[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This is not always true.

For a while, social security worked. Medicaid can help reduce the costs across the board by reducing strain on our emergency care from people that can't afford private health insurance. Of course, there is also public education and other public services that generally work pretty well.

Your argument paints things as though I'm saying there'd be no money for government programs, and that people for responsible and fair taxation (not wealth-redistribution schemes) are for NO taxation. Not at all. In fact, as the debate question pointed out, there are times when lesser taxation even leads to more revenue- which anyone who runs a business knows is simply the effect of a lower price leading to more activity, as a greater number of smaller transactions can easily produce more revenue than a smaller number of larger transactions.

I'm not one of these "let's abolish the IRS" types- I'm simply a person who believes that the government has plenty of money to achieve the things it's actually charged with doing, without excessive taxes. Government waste, mismanagement, fraud, overspending, over-borrowing, etc. are far greater problems than lack of revenue and taxpayers "not paying enough" and too many people have been sold a bill of goods otherwise.

Government and politicians have no business what-so-ever engaging in wealth redistribution, or using regressive taxation to manipulate behavior or social policy.

It is also worth keeping in mind that if you starve a public service of its resources, it becomes useless or at least less useful. Look at FEMAs reaction to Hurricane Katrina, or of other public services that people love to bitch about (e.g. the BMV, post office, etc.). So, there is a careful balance in funding the services you wish to make public.

Moreover, looking at the housing crisis, the collapse of Enron, etc. we see the effects of what can happen in the private sector when greed runs amuck and unregulated loopholes are exploited.

Again, no one said there needs to be no regulation.

The irony of everything you said above, is that Obama's policy of not giving a squat if raising capital gains would actually lead to LESS economic activity that produces capital gains, and therefore LESS revenue collected from capital gains, because somehow that's "fair" would more likey starve some government program due to lesser revenue, than encouraging more economic activity and producing greater revenues via LOWER CG taxes would.

He's basically saying he doesn't care- he's more concerned with the fact that it would mean 'the rich' aren't having something taken away from them, he can't go to the poor and say "see? I took something from a rich guy! Now don't you feel better?" Lesser revenue? More borrowing and spending to compensate? Who cares. Soaking the 'rich' is more important.

[Chongo]

How about no income taxes at all(i.e. the Fair Tax), like it was before the XVI amendment was passed?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I want to add two points:

1) Liberals believe that it's empirically false what Gibson claimed, that cutting taxes (capital gains or other types) causes an increase in revenues.

Prove it. Gibson was absolutely correct. Cutting capital gains from 28% to 20% increased revenues. By the way, it was Clinton who did so. Even he realized it.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Prove it. Gibson was absolutely correct. Cutting capital gains from 28% to 20% increased revenues. By the way, it was Clinton who did so. Even he realized it.

Clinton signed it, the (R)s passed it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Your argument paints things as though I'm saying there'd be no money for government programs, and that people for responsible and fair taxation (not wealth-redistribution schemes) are for NO taxation. Not at all. In fact, as the debate question pointed out, there are times when lesser taxation even leads to more revenue- which anyone who runs a business knows is simply the effect of a lower price leading to more activity, as a greater number of smaller transactions can easily produce more revenue than a smaller number of larger transactions.

Marketing 101 will tell you that that isn't always true. It's a big fat "it depends" that is contingent upon the balance of supply vs. demand, as well as many other factors (e.g. perception).

I'm not one of these "let's abolish the IRS" types- I'm simply a person who believes that the government has plenty of money to achieve the things it's actually charged with doing, without excessive taxes. Government waste, mismanagement, fraud, overspending, over-borrowing, etc. are far greater problems than lack of revenue and taxpayers "not paying enough" and too many people have been sold a bill of goods otherwise.

I do agree that a lot of money is being mismanaged, all of the earmarks in our budget come to mind (which were passed by this president). However, before any proposals to gut everything, it seems like it would be far more prudent to prevent mismanagement of what we have. This is a more fundamental problem that will exist regardless of how much money the government has to mismanage.

