Romney and the tax thing

[quote name='Knoell']Name your definition of evenly.[/QUOTE]

Basically, individuals will get taxed at the same progressive rate however they make money - two examples would be working a 9-to-5 job or investing wisely (IE buying low and selling high)
 
This is all a red herring.

If there's a profit to be made on something (labor, sales, investments), the tax rate should not be considered in whether or not the action is performed.

Given the choice between sitting on money and it moving virtually nowhere (i.e., today's savings rates) and doing something (anything) that will net you a return of some degree, any genuinely hedonistic person (i.e., any person who considers themselves a capitalist) would do the latter, 100% of the time.

The failure to do so is to pull back the curtain on the myth of Adam Smith's capitalist philosophy. When you suggest that people would rather hold on, stingily, to their money than do something with it to net a profit because someone else might derive a benefit (i.e., increasing capital gains tax rates will deter people from investing because the profits won't be *big enough* and some poor sack of fuck somewhere might get a lunk of government cheese), then you have willed away the entire philosophy of capitalism.

You've taken the silly maxim of "a rising tide raises all ships" and said "no, fuck your ships!"

You've defeated capitalism and replaced it with some peculiar hybrid of feudalism in which we replace fiefdoms with Quiznos franchises. Way to go, pal.
 
[quote name='Knoell']The left is the true master of scare tactics.
[/QUOTE]
I laughed so hard I thought I was going to faint.:rofl:
 
did you pick Quizno's because they're dying?

You've also stumbled on the simply point-counterpoint that RW Radio uses, in that if you increase taxes you removes the incentive to make money because it's "punishment". Well, if the purpose of making money is to make more money, do you think someone will simply stop making money because they're not making enough more money? No, they'll try harder to make more money so they have more more money. It's absolutely retarded and really shows how much of a house of cards the logic of the financial neo-cons shows itself to be. They use the "you have to try harder to make more money" on the poor and flip it to "these people that make a lot of money sure have it rough" which is pretty absurd and almost, just almost, sounds like everyone should make $100k a year...

Of course you take the flip-side of the nutty lefty version of tax policy and it's basically "wealthy people are evil, well, only the ones we don't like that is" and do nothing to either A.) make large gains for themselves B.) live in such a way that the evil rich people don't continue their income streams etc...
 
Nah. I ate at a Quizno's once and it was terrible. It reminds me of suffering. That's, perhaps, why my brain associated it with a fiefdom.

That said, the greatest illogic of the GOP when it comes to money is the undying reverence for the free market. The simple underlying point they never argue against is this: the outcomes of the free market are fair because they are the outcomes of the free market.

All of the GOP's fiscal ideology rests on a circular argument.

*sigh*
 
Quizno's used to be pretty damn good, but they've went way down hill the past few years. Have raised prices and lowered quality.

Anyway, I agree 100% it's a red herring. Look how much investing, and the economy as a whole, grew over the post world war 2 to Reagan years when taxes were much higher. Wealthy are always going to invest as having your money make some money is better than it making non as Myke notes. And before the middle class shrunk, there was more investment from that segment of society who had more extra money to put into stocks etc.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']That said, the greatest illogic of the GOP when it comes to money is the undying reverence for the free market. The simple underlying point they never argue against is this: the outcomes of the free market are fair because they are the outcomes of the free market.

All of the GOP's fiscal ideology rests on a circular argument.

*sigh*[/QUOTE]

It may take a while, but out-of-control dogmas eventually get run over by karma.
 
You are all a bunch of idiots. I am sorry. You act as if the US is the bottom line investment, as if these people can't or won't move their money elsewhere. Ignoring that historically revenue goes down when you increase this tax, the estimated gain in tax revenue is relatively tiny, so the most you get out of it is the glory of taking that much more from the rich. You all put so much effort into convincing people that if just this changed their dreams will come true. It is disgusting really.

As for us flourishing when taxes were high, do your own damn investigative work to figure out exactly what was higher, why, and the effects. You will be surprised.
 
[quote name='camoor']Basically, individuals will get taxed at the same progressive rate however they make money - two examples would be working a 9-to-5 job or investing wisely (IE buying low and selling high)[/QUOTE]

So you are saying we should all get taxed the same?

