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.
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.
...
Yeah, the idea that ANYONE with more a half a brain is going to forego a chance to make money simply because he/she will have to pay more taxes is just plain stoooooopid - and yet people here repeat that nonsense ALL THE TIME - which is simply a reminder that half the population is of below average intelligence.
Why don't you write Buffet and ask him who would be more efficient at creating wealth, increasing the GDP and increasing jobs with his money? Him, or the government?
I think you already know the answer to that because of what Buffet plans to do with his wealth when he dies. Eighty-five percent of it is going to private foundations and 5/6ths of that going to the Gates Foundation (who will be sending that overseas for the most part). What does he plan to donate to the government?
By the way, I never said rich people who profit from capital gains will just throw their hands up and give up if taxes are raised on their capital gains. I'm simply saying that they have a far better capacity to grow the economy than bureaucrats in government do.
Ten million dollars in taxes or $10 million in reinvestment? Ten million dollars in lavish parties for IRS agents or $10 million in reinvestment? Ten million dollars to research shrimp on treadmills or $10 million in reinvestment? Ten million dollars in presidential suites for IRS agents or $10 million in reinvestment?
It's pretty simple actually. This does not mean I don't think there could be some tweaks to capital gains taxes. I certainly think it's stupid to tax them only when they're realized. That doesn't allow for efficient flow of capital and it tends to "lock-in" those investments which I think stifles risk taking.
So, your attempt to answer me with something I never proposed fails on its face and at all other levels.
Last edited by BigJon3475; 06-04-2013 at 05:29 PM..
Actually what we've learned is that following the austerity measures as advocated by the now discredited study authored by economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff have been responsible for higher levels of national debt, and lower if not declining rates of growth.
Actually what we've learned is that following the austerity measures as advocated by the now discredited study authored by economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff have been responsible for higher levels of national debt, and lower if not declining rates of growth.
Yeah, those 2 bozos published their study that pushed for austerity measures, wingnut types in Europe cited it as evidence that government spending had to be reduced in order to make things better, government spending was curtailed - but rather than make things BETTER, it made things WORSE - THEN it was determined that those 2 authors had made a computational error (which even THEY now admit) and that their conclusions about how much debt load an economy can handle were just plain WRONG - but in the meantime MILLIONS of people lost jobs and benefits - plunging the European economy off a cliff because of stooopid wingnut mentality.
And wingnut types on THIS very board are constantly pushing for the same kind of dumb policies - even AFTER austerity has been shown to have been a COMPLETE DISASTER in Europe.
Yeah, those 2 bozos published their study that pushed for austerity measures, wingnut types in Europe cited it as evidence that government spending had to be reduced in order to make things better, government spending was curtailed - but rather than make things BETTER, it made things WORSE - THEN it was determined that those 2 authors had made a computational error (which even THEY now admit) and that their conclusions about how much debt load an economy can handle were just plain WRONG - but in the meantime MILLIONS of people lost jobs and benefits - plunging the European economy off a cliff because of stooopid wingnut mentality.
And wingnut types on THIS very board are constantly pushing for the same kind of dumb policies - even AFTER austerity has been shown to have been a COMPLETE DISASTER in Europe.
Ken
Quote:
In countries inside our outside the euro area under a EU- IMF programme, efforts have been taken by the governments concerned and the troïka (Commission, IMF, ECB) to embed equity considerations in fiscal adjustment plans. Tax measures have focused on higher income brackets, and cuts in government wages or social benefits have often spared the lowest income levels. In some of the countries, the internal and external imbalances were so large and deep rooted that radical choices had to be considered to rebuild their economic and policy credibility.
I just thought I'd bring that up because you seem to be under the (false) impression that what the EU is doing is somehow the opposite of what you and your fellow liberals have been calling for.
Actually what we've learned is that following the austerity measures as advocated by the now discredited study authored by economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff have been responsible for higher levels of national debt, and lower if not declining rates of growth.
But he denied that the flawed Harvard paper had played an important role in shaping the European Union’s economic policies. “We don’t base our economic policy on a single piece of research,” Mr. Rehn said. He added that the basic premise that high debts should be avoided still held up even if the precise danger threshold identified by Ms. Reinhart and Mr. Rogoff had now been put in question.
One of Mr. Rehn’s most prominent critics has been Paul Krugman, a Nobel winner in economic science and Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times who in a February blog post described the commissioner’s three-year stewardship of European Union economic policy as a “Rehn of Terror.” Mr. Rehn complained that “American commentators often think that Europe is the mirror image of the United States.”
