112
Average Effective Tax Rate - 23.7
Realized Gains As A Percentage Of GDP - 2.28
Maximum Tax Rate On Long Term Gains - 29.19
Quote:
1994
Total Realized Capital Gains - $152,727
Taxes Paid On Capital Gains - $36,243
Average Effective Tax Rate - 23.7
Realized Gains As A Percentage Of GDP - 2.16
Maximum Tax Rate On Long Term Gains - 29.19
Quote:
1995
Total Realized Capital Gains - $180,130
Taxes Paid On Capital Gains - $44,254
Average Effective Tax Rate - 24.6
Realized Gains As A Percentage Of GDP - 2.43
Maximum Tax Rate On Long Term Gains - 29.19
Quote:
1996
Total Realized Capital Gains - $260,696
Taxes Paid On Capital Gains - $66,396
Average Effective Tax Rate - 25.5
Realized Gains As A Percentage Of GDP - 3.33
Maximum Tax Rate On Long Term Gains - 29.19
Quote:
1997
Total Realized Capital Gains - $364,829
Taxes Paid On Capital Gains - $79,305
Average Effective Tax Rate - 21.7
Realized Gains As A Percentage Of GDP - 4.38
Maximum Tax Rate On Long Term Gains - 29.19/21.19
Gee, we're back at 1986 levels again... What could have possibly occurred to stagnant capital flow? Yes, when taxes are raised we'll sit on that capital item till the dumb-asses in congress and the high office moves along or gets out of the way.

Quote:
1998
Total Realized Capital Gains - $455,223
Taxes Paid On Capital Gains - $89,069
Average Effective Tax Rate - 19.6
Realized Gains As A Percentage Of GDP - 5.18
Maximum Tax Rate On Long Term Gains - 21.19
Quote:
1999
Total Realized Capital Gains - $552,608
Taxes Paid On Capital Gains - $111,821
Average Effective Tax Rate - 20.2
Realized Gains As A Percentage Of GDP - 5.91
Maximum Tax Rate On Long Term Gains - 21.19
Quote:
2000
Total Realized Capital Gains - $644,285
Taxes Paid On Capital Gains - $127,297
Average Effective Tax Rate - 19.8
Realized Gains As A Percentage Of GDP - 6.47
Maximum Tax Rate On Long Term Gains - 21.19
Quote:
2001
Total Realized Capital Gains - $349,441
Taxes Paid On Capital Gains - $65,668
Average Effective Tax Rate - 18.8
Realized Gains As A Percentage Of GDP - 3.40
Maximum Tax Rate On Long Term Gains - 21.17
The end of the dot-com bubble. Yes, capital investment helps create bubbles which we like to call the business cycle.

Quote:
2002
Total Realized Capital Gains - $268,615
Taxes Paid On Capital Gains - $49,122
Average Effective Tax Rate - 18.3
Realized Gains As A Percentage Of GDP - 2.52
Maximum Tax Rate On Long Term Gains - 21.16
Quote:
2003
Total Realized Capital Gains - $323,306
Taxes Paid On Capital Gains - $51,340
Average Effective Tax Rate - 15.9
Realized Gains As A Percentage Of GDP - 2.90
Maximum Tax Rate On Long Term Gains - 21.05/16.05
Quote:
2004
Total Realized Capital Gains - $499,154
Taxes Paid On Capital Gains - $73,213
Average Effective Tax Rate - 14.7
Realized Gains As A Percentage Of GDP - 4.21
Maximum Tax Rate On Long Term Gains - 16.05
Quote:
2005
Total Realized Capital Gains - $690,152
Taxes Paid On Capital Gains - $102,174
Average Effective Tax Rate - 14.8
Realized Gains As A Percentage Of GDP - 5.46
Maximum Tax Rate On Long Term Gains - 16.05
Quote:
2006
Total Realized Capital Gains - $798,214
Taxes Paid On Capital Gains - $117,793
Average Effective Tax Rate - 14.8
Realized Gains As A Percentage Of GDP - 5.96
Maximum Tax Rate On Long Term Gains - 15.70
Quote:
2007
Total Realized Capital Gains - $924,164
Taxes Paid On Capital Gains - $137,141
Average Effective Tax Rate - 14.8
Realized Gains As A Percentage Of GDP - 6.57
Maximum Tax Rate On Long Term Gains - 15.70
Quote:
2008
Total Realized Capital Gains - $497,841
Taxes Paid On Capital Gains - $68,791
Average Effective Tax Rate - 13.8
Realized Gains As A Percentage Of GDP - 3.46
Maximum Tax Rate On Long Term Gains - 15.35
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa...torical_cg.pdf

Quit trying to use Mr. Buffett as some sort of be all end all. He would love for you to follow his advice so he can rape you on the back end. Why do you think he prolongs paying taxes? So he can use that money to make more than he would have had had he paid his taxes right away. It just cost the money for the lawyers, chump change. Buffett likes zero tax rates for himself and the highest you can muster up for everyone else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2011, 10:18 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,777 posts, read 24,120,852 times
Reputation: 12105
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
The Bush tax cuts were FAR MORE THAN JUST CAPITAL GAINS. Why do you only focus on part of it?
I think he is sticking with the topic of the thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top