[quote name='camoor']How do you expect to explain finances to a guy who thinks he is investing every time he buys a scratchoff from 7-11?[/QUOTE]
Good question...
[quote name='dohdough']The whole risk=taxes argument to so stupid to begin with irregardless. No one doesn't buy a lottery ticket because they'll get taxed on any winnings.[/QUOTE]
One wonders why it ever came up in the first place...
How do you expect to explain finances to a guy who thinks he is investing every time he buys a scratchoff from 7-11?[/QUOTE]
When have I ever brought up the damn lottery you dishonest prick? All of your friends here keep bringing up the lottery, and I agree it is a pretty stupid comparison.
[quote name='mykevermin']Federal tax revenue, 2000-2004, and 2008-2010. Both periods immediately effected by tax cuts.
Go find them and get back to us on that note, fraud.
EDIT: Cue hand wringing and unsophisticated claims of a lag effect in 3...2...1...[/QUOTE]
Hey guys, we're on a new page now, so it's cool. Knoell doesn't have to answer this. Statute of limitations and all that.
He can continue to assert that lowering taxes increases tax revenue. These data don't matter.
EDIT: Maybe in the future I should avoid responding for you? That way I get a response out of you, even if it's dishonest and predictable. Like your deep, insightful argument that "several factors" influence investing.
I am sure 9/11 and the recession had nothing to do with those two dips in revenue, (I sincerely hope you aren't going to blame either of those on low taxes, cause that would be entertaining but sad at the same time) but if you disagree explain the rise to where we have nearly ever seen revenue before.
[quote name='mykevermin']Hey guys, we're on a new page now, so it's cool. Knoell doesn't have to answer this. Statute of limitations and all that.
He can continue to assert that lowering taxes increases tax revenue. These data don't matter.
EDIT: Maybe in the future I should avoid responding for you? That way I get a response out of you, even if it's dishonest and predictable. Like your deep, insightful argument that "several factors" influence investing. [/QUOTE]
.......I was typing it up, keep your patience fool.
[quote name='Msut77']Knoell is known for being dishonest.
He will not give an answer.[/QUOTE]
You are the dishonest one. Have I explained my opinion on that to you? If looking it up in the threads wasn't such a pain in the ass I would find it for you. I'm not sure why we are even talking about Reagan right now.
Still waiting for someone to show me that increasing the capital gains tax will increase revenue. Show me anything, best we have so far from you is mykevermin's word on total revenue.
[quote name='Knoell']If your a rich guy and your tax rate is going to double and you are pretty decently ahead, you cash out your investments beforehand.[/QUOTE]
Then what, get a part time job at Subway?
[quote name='Knoell']One last time, maybe the 99th time it will hit you.
When you invest your money into the stock market, you do it based on the projected return you will get. If the return is going to be taxed at twice the rate it is now, you may not consider it worth it to invest(risk) so much of your money.[/quote]
Something about mitigating risk through diversification and how risk can be handling with various investing goals. It gets ignored anyway.
You guys completely ignore the money someone has to put in to invest. RedVsBlue said it perfectly, "the return is just free money". Each one of you have no concept of the fact that when you invest you are risking your money. What you plan on getting out of your investment is significantly reduced by taxation so that it may not be worth the risk of losing your original money if you aren't going to gain so much. Yes if you omit the risk of investing then it would make sense to invest regardless of the tax rate, however risk is often there, and rather bothersome.
Again more about mitigating risk through a diverse portfolio, maybe even something about gains and losses in that same portfolio and how they work together upon sale.
That is besides the fact that people are going to go on a selling spree as soon as its announced this will go up. Please argue that.
Bargains for investors that are scared like you and don't want to risk so much capital up front. Perfect opportunity for a penny ante investor to score some high yield dividend stocks on the cheap.
Apparently the wealthy (or anyone else who invests, despite mutual funds and such being driven by 401(k) investment that most people are doing) will now do something else entirely with their money since there's too much risk in the market with that pesky income tax rate. We still have no idea what, but I'm sure it'll eventually lead to flying cars or something.
But then again, the people who are throwing their "perception" of things without ANY statistics to back them up are criticizing me for saying what I say.
Your fear mongering crystal ball is vastly superior to any objective analysis of past trends. This much is clear.