Or that we should draw a magic line in the sand of what is a fair amount of wealth?

Let's hear it Camoor, let's hear your tax policy. Don't leave out any of the sweet, sweet, details.
 
[quote name='Knoell']You are all a bunch of idiots. I am sorry. You act as if the US is the bottom line investment, as if these people can't or won't move their money elsewhere. Ignoring that historically revenue goes down when you increase this tax, the estimated gain in tax revenue is relatively tiny, so the most you get out of it is the glory of taking that much more from the rich. You all put so much effort into convincing people that if just this changed their dreams will come true. It is disgusting really.

As for us flourishing when taxes were high, do your own damn investigative work to figure out exactly what was higher, why, and the effects. You will be surprised.[/QUOTE]

Incredible.
 
[quote name='Knoell']You are all a bunch of idiots. I am sorry. You act as if the US is the bottom line investment, as if these people can't or won't move their money elsewhere. Ignoring that historically revenue goes down when you increase this tax, the estimated gain in tax revenue is relatively tiny, so the most you get out of it is the glory of taking that much more from the rich. You all put so much effort into convincing people that if just this changed their dreams will come true. It is disgusting really.

As for us flourishing when taxes were high, do your own damn investigative work to figure out exactly what was higher, why, and the effects. You will be surprised.[/QUOTE]

Ahh the good ol' you do the research for my argument. You've turned it into an art-form Knoell, truly, spectacular work.

[quote name='dmaul1114']http://content.usatoday.com/communi...s-but-not-oil-pipeline/1?loc=interstitialskip

A poll shows that 65% support the Buffet Rule--minimum tax of 30% on people making over $1 million.[/QUOTE]

So, according to Knoell then, if it passes 35% of the population will be moving away from America. Wait, I wonder where they're gonna go? :whistle2:k
 
Knoell, let's take the tech bubble as a starting point shall we?
What was higher?
1.) Income tax brackets
2.) Capital gains & dividends
3.) Luxury tax
Why was it higher?
1.) Because we had the same tax rates since Reagan?
Effects
1.) No adverse side effects. Large amounts of investment in a burgeoning field, DESPITE those fiendish high taxes.

Post tax reductions
What is higher?
1.) The tax burden on lower and middle incomes
Why?
1.) Tax breaks at the highest levels of income incongruent with those at the lower levels. Long story short, the Friedman failure cubed.
Effect
1.) Prolonged recession that is actually a depression but politicians are too afraid to admit it.

I'm not terribly surprised to be honest.

The gain in tax revenues may be relatively tiny, but put it this way since I know the (R) crowd loves to use microeconomics to solve macroeconomics. You know that deal where they say "what do you do when your family needs to tighten its belt in this rough economy? You reduce your spending!" You know what you should also do? Get a side job delivering papers, washing dishes, waiting tables, mowing lawns, etc... You also INCREASE your income while DECREASING your spending. That delta then gets put towards paying your bills or building your savings. Either way, the solution isn't one or the other, it's BOTH.

Show me empirical evidence in the last 100yrs where ultra low tax rates spur macroeconomic growth. Not even just the US, you can go global. Show me evidence of high tax rates being a burden to the GDP.
You will not, because you cannot.
 
[quote name='Knoell']So you are saying we should all get taxed the same?

Or that we should draw a magic line in the sand of what is a fair amount of wealth?

Let's hear it Camoor, let's hear your tax policy. Don't leave out any of the sweet, sweet, details.[/QUOTE]

Neither. Progressive tax applied evenly across all types of income.

Anyway you gave me your answer - you're scared the rich will leave the US.

Where are they going to go? Where is this mythical place with no taxes, no government interference, and boundless profit-making opportunities for the man with capital? Please let me know.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']"A poll shows that the majority of people who don't make over $1 million support higher taxes on those who make over $1 million."[/QUOTE]

That's refreshing.
 
[quote name='camoor']Where are they going to go? Where is this mythical place with no taxes, no government interference, and boundless profit-making opportunities for the man with capital? Please let me know.[/QUOTE]

Somalia?
 
