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, 11:27 AM
 
3,458 posts, read 2,995,337 times
Reputation: 1527

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
Poor people are going to drive the economy?
Who do you mean by 'poor?' Low income or low wealth?

Quote:
You do know the effective rate on lower income capital is 0, right?

No, it isn't. People who earn $5,000/year or $50 million/year pay capital gains taxes at the same rate.

Quote:
The primary impact was to get the economy going again. The fact that it was coming to a screeching halt is very evident in the post where I provided 28 years of capital activity. The other times that are evident of economic slowdown were 1980, 1990 and 2008.
The bush tax cuts were made in concert with financial deregulation that allowed trillions in bad lending.

When home prices spike artificially, and people pull out money in the form of a HELOC, that provides a short-term economic boost at a long-term cost. We are now at the part where we pay off the long term costs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-21-2011, 11:29 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,711 posts, read 11,032,322 times
Reputation: 5600
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
You lefties would call it "stimulus" is Obama had done it. Actually, come to think of it, he did do it.

Why is that so hard to understand? The economy would have gone into a much longer recession had nothing been done. The claim that looks at the economy as being static, which it isn't of course.
It's obvious from the first graph that GDP was unaffected by the tax-cuts -- GDP rose the same after the cuts as before them. Your claim that it lessened the recession isn't evident. The slope of the GDP graph is nearly a straight line.

However, the revenue graph is dramatically effected by the tax-cuts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2011, 11:30 AM
 
27,903 posts, read 33,459,119 times
Reputation: 4016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
Who do you mean by 'poor?' Low income or low wealth?




No, it isn't. People who earn $5,000/year or $50 million/year pay capital gains taxes at the same rate.



The bush tax cuts were made in concert with financial deregulation that allowed trillions in bad lending.

When home prices spike artificially, and people pull out money in the form of a HELOC, that provides a short-term economic boost at a long-term cost. We are now at the part where we pay off the long term costs.
Quote:
7. The tax rates that apply to net capital gain are generally lower than the tax rates that apply to other income. For 2010, the maximum capital gains rate for most people is 15%. For lower-income individuals, the rate may be 0% on some or all of the net capital gain. Special types of net capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%.
Ten Important Facts About Capital Gains and Losses

I'm about to be done with you folks because it's blatantly obvious you're trying on-the-job training in this thread. I should be charging you for these services.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2011, 11:30 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,777 posts, read 24,032,429 times
Reputation: 12105
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
You lefties would call it "stimulus" is Obama had done it. Actually, come to think of it, he did do it.
Stimulus wouldn't have been necessary if the state of the economy for years hadn't created a need for it. Thanks right wingers.

Quote:
Why is that so hard to understand? The economy would have gone into a much longer recession had nothing been done. The claim that looks at the economy as being static, which it isn't of course.
Nobody has suggested Economy to be static. The data points presented incorporates the dynamic nature of economy, with norms versus exceptions.

And how much slower of a recovery did you expect from a mild recession that lasted only 9 months, didn't really lose jobs at an alarming rate, and yet took years to show a positive growth in employment numbers? And yet, all you've got to show is TWO years when receipts finally matched the norm observed over decades, before the hell broke lose, again?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2011, 11:36 AM
 
27,903 posts, read 33,459,119 times
Reputation: 4016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
Who do you mean by 'poor?' Low income or low wealth?




No, it isn't. People who earn $5,000/year or $50 million/year pay capital gains taxes at the same rate.



The bush tax cuts were made in concert with financial deregulation that allowed trillions in bad lending.

When home prices spike artificially, and people pull out money in the form of a HELOC, that provides a short-term economic boost at a long-term cost. We are now at the part where we pay off the long term costs.
It would have been a small spike and quickly recovered if it had not been policy of the Federal Reserve and GSEs to increase home-ownership.

"Financial deregulation" wasn't the cause of this last crisis. It is however the cause of a FIRE economy. We'd be feeling the effects of not having moved to a FIRE economy for the past 30 years in the form of a very very long term GD. Yes, we'd be living in a 2nd world country right now but at least we'd be debt free'ish...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2011, 12:19 PM
 
Location: 22 months till retirement and I can leave the hell hole of New Yakistan
23,311 posts, read 13,036,439 times
Reputation: 5884
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
I think he is sticking with the topic of the thread.
ok, then how about to the topic

why should we be taxing capital gains at a high rate of 15% , when those earning ff of it are only earning less than 5%

tax capital gains at the rate of inflation...or at the federal lending rate (currently less than 1/4 of a percent)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2011, 12:34 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,777 posts, read 24,032,429 times
Reputation: 12105
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
why should we be taxing capital gains at a high rate of 15% , when those earning ff of it are only earning less than 5%

tax capital gains at the rate of inflation...or at the federal lending rate (currently less than 1/4 of a percent)
I made my point on the subject early in the thread. Capital Gains should be treated as income and subjected to the same rate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2011, 12:37 PM
 
Location: 22 months till retirement and I can leave the hell hole of New Yakistan
23,311 posts, read 13,036,439 times
Reputation: 5884
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
I made my point on the subject early in the thread. Capital Gains should be treated as income and subjected to the same rate.
and no income should be taxed any higher than 10-15%

if the government cant survive, and provide the 'governmental" services on 10-15% of the total income of the country...then something is wrong
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2011, 12:38 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,777 posts, read 24,032,429 times
Reputation: 12105
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
and no income should be taxed any higher than 10-15%

if the government cant survive, and provide the 'governmental" services on 10-15% of the total income of the country...then something is wrong
Heck I can also pick a number from thin air, but that won't make for a logical debate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2011, 12:51 PM
 
Location: 22 months till retirement and I can leave the hell hole of New Yakistan
23,311 posts, read 13,036,439 times
Reputation: 5884
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Heck I can also pick a number from thin air, but that won't make for a logical debate.
its not from thin air

when the income tax started it was around 3%

fact many poepl are paying 10-15-20% just in LOCAL property taxs
new jersey stat income tax is 10%

and you want how much federsal ONTOP of that???


the total income in the usa is reproted at around 18 trillion with an estimated unreported income between 3-6 trillion...thats at least 21 trillion

10% of 21 trillion is 2.1 trillion ...15% is 3.15 trillion

get rid of corporat tax..get rid of estate tax..get rid of the excise taxes..get rid of payroll tax..have an income tax(all types of income, with zero deductions) of 10%-15%

everyone pays the same rate..and we have a surplus

but liberals dont want to give up the power of the CONTROL of the populas

Last edited by workingclasshero; 11-21-2011 at 01:03 PM..
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