He's basically saying he doesn't care- he's more concerned with the fact that it would mean 'the rich' aren't having something taken away from them, he can't go to the poor and say "see? I took something from a rich guy! Now don't you feel better?" Lesser revenue? More borrowing and spending to compensate? Who cares. Soaking the 'rich' is more important.

These are just your emotionally driven assumptions which may or may not be true. I can't argue your feelings, I can only argue against your actual arguments.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Prove it. Gibson was absolutely correct. Cutting capital gains from 28% to 20% increased revenues. By the way, it was Clinton who did so. Even he realized it.

I've cited the evidence over and over and over again. I've cited the conservative (not to mention liberal) economists who say it's snake-oil to claim it. I've cited how the government's economists - both administration and CBO - score tax cuts as revenues losses, not gains. Here is one good source. I'd like to see an actual economist - not a news anchor or politician or think-tanker - make the claim that a capital gains tax cut causes and increase in revenues, because I've never seen it.

Capital gains revenue collections are almost completely determined by the state of the stock market. Capital gains revenues went up and up and up throughout the 1990s as the stock market went up - including when the rate was cut - and then fell through the floor from 2000-2003. There's no evidence of a bump in the trend when the tax was cut in the 1990s, although it didn't go down either. But since 2003, the stock market has been increasing slowly again, and cap gains revenues have been creeping back up again.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Please show me where raising the rate has led to any significant increase in revenue, and where lowering it has led to any significant decrease.

Look at 1970- the rate increased from 25% to 29.5 then up to 35%. Revenues that had been raising decreased and didn't recover to 1968 levels until 1977.

When the rate was lowered in 1979 to 28% revenues stayed consistent, and even climbed slightly. The reduction to 20% in 1982 continued the upward trend, until the hikes of to 33% and 28% starting in 1988 stagnated rates again.

Once more, the reduction to 20% in 1997 under Clinton sent rates back upward. Rates began to fall in 2001, not after the reduction to 15% in 2003 which if anything, has done the opposite as we're climbing back to 1998 levels.

Mathews was totally correct- there's no evidence to support that raising that rates again to 28% (the maximum Obama wants to raise it) will increase revenues- nor does he seem really interested in doing so.

[BRussell]

crash: That's a good table. But I want to reiterate what I said in my previous post, because your post suggests to me that you didn't get me: Cap gains revenues are determined almost solely by the stock market, and decreases in the rate haven't caused an increase or a decrease in revenues. The cycle just keeps chugging right along, past increases and decreases in the rate. The revenue trend did not change one bit after the 1997 rate cut. It was going up before it, and it continued to go up after it - but no faster than it had been. There's no evidence that cap gains revenues decrease after rate cuts, but there's also no evidence that they cause an increase, which was the point that Gibson made, and you claimed was absolutely correct.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

crash: That's a good table. But I want to reiterate what I said in my previous post, because your post suggests to me that you didn't get me: Cap gains revenues are determined almost solely by the stock market, and decreases in the rate haven't caused an increase or a decrease in revenues.

If you think for one minute that investors aren't influenced by a difference of say 15% and 28% (the max amount Obama wants to raise it to because for some inexplicable reason he thinks that's 'fair', I've got a bridge to sell you. That'd be almost twice the tax rate, and would kill a LOT of investment activity. But somehow that's "fair" because in the world of leftists, middle class people don't invest, only the 'rich' do, and somehow the poor benefit from people investing less.

The revenue trend did not change one bit after the 1997 rate cut. It was going up before it, and it continued to go up after it - but no faster than it had been.

I think you're willfully blind, much like Obama himself. Pre-1997, the revenues were fluctuating from a lows in the 30's and 40s, to above 50bil. After 1997, the rate for the first time ever cracked 100 billion- basically doubling from the 1993-94 era. That's not anywhere near the same fluctuating increases and decreases that were occurring before.

By the way, if you look at the mid-80's nearly the same thing occurred- the reduction to 20% from 28% led to a huge increase (nearly 100 billion in 1988) and the following increase to 33% and 28% kicked it back down again.

Rather than try and thumb your nose to the fact that decreasing the rate HAS led to higher revenues, maybe you'd do better to try and actually answer the question Obama had to try and skirt around- what exactly do you think is to be gained from raising rates, and what's your real motivation for doing so?

