Capital gains & income averaging.

[editec]

the theory that different economic cicrumstances demand different policy decisions.[/B]

Make sense?

no its actually liberal and so idiotic. It assumes a soviet committee of liberal geniuses can figure out the right policy when they could not even see a huge housing bubble about to explode right under their noses.

But you have no problem when BANKERS make those decisions when handing out loansm], right?

For some reason you imagine that if the government makes a decision they'll get it wrong, but a banker will get it right?

Well how'd the bankers do in the last decade or so.

Good job do you think?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

the theory that different economic cicrumstances demand different policy decisions.[/B]

Make sense?

no its actually liberal and so idiotic. It assumes a soviet committee of liberal geniuses can figure out the right policy when they could not even see a huge housing bubble about to explode right under their noses.

But you have no problem when BANKERS make those decisions when handing out loansm], right?

For some reason you imagine that if the government makes a decision they'll get it wrong, but a banker will get it right?

Well how'd the bankers do in the last decade or so.

Good job do you think?

When bankers make a poor decision, their jobs, shares and incomes are impacted.
When the government makes a poor decision, we're impacted.
Notice the difference?

 

[Supposn]

But you have no problem when BANKERS make those decisions when handing out loansm], right?

For some reason you imagine that if the government makes a decision they'll get it wrong, but a banker will get it right?

Well how'd the bankers do in the last decade or so.

Good job do you think?

When bankers make a poor decision, their jobs, shares and incomes are impacted.
When the government makes a poor decision, we're impacted.
Notice the difference?

The argument against self-regulation

You all, concerning financial industries in particular, I’ve just posted the topic entitled “The argument against self-regulation”.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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 am not opposed to speculators but I’m opposed to using tax policy to favor any business model over others. Unlike the proponents of the long term capital gains tax loopholes, I prefer our government promote transparent open markets that we all may be able to trust.

Refer to the topic “Capital gains income’s tax discount is unjustified”, posted at 11:02, April 16, 2012.

There was an “income averaging” provision within our income tax regulations that mitigated progressive tax rate’s excesses when applied to the filing’s year’s taxable income.
This tax reduction rewarded but was not limited to wealthy investors or those that sold their homes. It benefitted lottery or quiz program winners, sport or entertainment figures, inventors or anyone else that hit ANY KIND of financial jackpot within the taxable year for which they were filing an income tax return. It compensated those who were lucky or daring or devoted years for study or practice of their chosen professions.
It was of no particular benefit to those with comparatively level annual incomes; (such as a Buffett or Romney or your mailman).

I advocate elimination of the long term capital gains loophole and restoring the income averaging,

Respectfully, Supposn

I prefer our government promote transparent open markets that we all may be able to trust

How does raising the capital gains tax rate give us a more transparent and trustworthy market?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How does raising the capital gains tax rate give us a more transparent and trustworthy market?

the more capital you tax away for liberals to waste the less capital you have for new ventures like Apple Google Facebook.

In the industry they say the idiotic liberal tax reduces the "shots on goal" they can take and so the jobs they can create.

 

[Flopper]

The purpose of the capital gains tax is to encourage investors to invest in America. For the life of me, I can see why we are using this tax benefit to encourage investment in other countries.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The purpose of the capital gains tax is to encourage investors to invest in America. For the life of me, I can see why we are using this tax benefit to encourage investment in other countries.

it turns out that many of the new jobs here are from companies that invest abroad too. We have the worlds biggest economy and the whole world is now open for our business if only the liberals would get out of the way!!

 

[Flopper]

The purpose of the capital gains tax is to encourage investors to invest in America. For the life of me, I can see why we are using this tax benefit to encourage investment in other countries.

it turns out that many of the new jobs here are from companies that invest abroad too. We have the worlds biggest economy and the whole world is now open for our business if only the liberals would get out of the way!!

Less developed countries offer a lot of incentives to attract US corporation in the form tax holidays and waiving regulations. I think there is enough incentives to invest abroad without Uncle adding more.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The purpose of the capital gains tax is to encourage investors to invest in America. For the life of me, I can see why we are using this tax benefit to encourage investment in other countries.

it turns out that many of the new jobs here are from companies that invest abroad too. We have the worlds biggest economy and the whole world is now open for our business if only the liberals would get out of the way!!

Less developed countries offer a lot of incentives to attract US corporation in the form tax holidays and waiving regulations. I think there is enough incentives to invest abroad without Uncle adding more.

incentives are liberal and stupid . Its best to eliminate the tax altogether so decisions are based on business efficiency not tax dodging. Thats how you grow a superior economy to compete with the mess in China

 

[Supposn]

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 am not opposed to speculators but I’m opposed to using tax policy to favor any business model over others. Unlike the proponents of the long term capital gains tax loopholes, I prefer our government promote transparent open markets that we all may be able to trust.