What statistics do you want to see? We've come back to "taxes effect investment rates" here, and somehow or another the most iconic barometer of investment activity (the DJIA) going nowhere but up isn't enough. So then we decide that "market conditions and other factors" have more to do with it. This is much more correct. You could have a capital gains rate at 50% and enough stupid people will buy Face Book's upcoming IPO to distort numbers for a couple of days.
1. Show me the benefits of raising the tax.
2. Since you can't come up with any benefit besides increased revenue, show me something that says there will be increased revenue.
You won't. You will go on a rant of how you don't need to provide any evidence, your perception of this is good enough.
1.) More revenue by margin. You don't see that as a benefit so it's a moot point.
2.) I can't predict the future.
Part of what you ignored in thinking that the magic chart somehow supports your notion that more people buy in with a lower tax rate, is that your chart reflects sales and not investment. You're not going to understand this at all, so I'm not sure why I'm about to bother.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161
Still at your same link. Notice how 1977's $ collected is 7,870 (with the highest tax rate in modern history) and 2007's is 121,933? That's roughly an increase of 15.5x which is pretty much in line with the movement in the DJIA through the same time period.
Taxes don't have any discernable effect on investment.
knoell is puzzled by his reputation for dishonesty.[/QUOTE]
Here is another dishonest post by msut. If that website was not factual, then I am sure you could very easily find a government revenue by % of GDP chart that would show the errors right?
Your fear mongering crystal ball is vastly superior to any objective analysis of past trends. This much is clear.
What statistics do you want to see? We've come back to "taxes effect investment rates" here, and somehow or another the most iconic barometer of investment activity (the DJIA) going nowhere but up isn't enough. So then we decide that "market conditions and other factors" have more to do with it. This is much more correct. You could have a capital gains rate at 50% and enough stupid people will buy Face Book's upcoming IPO to distort numbers for a couple of days.
1.) More revenue by margin. You don't see that as a benefit so it's a moot point.
2.) I can't predict the future.
Part of what you ignored in thinking that the magic chart somehow supports your notion that more people buy in with a lower tax rate, is that your chart reflects sales and not investment. You're not going to understand this at all, so I'm not sure why I'm about to bother.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161
Still at your same link. Notice how 1977's $ collected is 7,870 (with the highest tax rate in modern history) and 2007's is 121,933? That's roughly an increase of 15.5x which is pretty much in line with the movement in the DJIA through the same time period.
Taxes don't have any discernable effect on investment.[/QUOTE]
When has the US government received the most revenue from the capital gains tax?
Is capital cheap right now?
Please answer those questions.
As for your comparison of 1977 to 2007, are you adjusting for inflation? Or is the expert financier using 1977 dollars to compare to 2007 dollars?
I am sure 9/11 and the recession had nothing to do with those two dips in revenue, (I sincerely hope you aren't going to blame either of those on low taxes, cause that would be entertaining but sad at the same time)[/quote]
Independent effects can be disaggregated, you know. So please show the individual effects of 9/11 on the economy relative to tax rates.
Also, use reliable data from a trustworthy source. Brookings Institute via OMB, not some whackjob with an agenda.
Federal tax revenue was down almost $100B (in constant dollars) from 2000-2001. $94.7B to be specific, a 4.7% decline in tax revenue. You can't claim that this all happened in the last three months of 2001 - moreover, if your assertion holds true (that tax cuts increase revenue), then the loss in the last three months due to 9/11 must have been even greater than 4.7%, because we'd have to offset your mythological gains due to tax cuts in the first three quarters of 2001. Are you truly insane and/or dishonest enough to claim that a >5% decline in tax revenue happened (1) in three months and (2) only because of 9/11?
Now, there are reasonable economic/social arguments for why 9/11 led to a sudden and enormous increase in expenditures, but what kind of preposterous logic will you use to claim that an attack on US soil had a negative impact on the economic activities that led to such a decline? Did you buy fewer lap dances than before because 9/11 made you sad?
but if you disagree explain the rise to where we have nearly ever seen revenue before.
[quote name='mykevermin']Also, use reliable data from a trustworthy source. Brookings Institute via OMB, not some whackjob with an agenda.[/QUOTE]
As much as I hate to quote Wikipedia directly... they have everything in such a tidy little bow...
Its largest contributors include the Ford Foundation, the Gates Foundation, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and her husband Richard C. Blum, Bank of America, ExxonMobil, Pew Charitable Trusts, the MacArthur Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation; and the governments of the United States, Japan, Qatar, Taipei, the District of Columbia, and the United Kingdom.
