Forget about the family making $250Gs

[tk2kewl]

People who make hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars a year and don't get a W4 are the ones that really need to be taxed.

[Creative]

1. Are you suggesting that these people do not pay taxes?

[tk2kewl]

2. the ones who make it all off of invetments?

I am saying, not suggesting, that they pay far too little in taxes!

[Creative]

4. That is not true.

1. Currently net capital gain is generally taxed at 15%.

2. The taxable part of a gain from selling Section 1202 qualified small business stock is taxed at a maximum 28% rate.

3. Net capital gain from selling collectibles (such as coins or art) is taxed at a maximum 28% rate.

4. The part of any net capital gain from selling Section 1250 real property that is required to be recaptured in excess of straight-line depreciation is taxed at a maximum 25% rate.

[Motown_Johnny]

8. exactly ! 15% to 28% is far to little !

Thanks for proving our point

[Creative]

10. If the reward for putting capital at risk is reduced, less capital will be put at risk.

Remember, you don't have to be that good of a shot to shoot yourself in the foot.

[Cronus Protagonist]

12. Great! Maybe these rich bastards will BUY something instead

That might even help the country by EMPLOYING a few people.

[BrklynLiberal]

16. +1000 So much for that "trickle down" crap

[Creative]

19. Actually, if you think about it, you just recommended the theory of "trickle down."

[n2doc]

13. What do you think they will do with it?

Bury it in the ground? Buy a bunch of gold and stick in in a huge safe? Because frankly, they aren't "putting it at risk" now. Lowering of CG taxes has done nothing for business creation in this country, and nothing for jobs growth. Money left in bonds, or put into a hedge fund trading stocks, does nothing for the economy. Take your RW arguments elsewhere. Capital has always considered risk/reward, Will always choose some risk for some reward, and this changes nothing.

[MilesColtrane]

18. Exactly

How many jobs are being created by derivatives and short selling?

[Creative]

20. Trusts, off-shore accounts, etc. Self-preservation is everyone's objective.

It is not RW to want the best for everybody.

1. When people sell capital, the sale allows the investor to move capital from less productive investments to more productive ones. Thus, the economy grows faster.

2. Investments in bonds allow municipalities to borrow for capital improvements, etc.

[n2doc]

37. They do that anyway

ANY tax level is too much for some. Close the loopholes. And people invest in bonds to make money with less risk. They will do so anyway, and even more so if taxes are higher as many munis are tax free.

[unblock]

14. this is an oft-repeated, but patently false statement.

part of the reason is that hoarding wealth serves little purpose; the wealthy will invest no matter what the tax rates are. tax rates may SHIFT investment strategies, but they won't END them.

LABOR can be affected by high tax rates, but not, so much, WEALTH. LABOR might chose leisure, retirement, or stay-at-home parenting if tax rates are too high. but wealth is gonna do SOMETHING no matter what. only hyperinflation will cause it to live under the mattress.

more to the point is that as tax rates go up, risk goes DOWN in the sense that your losses lower your taxes by a larger amount as well. at the margins, if you have $100 to invest and the tax rate is 70%, then if your investment goes up 100%, you pocket net $3; if you lose 100%, then you lose only $30 because you claim a capital loss. so the swing is +/- $30. with capital gains taxes at 28%, the swing is +/- $72. so investing that $100 is LESS RISKY when tax rates are HIGHER.

yes, at the moment, capital losses are limited to $3,0000, with any excess carried forward, but as long as you have other capital gains to offset the losses, this limit is not relevant.


history has confirmed that high tax rates are not an impediment to investment.

[Creative]

22. Wrong. Self-preservation has a major influence on people's behavior.

Why not let people invest their money as they see fit, rather than letting politicians spend it to enhance their own power?

