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 11-22-2011, 12:51 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,712 posts, read 11,024,505 times
Reputation: 5600

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lahaina Lopaka View Post
Listen, I can't spoon-feed you on "How the World Works - 101". The investments will go elsewhere - like tax exempt municipal bonds. I am not here to educate you on the fundamentals that you should already understand well, before you start posting with advice on how to fix a system (that you don't have a clue as to how it works).

Witness the tax cuts under JFK (that would be John F. Kennedy). When the US lowered its tax rates, and England didn't, guess where the Stones and the Beates came (to the US) to avoid England's high taxes.
I understand. You have a theory. You can't prove your theory with facts and evidence but everyone needs to accept, out of faith, that your understanding of "How the World Works."

When the Beatles wrote "Tax Man," the top British income tax rate was 95 percent, before other taxes. That's where they got the lyric "1 for you, 19 for me." While we can agree that a 95% rate is confiscatory, the U.S. has the lowest tax-rates of developed countries and raising rates lower than confiscatory amounts won't discourage investment -- and has not historically.

By the way, when Kennedy reduced taxes, he lowered them from a top rate of 90% to 70%. How is it that a 70% rate created prosperity and now a 50% rate is disastrously high?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-22-2011, 12:55 PM
 
Location: 22 months till retirement and I can leave the hell hole of New Yakistan
23,290 posts, read 13,023,781 times
Reputation: 5865
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
I understand. You have a theory. You can't prove your theory with facts and evidence but everyone needs to accept, out of faith, that your understanding of "How the World Works."

When the Beatles wrote "Tax Man," the top British income tax rate was 95 percent, before other taxes. That's where they got the lyric "1 for you, 19 for me." While we can agree that a 95% rate is confiscatory, the U.S. has the lowest tax-rates of developed countries and raising rates lower than confiscatory amounts won't discourage investment -- and has not historically.

By the way, when Kennedy reduced taxes, he lowered them from a top rate of 90% to 70%. How is it that a 70% rate created prosperity and now a 50% rate is disastrously high?
why do you need taxes to begin with..at anywhere near a 50% or a 70%

if the government cant run on 10%- 15% of all incomes...then something is wrong

tax EVERYONE at an EQUAL rate...end the DISCRIMINATORY progressive rates




are not liberals about equality...or have they sold them selves on that issue???????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2011, 12:57 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,712 posts, read 11,024,505 times
Reputation: 5600
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
you are wrong

my parents bought thier home in 1964 for 16k.. retired in 1989 and moved to another area, but kept the homes as my sister paid rent until she grad'd from college. sold the house in 2005 for 450k

they, a POOR ELDERLY COUPLE, got hit not only with the New Yorks state capital gains, but also the new york state 1% real estate tax, plus had to pay their new states capital gains tax..and then the fed screwed them

the very same house that they bought for 16k..was over 60k in taxes at selling time

dont tell me capital gains only effects the rich....because..if you do you are lying
In your example your parents sold a house that was no longer their primary residence because by having your sister pay rent, it became a commercial property.

But on the other side, you are complaining that they sold a house they bought for $16K and sold it for $450K, profiting $434K - $60K in taxes (that they could have avoided had it not been a commercial property.)

This is not the typical situation and most people sell their primary home with no tax liability.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2011, 12:58 PM
 
27,903 posts, read 33,444,526 times
Reputation: 4016
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Oh man. If you look at at your own link, you might notice that the the linked report is about the underground shadow economy. That has nothing to do with the matter discussed -- which is raising capital gains taxes on the wealthy.

In any case, the shadow economy for developed countries, according to your source, is 15% of GDP -- and that is illegal activity (drugs, illegal gambling, prostitution, etc.) So yes, drug dealers and prostitutes don't pay taxes. So what are you suggesting? That if we raise capital gains tax rates the rich will become drug dealers and prostitutes to avoid paying taxes?

You just can't be saying -- you just can't be -- that if we raise capital gains rates to what they were 30 years ago, rich people will somehow hide that gain in the underground economy. Newsflash: The vast portion of the capital gains tax is paid on stocks and real estate. Those transactions are heavily monitored and reported. They can't hidden into the underground economy.

I would contend that, it is your sir, who are embarrassing yourself as you make grasping for straws arguments because you can't win this argument on the facts and counter the evidence that I presented.

Your arguments are delving deeper and deeper into the absurd.
Horrible reading skills too...

Quote:
A factory worker has a second job driving an unlicensed taxi at night; a plumber fixes a broken water pipe for a client, gets paid in cash but doesn't declare his earnings to the tax collector; a drug dealer brokers a sale with a prospective customer on a street corner. These are all examples of the underground or shadow economy—activities, both legal and illegal, that add up to trillions of dollars a year that take place "off the books," out of the gaze of taxmen and government statisticians.
Economic Issues No. 30 -- Hiding in the Shadows : The Growth of the Underground Economy

Anyways, just keep going. You're very good at disproving your own theories.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2011, 12:59 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,712 posts, read 11,024,505 times
Reputation: 5600
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
why do you need taxes to begin with..at anywhere near a 50% or a 70%
I didn't say that it should but it is the freaking thread topic!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2011, 01:08 PM
 
Location: 22 months till retirement and I can leave the hell hole of New Yakistan
23,290 posts, read 13,023,781 times
Reputation: 5865
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
In your example your parents sold a house that was no longer their primary residence because by having your sister pay rent, it became a commercial property.