[quote name='Knoell']When has the US government received the most revenue from the capital gains tax?[/quote]
Based on what?
Taxes paid, looks like 2000 based on the magic chart. oops, the rate was higher then.
Based on % of GDP (wtf?! % of GDP?!) then that would be in 1986 according to your link. also a time when the rate was higher.
[quote name='Knoell']When have I ever brought up the damn lottery you dishonest prick? All of your friends here keep bringing up the lottery, and I agree it is a pretty stupid comparison.[/QUOTE]
lol don't pop a blood vessel!
PS you did post about the lottery. I can prove it. Stop being such a ing liar :lol:
[quote name='mykevermin']Independent effects can be disaggregated, you know. So please show the individual effects of 9/11 on the economy relative to tax rates.
Also, use reliable data from a trustworthy source. Brookings Institute via OMB, not some whackjob with an agenda.
Federal tax revenue was down almost $100B (in constant dollars) from 2000-2001. $94.7B to be specific, a 4.7% decline in tax revenue. You can't claim that this all happened in the last three months of 2001 - moreover, if your assertion holds true (that tax cuts increase revenue), then the loss in the last three months due to 9/11 must have been even greater than 4.7%, because we'd have to offset your mythological gains due to tax cuts in the first three quarters of 2001. Are you truly insane and/or dishonest enough to claim that a >5% decline in tax revenue happened (1) in three months and (2) only because of 9/11?
Now, there are reasonable economic/social arguments for why 9/11 led to a sudden and enormous increase in expenditures, but what kind of preposterous logic will you use to claim that an attack on US soil had a negative impact on the economic activities that led to such a decline? Did you buy fewer lap dances than before because 9/11 made you sad?
Pardon me for sounding like a Conservative Republican, but speak English like a goddamned American.[/QUOTE]
What specific tax cuts are you even talking about? Do you even know? The Bush tax cuts? Any economist will tell you 9/11 had an impact on the economy. I won't even bother with that nonsense.
And one more thing, if the Bush tax cuts were so devasting why did revenues increase again in 2004 until the recession in 2008ish. (in reality 2006 and 2007 were the best years of revenue in US history.) According to your source of course.
Question for ya. What happened in 1997? No problem I will answer for you.
Subject to certain phase-in rules, the top capital gains rate fell from 28% to 20%.
Yet with your statistics total revenues rose for 4 straight years after that. But lets use your statistics specifically for capital gains, (which it seems you were too lazy to click two links over).
I can keep going too, another cut created even more revenue for the government as well.
So I will ask again, if the reason we are increasing the capital gains tax is more revenue for the government, show me some type of statistic that shows this is true.
And one more thing, if the Bush tax cuts were so devasting why did revenues increase again in 2004 until the recession in 2008ish. (in reality 2006 and 2007 were the best years of revenue in US history.)
I would also like to point out and if anyone sees anything wrong with the outlays for the last 20 years compared to the rest of the 20th century?
[quote name='camoor']How is that typing coming :lol:[/QUOTE]
Seriously? And yes I may pop a blood vessel from the combination of stupidity and hilarity of this thread.
And by the way, I have never brought up the lottery, only responded to a hypothetical scenario your buddies posted. Another dishonest post huh? Going for a record Camoor?
Based on what?
Taxes paid, looks like 2000 based on the magic chart. oops, the rate was higher then.
Based on % of GDP (wtf?! % of GDP?!) then that would be in 1986 according to your link. also a time when the rate was higher.
Banana.
What does this even mean?
I just did, you're welcome.
So you do pay attention. Good.
So I'll reuse your magic chart. It's about 1/5th. What does that mean? What does the chart mean?[/QUOTE]
I will not lecture you on averages man. So instead I will ask you, which group of similiar amounts of years and tax rates, did the government take in more revenue?
1998 to 2003 at 20%
or
1987-1992 at 28%?
It is funny how the amount of revenue keeps changing with the rates, yet you won't accept that the rates are having any impact.
Nor will I lecture you on capital being cheap. As an investor you should most certainly understand that concept.
[quote name='Knoell']What specific tax cuts are you even talking about? Do you even know? The Bush tax cuts? Any economist will tell you 9/11 had an impact on the economy. I won't even bother with that nonsense.