Where can you point to where raising CG taxes has really led to any significant increase? How then can you, with a straight face, spout on about what you'd do with "more revenues" after a CG tax hike, when history proves that's not been the trend, but the opposite has? What's your real reason? Some crazy view of what's "fair" because you're taking something from the rich? If so, why not just admit that, rather than just try and bamboozle people?

Mathews was right on for actually asking Obama a tough, substantive question like that, and expecting a FACTUAL and substantive answer. Which of course, he didn't get- unless you count "because it's fair" as at least an honest admission of the true motivation, and things like revenues be damned.

The only truly reliable predictor of the future is the past. And here the evidence is fairly straightforward. Over the past 30 years a consistent pattern has emerged: every time the capital gains tax has been cut, capital gains tax revenues have risen. Every time the capital gains tax has been raised, capital gains tax revenues have fallen. Here are some prominent examples:


* In 1968, real capital gains tax receipts were $34 billion at a 25 percent tax rate. Over the next eight years the tax rate was raised four times, to a high of 35 percent. Yet with the tax rate almost 10 percentage points higher in 1972 than in 1968, real capital gains tax revenues were only $27 billion — 21 percent below the 1968 level.

* In 1978, when the top marginal tax rate was 35 percent, $28 billion in capital gains taxes were collected. By 1984, after the tax had been cut to 20 percent, revenues from the lower tax rate were $41 billion — 46 percent above the 1978 level.

* In 1986, the tax rate increased by 40 percent, from 20 to 28 percent. Did tax revenues climb by 40 percent? Just the opposite occurred. In 1990, the federal government took in 13 percent less revenue at the 28 percent rate than it did in 1985 at the 20 percent rate. In 1991 (and again in 1992), the government collected more than 15 percent less revenue than it did in 1985.

* In 1996, the year before the capital gains tax rate was cut from 28 to 20 percent, net capital gains on assets sold were roughly $335 billion. A year later, capital gains had leapt to $459 billion. (The tax cut was retroactive to May 1997.) In 1996 the Treasury collected roughly $85 billion in capital gains revenues. In 1997 those tax payments soared to $100 billion. As Table V shows, capital gains revenues for the period from 1997 to 2000 were nearly double what they were during the preceding period.

* After the 2003 capital gains tax cut, federal revenues increased in four years by $740 billion. The budget deficit fell from $401 billion in 2004 to $160 billion in 2007. Capital gains revenues increased from $55 billion in 2002 to an estimated $110 billion for 2006. Every indicator shows that the 2003 investment tax cuts helped increase growth, stock market values and federal tax receipts.

NCPA | Study #307, The Bush Capital Gains Tax Cut after Four Years: More Growth, More Investment, More Revenues


I know, I know- the above flies in the face of "get even with the 'rich' at all costs!" liberalism, but there it is.

[Big Mac]

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates benefit from lower capital gains taxes. But so does your hard working average neighbor who has his capital gains taxed at a low rate, too. The way to achieve fairness certainly isn't to raise the rate on everyone, unless you think hosing regular people who have stock portfolios is a good thing for the economy (it's not). I would support a progressive capital gains tax rate as an alternative - something like the current low tier for gains up to $1M and a 30% rate for gains >$1M.

Of course, it would be infinitely better to switch to a flat tax or, better yet, to repeal the 16th amendment altogether and adopt a national sales tax as the replacement. The founders thought direct taxation to be so onerous that the prohibition against it was included in the Constitution itself. If it had been included with the Bill of Rights instead there never would have been an income tax foisted upon this great country.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

If you think for one minute that investors aren't influenced by a difference of say 15% and 28% (the max amount Obama wants to raise it to because for some inexplicable reason he thinks that's 'fair', I've got a bridge to sell you. That'd be almost twice the tax rate, and would kill a LOT of investment activity. But somehow that's "fair" because in the world of leftists, middle class people don't invest, only the 'rich' do, and somehow the poor benefit from people investing less.