$107,000 to study the sex life of the Japanese quail.
$1.2 million to study the breeding habits of the woodchuck.
$150,000 to study the Hatfield-McCoy feud.
$84,000 to find out why people fall in love.
$1 million to study why people don't ride bikes to work.
$19 million to examine gas emissions from cow flatulence.
$144,000 to see if pigeons follow human economic laws.
Funds to study the cause of rudeness on tennis courts and examine smiling patterns in bowling alleys.
$219,000 to teach college students how to watch television.
$2 million to construct an ancient Hawaiian canoe.
$20 million for a demonstration project to build wooden bridges.
$160,000 to study if you can hex an opponent by drawing an X on his chest.
$800,000 for a restroom on Mt. McKinley.
$100,000 to study how to avoid falling spacecraft.
$16,000 to study the operation of the komungo, a Korean stringed instrument.
$1 million to preserve a sewer in Trenton, NJ, as a historic monument.
$6,000 for a document on Worcestershire sauce.
$10,000 to study the effect of naval communications on a bull's potency.
$100,000 to research soybean-based ink.
$1 million for a Seafood Consumer Center.
$57,000 spent by the Executive Branch for gold-embossed playing cards on Air Force Two.

[unblock]

23. now you're flying off on a big tangent

wasteful spending (and in trivial amounts, in the context of a budget around a trillion dollars) is nearly entirely unrelated to marginal income or capital gains tax rates. there's plenty of waste in the private sector as well, and the vast majority of government spending is hardly wasteful (even if some of us would like to tinker with the particulars).

in any event this has nothing to do with private investment in response to tax rates.

[Creative]

27. I have no problem with private waste, e.g., my wife says I "waste" money on cigars.

It's one thing for the government to waste money when they are rolling in the dough (Clinton), and quite another when they are cutting programs that seniors and the poor depend on for their very existence.

Wait until you see the effect of Obama's tax cuts. Perhaps then you will be convinced.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/90xx/doc9076/05-02-TaxRevenues.pdf

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. So you also have problems with scientific and historic research

you call that waste.

We should also stop funding schools and universities and the NIH I guess. It is waste after all.

Oh and perhaps get rid of the NEA too?

:sarcasm:

[Creative]

29. Here is an example of your scientific and historic research...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/21/ark-encounter-creationist-theme-park_n_799603.html

Yes, I say, cut it to the bone.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Welcome to THIRD WORLD COUNTRY STATUS

that by the way is exactly what trickle down you love so much has done.

[Creative]

33. Yes, that is fedgov stimulus "trickle down."

Now, I understand your philosophy very well.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. Tell me, you seriously think IBM would have invested

the seed money to get three universities to communicate back in the day?

You really think so?

FYI that was ARPANET, and that is why you are and I are having this conversation. That is the reality, some basic research that companies will never invest in, become like important and shit later on. We call this one the World Wide Web... aka the "Internet."

Go educate yourself as to how much GUVMENT FUNDED research leads to basic technologies YOU BENEFIT FROM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET

Start there.

[unblock]

38. ironically, ibm once WAS a big investor in basic research

as was bell labs. of course, there were usually government grants involved, so it wasn't entirely privately paid, and also there was the hope that the basic research would lead to profitable patents, something that bell labs was absolutely brilliant at generating.

but eventually, greater scrutiny by short-term financial thinkers led to viewing basic research as "waste" and nowadays virtually nobody in the private sector does big-time basic research the way they once did.

this is why they need the government to do crazy things like put a man on the moon, so all sorts of things can be invented and discovered at public expense and then innovated to the masses for private gain.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Yep but Bell Labs was almost completely financed

by you and me, like NIH... and you are correct, if NIH was not public, short term gains means screeching halt to research.

Why Bell Labs used to pay back to the government for those grants in fairly high taxes,

[unblock]

32. you seem to think there's some benefit in having a link, even if it goes to nowhere

or to something irrelevant.

[Creative]

34. Sorry, it's fixed--and it is relevant.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/21/ark-encounter-creationist-theme-park_n_799603.html

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. That is the STATE OF KENTUCKY not the FEDS

and they are doing that because people like you think we should kill all educational funding. Population is so dumbed down that they will aprove of that, but not of BASIC SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. But alas, for an idiocy like that, there are plenty more BASIC grants that actually ARE IMPORTNAT, see my very relevant example about the Word Wide Web and Arpanet above. Without it, you'd never be able to post that link.