And one more thing, if the Bush tax cuts were so devasting why did revenues increase again in 2004 until the recession in 2008ish. (in reality 2006 and 2007 were the best years of revenue in US history.) According to your source of course.[/QUOTE]
a) "I ain't got shit."
b) "I'm going to fall back on the old lag effect canard without actually admitting to it. Everyone knows that tax cuts increase revenue, and it's perfectly fine to look back after the fact and point to the first year revenues increased, whenever that happens to be, and say 'see, they work!' A conclusion in search of explanation is never a logical fallacy."
Lastly, these are not "my" statistics. They're OMB's. Don't attribute them to me because I find you using a source uncritically to be dubious, particularly when they're a source who, like you, have an angle to prove before you even begin investigating.
They're also not statistics. They're data. Data is what you use statistics on, but not the numbers themselves.
When you, like I asked you to do, decoupled the impact of tax rates from other of your "factors" (heh), then you can say you used statistics. When you break out some structural equation modeling to see what the effects are individually, then you can say statistics. You just have data that you're fumbling with the way a teenager fumbles with his first time - excitedly, clumsily, and very, very superficial and messy.
b) "I'm going to fall back on the old lag effect canard without actually admitting to it. Everyone knows that tax cuts increase revenue, and it's perfectly fine to look back after the fact and point to the first year revenues increased, whenever that happens to be, and say 'see, they work!' A conclusion in search of explanation is never a logical fallacy."
Lastly, these are not "my" statistics. They're OMB's. Don't attribute them to me because I find you using a source uncritically to be dubious, particularly when they're a source who, like you, have an angle to prove before you even begin investigating.
They're also not statistics. They're data. Data is what you use statistics on, but not the numbers themselves.
When you, like I asked you to do, decoupled the impact of tax rates from other of your "factors" (heh), then you can say you used statistics. When you break out some structural equation modeling to see what the effects are individually, then you can say statistics. You just have data that you're fumbling with the way a teenager fumbles with his first time - excitedly, clumsily, and very, very superficial and messy.[/QUOTE]
I wish there was a side step smiley you could have used.
Here's an idea, since you want to raise the capital gains tax, and the reasoning behind raising it is to increase revenue, why don't you bring some evidence to the table that it will increase revenue?
knoell if you acknowledge that he did both and you take into account revenue can rise due to inflation and population growth etc. What point do you think you are making?
You herp derp'd your way through the summary, didn't you? It doesn't impact the decision to invest or not invest, but it does impact whether or not people execute their holdings (so as to collect on said investments).
Now, some decades later, since we have people whose *sole income* derives from capital gains, any holding effect (as noted in the study) is likely to be offset by people who have to cash in. You can braise a turkey, but you can't braise a stock certificate.
People who can afford to hold perhaps will. Since there are so many who can not afford to (i.e., those who don't actually *work* or get an *income*), they will have to cash out to some degree.
That's the point. I know you don't get it because you benefit from being a willful dumb, but that is truly as complex as it needs to be.
I will read the study when I get a chance, however the summary doesn't give you a lot of hope.
Yesterday, 12:17 PM
[quote name='Knoell'].......I was typing it up, keep your patience fool.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='camoor']How is that typing coming :lol:[/QUOTE]
Today, 05:43 AM
[quote name='Knoell']What specific tax cuts are you even talking about? Do you even know? The Bush tax cuts? Any economist will tell you 9/11 had an impact on the economy. I won't even bother with that nonsense.
And one more thing, if the Bush tax cuts were so devasting why did revenues increase again in 2004 until the recession in 2008ish. (in reality 2006 and 2007 were the best years of revenue in US history.) According to your source of course.
Question for ya. What happened in 1997? No problem I will answer for you.
Yet with your statistics total revenues rose for 4 straight years after that. But lets use your statistics specifically for capital gains, (which it seems you were too lazy to click two links over).
I can keep going too, another cut created even more revenue for the government as well.
So I will ask again, if the reason we are increasing the capital gains tax is more revenue for the government, show me some type of statistic that shows this is true.
And one more thing, if the Bush tax cuts were so devasting why did revenues increase again in 2004 until the recession in 2008ish. (in reality 2006 and 2007 were the best years of revenue in US history.)
I would also like to point out and if anyone sees anything wrong with the outlays for the last 20 years compared to the rest of the 20th century?[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Msut77']knoell if you acknowledge that he did both and you take into account revenue can rise due to inflation and population growth etc. What point do you think you are making?[/QUOTE]
I account for inflation.
Population growth is an interesting argument for the difference in capital gains revenue, I will grant you that. However realized gains as a percent of GDP skip and jump but are relatively similiar which isn't very indicative of population changes. I would be interested to see census data though.