Oh, sure, pick a place in the real world to indulge knoell's bootlicking our-corporate-overlords-will-spurn-economic-policy-and-we-shouldn't-hold-them-criminally-liable-for-that mentality.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The failure to do so is to pull back the curtain on the myth of Adam Smith's capitalist philosophy. When you suggest that people would rather hold on, stingily, to their money than do something with it to net a profit because someone else might derive a benefit (i.e., increasing capital gains tax rates will deter people from investing because the profits won't be *big enough* and some poor sack of fuck somewhere might get a lunk of government cheese), then you have willed away the entire philosophy of capitalism.[/QUOTE]
Everything you've said is true, but it's even worse than that when you consider the market distorting effects of income in certain places getting subsidies. When we're talking about literally half the tax rate, you're going to have fucking wild market distortions as people rush to take advantage. That's exactly how massive bubbles are formed and "capitalists" should be on the forefront of fighting to eliminate the subsidy.

Strange, I can't seem to find any "capitalists" about.
 
All if this "they'll invest money to make money" talk, of course, ignores the risk involved.

I can invest my $100 and get out later with $200 - then pay $15 in taxes... not bad.
I can invest my $100 and get out later with $200 - then pay $50 in taxes... still not bad.
I can invest my $100 and get out later with $200 - then pay $75 in taxes... not the worst, but hey, free $25.

All that sounds great, until you realize each one of those comes with the possibility of completely losing your initial $100. Will I risk my $100 for the chance to make $25? No thanks. Will I risk my $100 for the chance to make $85? Hmm... what's the risk?
 
by the way, since this has become the tax thread, I do some H&R Block work as supplemental income this time of year. I also volunteer at a place that helps limited english peoples with their taxes. Basically I sit with an interpreter and an institutional copy of Turbo Tax and do 1040EZ type returns.

So far this year, your average job stealing filthy immigrant pays a higher rate than your average suburbanite family that owns a home. Not only higher, but usually double if I can't find enough deductions for them. Between my bracket and available deductions and AGI manipulations I'm going to be about 7.5-8% This guy I handled on Saturday has roughly 2/5ths my income and will pay about 14.5% despite having EIC and Dependent advantages over me.

I should also add that the stupid 53/47 do and don't pay taxes thing is nothing more than a "the poor are stealing our money" meme. I'm just above that 47% marker, the non-native english speaker is well into the 53% area. If it was 51/49, I'd be one of those filthy moochers, despite a higher income.

fucking idiots.


All that sounds great, until you realize each one of those comes with the possibility of completely losing your initial $100. Will I risk my $100 for the chance to make $25? No thanks. Will I risk my $100 for the chance to make $85? Hmm... what's the risk?
Click to expand...

If you have 100% ROI, why are you backing out of the investment?!?!
If you lose your initial $100, it's and AGI downgrade of loss on capital either short or long term. Learn your Schedule D bud.

Hmm... what's the risk?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']All if this "they'll invest money to make money" talk, of course, ignores the risk involved.

I can invest my $100 and get out later with $200 - then pay $15 in taxes... not bad.
I can invest my $100 and get out later with $200 - then pay $50 in taxes... still not bad.
I can invest my $100 and get out later with $200 - then pay $75 in taxes... not the worst, but hey, free $25.[/quote]
First off, it's $15/$25/$35 in taxes, and that's "worst case" scenario, that's if all Republicans suddenly became Democrats. And even then it's progressive so the first $X thousands will be at 15%, then so on. You cannot, by virtue of math being math, actually have an effective tax rate of 35% or whatever the top is.
All that sounds great, until you realize each one of those comes with the possibility of completely losing your initial $100. Will I risk my $100 for the chance to make $25? No thanks. Will I risk my $100 for the chance to make $85? Hmm... what's the risk?
Click to expand...
Would you risk your $100 to make $65, with any losses being deducted against your gains so you pay less in taxes? Of course you would. Our entire system was built on it. edit: or what nasum said.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Will I risk my $100 for the chance to make $85? Hmm... what's the risk?[/QUOTE]

[quote name='nasum']If you have 100% ROI, why are you backing out of the investment?!?!
If you lose your initial $100, it's and AGI downgrade of loss on capital either short or long term. Learn your Schedule D bud.