Right, "leftists" believe that middle class people don't invest. That's exactly what Obama has said, and I have said - exactly. You're simply incapable of making factual arguments, crash. You can't resist the emotionalism, can you?

Of course people are influenced by tax rates - mainly by shifting investment income from one year to another with a lower tax rate. But the facts show that people don't stop investing when the rate is higher and then all of a sudden start investing when it goes lower. The facts show that revenues stay on the same trends regardless of what government does. You may think people wait around for the government to cut their taxes before they do anything, but the facts don't show that.

I think you're willfully blind, much like Obama himself. Pre-1997, the revenues were fluctuating from a lows in the 30's and 40s, to above 50bil. After 1997, the rate for the first time ever cracked 100 billion- basically doubling from the 1993-94 era. That's not anywhere near the same fluctuating increases and decreases that were occurring before.

This is factually incorrect. The rates varied along with the stock market and recession before the rate cut, and caried with the stock market and recession after the rate cut. There was no increase in revenue growth after the rate cut. In fact the highest growth (46%) came right before the rate cut, and the average growth rate after the rate cut was lower than the average growth rate before the rate cut.

year...cap gains revenue growth rate
1990...-14%
1991...13%
1992 ...21%
1993...-2%...recession
1994...19%
1995...19%
1996...46%
1997...17%...rate reduction
1998...11%
1999...23%
2000...10%
2001...-50%...stock market crash
2002...-26%

By the way, if you look at the mid-80's nearly the same thing occurred- the reduction to 20% from 28% led to a huge increase (nearly 100 billion in 1988) and the following increase to 33% and 28% kicked it back down again.

Again, what you're say in the first part is simply demonstrably factually false. Just look at the average revenue growth rates. The second half of what you're saying is true, but the rates were changing rapidly up and down during that time and the revenues were too. I don't think there's any long-term relationship, especially when you look at other, more clear instances of rate changes and you don't see the pattern you're looking for. At some point it's just like reading tea leaves or tarot cards.

Rather than try and thumb your nose to the fact that decreasing the rate HAS led to higher revenues, maybe you'd do better to try and actually answer the question Obama had to try and skirt around- what exactly do you think is to be gained from raising rates, and what's your real motivation for doing so?

I'm not raising any rates, and I have no motivation to raise them or do anything to them. But what Obama basically said is that investment shouldn't be treated as superior to work. They should be taxed at roughly the same rate as a matter of fairness and simplicity.

Where can you point to where raising CG taxes has really led to any significant increase? How then can you, with a straight face, spout on about what you'd do with "more revenues" after a CG tax hike, when history proves that's not been the trend, but the opposite has? What's your real reason? Some crazy view of what's "fair" because you're taking something from the rich? If so, why not just admit that, rather than just try and bamboozle people?

I can't point to where raising cap gains taxes has led to dramatic increases in revenues. But you'll note that, despite what you claim, I have never spouted off about what I would do with more revenues after a cap gains tax hike. No bamboozling whatsoever.

Mathews was right on for actually asking Obama a tough, substantive question like that, and expecting a FACTUAL and substantive answer. Which of course, he didn't get- unless you count "because it's fair" as at least an honest admission of the true motivation, and things like revenues be damned.

I'm not sure why you keep talking about Matthews. Gibson you mean? And I did think it was a fair question, unlike most of the other questions they asked, which were inane.

NCPA | Study #307, The Bush Capital Gains Tax Cut after Four Years: More Growth, More Investment, More Revenues

I know, I know- the above flies in the face of "get even with the 'rich' at all costs!" liberalism, but there it is.

You seem to think that people were just waiting around for George and the Government to give them the go-ahead, and then they started working and investing. I've got news for you crash, and it may crush you, so get ready: People are making the economy work without the government enacting some magic policy. The stock market burst in 2001, and has been slowly getting back on track since then. It wasn't Congress or George that made the money start to flow again.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Right, "leftists" believe that middle class people don't invest. That's exactly what Obama has said, and I have said - exactly. You're simply incapable of making factual arguments, crash. You can't resist the emotionalism, can you?