Though accused by Mr. Krugman and others of ignoring the lessons of the Great Depression and the policy prescriptions of Keynes, Mr. Rehn noted that a book he published last year in Finland, “Eye of the Storm,” has nearly 20 references to Keynes but only two to Milton Friedman, the monetarist economist celebrated by many fans of austerity, and just one to Friedrich August von Hayek, Keynes’s great theoretical rival, who scorned the notion that government intervention in the economy could create anything but trouble.
So, apparently, you were (falsely) led to believe that you had some sort of Austrian economist running the EU and that he put all his eggs in R&R basket. Not to worry, we've all be wrong at some point in our lives. How do you get back up if you've never fallen?
Why don't you write Buffet and ask him who would be more efficient at creating wealth, increasing the GDP and increasing jobs with his money? Him, or the government?
I think you already know the answer to that because of what Buffet plans to do with his wealth when he dies. Eighty-five percent of it is going to private foundations and 5/6ths of that going to the Gates Foundation (who will be sending that overseas for the most part). What does he plan to donate to the government?
By the way, I never said rich people who profit from capital gains will just throw their hands up and give up if taxes are raised on their capital gains. I'm simply saying that they have a far better capacity to grow the economy than bureaucrats in government do.
Ten million dollars in taxes or $10 million in reinvestment? Ten million dollars in lavish parties for IRS agents or $10 million in reinvestment? Ten million dollars to research shrimp on treadmills or $10 million in reinvestment? Ten million dollars in presidential suites for IRS agents or $10 million in reinvestment?
It's pretty simple actually. This does not mean I don't think there could be some tweaks to capital gains taxes. I certainly think it's stupid to tax them only when they're realized. That doesn't allow for efficient flow of capital and it tends to "lock-in" those investments which I think stifles risk taking.
So, your attempt to answer me with something I never proposed fails on its face and at all other levels.
First, he spells his name with two Tees, as in "Buffett."
Second, we all know that Buffett is very good at growing his own wealth. Whether that means his wealth collection aids the general good, increases GDP, or creates new jobs is not so certain. Buffett makes his money by buying successful companies, such as GEICO, and their profits then flow to Berkshire Hathaway instead of the former owners. Buffett has made it clear he doesn't get involved in interfering with management in those successful companies, because they've proven to be successful. So what is the value added when Buffett buys a company? I see no particular macro economic gain.
Moreover, there is no thinking that supports your belief that a good businessman is also good for the population as a whole. A businessman can slash his workforce in half, produce about the same as before, and be considered a big success; an economy that does the same plunges into depression, and ends up not being able to sell its goods.
Your comparison of ten million in taxes compared to ten million in investment, is equally half baked -- unless tax money is taken to an open field and burned. Tax money doesn't disappear. It does flow back to the economy as demand, which creates jobs. Tax money goes mainly to, transfer payments like Social Security and payment to doctors, through Medicare and Medicaid; military payroll and military contractors and interest payments on U.S. bonds, who are mainly other Americans. Those expenditures are every bit part of the macro economy as Buffett's investments.
The fallacy that you employ is the belief that money spent by government is not as worthwhile as money spent in the private economy. That's just wrong. Demand is demand. I would gather that $1,000 spent on public education is at least as good as an investment as $1,000 spent on a lap dancer.
[url]
So, apparently, you were (falsely) led to believe that you had some sort of Austrian economist running the EU and that he put all his eggs in R&R basket. Not to worry, we've all be wrong at some point in our lives. How do you get back up if you've never fallen?
I've been wondering when the socialist turd in the WH will take us to war in Syria. How the resident turds will excuse it.
Man, can you read English? Do you know what this thread's about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob
No, pretty much a clear example of excessive austerity policies.
Sure, if a large portion of the working force is employed by the government. But the fact that the private sector does not invest and expand, says something about Western European economies. After all, they are investing elsewhere...
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
Yeah, those 2 bozos published their study that pushed for austerity measures, wingnut types in Europe cited it as evidence that government spending had to be reduced in order to make things better, government spending was curtailed - but rather than make things BETTER, it made things WORSE - THEN it was determined that those 2 authors had made a computational error (which even THEY now admit) and that their conclusions about how much debt load an economy can handle were just plain WRONG - but in the meantime MILLIONS of people lost jobs and benefits - plunging the European economy off a cliff because of stooopid wingnut mentality.
And wingnut types on THIS very board are constantly pushing for the same kind of dumb policies - even AFTER austerity has been shown to have been a COMPLETE DISASTER in Europe.
Ken
What does better mean? In this case, better meant that these European countries budgets could be balanced. Otherwise, they could default, go bankrupt and nobody would invest or loan them any money! In Greece they got to the point they could not further pay their debts and could not pay salaries to government workers. "Better" meant that the state could go on doing business. It did not mean lower consumer prices, high employment and expansion of social programs, (if that's what you refer to by better).
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.