Hmm... what's the risk?[/QUOTE]

lol owned
 
Come on guys, lay off Uncle Bob. Talk radio hasn't quite taught him enough to understand taxation of investments. He really does think we tax investment returns at 75%. Let's not forget that this is a double taxation in the first place, which is a whole 'nother argument anyway. AMIRITE?!?!?!?
 
I'll have to look up my book when I'm at the other office, but I think for 2011 you're not even taxed on the first $1,500 (or was it $2,500?) in dividend or capital gain income. Unless the gain is from the sale of a primary residence or something like that.
Do you have any idea what kind of portfolio is required to generate $1,500 in dividend income? M$ dividend isn't even a dollar per share, shit maybe not even $0.50. For sake of argument, let's say it is $1 per share and it's trading at $25 per share. You'd need $37,500 invested in M$. Not only that, but you have to hold the shares and take the dividend as cash, as opposed to a DRIP which would net you an additional 1,500 shares essentially for free, meaning you get $3k in dividend income next year in this fictional universe where it trades at $25 for an entire year.
Even my best holding (that OKS I spoke of in another thread, which you're an idiot if you don't have) would require me to have roughly $15k in holdings to get taxed. Now, bury that into a Roth IRA and I have $0 liability on the principle regardless of gain upon selling in retirement. Also not paying a dividend tax at all because it's a DRIP meaning my only tax upon retirement will be on capital gain of final selling price minus principle.

fucking poor people soaking the rich by not paying taxes!

Of course you take this onto talk radio and they'll do their best to twist you around until you can't even figure out what you were talking about in the 1st place... You've got to hand it to their high school debate coaches.

Let's not forget that this is a double taxation in the first place
Click to expand...
Because the pay from his retail job wasn't taxed to the corporation, wasn't taxed to the customer who purchased something, which wasn't taxed on that customer's income, which wasn't taxed to their employer, ad naseum until you get back to the first dollar that was ever printed by the US treasury.
Just like if I saved my income, started a business, invested in inventory, sold that inventory for a profit to someone who paid for it with their taxed income, and oh fuck it, I can't even justify this line of thinking...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='RedvsBlue']He really does think we tax investment returns at 75%.[/QUOTE]

Geesh... some of you are too busy patting each other on the back that you don't even have the slightest clue what anyone else says.

No, I don't think we tax any investment returns at 75%. I was merely giving examples of how higher tax rates can figure into the decision to make an investment. Expected Return on Investment is a major aspect that any reasonable investor uses to make decisions on investing. The amount taken out by taxes is going to effect the RoI - thus will effect the decision.

As for the 75% number - I've seen people suggest - seriously - tax rates of up to 90% on incomes over a particular amount.
 
You know how I know you're a troll?

You've never once admitted you haven't the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about.

When half a dozen people explain, in clear detail, that you're a fucking numbskull, you double down on your idiotic remarks.

EDIT: By the way, you can't criticize my post. I'm merely giving an example.
 
...says the guy who blantanly lied about GM supposedly repaying the bailout money.... and lied when he said the government made a profit on it... wow - we should all listen to this professor of economics that considers a multi-million dollar loss a "profit".

Aside from that, are you denying that taxes have a negative impact on one's return on investment? Are you denying that investors consider the estimated RoI before deciding to take a risk?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You know how I know you're a troll?

You've never once admitted you haven't the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about.

When half a dozen people explain, in clear detail, that you're a fucking numbskull, you double down on your idiotic remarks.

EDIT: By the way, you can't criticize my post. I'm merely giving an example.[/QUOTE]

I remember a certain troll used to accuse me of random (as in not real) lies after I pointed out his own walls of bullshit toppled down on him.

Since the troll in question has perfected the art of working the refs the best thing to do is put him on ignore.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You know how I know you're a troll?

You've never once admitted you haven't the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about.

When half a dozen people explain, in clear detail, that you're a fucking numbskull, you double down on your idiotic remarks.