Oh please, look who's talking. You simply can't stand the fact that your obsession with raising taxes doesn't actually correspond with raising revenues, and that your real motivations for it are something other than any real desire to deal with budget deficits or revenue. You've got no facts at all to show that raising revenues on CG taxes raises revenues, so rather than explain why you're so gung ho to raise rates anyway, you simply try and snipe at the facts that show the opposite. And that's not emotionalism? Give me a break.

Of course people are influenced by tax rates - mainly by shifting investment income from one year to another with a lower tax rate. But the facts show that people don't stop investing when the rate is higher and then all of a sudden start investing when it goes lower.

Investors invest to make money. When you create a situation where there's less money to be had from an investment (whether its by raising the tax rate or whatever else) then people will find ways around it, and you'll see less revenue on that tax rate.

You may think people wait around for the government to cut their taxes before they do anything, but the facts don't show that.

This is a funny bit of your typical smoke-screening, because you're the one who's entire life clearly revolves around a desire for the government to be doing something for you, usually in the form of taxing someone else. You're fine with Obama rasing the CG rate, despite the fact that it's clear (and you've certainly failed to prove otherwise) that there's NO revenue increase to be gained from it. You expect some magical 'fairness' to happen simply because you've hiked up a tax rate to stick it to someone. How else do you explain it?

Meanwhile, I don't think I've said once I'm waiting around for the government to do jack diddly- just leave the friggen 15% rate alone. It's clearly working fine, hasn't led to any decrease of revenue -in fact, the opposite- and the lower rate is good for investors- middle class, rich, or otherwise.

You're the one arguing for the government to change something- and yet you've cited no factual reason behind it, and have no numbers to support it.

This is factually incorrect. The rates varied along with the stock market and recession before the rate cut, and caried with the stock market and recession after the rate cut. There was no increase in revenue growth after the rate cut. In fact the highest growth (46%) came right before the rate cut, and the average growth rate after the rate cut was lower than the average growth rate before the rate cut.

I've never said the stock market as a whole didn't have anything to do with the numbers- just that the fact remains:

"Over the past 30 years a consistent pattern has emerged: every time the capital gains tax has been cut, capital gains tax revenues have risen. Every time the capital gains tax has been raised, capital gains tax revenues have fallen."

That statement doesn't say, "...and no other market factor has anything to do with rates." Which is now what you're trying to backtrack into, rather than address the issue. You claimed that what Gibson said was wrong- yet you've completely failed to prove it wrong.

When has raising the CG tax rate led to a significant increase in revenue? How can Obama claim to spend 'increased revenues' from his desire to raise the rate, when there's no historical evidence to support that this would happen- in fact, the opposite. Talk about emotionalism- you're simply incapable of admitting that he's playing to the voters who think any time you "stick it to someone who has a buck more than you do" that it's a good thing. Just saying "I'm going to raise a tax!" sounds good to people like you, and you're incapable of making a real, substantive case for it.

Again, what you're say in the first part is simply demonstrably factually false. Just look at the average revenue growth rates.

Spin it all you like, but the rate decrease led to a revenue increase. Just because it doesn't match the same rate of increase as another factor of the market, doesn't make that fact not true. You're simply trying to say that "well, since revenue fluctuations can occur with other market factors, we must discount the fact that my entire premise of tax cuts= baaaad, tax increases= gooood is completely false. Nice try, but no sale. The tax rate cut of 1997 was followed by increased revenues- double that of just a few years earlier.

The second half of what you're saying is true,

Nice wax over, but that would be the part that destroys Obama's desire to raise rates- where the raising of rates killed an upward trend in revenue. The question then remains: why raise rates?

I don't think there's any long-term relationship, especially when you look at other, more clear instances of rate changes and you don't see the pattern you're looking for. At some point it's just like reading tea leaves or tarot cards.

I think you want it to be completely random, like reading tarot cards and tea leaves, but that's a really weak argument in favor of raising rates, when even the reading of the tea leaves doesn't show it to produce any real results.

I'm not raising any rates, and I have no motivation to raise them or do anything to them. But what Obama basically said is that investment shouldn't be treated as superior to work. They should be taxed at roughly the same rate as a matter of fairness and simplicity.

