Capitalism with higher capital gains taxes means...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by EdwardBaiamonte, Jan 26, 2012.

  1. EdwardBaiamonte
    Offline

    EdwardBaiamonte Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    27,548
    Thanks Received:
    1,130
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,047
    less capitalism and less jobs.

    If venture capitalists lose capital to liberal taxation they have less capital for new ventures like Apple, Intel, HP, Facebook, and Goggle.

    In the industry they say it means "fewer shots on goal"

    Democratic ignorance is always astounding to Republicans.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Chris
    Offline

    Chris Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,154
    Thanks Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +2,089
    Bullshit.

    Super low capital gains taxes means that the super rich pay taxes at a lower rate than the rest of us.

    They means YOU have to pay more.
     
  3. EdwardBaiamonte
    Offline

    EdwardBaiamonte Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    27,548
    Thanks Received:
    1,130
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,047
    too stupid, new huge companies like Apple Google Intel generate a huge tax base!!

    NYSUN: It came when Mr. Gibson questioned Senator Obama about the capital gains tax. Mr. Gibson quoted Mr. Obama as talking about raising the tax to 28% from 15%.

    "But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent," Mr. Gibson said. "And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?"

    Chris, you're perfectly brainwashed!! Good for you
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Euro
    Offline

    Euro Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    316
    Thanks Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Scandinavia
    Ratings:
    +26
    Why not raise the capital gain tax, and lower the corporate tax. Then more money will stay in the corporations.

    We have the possibility to start an own investment company, and then pay 0 taxes when you trade stocks. But if you take out the surplus for personal consumption you’ve to pay 28% in capital gain tax.
    But as long as the money statys in "your personal investment company" and you just change your stocks you pay 0 taxes.
     
  5. Chris
    Offline

    Chris Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,154
    Thanks Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +2,089

    Bingo!
     
  6. EdwardBaiamonte
    Offline

    EdwardBaiamonte Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    27,548
    Thanks Received:
    1,130
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,047
    no idea what you're talking about? Any way you cut it if you raise the capital gain tax you lower capitalism and jobs. Most partnerships are flow through entities so the income is out and personal automatically.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2012
  7. Chris
    Offline

    Chris Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,154
    Thanks Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +2,089
    Actually you are the one who doesn't know what he is talking about.

    When take your money out of a business, you pay capital gains.

    So having a low capital gains tax actually discourages investment.
     
  8. Euro
    Offline

    Euro Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    316
    Thanks Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Scandinavia
    Ratings:
    +26
    I’ll try to explain. Lets say you start your own invesment company, meant for trading stocks. You buy stocks for 20k in google, then after one year you sell it for 30k. The you have earned 10k.
    As long as this money stays in your investment company, you pay 0 in taxes. But if you decide to take out this money for personal conumption you’ve to pay 28% in capital gain tax.
    Personal consumption e.g. buy a car, new clothes etc. If you take out money to do that you’ve to pay 28% in capital gain tax.

    But if you decide to keep the money in your investment company you don’t pay taxes, that way you’ll be stimulated to invest instead of taking out the money for personal consumption e.g. buy clothes a new watch etc.
     
  9. EdwardBaiamonte
    Offline

    EdwardBaiamonte Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    27,548
    Thanks Received:
    1,130
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,047

    if i disagree I'll pay you $10,000. Bet

    Not according to Gibson Obama Bush Clinton and the IRS data. Please reread for comprehension
     
  10. EdwardBaiamonte
    Offline

    EdwardBaiamonte Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    27,548
    Thanks Received:
    1,130
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,047
    your going to explain the IRS data away???



    Heritage: A general consensus exists that a higher capital gains tax rate would harm the economy, but at what point would the revenues lost due to slower economic growth exceed the revenues gained from the higher tax rate? How many jobs would be lost and how many wage gains would be missed to implement the President’s notion of tax "fairness”? Analysis by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the President’s budget provides the basis to answer these questions: Only a slight reduction in economic growth will offset the revenue gained from raising the capital gains tax, producing little tax revenue on net. It is more likely to reduce total federal receipts.



    In 1990, when the Congress considered a 30 percent cut in the rate on gains, OTA estimated that such a cut would increase revenues by $12 billion over five years; the JCT projected a loss of $11 billion. If they had not factored in a realizations response, the two agencies would have estimated revenue costs of $80 billion and $100 billion, respectively--effectively illustrating how large a behavioral response is incorporated in capital gains revenue estimates.

    In general, there is significant consensus that broad-based reductions in taxes on capital have the potential to boost economic growth over the long run. Reductions in capital taxation increase the return on investment and therefore the formation of capital. The resulting increase in the capital stock yields greater output and higher incomes throughout much of the economy.
    In particular, treating capital gains favorably can reduce the inefficiency caused by the double taxation (under both the corporate income tax and the individual income tax) of corporate profits. And innovation and entrepreneurship may also respond positively to lower capital gains tax rates.

    Eliminating the lock-in effect on the allocation of capital is often cited as a potential economic benefit from reducing capital gains rates.

    And while reductions in the overall taxation of capital income can measurably increase economic growth,

    DonLuskin: Those are the estimates. Now let’s see how things really turned out. Take a look at Table 4-4 on page 92 of the Budget and Economic Outlook released this week. You’ll see that actual liabilities from capital-gains taxes were $71 billion in 2004, and $80 billion in 2005, for a two-year total of $151 billion. So let’s do the math one more time: Subtract the originally estimated two-year liability of $125 billion from the actual liability of $151 billion, and you get a $26 billion upside surprise for the government. Yes, instead of costing the government $27 billion in revenues, the tax cuts actually earned the government $26 billion extra.

    CBO’s estimate of the “cost” of the tax cut was virtually 180 degrees wrong. The Laffer curve lives!
     

Share This Page