from 1950-1963 top tax rate was 91-92%, those were good years for our economy

[Truthmatters]

Cutting cap gains from 20% to 15% caused the housing bubble?

Cutting cap gains to 20% made it more profitable to over-leverage and invest more and more. Cutting it to 15% exaggerated the effect even more.

It didn't cause the internet bubble or housing bubble, but it sure a hell exacerbated them, and it added a massive chunk to the deficit besides.

Combine that with the absence of Glass Steagal, and you've got yourself an atmosphere that's ripe for a market crash and depression.

Remember, Reagan lowered the cap gains rate to 20%, and then raised them back to 28% after just a few years. There was a reason for that.

Most home owners never paid a penny in capital gains on their homes.
Lowering the rate increased cap gains revenues.
Glass Steagall wouldn't have prevented bad mortgage underwriting.

there were broker rules with glass steagal.

Bush held back the broker rules in GLBact which allowed the banks to hire and train any smuck they wanted to be a broker.

 

[Truthmatters]

Doesn't anybody think that the top tax rate should apply to the top incomes? Why is it the top tax rate is applied to those making barely above median income?

because we allow for an amount of income that you need to sustain your life without taxing it.

people who make millions a year can afford to pay more and USE our system more to make it

 

[Truthmatters]

You made the claims not me. You provide the proof.

And I provided facts to back them.

you have offered nothing but a silly claim your better informed yet Offered NO information

 

[Avorysuds]

TM, can you list a single person that paid 90+ % taxes in their life in the US? Name one... You have near 20 years to pick from, go ahead and show a single person that paid 70% taxes or more.

TM, do you know what deductions are?

 

[Avorysuds]

You made the claims not me. You provide the proof.

And I provided facts to back them.

you have offered nothing but a silly claim your better informed yet Offered NO information

All you did was provide a tax rate, you then claim that people paid this tax rate and that is what caused the golden era. You have yet to prove that a single person in the history of this country ever paid 90% taxes after deductions. The tax rate after deductions for the highest income earners was lower than 40% and that was IF they paid that much.

 

[Vast LWC]

Most home owners never paid a penny in capital gains on their homes.
Lowering the rate increased cap gains revenues.
Glass Steagall wouldn't have prevented bad mortgage underwriting.

If the mortgages hadn't been packaged, resold as investments, and massively overvalued at 60 times their value, the mortgage crisis would have been a tiny flash in the pan.

 

[Avorysuds]

Most home owners never paid a penny in capital gains on their homes.
Lowering the rate increased cap gains revenues.
Glass Steagall wouldn't have prevented bad mortgage underwriting.

If the mortgages hadn't been packaged, resold as investments, and massively overvalued at 60 times their value, the mortgage crisis would have been a tiny flash in the pan.

If Government didn't help people buy homes and followed the constitution there would have been no housing bubble at all... My version is based on not giving Government a power that leads to curruption.

 

[Vast LWC]

The video goes into great depth as to what caused the Great depression. What you're talking about is the recession. The Depression was caused by the FED, the Great Depression was caused by FDR extending it so long through welfare and high taxes.

No, the video goes into great depth about A cause of the depression, while ignoring all other causes, in a way that backs up Friedman's worldview.

 

[P@triot]

what makes you think it will be bad if we raise their taxes a little?

Isn't it funny how "progressives" who pride themselves on "progress" keep pointing back to failed policies of history.

What makes me think it will be bad? Nothing.

Why I know it will be bad? Because history has proven it. But God forbid any of you "progressives" look at history and learn from it, right? Better to be brainwashed by George Soros and just blindly follow him right into communist oppression....

 

[Vast LWC]

If Government didn't help people buy homes and followed the constitution there would have been no housing bubble at all... My version is based on not giving Government a power that leads to curruption.

In which case there just would have been some other kind of bubble.

A Tulip bubble, perhaps, or another internet bubble.

It doesn't matter what the product is, it's the inflated value of the investment that's the issue.

It was the same thing in the late 20's. Wiki gives a nice summary of this phenomena:

The crash followed a speculative boom that had taken hold in the late 1920s, which had led hundreds of thousands of Americans to invest heavily in the stock market. A significant number of them were borrowing money to buy more stocks. By August 1929, brokers were routinely lending small investors more than two-thirds of the face value of the stocks they were buying. Over $8.5 billion was out on loan, more than the entire amount of currency circulating in the U.S. at the time.

 

[Immanuel]

what makes you think it will be bad if we raise their taxes a little?

from 1950-1963 top tax rate was 91-92%, those were good years for our economy

Just following your logic here.If they were the good years at 91-92 %...
Just think how we can have great years if "everyone" piad 97-98 %...

How does more money in the Dems pocket make businesses thrive...

"your logic" when speaking of TDM does not compute.

Immie

 

[Desperado]

from 1950-1963 top tax rate was 91-92%, those were good years for our economy

what makes you think it will be bad if we raise their taxes a little?

Seriously......
Why do you think the government is entitled to 91-92% of anyone's income?
What do you consider a fair tax rate?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Cutting cap gains to 20% made it more profitable to over-leverage and invest more and more. Cutting it to 15% exaggerated the effect even more.

It didn't cause the internet bubble or housing bubble, but it sure a hell exacerbated them, and it added a massive chunk to the deficit besides.

