Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
When Capital Gains taxes were cut in 1997, the result was an increased volatility in the stock market that led to the dotcom bubble.
Cutting taxes is just not a smart idea.
LOL!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
When Capital Gains taxes were cut in 1997, the result was an increased volatility in the stock market that led to the dotcom bubble.
Cutting taxes is just not a smart idea.
LOL!
LOL!
Are you laughing because you are nervous and this is just a tic?
From a joint study between UNC and UT - Austin from March 2008:
We infer from the findings in this study that the volatility left, after controlling for every known determinant, reflects the influence of the 1997 capital gains tax rate cut. Stock return volatility was substantially greater after 1997. Furthermore, firms most affected by the rate reduction showed the greatest change in volatility. Specifically, non-dividend paying firms had a greater increase in volatility than dividend-paying firms and firms with large unrealized capital losses experienced a greater increase in volatility than firms with small unrealized losses.So to put it bluntly; the Capital Gains Tax Cut of 1997 caused the dotcom bubble. So why would cutting Capital Gains taxes today result in anything different?
Theory and reality don't go hand-in-hand when it comes to Conservative fiscal policy. Never have, never will.
I'm laughing at the silly claim that tax cuts caused the Internet Bubble and the stupid claim that cutting taxes isn't smart. Also the unproven claim that volatility causes bubbles and that cutting long term capital gains rates causes volatility.
If you don't mind, boom and bust. Taxing the one percent can stabilize our economy.When Capital Gains taxes were cut in 1997, the result was an increased volatility in the stock market that led to the dotcom bubble.
Cutting taxes is just not a smart idea.
The dot com boom would have happened regardless, simply due to advances in technology; allowing for greater speculation, "merely wasted a lot of capital".LOL!
Are you laughing because you are nervous and this is just a tic?
From a joint study between UNC and UT - Austin from March 2008:
We infer from the findings in this study that the volatility left, after controlling for every known determinant, reflects the influence of the 1997 capital gains tax rate cut. Stock return volatility was substantially greater after 1997. Furthermore, firms most affected by the rate reduction showed the greatest change in volatility. Specifically, non-dividend paying firms had a greater increase in volatility than dividend-paying firms and firms with large unrealized capital losses experienced a greater increase in volatility than firms with small unrealized losses.So to put it bluntly; the Capital Gains Tax Cut of 1997 caused the dotcom bubble. So why would cutting Capital Gains taxes today result in anything different?
Theory and reality don't go hand-in-hand when it comes to Conservative fiscal policy. Never have, never will.
The dot com boom would have happened regardless, simply due to advances in technology; allowing for greater speculation, "merely wasted a lot of capital".
allowing for greater speculation, "merely wasted a lot of capital".The dot com boom would have happened regardless, simply due to advances in technology; allowing for greater speculation, "merely wasted a lot of capital".
The boom may have happened, but not the bubble. The bubble was driven entirely by the Capital Gains Tax Cut.
The bubble was driven entirely by the Capital Gains Tax Cut.
allowing for greater speculation, "merely wasted a lot of capital".The bubble was driven entirely by the Capital Gains Tax Cut.
WOW!!! More utterly insane liberal thinking to encourage the violent collection of even more taxes for more welfare to cripple more people and buy more votes: we need high cap gains taxes to prevent bubbles!! Thank God for taxes!!!
"We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."
-- Thomas Paine
Capital gains & income averaging.
Long term capital gains are not economically more or less beneficial than incomes derived from entrepreneurs steadily nurturing and reinvesting into their enterprises. ...
I fully agree. Respectfully, SupposnWhy bother with a capital gains preference.
Why such time=money stability for the wealthiest?In the United States of America, individuals and corporations pay U.S. federal income tax on the net total of all their capital gains. The tax rate depends on both the investor's tax bracket and the amount of time the investment was held. Short-term capital gains are taxed at the investor's ordinary income tax rate and are defined as investments held for a year or less before being sold. Long-term capital gains, on dispositions of assets held for more than one year, are taxed at a lower rate.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States
Why such time=money stability for the wealthiest?In the United States of America, individuals and corporations pay U.S. federal income tax on the net total of all their capital gains. The tax rate depends on both the investor's tax bracket and the amount of time the investment was held. Short-term capital gains are taxed at the investor's ordinary income tax rate and are defined as investments held for a year or less before being sold. Long-term capital gains, on dispositions of assets held for more than one year, are taxed at a lower rate.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States
More speculation is in order, with a variable capital gains preference depending on full employment of capital resources in the market for labor; or fractional reserve, thereof.
wth are talking about. it was the invisible hand of gubermint to interfere with loans and high probability to successfully payoff the loan for the purpose of votes and the cause of liberalism.
Home ownership is not a right.
Zonly1, youre referring to the mortgage defaults that precipitated the USA and global credit crunch thats still adversely affecting the economies?
You fault only instances of buyers who had false information submitted on their behalf for their mortgage applications?
There were mortgage brokers who were fully aware of details germane to their entire transactions. Some of these brokers steered the buyers to higher cost loans. Some of these brokers found home assessors willing to over-assess homes values for higher fees or simply to attract future fees.
A bank accepting questionable data from mortgage brokers may be incompetent or acting in collusion with the brokers. Certainly a banks at fault if they themselves were participating in the issuing of questionable mortgages.
/////////////////////////////////////////////
Theres also the question as to the proportion of other mortgages and government insured mortgages that defaulted.
A Democratic majority congress which included significant numbers of agreeing Republicans passed an act enabling GSEs to handle non-federally insured mortgages. President Nixon signed that bill and thus he, (more than any other individual) permitted that bill to become federal law.
[In this case Im not accusing anyone of duplicity. Its always easier to believe that whats to our own best advantage is equally to the nations best advantage]. Leaders of our greatest financial institutions believed this was a win-win for both private investors and the nations economy. The bill was problematic. The axiom of no free lunch wasnt fully recognized in this act or because profits were perceived and the axioms application within this act wasnt fully appreciated].
 
GSE prospectuses presented to investors state no legal requirement for federal financial backing of GSEs, but influential persons at the highest levels of USAs federal government and commercial entities winked and assured the entire world this undeclared support was actually the case. These persons creditability and influence was confirmed when the federal government did indeed put federal credit at risk to cover losses due to mortgage defaults. The federal government put itself on the hook for non-federally guaranteed loans.
The government did not direct financial institutions to make insufficiently collateralized loans. Banks better rewarded mortgage brokers who brought them higher interest loans for property of over stated value sold to purchasers with insufficient incomes. It became the accepted policy of no need for diligent government regulation because it was to private entities best interests to conduct their businesses in financially sound manners. From the financial institutions view point they were doing exactly that. The qualities of mortgages were of no consequences to the lenders if they could immediately sell them to the GSEs.
Im less mistrustful of explicitly drafted government laws and regulations created and enacted in the sunshine and publicly viewed. I greatly dread any (government or non-government) bureaucratic discretion of policy that directly or indirectly affect me and mine and create or perpetuate inequities that evolve from the exercising of such discretion.
Respectfully, Supposn
The market for IPOs would be much less if we punish traders on the secondary market.
Your posts suffer from stage one thinking. I found the cure.
Amazon.com: Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One (9780465003457): Thomas Sowell: Books
ToddsterPatriot, I cant know if youve found the cure. Your link is an advertisement for a book. Your link provides no information but theres possibly an implication within your message.
Your implying that if there was no reduced tax rate for long term capital gains, (LTCG), thered be less stocks and bonds sold?
The motivations to buy shares are much more dependent expectation of the shares increased values and much less dependent upon the rates of brokerage fees or income taxes.
But you missed the major point of my objection to the reduced tax rate for LTCG Sales profits. The government is replacing the judgment of the market. The market is favoring entrepreneurs selling shares or their entire enterprises rather than existing upon a portion of their incomes while they and nurture and reinvest into their enterprises. This is governments intervention of their populations self-determination.
Respectfully, Supposn
You should buy and read the book.
Your "ideas" sound good on the surface, if you ignore all the bad seconday effects.
That book explains how liberals can't think past Stage One. Like you.
Really? In what world does that happen?[bankers going bankrupt]
Certainly not in the one you and I are sharing right now.
the liberal has no clue that many of the big banks went bankrupt with owners losing everything. Some were absorbed, like Merryl Lynch, again with owners losing everything. Many that remain are zombie banks, like BOA, whose survival and stock price are questionable.
What world does the liberal live in?
Whoa, let's stick to the real world: rate hikes cut revenue. We've ample supporting data plus a consensus including Obama himself that agrees. We don't have to suppose anything because we've got to know rate cuts increase revenue and that rate hikes are nothing more than misguided expensive wasteful acts of crude vengeance.ExPat_Panama, I would suppose...Then again, if the goal is simply revenge against cap. gains receivers, then taxing doesn't make as much sense as say, revolution and mass executions.GIBSON: So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.
Whoa, let's stick to the real world: rate hikes cut revenue. We've ample supporting data plus a consensus including Obama himself that agrees. We don't have to suppose anything because we've got to know rate cuts increase revenue and that rate hikes are nothing more than misguided expensive wasteful acts of crude vengeance.
ToddsterPatriot & ExPat_Panama, general discussion of increased asking prices:
Supply side proponents often declare increasing prices will reduce sales to the extent that graphing the asking vs. sales volumes creates essentially straight lines. When considering specifics, there can be multiple possible factors. Their inter relationships and the lines drawn are often much more curved rather than straight line functions.
The extent of elasticity with regard to effective demand or feasible supply comes immediately to mind. These two factors are often if not generally affected by other variables; they do not act simply in the same manner upon all applications. Then theres the factor of alternatives; necessity and/or human ingenuity at work.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Your contention is that eliminating the tax reduction granted to LTCG incomes will reduce what?
The favoring tax reduction for a particular characteristic of income is justified how? All other incomes are less worthy because?
To the extent that we encourage only the sale of entire or partial enterprise shares, we are discouraging continuous reinvesting and nurturing of existing enterprises. You advocate government intervention and have no regard for the open markets decisions? Why are you a proponent of government rather than a market driven economy?
I appreciate the Romney strategy; having insufficiently logical response, he labels the criticism as class warfare due to envy.
Respectfully, Supposn
Your contention is that eliminating the tax reduction granted to LTCG incomes will reduce what?
Government revenues and economic growth.
The favoring tax reduction for a particular characteristic of income is justified how?
Economic growth is good.
All other incomes are less worthy because?
Reality.