EDIT: By the way, you can't criticize my post. I'm merely giving an example.[/QUOTE]

That's when I :lol:ed



I'll give UB this, he seems to be the only one carrying the right's flag around here anymore. Everyone else seems to have packed up and gone home.
 
Just because I keep being accused of not admitting when I'm wrong - I'll correct two things. First, yes, the numbers in my previous post were made up, nonsensical BS numbers. The IDEA was simple though - a good investor considers the possible return on his/her investment and weighs that verses the risk of the investment. Taxes diminish the return. More taxes diminish the return by even larger amounts. As the return gets smaller (i.e.: taxes go up) the risk stays virtually the same - so where someone may invest on a risky venture for a larger payout, they may decline to invest in that same risky venture if the potential payout is too small.

Is there anyone on this forum that disagrees with this?

Second, let me correct something else I posted earlier:

[quote name='UncleBob']...says the guy who blatantly lied about GM supposedly repaying the bailout money.... and lied when he said the government made a profit on it... wow - we should all listen to this professor of economics that considers a multi-million dollar loss a "profit".[/QUOTE]

Sorry, folks, that should read multi-billion dollar loss. At the time (and still), GM is in the hole to American Taxpayers $27 Billion.

http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/entities/233-general-motors

So, yeah... Myke is the one to take investment advice from.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Just because I keep being accused of not admitting when I'm wrong - I'll correct two things. First, yes, the numbers in my previous post were made up, nonsensical BS numbers. The IDEA was simple though - a good investor considers the possible return on his/her investment and weighs that verses the risk of the investment. Taxes diminish the return. More taxes diminish the return by even larger amounts. As the return gets smaller (i.e.: taxes go up) the risk stays virtually the same - so where someone may invest on a risky venture for a larger payout, they may decline to invest in that same risky venture if the potential payout is too small.

Is there anyone on this forum that disagrees with this?
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, so essentially this is the same argument as "if we charge our millionaires too much in taxes they'll leave"? I guess this variation isn't quite as outlandish but still kind of amusing.

Let's get back to that double triple quadruple INFINITE tax though shall we?
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Yeah, so essentially this is the same argument as "if we charge our millionaires too much in taxes they'll leave"? I guess this variation isn't quite as outlandish but still kind of amusing.[/quote]

The "argument" is if the return isn't worth the investment, the investment won't happen.

Tell y'all what. Ten of you mail me $100. This December, I'll mail each of you $101 back. Except for one of you - I get to keep your $100.

Obviously, for most of you, you're making a profit - any profit - so of course it's worth doing, right? As for the one who loses out... well, sorry - investing is never a sure thing.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']As for the 75% number - I've seen people suggest - seriously - tax rates of up to 90% on incomes over a particular amount.[/QUOTE]

Was it this guy?

j32Br.jpg


Because he looks untrustworthy to me. You can't even see his legs in the photo!
 
[quote name='UncleBob']For some reason, I doubt FDR is hanging around the CAG forums as this guy...[/QUOTE]

I dunno. They seem to have similar stances on tax policy.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Ahh the good ol' you do the research for my argument. You've turned it into an art-form Knoell, truly, spectacular work.



So, according to Knoell then, if it passes 35% of the population will be moving away from America. Wait, I wonder where they're gonna go? :whistle2:k[/QUOTE]

Or sitting on their money, or investing it in other ways. Capital investments are not the only way to make money. Yet the investees do need that money to do what they do.

If you guys think that investors do not weigh the risks of investing their money you have no business in this discussion. It is done ALL the damn time. There are god damn formulas that calculate this sort of thing, of which they decide whether the gain will be good enough to make the investment. They don't say "it will be a gain? then why not?" as you all so easily suggest. When you are talking about cutting another 15+% off the top, you are really making a lot of decisions for investors.

As for the "you do the research" part, I have already pointed out the flaws in prior threads, which is why I said that.
 
[quote name='nasum']

Your post [/QUOTE]

What are the purposes of a tax nasum? Now if tax revenues as a percent of GDP stay either consistant or increase after we slashed taxes by that enormous amount, what do you think happened?