Combine that with the absence of Glass Steagal, and you've got yourself an atmosphere that's ripe for a market crash and depression.

Remember, Reagan lowered the cap gains rate to 20%, and then raised them back to 28% after just a few years. There was a reason for that.

Most home owners never paid a penny in capital gains on their homes.
Lowering the rate increased cap gains revenues.
Glass Steagall wouldn't have prevented bad mortgage underwriting.

there were broker rules with glass steagal.

Bush held back the broker rules in GLBact which allowed the banks to hire and train any smuck they wanted to be a broker.

The broker rules wouldn't prevent bad mortgages either.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Most home owners never paid a penny in capital gains on their homes.
Lowering the rate increased cap gains revenues.
Glass Steagall wouldn't have prevented bad mortgage underwriting.

If the mortgages hadn't been packaged, resold as investments, and massively overvalued at 60 times their value, the mortgage crisis would have been a tiny flash in the pan.

Mortgages were "overvalued at 60 times their value"?
Could you flesh that claim out a bit?
If I took out a $200,000 mortgage, they sold it for $12 million?

 

[freedombecki]

Most home owners never paid a penny in capital gains on their homes.
Lowering the rate increased cap gains revenues.
Glass Steagall wouldn't have prevented bad mortgage underwriting.

If the mortgages hadn't been packaged, resold as investments, and massively overvalued at 60 times their value, the mortgage crisis would have been a tiny flash in the pan.

Mortgages were "overvalued at 60 times their value"?
Could you flesh that claim out a bit?
If I took out a $200,000 mortgage, they sold it for $12 million?

Thanks for painting a picture of libby fuzzy, fuzzy math!

I just wonder how they're going to evolve their way out of this one.

 

[Vast LWC]

Mortgages were "overvalued at 60 times their value"?
Could you flesh that claim out a bit?
If I took out a $200,000 mortgage, they sold it for $12 million?

Thanks for painting a picture of libby fuzzy, fuzzy math!

I just wonder how they're going to evolve their way out of this one.

See, now, at least Todd actually asked the question, rather than being like you, who just tries to dismiss anything you don't understand that doesn't agree with your worldview.

But, to answer Todd's question, yes, the packaged Mortgages were in fact, in some cases, inflated to 60 times their value.

How, you may ask? Well that is an interesting question.

Mortgages were bundled into "Mortgage Backed Securities", and bad mortgages were given triple A ratings, valuing their worth at much higher than they would have been valued if their risk had been rated correctly.

These bundled mortgages were then sold on the open market, with buyers knowing little of their initial value. With each sale, the bundled securities increased in value, some reaching about 60 times their initial value.

When some of the initial mortgages started to fail, the people holding the inflated securities started to realize they were screwed, because there was no reason for the securities they held to be valued so highly. This is when the market started to collapse in on itself.

You can check out all the details here:

Subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MikeK]

holy smokes..

91-92% tax rate were the GOOD YEARS..

Why doesn't Obama and Democrats just ask for 100%...We can have some WONDERFUL YEARS AHEAD

UTOPIA here we come

Inasmuch as the 91% rate was the extreme upper bracket of a progressive tax structure and it applied only to the super-rich, I'd say you are quite correct. In fact, I advocate a tax policy which would confiscate every penny in excess of twenty million dollars in personal assets. That would transform America into the kind of society it should be.

 

[Lakhota]

from 1950-1963 top tax rate was 91-92%, those were good years for our economy

what makes you think it will be bad if we raise their taxes a little?

CHART: Lower Taxes On The Rich Don't Lead To Job Growth | ThinkProgress

Top 1 Percent of Americans Reaped Two-Thirds of Income Gains in Last Economic Expansion — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Mortgages were "overvalued at 60 times their value"?
Could you flesh that claim out a bit?
If I took out a $200,000 mortgage, they sold it for $12 million?

Thanks for painting a picture of libby fuzzy, fuzzy math!

I just wonder how they're going to evolve their way out of this one.

See, now, at least Todd actually asked the question, rather than being like you, who just tries to dismiss anything you don't understand that doesn't agree with your worldview.

But, to answer Todd's question, yes, the packaged Mortgages were in fact, in some cases, inflated to 60 times their value.

How, you may ask? Well that is an interesting question.

Mortgages were bundled into "Mortgage Backed Securities", and bad mortgages were given triple A ratings, valuing their worth at much higher than they would have been valued if their risk had been rated correctly.

These bundled mortgages were then sold on the open market, with buyers knowing little of their initial value. With each sale, the bundled securities increased in value, some reaching about 60 times their initial value.

When some of the initial mortgages started to fail, the people holding the inflated securities started to realize they were screwed, because there was no reason for the securities they held to be valued so highly. This is when the market started to collapse in on itself.

You can check out all the details here:

Subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These bundled mortgages were then sold on the open market, with buyers knowing little of their initial value. With each sale, the bundled securities increased in value, some reaching about 60 times their initial value.

The claim that a $1 million, for example, face value mortgage would ever trade at $60 million is one of the most ridiculous claims I've ever heard. Please post some proof of this silliness. A generic wiki link is no proof of your specific claim.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

what makes you think it will be bad if we raise their taxes a little?

Why do you hate America?