I will not lecture you on averages man. So instead I will ask you, which group of similiar amounts of years and tax rates, did the government take in more revenue?
1998 to 2003 at 20%
or
1987-1992 at 28%?
It is funny how the amount of revenue keeps changing with the rates, yet you won't accept that the rates are having any impact.[/quote]
You're attempting to establish a link that simply isn't there. This all started with me saying that taxes have little to no effect on the decision to invest. You counter that with the magic chart, which is actually a different statement by you, that "lower tax rates cause an increase in revenue" which is true if you look at this in the simple way. What it doesn't do is prove the negative in that "had the tax rate remained the same, people would not have sold" which can't be proven either way. You're confusing when to sell with deciding to invest in the 1st place, which is a misnomer considering when to sell insists that you "bought in" in the 1st place.
Then there's the notion of whether or not it is good for "the market" to have so much turnover (meaning volatility).
Nor will I lecture you on capital being cheap. As an investor you should most certainly understand that concept.
[quote name='Knoell']You are the dishonest one. Have I explained my opinion on that to you? If looking it up in the threads wasn't such a pain in the ass I would find it for you. I'm not sure why we are even talking about Reagan right now.
Still waiting for someone to show me that increasing the capital gains tax will increase revenue. Show me anything, best we have so far from you is mykevermin's word on total revenue.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Knoell']Here is another dishonest post by msut. If that website was not factual, then I am sure you could very easily find a government revenue by % of GDP chart that would show the errors right?
You won't. Again.
[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Knoell']Do I have to quote you my response to mykevermin just like I did for Camoor, jesus christ I gave you more credit than that.
Here is a hint, post #508. I take the stupid posts and respond to them first while I consider what nonsense one of you are speaking next.[/QUOTE]
Usually when someone says, "give me a minute, I'm typing something up" it would indicate they are working on a long, well thought out post. My dog could have posted those 2 quick sentences, and I don't even have a dog.
"The blind trust is an age-old ruse. You give a blind trust rules. You can say to a blind trust, don’t invest in properties which would be in conflict of interest or where the seller might think they’re going to get an advantage from me."
-Mitt Romney, in a 1994 debate in which he attacked Ted Kennedy for using a blind trust.
[quote name='Knoell']I account for inflation.[/quote]
Where?
Anyway just so we are clear on this, you are going to look at the extra taxes and even the social security trust fund (created during the Reagan and used to the holes the tax cuts left) and not change your position?
[quote name='Knoell']Population growth is an interesting argument for the difference in capital gains revenue, I will grant you that. However realized gains as a percent of GDP skip and jump but are relatively similiar which isn't very indicative of population changes. I would be interested to see census data though.[/QUOTE]
I would suggest that an aging population has more to do with it than a growing population. The 401(k) showed up in the 80's and roughly 60% of workers at, or nearing, retirement age have one.
One could also assume that people bailing on their 401(k) to pay the mortgage might move the needle a bit as well.
The other big picture part of increased CG based revenue these days is the general size of "the market". There's more people making more transactions and with all the "bucket" investing going on there's just more movement which will generate more CG revenue by default, despite market performance.
Anyway just so we are clear on this, you are going to look at the extra taxes and even the social security trust fund (created during the Reagan and used to the holes the tax cuts left) and not change your position?[/QUOTE]
I have always accounted for inflation. Point somewhere I haven't and I will correct it.
I am not understanding why you keep going on about Reagan.
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Usually when someone says, "give me a minute, I'm typing something up" it would indicate they are working on a long, well thought out post. My dog could have posted those 2 quick sentences, and I don't even have a dog.[/QUOTE]
Did I say give me a minute?
Also are you sure you are even quoting the right post, or even the right person?
Maybe take a few steps back look at the times of the correct posts, and see where you made your mistake.
If you need me to explain it to you, just keep trying to attack me.
[quote name='perdition(troy']Sounding pompous doesn't always further your cause. You catch more flies with honey, not vinegar.[/QUOTE]
I'm glad you've referred to yourself and Knoell as flies. Buzzing, annoying, irritable flies. Pulling UncleBob under that bus with yourself as well or you 2 goin' at it alone?
(I sincerely hope you aren't going to blame either of those on low taxes, cause that would be entertaining but sad at the same time) but if you disagree explain the rise to where we have nearly ever seen revenue before.
ing liar :lol: