Capitalism with higher capital gains taxes means...

[edthecynic]

Low or no capital gains tax only encourages speculation,

that's 100% illiterate. It assumes that a proper level of taxaction produces the right amount of capitalism. The right amount is exaclty what happens without liberal fool bureaucrats 1000's of miles away guessing what is the right amount for local experts.

You are 100% illiterate! The proper level of capital gains tax discourages SPECULATION!!! Damn CON$ can't even understand English let alone economics. sheeeesh

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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.

got anymore good jokes?

can a liberal say why he thinks its a joke??

 

[Euro]

I will be stimulated .

a liberal fool bureaucrat 1000's of miles away has no idea whether you should invest or not. THe Fed encouraged investment and almost caused a depression?

Is that really over your head??

But with a low CG tax, people will take their money out of the stock market and start consuming.
If you raise the CG tax and lower the corporate tax more money will stay in the stock market, because it is less proffitable to consume instead of investing.

You can have a more progressive capital gain tax, so small business owners can do well.

The problem in US is that to much money is taken out of the stock market and they consume to much. That must be changed, they need to consume less but invest more.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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.

Tell that to the venture capitalists of the amazing boom years from 1945 to 1970.

Jake dear, 1945 was when WW2 ended. We had the only economy left standing in the world!! China was not exporting much then!! Sorry!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But with a low CG tax, people will take their money out of the stock market and start consuming.

yes and with low interest rates people will start buying houses. This is what caused the housing crisis!! You want real sustainable free market investment , not artificial liberal mal investment and depression

 

[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.

Tell that to the venture capitalists of the amazing boom years from 1945 to 1970.

Jake dear, 1945 was when WW2 ended. We had the only economy left standing in the world!! China was not exporting much then!! Sorry!!

You silly goose. Tell that to the venture capitalists who happily invested despite those rates. You can't show the correlation that lower capital gains means a better economy or more jobs, can you?

This is going to be a piece of cake.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Tell that to the venture capitalists who happily invested despite those rates.

tell them what? you cant lose no matter what the tax because we have the only economy left standing in the world?? Don't worry you wont have to pay the tax anyway becuase of loopholes you could drive a truck through

.

You can't show the correlation that lower capital gains means a better economy or more jobs, can you?

This is going to be a piece of cake.

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!

 

[Euro]

But with a low CG tax, people will take their money out of the stock market and start consuming.

yes and with low interest rates people will start buying houses. This is what caused the housing crisis!! You want real sustainable free market investment , not artificial liberal mal investment and depression

That’s of course a problem you’ll get. But as long as that bubble don’t cracks businesess wil do well and government will do well.
But housing prices will be higher, because of little stimlation in the housing market. Eventually the bubble will crack.

But you can put restrictions on mortage takers to prevent that. But housing prices will skyrocket.

 

[Wiseacre]

I view the question about capital gains taxes within context of how the economy is doing. When Clinton raised the CG rate back in '93 the economy was going great guns and it didn't matter. There are times when the economy can handle higher tax rates and still keep growing. But there are also times, like right now, when you don't want to do anything that could be restrictive. I think it's a bad idea for now, but I'd be for it when GDP growth hits 4% and stays there for awhile. Then I'd raise the CG rate but I wouldn'r raise spending, I'd try to reduce the debt/deficit.

The thing is, you don't get that much extra revenue from this, nowhere near enough to bring up revenue to meet the spending. The true answer has to be spending cuts, but as with taxes it's gotta be muted until we get the economy going again. I don't think we can chop a trillion bucks/year or more off the spending without an adverse impact on the economy. It seems to me it took awhile to get this far in debt, we don't need to balance the budget right away; I think we need to be very smart about it, when the private sector is ready to take on higher taxes and spending cuts, fine. But not before.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That’s of course a problem you’ll get. But

but????? if liberals cause depression and recession you stop doing liberal things !!!!

as long as that bubble don’t cracks businesess wil do well and government will do well.

dear, thats what the soviets thought too. You never know if its a bubble or when it will crack. Dear, that is why we had a near depression!!!!!

But housing prices will be higher, because of little stimlation in the housing market. Eventually the bubble will crack.

But you can put restrictions on mortage takers to prevent that. But housing prices will skyrocket.

you don't know what a little stimulation is or what liberal restrictions are. Its just liberals guessing for the whole county in monopoly fashion. Soon they use a little more and little more until you have a depression over the whole country. The free market produces tiny bubble that burst for all to see and learn from.


See why we say the liberal will lack the IQ to understand the free market?

 

[JakeStarkey]

. Tell that to the venture capitalists who happily invested despite those rates.

tell them what? you cant lose no matter what the tax because we have the only economy left standing in the world?? Don't worry you wont have to pay the tax anyway becuase of loopholes you could drive a truck through

.

You can't show the correlation that lower capital gains means a better economy or more jobs, can you?

This is going to be a piece of cake.

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!

Let's have the sources.

But even with them, your material shows that lower capital gains taxes now do not generate jobs, when from 1945 to 1970, when they were much higher, the middle class economy rocketed.

Inconsistency is going to undermine you every time, Edward.

 

[Meister]

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.

You mean they are going to raise my taxes????
Does that mean that the bottom 47% are going to be paying more income tax?

 

[JakeStarkey]

That’s of course a problem you’ll get. But

but????? if liberals cause depression and recession you stop doing liberal things !!!!

as long as that bubble don’t cracks businesess wil do well and government will do well.

dear, thats what the soviets thought too. You never know if its a bubble or when it will crack. Dear, that is why we had a near depression!!!!!

But housing prices will be higher, because of little stimlation in the housing market. Eventually the bubble will crack.

But you can put restrictions on mortage takers to prevent that. But housing prices will skyrocket.

you don't know what a little stimulation is or what liberal restrictions are. Its just liberals guessing for the whole county in monopoly fashion. Soon they use a little more and little more until you have a depression over the whole country. The free market produces tiny bubble that burst for all to see and learn from.


See why we say the liberal will lack the IQ to understand the free market?

Your style of economics led to the Great Depressions of 1893 and 1929, and the Great Recession of 2007.

We need to keep you away from any decision making influence.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

when from 1945 to 1970, when they were much higher, the middle class economy rocketed.

well then lets bomb Europe Japan and China! Go play basketball jake.!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Edward, that is called coincidence not causality, and makes as much silliness as it sounds. Look up the concept and the context. Then we will talk.

I am waiting for the sources on the earlier post, please.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Edward, that is called coincidence not causality, and makes as much silliness as it sounds. Look up the concept and the context. Then we will talk.

got it, its coincidence that our economy boomed when we had the only economy left standing in the world after ww2. Ya gotta know when to fold em Jake!!

Certainly if Totota, Honda, and Nissan disappeared tomorrow our auto industry would go into depression. It makes perfect sense.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You still sound like a silly fool. Do you refuse to get context. Do you understand that beginning year is the end of the war and we are talking about 25 years thereafter.?

I am still waiting for your sources.

Right now all you have made are some silly opinions.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

You're an idiot.

The heydays for venture capitalism and investment in general were the 90's,

in fact, it got so hectic we got the infamous stock market bubble.

All of that was under Clinton's tax structure. aka the tax structure that now the Right says would make investment so unattractive it would destroy our economy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's what Newt Gingrich said about the 1993 Clinton budget, including the tax hikes:

"The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit."

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

All of that was under Clinton's tax structure. aka the tax structure that now the Right says would make investment so unattractive it would destroy our economy.

of course as a liberal you will know less than nothing. Clinton said the "era of big government is over" because the saintly Newt had taken over the government for Republicans for first time in 40 years.

Heritage: According to Treasury's original estimates, the 1997 tax cut was relatively modest, amounting to just 0.11 percent of GDP in its first year and 0.22 percent of GDP by its fourth year. In 1997, the fourth-year effect would be roughly equivalent to a reduction in the overall tax burden of about $30 billion.

Despite its modest size, tax cut advocates had high expectations for the tax cut's effects on the economy because the reduction in the capital gains tax rate was expected to unleash a torrent of entrepreneurial and venture capital activity. They were not disappointed.

In 1995, the first year for which these data are available, just over $8 billion in venture capital was invested.[5] Venture capital is especially critical to a vibrant economy because high-risk/high-return investment permits promising new businesses to blossom, rapidly spreading new technologies and new ideas into the marketplace and across the economy. Such investments, when successful, generate returns to investors that are subject primarily to the tax on capital gains. By 1998, the first full year in which the lower capital gains rates were in effect, venture capital activity reached almost $28 billion, more than a three-fold increase over 1995 levels, and by 1999, it had doubled yet again.

The explosion in venture capital activity cannot be credited entirely to the cut in capital gains tax rates, as the cut fortuitously coincided with technological developments that gave rise to the Internet-based "New Economy." However, the rapid development and application of these new technologies could not have occurred at such a rapid clip absent the enormous investment flows made possible largely by the reduction in the capital gains tax rate. This experience demonstrated yet again the truth of the axiom: The less you