Capital gains & income averaging.

[zonly1]

Clinton raised the long term cap gains tax rate to 28%, and nobody really cared. The economy took off anyway, and we had high GDP growth and good job creation. The Gingrich lead repub Congress lowered it down to 20% in 1997 and the economy continued to boom. And of course Bush lowered it to 15% in 2003 after a recession and the 9/11 attack and the economy picked up significantly. Many economists would credit the CG rate cut as at least a factor. Point is, sometimes it matters more than at other times.

That rate is going up to 20% in 2013 anyway, under current law. But the real question is whether or not raising that rate to match the ordinary marginal tax rate would have a deletorious effect at a time like this. I look at the expected increase in revenue relative to the possible hit to the economy and have to believe it's just not worth it for now. Banks require collateral before they make business loans for startups, which is where most new jobs come from. Angel investors are needed, you don't want to disincentivize them at a time when the economy is struggling.

please define purchasing power

 

[zonly1]

...less convinced that there is any reason to tax labor income at higher rates than capital gains...

Depends on what your goal is.

Spot on.

In fact, the argument for any policy depends on your goal.

And I propose that one's goal, ought to be based on what thye economy needs to find that balance between supply and demand.

IF, FOR EXAMPLE, there was a serious shortage of money for investment, my policy proposal would THEN BE that we tax labor at a higher rate than investment.

But clearly that is not the state of affairs our current economy finds itself in AT THIS TIME.

Economic policies ought to be based on what we think will work to keep our economy going.

NOT on some misinformed belief that there is ONE path to a health economy, but based on the theory that different economic cicrumstances demand different policy decisions.

Make sense?

if there is a shortage of money then the dollar would be stronger. less dollars chasing the same amount of goods, therefore energy and food cost would decline.

 

[zonly1]

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?

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.

 

[Supposn]

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, you’re referring to the mortgage defaults that precipitated the USA and global credit crunch that’s 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 bank’s at fault if they themselves were participating in the issuing of questionable mortgages.

/////////////////////////////////////////////
There’s 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 I’m not accusing anyone of duplicity. It’s always easier to believe that what’s to our own best advantage is equally to the nation’s best advantage]. Leaders of our greatest financial institutions believed this was a win-win for both private investors and the nation’s economy. The bill was problematic. The axiom of “no free lunch” wasn’t fully recognized in this act or because profits were perceived and the axiom’s application within this act wasn’t fully appreciated].
 

GSE prospectuses presented to investors state no legal requirement for federal financial backing of GSE’s, but influential persons at the highest levels of USA’s 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.

I’m 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

 

[danielpalos]

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 make a motion to abolish the capital gains preference as useless in modern times. We can simplify our tax codes by treating all income, as ordinary income.

 

[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 make a motion to abolish the capital gains preference as useless in modern times. We can simplify our tax codes by treating all income, as ordinary income.

Or, we could double the tax on unemployment benefits and triple the tax on weed.

Sorry to harsh your buzz.....

 

[danielpalos]

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 make a motion to abolish the capital gains preference as useless in modern times. We can simplify our tax codes by treating all income, as ordinary income.

Or, we could double the tax on unemployment benefits and triple the tax on weed.

Sorry to harsh your buzz.....

Pot smokers are already doing some "heavy lifting" with their tax monies.

 

[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 make a motion to abolish the capital gains preference as useless in modern times. We can simplify our tax codes by treating all income, as ordinary income.

Or, we could double the tax on unemployment benefits and triple the tax on weed.

Sorry to harsh your buzz.....

Pot smokers are already doing some "heavy lifting" with their tax monies.

Awesome. Lift more with triple the taxes.

 

[danielpalos]

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 make a motion to abolish the capital gains preference as useless in modern times. We can simplify our tax codes by treating all income, as ordinary income.

Or, we could double the tax on unemployment benefits and triple the tax on weed.

Sorry to harsh your buzz.....

Pot smokers are already doing some "heavy lifting" with their tax monies.

Awesome. Lift more with triple the taxes.

Recreational pot is being taxed at almost, ten dollars an ounce.

 

[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 make a motion to abolish the capital gains preference as useless in modern times. We can simplify our tax codes by treating all income, as ordinary income.

Or, we could double the tax on unemployment benefits and triple the tax on weed.

Sorry to harsh your buzz.....

Pot smokers are already doing some "heavy lifting" with their tax monies.

Awesome. Lift more with triple the taxes.

Recreational pot is being taxed at almost, ten dollars an ounce.