Why does the government need to tax at a higher rate if they were going to get the same or more at a lower rate? Simple answer is income redistribution. It isn't "fair" that those other people are making money, even though they are supplying the government with the same amount or more of revenue, "we should be distributing the wealth more evenly". Efficiency and common sense out the door, as long as it is "fair" even though it won't be "fair" anyway after these taxes go up. Just less efficient which is not good for any of us.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Or sitting on their money, or investing it in other ways. Capital investments are not the only way to make money. Yet the investees do need that money to do what they do.

If you guys think that investors do not weigh the risks of investing their money you have no business in this discussion. It is done ALL the damn time. There are god damn formulas that calculate this sort of thing, of which they decide whether the gain will be good enough to make the investment. They don't say "it will be a gain? then why not?" as you all so easily suggest. When you are talking about cutting another 15+% off the top, you are really making a lot of decisions for investors.[/QUOTE]
Sure. It's called an opportunity cost. Knoell, seriously, the problem is the market is distorted by things like the capital gains tax. Why open your own business and employ people when the tax rate on capital gains is less than half and you don't even have to work?
[quote name='Knoell']Why does the government need to tax at a higher rate if they were going to get the same or more at a lower rate? Simple answer is income redistribution.[/QUOTE]
There was a time when you were running around with your hair on fire over the debt but now I can't remember the last time I saw you mention it. Why *wouldn't* you argue that America needs the money for the debt? Just curious.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Sure. It's called an opportunity cost. Knoell, seriously, the problem is the market is distorted by things like the capital gains tax. Why open your own business and employ people when the tax rate on capital gains is less than half and you don't even have to work?

There was a time when you were running around with your hair on fire over the debt but now I can't remember the last time I saw you mention it. Why *wouldn't* you argue that America needs the money for the debt? Just curious.[/QUOTE]

What do you think investments are? You are running along the lines of believing stocks are just paper and not money investments into a company that uses that money to make more money. Pretty silly.

I think the thread was deleted because it isn't in my recent posts, however I have posted about the deficit just last week. I am guessing the reason you haven't seen it before that is because I took a leave of absence from this circus. I do not see how the deficit isn't a growing concern for you. Under Clinton running a supposed surplus was like performing a miracle to you guys, then under Bush running a deficit was like being the devil, and now under Obama running a deficit is good for the bad economy. It's a good thing for whatever suits your purpose I guess.

Revenues will not increase productively or efficiently through increased taxes. History shows that.
 
[quote name='Knoell']What do you think investments are? You are running along the lines of believing stocks are just paper and not money investments into a company that uses that money to make more money. Pretty silly.[/quote]
Ok. Normally I'd agree with you. But then we look at the data. From the WSJ:
U.S. companies are holding more cash in the bank than at any point on record, underscoring persistent worries about financial markets and about the sustainability of the economic recovery.

The Federal Reserve reported Thursday that nonfinancial companies had socked away $1.84 trillion in cash and other liquid assets as of the end of March, up 26% from a year earlier and the largest-ever increase in records going back to 1952. Cash made up about 7% of all company assets, including factories and financial investments, the highest level since 1963.
Click to expand...
So no, they're not doing what you and I and economic theory would expect them to do. By and large they have decided that, as a whole, they are keeping the money in money. But that's crazy talk right? I mean, you're going to get a negative return on that! CNBC:
Companies are hoarding a record amount of cash as fears of another Lehman-like credit crisis, weak demand and a lack of incentives from the Obama Administration cause chief executives to choose a negative real return on their money over hiring workers or building a new plant.
Click to expand...
It's just reality, man. Just because you and I think it's crazy doesn't mean it's not happening. It *IS* happening and it requires that we adjust our thinking. We know they're doing it and we know that it's because the capital gains tax is crazy low. It's the cheapest money you can possibly make in America. Of course people will jump in with both feet, right?
I think the thread was deleted because it isn't in my recent posts, however I have posted about the deficit just last week. I am guessing the reason you haven't seen it before that is because I took a leave of absence from this circus. I do not see how the deficit isn't a growing concern for you. Under Clinton running a supposed surplus was like performing a miracle to you guys, then under Bush running a deficit was like being the devil, and now under Obama running a deficit is good for the bad economy. It's a good thing for whatever suits your purpose I guess.