[Creative]

40. It is fedgov "stimulus" funding.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Ok so we have some waste

you telling me we should stop NIH funding too?

What about Roads? Railroads? You hate any spending from the government even when ALL OBJECTIVE data shows it is quite good at yes... STIMULATING.

IT is because it is the FEDS RIGHT? It is government, therefore it is bad, and evil and we should all do all by ourselves. You got a toll road going to your home? What about your own water purification plant? Checking your food at the point of origin for safety? What about checking planes before you bard them? I mean you also are working 20 hour days these days aren't you? (The hard dream of the hard right).

I could go on. but I think you are really and truly at the wrong place to complaint about evil guv'ment spending.

[Creative]

43. I am not opposed to spending money on *legitimate* research; however, we can no longer afford

to waste money that we borrow from the Chinese on things that simply buy power for politicians. Furthermore, governments do not have rights, they have powers that "we the people" grant them.

I do not have a toll road leading to my house; however, every time I fill up, I pay for the roads I drive on via the tax on gasoline.

In fact, we should probably make a move in the direction of more "user fees" like the gasoline tax. That way, those so-called rich people in their SUV's will pay their fair share.

Something must be done to end the lunacy. For we can no longer afford the waste.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. You realize ARPANET research on things like the early web

were seen as waste? RIGHT?

[unblock]

31. waste is waste, and the public/private distinction is largely a canard.

if a company squanders millions making a bad bet on the markets, giving overly cushy executive compensation/perks, or just buying a whole lot of cigars, this translates into a lower stock price and possibly more fundamental problems which can affect many people who weren't in on the decision to waste money.

and i wouldn't say making a small dent in the national debt during the clinton years was "rolling in the dough". that's what we're supposed to do when times are good. they only looked great in comparison to the ridiculous deficits before and after, and "waste" was a trivial component in that equation, unless you want to count a large chunk of military spending.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Oh that CANARD from economic theory

you know that this is a staple of supply siders, RIGHT?

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. You do know that the US Economy was doing just

dandy in the 1950s.

We had unions.

We had factories

We had a mixed economy

And we had a very high capital gains tax.

What did they do? They INVESTED in the country.

Who'd thunk!

[Creative]

24. Actually, Clinton proved that lowering capital gains, increases revenues to the government.

Everyone talks about change. I say, change it back to Clinton.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/90xx/doc9076/05-02-TaxRevenues.pdf

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. I got no issue going back to Clinton's rates

but even those are NOT POLITICALLY ACCEPTABLE.

Still, you are missing the point... purposely. If they have high capital gains taxes, they tend to invest in actual buildings and PEOPLE. Trickle down economics, has failed repeatedly... whether it is the 1870s, the 1920s or NOW.

We know it does NOT work... for the overall health of the nation... why keep doing the same shit?

[Hannah Bell]

39. cap gains rates = 0% - 5% -15% depending on details.

this year estate tax = 0%.

[sinkingfeeling]

7. I'm with you.

[n2doc]

3. I am

http://www.keytlaw.com/blog/2010/02/owner-of-la-dodgers/

read it and weep.

[Creative]

5. The actual link (within your link) appears to be dead.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik24-2010feb24,0,5865964.column

[bergie321]

6. Capital Gains Taxes

Are a giant scam. How are they not income?

[Little Star]

9. That is the million dollar question. n/t

[valerief]

11. Tax the investor class? That's unheard of!!!!! nt

[unblock]

15. agreed. MUCH economic dislocation is created by treating different income differently

they have created incentives for executives to shift compensation to be in the form of options & stock instead of salary, which, in turn, has caused them to play a game of neglect and damage a company, renegotiate, then hit the accelerator, selll out, then repeat.

[BrklynLiberal]

17. Capital Gains income needs to be taxed like ordinary income.

It once was....