Should be $30. Maybe $60.

 

[danielpalos]

I make a motion to abolish the capital gains preference as useless in modern times. We can simplify our tax codes by treating all income, as ordinary income.

Or, we could double the tax on unemployment benefits and triple the tax on weed.

Sorry to harsh your buzz.....

Pot smokers are already doing some "heavy lifting" with their tax monies.

Awesome. Lift more with triple the taxes.

Recreational pot is being taxed at almost, ten dollars an ounce.

Should be $30. Maybe $60.

an ounce?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Or, we could double the tax on unemployment benefits and triple the tax on weed.

Sorry to harsh your buzz.....

Pot smokers are already doing some "heavy lifting" with their tax monies.

Awesome. Lift more with triple the taxes.

Recreational pot is being taxed at almost, ten dollars an ounce.

Should be $30. Maybe $60.

an ounce?

A gram sounds right.

You slackers need to contribute.

 

[danielpalos]

Pot smokers are already doing some "heavy lifting" with their tax monies.

Awesome. Lift more with triple the taxes.

Recreational pot is being taxed at almost, ten dollars an ounce.

Should be $30. Maybe $60.

an ounce?

A gram sounds right.

You slackers need to contribute.

I think the right wing needs to learn, fiscal discipline. Besides, we expect around a billion in revenue from it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Awesome. Lift more with triple the taxes.

Recreational pot is being taxed at almost, ten dollars an ounce.

Should be $30. Maybe $60.

an ounce?

A gram sounds right.

You slackers need to contribute.

I think the right wing needs to learn, fiscal discipline. Besides, we expect around a billion in revenue from it.

Fiscal discipline means hiking taxes, right?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

Respectfully, Supposn

why not eliminate all taxes on business activity so businessmen will make all decisions capitalisticially, i.e., based on improving our standard of living rather than on what some idiot soviet liberal bureaucrat guesses will serve some special interest.

Edward Baiamonte, if a nation taxes any net incomes, it should tax all net incomes.

I’m a proponent of keeping the top rate of corporate income taxes equal to the top rate of individuals’ income taxes.
Historically it’s been our experience that otherwise entrepreneurs declare little or no personal incomes but they’ll live very well upon their enterprise’s expense accounts.

Respectfully, Supposn

That's ridiculous of course the issue of living on expense accounts is totally different from the capital gains tax issue

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Good plan! Chase all our high earners out of the country! Great! Do that! See how your taxes skyrocket to pick up the slack.

California Girl, there’s a logical fault within your message.
If U.S. investors are earning consistently high incomes in the USA, why would they wish to leave our nation?

Respectfully, Supposn

Obviously to consistently earn higher incomes then they can earn in the USA thanks to live liberal confiscatory tax policies

 

[danielpalos]

Recreational pot is being taxed at almost, ten dollars an ounce.

Should be $30. Maybe $60.

an ounce?

A gram sounds right.

You slackers need to contribute.

I think the right wing needs to learn, fiscal discipline. Besides, we expect around a billion in revenue from it.

Fiscal discipline means hiking taxes, right?

The left is merely learning how to use Capitalism, for all of its capital worth in modern times, and ended our drug war on marijuana. We expect around a billion in additional revenue.

The right wing insist on teaching Persons how to fish instead of capital management, and have only massive debt and Red Herrings, to show for it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Should be $30. Maybe $60.

an ounce?

A gram sounds right.

You slackers need to contribute.

I think the right wing needs to learn, fiscal discipline. Besides, we expect around a billion in revenue from it.

Fiscal discipline means hiking taxes, right?

The left is merely learning how to use Capitalism, for all of its capital worth in modern times, and ended our drug war on marijuana. We expect around a billion in additional revenue.

The right wing insist on teaching Persons how to fish instead of capital management, and have only massive debt and Red Herrings, to show for it.

Tax those lefties good and hard!!!

 

[danielpalos]

an ounce?

A gram sounds right.

You slackers need to contribute.

I think the right wing needs to learn, fiscal discipline. Besides, we expect around a billion in revenue from it.

Fiscal discipline means hiking taxes, right?

The left is merely learning how to use Capitalism, for all of its capital worth in modern times, and ended our drug war on marijuana. We expect around a billion in additional revenue.

The right wing insist on teaching Persons how to fish instead of capital management, and have only massive debt and Red Herrings, to show for it.

Tax those lefties good and hard!!!

don't say that too loud around, left wing women, they may claim to want to practice their supply side economics, just for fun.

 

[The Derp]

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.