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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-13-2013, 07:30 PM
 
27,903 posts, read 34,306,069 times
Reputation: 4031

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
Which tax relief from Reagan was stimulative?



What is my position? for example you deny that the domain name valuation issue I raised is not applicable to the Ricardo attack on the corn laws? Was that the position you don't like or would you care to admit its completely over your head and have no clue about any economic theory at all?




what in the hell do you think my position is again? It really is comply insane looking, and I mean total mental dysfunction down to the brain stem. Its pure lunacy. Are you barking into a mirror? What does any of this crap have to do with my arguments?
I don't understand you because you speak in tongues with poor grammar and that wouldn't be so bad except you top it off with platitudes.

I'm not an inferior species who completely disregarded schooling and all the work that's been put in to correct grammar. It's one of the highlights of being human and it shows poor communication skills when you choose, or are ignorant of, that hard work.

And then you have the unmitigated gall to claim you're more educated than someone else on this forum.

When you stop speaking in tongue and learn to use spell check I'll see if you're worth responding to.

Or maybe you just really like your Jack and Cokes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-13-2013, 07:43 PM
 
17,752 posts, read 15,569,357 times
Reputation: 6391
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
I don't understand you because you speak in tongues with poor grammar and that wouldn't be so bad except you top it off with platitudes.

You avoided the subject again, and you have a comma error on your compound sentence.

Quote:

I'm not an inferior species who completely disregarded schooling and all the work that's been put in to correct grammar. It's one of the highlights of being human and it shows poor communication skills when you choose, or are ignorant of, that hard work.
Then clean up your slovenly English if you intend to hold that standard. You made even more comma errors. I do too, but I make no claim other than draft quality for I have to deal with evasive crap like this.

Quote:
And then you have the unmitigated gall to claim you're more educated than someone else on this forum.
When you stop speaking in tongue and learn to use spell check I'll see if you're worth responding to.
You terminated your run on sentence with a preposition? What a hack job . You are humiliating yourself.

Quote:
Or maybe you just really like your Jack and Cokes.
You just have never cracked open an economics book, and its obvious.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2013, 11:01 AM
 
Location: Michigan
2,198 posts, read 2,233,122 times
Reputation: 2091
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
Of course they are...

Realized Gains as a Percent of GDP were the at their highest point when capital gains were at their lowest. Those years were 1986, 2000 and 2007.
What do those years have in common?

1987- Black Monday
2000- Dot Com Crash
2007- financial meltdown

It may be more accurate to say that realized gains as a percentage of GDP are at their highest point when the stock market is at its highest point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
1986 the rate was at 20% and the realized gains were 7.15% of GDP.
From 1979 to 1985 the rate was lower every year than in 1986, yet the realization/GDP percentage was never higher than 3.94%.

Realized gains spiked to 7.15% in 1986 because of a December sell-off in anticipation of the increase in capital gains tax rates for 1987. So the magnitude of this high rate of realization was not so much the result of low capital gains taxes, it was the result of preparing for a future increase.

The capital gains tax rates are most definitely a factor in when people take profits, so over the short term cutting the capital gains rates can increase revenue. If people have $200,000 in unrealized capital gains and the rate goes from 20% to 15% they might view it as a good opportunity to cash out, but that's a short-term effect. In the longer term decreasing rates does not increase revenue.

Quote:
  • The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation have estimated that extending the capital gains tax cut enacted in 2003 would cost $100 billion over the next decade. The Administration’s Office of Management and Budget included a similar estimate in the President’s budget.
  • After reviewing numerous studies of how investors respond to capital gains tax cuts, CBO commented that “the best estimates of taxpayers’ response to changes in the capital gains rate do not suggest a large revenue increase from additional realizations of capital gains — and certainly not an increase large enough to offset the losses from a lower rate.”
  • The Bush Administration Treasury Department examined the economic effects of extending the capital gains and dividend tax cuts. Even under the Treasury’s most optimistic scenario about the economic effects of these tax cuts, the tax cuts would not generate anywhere close to enough added economic growth to pay for themselves — and would thus lose money.
Policy Points: Experts Agree That Capital Gains Tax Cuts Lose Revenue — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


Furthermore, there is the issue of tax sheltering when capital gains are given special treatment:


Quote:
One reason is that preferential tax rates for capital gains encourage tax sheltering, by creating incentives for taxpayers to take often-convoluted steps to reclassify ordinary income as capital gains. This is economically unproductive and wastes resources. The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center’s director Leonard Burman, one of the nation’s leading tax experts, has explained, “shelter investments are invariably lousy, unproductive ventures that would never exist but for tax benefits.” Burman has concluded that, “capital gains tax cuts are as likely to depress the economy as to stimulate it.”
And the fact that low capital gains tax rates greatly favor the wealthy. Preferential treatment for capital gains income is one of the biggest reasons for large increase in wealth inequality.

Quote:
  • Most middle-income Americans own much or all of their stock through 401(k)s, IRAs, or other tax-preferred saving accounts. They do not pay taxes when their stocks within those accounts go up, so a change in the tax rate doesn’t affect them.
  • Even among the minority of middle-class Americans who do benefit from the capital gains and dividend tax cuts, the benefits are very small. This is because capital gains and dividend income is highly concentrated at the very top of the income scale. The Tax Policy Center estimates that the highest-income 5 percent of U.S. households receive 83 percent of total capital gains income.
  • According to the Tax Policy Center, the average household in the middle of the income spectrum received $20 from the 2003 capital gains and dividend tax cuts. The average household earning over $1 million received $32,000, or 1,600 times as much.
And there is also the issue of fairness. Is it fair that a roughneck working the oil rigs in North Dakota 40 hours a week pays 28% of their income in taxes while a trust fund baby that doesn't work at all pays 15% on their income?

In my opinion, capital gains should be taxed at exactly the same rates as regular income, that is the fairest way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2013, 12:17 PM
 
Location: San Diego California
6,797 posts, read 6,295,421 times
Reputation: 5175
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25 View Post
The CBO can only use the numbers congress gives to the to make their projections. Congress is full of liars so their modeling is never correct. Kind of like the global warming computer models.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2013, 12:50 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,715 posts, read 11,501,751 times
Reputation: 5606
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25
The CBO can only use the numbers congress gives to the to make their projections. Congress is full of liars so their modeling is never correct. Kind of like the global warming computer models.
Close but no cigar.

What you need to realize is that the CBO is the servant of members of Congress, which means that if a Congressman asks it to analyze a plan under certain assumptions, it will do just that, no matter how unrealistic the assumptions may be. CBO will tell you what’s going on, but it will do so deadpan, doing nothing in terms of emphasis or placement to highlight the funny business.

So, if the CBO is asked to analyze a plan that calls for huge tax cuts but told by the Member of Congress that for the purpose of the analysis total federal tax revenues are assumed to equal those under current fiscal policy, the CBO will do just that. It will note the assumptions in its report, so one needs to be on the lookout for those notes.
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.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

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