Refer to the topic “Capital gains income’s tax discount is unjustified”, posted at 11:02, April 16, 2012. ......................................espectfully, Supposn

How does raising the capital gains tax rate give us a more transparent and trustworthy market?

ToddsterPatriot, how does special strokes for special folks help? Income is income.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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 am not opposed to speculators but I’m opposed to using tax policy to favor any business model over others. Unlike the proponents of the long term capital gains tax loopholes, I prefer our government promote transparent open markets that we all may be able to trust.

Refer to the topic “Capital gains income’s tax discount is unjustified”, posted at 11:02, April 16, 2012. ......................................espectfully, Supposn

How does raising the capital gains tax rate give us a more transparent and trustworthy market?

ToddsterPatriot, how does special strokes for special folks help? Income is income.

Respectfully, Supposn

Now that you've admitted that raising the capital gains tax rate doesn't give us a more transparent and trustworthy market?

 

[Supposn]

Now that you've admitted that raising the capital gains tax rate doesn't give us a more transparent and trustworthy market?

ToddsterPatriot, I continue to assert that the LTCG tax reduction is an inequitable loop hole and as such is a net detriment to our economy.
You’re unable to effectively refute opposing arguments so you reword them to suit yourself?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[expat_panama]

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.

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.

ExPat_Panama, I would suppose...

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.

 

[editec]

Long term capital gains are not economically more or less beneficial than incomes derived from entrepreneurs’ steadily nurturing and reinvesting into their enterprises.

SAy what?

Long term capital gains ARE profits reinvested back into the business, lad.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Now that you've admitted that raising the capital gains tax rate doesn't give us a more transparent and trustworthy market?

ToddsterPatriot, I continue to assert that the LTCG tax reduction is an inequitable loop hole and as such is a net detriment to our economy.
You’re unable to effectively refute opposing arguments so you reword them to suit yourself?

Respectfully, Supposn

The proper rate for capital gains is 0%.

 

[Supposn]

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 there’s 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

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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 there’s 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.

 

[Supposn]

Long term capital gains are not economically more or less beneficial than incomes derived from entrepreneurs’ steadily nurturing and reinvesting into their enterprises.

SAy what?
Long term capital gains ARE profits reinvested back into the business, lad./QUOTE]

Editec, the aptly described “stock markets” function is to better enable the liquidity of stocks and bonds.
This is certainly of economic value to a nation.

Corporations usually have some shares of their enterprises set aside. When enterprises sell shares of their own enterprises, regardless if those shares are IPOs or simply shares they took out of their vaults, the purchasers have increased those enterprises’ working capital.

These are instances where the stock markets actually contribute additional capital into the world. You could, and I do describe this as investment. (But I wonder to what extent it is ADDITIONAL capital in the cases where the enterprise is selling shares they previously purchased to set aside?)

Almost all purchases of stocks and bonds are transfers of wealth and are NOT factored into GDPs. Purchases of IPOs are investments and DO contribute to GDPs. I’ve heard estimates that less than ½% of stock and bond transactions are IPOs.

If that’s the case, approximately 99.5% of long term capital gain, (LTCG) reduction of federal tax revenues due to stock and bond transactions were granted to sellers that contributed nothing more than the brokerage fees to the nation’s GDP.

LTCG tax reductions of sales profits are granted to sellers rather than purchasers. There is no particular reason to suppose a seller will not spend their sales revenues for consumer items and if they purchase stocks or bonds, there’s approximately a 99.5% probability that the purchase will be a transfer of wealth rather than an investment.

Editec, in response to your message “Long term capital gains ARE profits reinvested back into the business”:

LTCG are profits, but they are sales profits of items that are extremely likely NOT to be investment items. LTCG logic is based upon the assumption (contrary to experience), that the sales revenues will be invested rather than be used for transfers of wealth or consumer purchases.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[snjmom]

LTCG are taxed at a different rate to encourage long term investing and discourage speculative casino-style trading.

 

[editec]

But you have no problem when BANKERS make those decisions when handing out loansm], right?

For some reason you imagine that if the government makes a decision they'll get it wrong, but a banker will get it right?

Well how'd the bankers do in the last decade or so.

Good job do you think?

When bankers make a poor decision, their jobs, shares and incomes are impacted.

Really? In what world does that happen?


Certainly not in the one you and I are sharing right now.