But on the other side, you are complaining that they sold a house they bought for $16K and sold it for $450K, profiting $434K - $60K in taxes (that they could have avoided had it not been a commercial property.)

This is not the typical situation and most people sell their primary home with no tax liability.
uhm

not quite

it was never a comersial property..it was a house, where my sister was paying the property taxes...it just wasnt their primary residence

and it was not a profit..the 'new' or replacement home cost nearly the same

the increase in cost of a home is not profit.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2011, 01:09 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,712 posts, read 11,024,505 times
Reputation: 5600
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
Horrible reading skills too...


Economic Issues No. 30 -- Hiding in the Shadows : The Growth of the Underground Economy

Anyways, just keep going. You're very good at disproving your own theories.
The thread is "Let's raise capital gains to 50% for all gains above $250,000." Taxi drivers working the night shift for cash isn't capital gains and not above $250,000.

If you want to expand the scope of the thread, I suggest starting a new thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2011, 01:10 PM
 
Location: 22 months till retirement and I can leave the hell hole of New Yakistan
23,290 posts, read 13,023,781 times
Reputation: 5865
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
I didn't say that it should but it is the freaking thread topic!
nice attack dude

I did read..it says "let's raise...to 50%"

taxes should ALL be lowered...cap gains and income, and corporate

not tax should be more than 15%
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2011, 01:12 PM
 
27,903 posts, read 33,444,526 times
Reputation: 4016
Quote:
Historical evidence undermine the claim that capital gains tax reductions lower revenue. Figure 3 shows that, historically, taxes paid on capital gains have tended to increase after a reduction in the capital gains tax rate. When capital gains tax rates were lowered in 1978 and again in 1981, revenue climbed steadily despite government forecasters' claims that it would fall. Conversely, when the tax rate increase was enacted in 1987, revenue began declining, although forecasters predicted it would increase.

For instance, capital gains tax revenue equaled $36.2 billion (0.5 percent of GDP) in 1994 (the last year for which finalized IRS data are available). In contrast, $36.4 billion (0.6 percent of GDP) was collected in 1985, after adjusting for inflation. Thus, tax revenue in 1994 was slightly lower than in 1985 even though the tax rate was higher, the economy was larger, and the stock market was stronger in 1994. The historical data suggest that the government could collect more revenue if the capital gains tax rate were reduced
Effects on Tax Revenue

The result that tax revenue tends to increase following a reduction in the tax rate may seem counterintuitive; however, there are many offsetting factors which must be considered. In the static analysis, tax revenue inevitably falls because the same level of realizations is being taxed at a lower rate. In addition, tax receipts may fall if taxpayers reclassify regular income as capital gains in order to take advantage of the lower rate.

On the other hand, a reduction in the capital gains tax rate creates three effects which tend to increase tax revenue. The first is the unlocking effect, which expands the tax base because realizations increase in response to the lower tax rate. The magnitude of the unlocking effect is quite controversial and will be discussed in greater detail in the next section. The second is the dynamic effect, which measures the increase in tax revenue generated from the impact of lower tax rates on economic growth. The third effect measures the increased tax revenue resulting from an increase in the value of existing assets. When capital gains tax rates are lowered, the value of existing assets necessarily increases. Tax revenue rises as owners of stock pay taxes on the higher value of their assets when realized.

When capital gains tax rates are high, investors avoid paying the tax by holding onto assets they would have otherwise chosen to sell. This creates a "lock-in effect," which lowers capital gains realizations by shrinking the tax base. CBO failure to adequately account for this behavioral response caused it to underestimate the extent of lock-in and overestimate capital gains realizations as shown in Figure 2 above. Economists estimate that trillions of dollars in equity are currently locked into assets because investors refuse to pay a high tax on their profits. Reducing the capital gains tax rate would unlock a portion of this capital, allowing the government to tax the increased realizations.
The Economic Effects of Capital Gains Taxation - JEC
(http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/capgain/capgain.htm - broken link)

Last edited by BigJon3475; 11-22-2011 at 01:32 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2011, 01:15 PM
 
27,903 posts, read 33,444,526 times
Reputation: 4016
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
The thread is "Let's raise capital gains to 50% for all gains above $250,000." Taxi drivers working the night shift for cash isn't capital gains and not above $250,000.

If you want to expand the scope of the thread, I suggest starting a new thread.
Well, we know what you do when you start to understand you're on the losing side of an argument. When you increase taxes, especially on capital, people hold off on cashing out and getting into a new investment. Those are just facts.

The same effect occurs on nearly all forms of taxation. The fact that you can't see that is a problem if you're trying to get an education (or have one) in economics.

The real world will tell you that just as soon as you get a chance to get away from your liberal indoctrination.
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