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.
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?
Simple. Again, there's no reason anyone should have to explain these things to you if you're claiming to have a degree (or are getting one) in economics. Maybe it's time to shoot for a history degree now.
The 90% tax rate was confiscatory but it wouldn't really matter with the rest of the planet in disarray after two world wars.
The lowering of that top tax rate was because other countries were starting to grow their industrial complexes back. We were becoming less competitive.
No rinse and repeat and you'll see exactly where we're going with tax rates and our economy in our future. That fact that you're backwards in your assumptions only screams that you lean towards liberalism. Don't worry, you'll learn how really wrong you are one day (hopefully sooner than later for your sake).
Incorrect. Traders should not be confused for investors. Short term investment should not be treated as something beneficial and the primary purpose of Wall Street. Unless, crony capitalism is the thing to strive for.
The two activities are different, but people often do both. Once again, your simplistic views don't fit "real world". And besides, my point stands undeterred as tew tax code and new tax regulations to implement that code would be required. A HUGE step in the WRONG direction.
BTW, we will go along way towards ending crony capitalism once we remove Obama and Reid from office.
Example, the Chilean petroleum lease deal where we granted leases to the Chilean petro company to drill in the gulf, where we blocked our own people from drilling, is owned in significant part by that well known crony capitalist and funder of the DNC George Soros, and Obama, the Potemkin Village Idiot thought that nobody would figger it out.
Or the .5 B to Solyndra or the 1.5B to Robert kennedy Jr. This crap must and will stop once the Potemkin Village Idiot Obama is gone.
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?
As I recall, it was far lower than that.
You have been led to the water, but refuse to drink asserting, instead that the water is merely a theory.
You refuse to learn because it doesn't fit your desire to punish the success that you've concluded, and probably correctly so, is beyond, far beyond, your grasp
The two activities are different, but people often do both. Once again, your simplistic views don't fit "real world".
I challenge you to explain this complex world of yours. I assume it ignore the reality of traders being different from investors, and impact on businesses/economy short term versus long term differentiation would entail, something a part of my "simplistic" understand. Please proceed.
You have been led to the water, but refuse to drink asserting, instead that the water is merely a theory.
You refuse to learn because it doesn't fit your desire to punish the success that you've concluded, and probably correctly so, is beyond, far beyond, your grasp
If you want to have an adult conversation on the thread topic, fine. But if you are just going to post basically, ' I know better than you,' without proving that you do, there is no reason to accept your world view.
Basically, you are pedaling the tired GOP talking-point, 'don't tax the job creators,' which is really a disguise of the real motive, don't tax the rich. I think there are a lot more important moral issues in the world than defending the right of the rich to keep their money and let everyone else go to hell.
I challenge you to explain this complex world of yours. I assume it ignore the reality of traders being different from investors, and impact on businesses/economy short term versus long term differentiation would entail, something a part of my "simplistic" understand. Please proceed.
There are all sort of models for investing (buying or selling equity or debt or futures) some buy for long-term appreciation, some for dividends (not so much anymore), others for short term appreciation. Collectively, they can be called "trading". Are you meaning to say "day trading"?
In any case, what is proposed would stifle the markets (can't possibly have any other effect). Any system that requires people to age their investments to avoid confiscatory taxes, can't help but slow the velocity of money or its investment to the detriment of America (which you probably don't care about) and the wealthy (the punishing of which has become the marching orders of so many under Potemkin Village Idiot Obama's direction)
If you want to have an adult conversation on the thread topic, fine. But if you are just going to post basically, ' I know better than you,' without proving that you do, there is no reason to accept your world view.
Basically, you are pedaling the tired GOP talking-point, 'don't tax the job creators,' which is really a disguise of the real motive, don't tax the rich. I think there are a lot more important moral issues in the world than defending the right of the rich to keep their money and let everyone else go to hell.
The proof is called......HISTORY. Need an IV Drip??
Everyone, the rich and poor alike, are free to go wherever they wish. The fact that the rich work and invest etc., doesn't have any bearing on where the poor steer (straight to hell if that is their desire 'cause they are "laid back").
Your failure to score well on a test isn't because someone else succeeded at scoring well. Learn that.
from a flaming liberal Saez....at UoC berkley
and from peter diamond another flaming liberal. who was nominated by obama to fill a vacantcy on the federal reserve board
There are all sort of models for investing (buying or selling equity or debt or futures) some buy for long-term appreciation, some for dividends (not so much anymore), others for short term appreciation. Collectively, they can be called "trading". Are you meaning to say "day trading"?
In any case, what is proposed would stifle the markets (can't possibly have any other effect). Any system that requires people to age their investments to avoid confiscatory taxes, can't help but slow the velocity of money or its investment to the detriment of America (which you probably don't care about) and the wealthy (the punishing of which has become the marching orders of so many under Potemkin Village Idiot Obama's direction)
Got it?
What I got is your inability to differentiate between traders and investors. You assume no difference and, consequently, no impact on how Wall Street goes to work and affects the economy, and ultimately that of the investors and businesses. I found a quick link for you. You should start there:
What I got is your inability to differentiate between traders and investors. You assume no difference and, consequently, no impact on how Wall Street goes to work and affects the economy, and ultimately that of the investors and businesses. I found a quick link for you. You should start there:
Believe me, I am well versed, very well versed indeed, thank you very much in both equity and debt markets, including individual stocks, spiders and other index funds, shorting, margins, margin calls, options and the like. Thank you very much for asking, though.
As most people of limited scope and close horizons do, you have fixated on some small snippet of fact, that you think is a great revelations and, hence, think that makes you some sort of guru, when in fact, you can't see the rest of the iceberg because you are fixated on the very top of the tip.
You have read the Foreward and the first sentence of the Introduction. Now read the rest of the book. When you have, come back.
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.
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.