Revenues will not increase productively or efficiently through increased taxes. History shows that.
Click to expand...
No, my policy goal is not to increase revenue through taxes, though eliminating carried interest/capital gains taxes and making them simple income would increase tax revenue. What it would do is what you're saying it would do: force people that are making opportunity cost decisions to move out of equity positions in companies. The next logical place is going to be businesses with strong growth potential and those are the businesses that are hiring. It sure as hell won't be government bonds, right? They're paying roughly nothing.

If the theory is that new taxes won't pay down the debt in any meaningful way, then we have to grow. Period. If the lesson during the Bush years was that flooding the market with capital causes bubbles and the lesson during the Obama years is that post-bubble capital seeks out tax incentive/disincentive over growth strategies due to opportunity costs, shouldn't we then change the equation so that opportunity costs clearly point to hiring and creating rather than parking and hiding?
 
[quote name='speedracer']Ok. Normally I'd agree with you. But then we look at the data. From the WSJ:

So no, they're not doing what you and I and economic theory would expect them to do. By and large they have decided that, as a whole, they are keeping the money in money. But that's crazy talk right? I mean, you're going to get a negative return on that! CNBC:

It's just reality, man. Just because you and I think it's crazy doesn't mean it's not happening. It *IS* happening and it requires that we adjust our thinking. We know they're doing it and we know that it's because the capital gains tax is crazy low. It's the cheapest money you can possibly make in America. Of course people will jump in with both feet, right?

No, my policy goal is not to increase revenue through taxes, though eliminating carried interest/capital gains taxes and making them simple income would increase tax revenue. What it would do is what you're saying it would do: force people that are making opportunity cost decisions to move out of equity positions in companies. The next logical place is going to be businesses with strong growth potential and those are the businesses that are hiring. It sure as hell won't be government bonds, right? They're paying roughly nothing.

If the theory is that new taxes won't pay down the debt in any meaningful way, then we have to grow. Period. If the lesson during the Bush years was that flooding the market with capital causes bubbles and the lesson during the Obama years is that post-bubble capital seeks out tax incentive/disincentive over growth strategies due to opportunity costs, shouldn't we then change the equation so that opportunity costs clearly point to hiring and creating rather than parking and hiding?[/QUOTE]

You quoted the problem. The problem is not that the market is flooded with capital, and you thinking the government taking away said capital will get companies to move on to better things? You quoted it in your article "lack of incentives from the obama administration."

I am certain the WSJ did not mean an incentive in the means of taking capital away. Not to mention that people with money do not have any qualms about spending said money. If anything you guys are pro trickle down economics because raising the capital gains tax would encourage more investors to consume rather than invest. Hopefully it'll trickle down for you guys ;)
 
[quote name='Knoell']You quoted the problem. The problem is not that the market is flooded with capital, and you thinking the government taking away said capital will get companies to move on to better things? You quoted it in your article "lack of incentives from the obama administration."

I am certain the WSJ did not mean an incentive in the means of taking capital away.[/QUOTE]

First the rich are going to run away. Now the rich will just sit on their riches and noone will invest.

What are you so worried is going to stop happening, I don't see it. Who is investing big in America now? What industry? What company? What CEO? Who?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, yeah... Myke is the one to take investment advice from.[/QUOTE]

No u.

EDIT: On a more serious note, the very fact that knoell continues to shift and mold what he thinks wealthy people will do with their money, and then thinks we should base our policy off of predicting what said rich people will do with their money (the rest of the country be damned), and *doesn't'* realize that this is the very bootlicking oligarchical apologism that camoor has pointed out time and again - that's fucking shocking.

You're following the path of the wealthy, waiting for them to drop their table scraps, and praising them to be gods for it. Or, with less hyperbole, you're giving them all the power they can ask for, justifying it, and continuing to believe that we live in a democratic, theoretically egalitarian society. That's completely impossible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top