Capitalism with higher capital gains taxes means...

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Do you understand that beginning year is the end of the war and we are talking about 25 years thereafter.?
.

dear, economies don't grow on trees. Nissan was just begining to sell cars here in the late 70's. Now they sell tons of everything as do the Chinese. Don't forget, after WW2 we had the only economy left standing. We think of that as an advantage, a huge advantage. Catching on?

 

[Chris]

Higher capital gains tax means lower National Debt.

That's all it means.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Higher capital gains tax means lower National Debt.

That's all it means.

actually they collect more tax with a lower capital gains tax. Sorry


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!

 

[Meister]

Higher capital gains tax means lower National Debt.

That's all it means.

actually they collect more tax with a lower capital gains tax. Sorry


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!

Try not to reason with Chris, he's in denial about actual facts that doesn't back his premise.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Do you understand that beginning year is the end of the war and we are talking about 25 years thereafter.?
.

dear, economies don't grow on trees. Nissan was just begining to sell cars here in the late 70's. Now they sell tons of everything as do the Chinese. Don't forget, after WW2 we had the only economy left standing. We think of that as an advantage, a huge advantage. Catching on?

In other words, you can't argue your concept and admit fail.

We are talking about the aggregate growth from 1945 to 1970 when capital gains taxes was much higher while the economy was booming.

Now with capital gains, the economy is lagging.

Suggestion: capital gains taxes do have much to do with economic and job growth.

Edward Fail.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Suggestion: capital gains taxes do have much to do with economic and job growth.

do they help or hurt it?? You forgot to say??

 

[JakeStarkey]

Suggestion: capital gains taxes do have much to do with economic and job growth.

do they help or hurt it?? You forgot to say??

You have given no proof they significantly help it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Suggestion: capital gains taxes do have much to do with economic and job growth.

much to do in a good or bad way???????????????????????

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have no reason to support they significantly help it.

We could argue that the low capital gains were part of the economic collapse.

 

[Charles_Main]

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.

Instead of raising the Long Term CapGains Tax. I think we would be better served to Eliminate the Loops holes, and Rules that allow People to Treat what are really short Term Cap Gains as long term and legally pay a lower Rate.

We want to spur on Long Term Investment, But not allow people to work the system legally to treat Short Term Gains that should be at the higher 28% Rate as long term.

Again I do not think we should Raise the Long Term Rate, Because 2/3rd of Retired People, The ones not living on only SS, rely on Capital Gains as their Retirement Income and would see their Taxes More than Double if we doubled the Long Term Rates.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Instead of raising the Long Term CapGains Tax. I think we would be better served to Eliminate the Loops holes, and Rules that allow People to Treat what are really short Term Cap Gains as long term and legally pay a lower Rate.

We want to spur on Long Term Investment, But not allow people to work the system legally to treat Short Term Gains that should be at the higher 28% Rate as long term.

Again I do not think we should Raise the Long Term Rate, Because 2/3rd of Retired People, The ones not living on only SS, rely on Capital Gains as their Retirement Income and would see their Taxes More than Double if we doubled the Long Term Rates.

Charles Main, the above is worth thinking about, a lot. Thank you.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

We want to spur on Long Term Investment,

In America we are capitalists so "we" don't want to spur. We want people to decide for themselves based on their own expertise and money where to invest and how much to invest.

Mao spurred the economy and 30 million slowly starved to death. The liberals just spured the housing market and almost caused another Depression. PLease try to remember that we are in America.

There is no freedom when the liberal has his spur in someone's side.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Edward makes a rather poor comparative false analogy.

He truly does not understand investment, short term or historically.