That's a contradiction: you say you've got no motivation to raise rates, yet you think they should be taxed at a higher rate as a matter of 'fairness'. What is that, but emotional goobledygook? This goes back to the point of taxes not being silly, illogical, emotion-based social policies, but sound fiscal policies. It really doesn't matter if you think an investment, by not being taxed to the point of less profitability, is being "treated as superior to work". As if people that invest, don't also work and have already paid their taxes on the amounts they invest.. So basically, Obama is willing (like most tax and spend liberals) to use the tax code as a bludgeon to enact misguided social policy and pass judgments, and actual revenues and fiscal responsibility be damned.

I can't point to where raising cap gains taxes has led to dramatic increases in revenues.

Again, prove it.

But you'll note that, despite what you claim, I have never spouted off about what I would do with more revenues after a cap gains tax hike.

You haven't proven a CG tax hike would produce more revenues, so I don't see how you can argue something that hasn't happened.

I'm not sure why you keep talking about Matthews. Gibson you mean? And I did think it was a fair question, unlike most of the other questions they asked, which were inane.

Opps, sorry- yes Gibson.

You seem to think that people were just waiting around for George and the Government to give them the go-ahead, and then they started working and investing.

Too funny. This from the guy who thinks everyone is waiting around for Obama to make things "more fair" by "not treating investments as superior to work, so let's nearly double the rate, revenues and sound fiscal policy be damed".

I've got news for you crash, and it may crush you, so get ready: People are making the economy work without the government enacting some magic policy. The stock market burst in 2001, and has been slowly getting back on track since then. It wasn't Congress or George that made the money start to flow again.

Wow... really? Holy cow! Y-you mean people can actually do for SELF, and don't need the government enacting policy to make the world go around? WOW! So no more waiting around for government to give everyone healthcare, welfare, and wealth too?

Money actually flows from the private sector, and not from government, or any of the dipshits sitting around in Washington?! Holy cow Brussel, that's radical thinking! Next thing we may even hear radical concepts like "Bush doesn't get all the blame for bad economic news, and Clinton (or whatever Dem) doesn't get all the credit for the good. I'd love to see more of this radical thinking from you in future debates! It sounds... dare I say it, almost conservative!

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I do agree that a lot of money is being mismanaged, all of the earmarks in our budget come to mind (which were passed by this president).

And inserted into that budget by a majority Democratic Congress who refused a moratorium on those earmarks proposed by Republican senators Coburn and DeMint.

[Chongo]

Anyone that has a 401(k) invests.

Why is anyone surprised George Steponallofus went after Obama? He worked for the Clintons. He should not have even been allowed in the same city during the debate. Do you think Tony Snow will be a moderator in the fall debates? Not gonna happen.

[l008com]

I'm sure as hell not going to bother reading this whole thread. I'm just goona say I'm pro obama. And all my popular web sites have the obama 'tags' in the top left corner. Go Obama! And Go Sox!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

And inserted into that budget by a majority Democratic Congress who refused a moratorium on those earmarks proposed by Republican senators Coburn and DeMint.

There were tons of earmarks that were passed by Bush prior to the Democratic majority, no?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Liberals believe that it's empirically false what Gibson claimed, that cutting taxes (capital gains or other types) causes an increase in revenues. We've been over this to death here, so I won't go into it again except to say it's not just liberals who disagree with Gibson's statement, it's virtually all mainstream economists as well as most conservative economists, including Bush's own people. Only politicians and people who believe them (including, apparently, news anchors like Gibson) think cutting taxes increases revenues.

Actually, we had been all over this and it was pretty much determined that lowering taxes, increases revenues contingent upon the rate prior to the cut. There is a sweet-spot of diminishing returns.

2) It's also about fairness, which I think everyone agrees is an important issue in any tax system. If Warren Buffet pays 15% while his secretary making $50,000 pays twice that rate, there's a serious fairness issue to be considered.

First of all, I'd like to see some information on Buffet's tax rate compared to his secretary @ $50k. You might know that Buffet would be taxed approximately .45 for every dollar of taxable income whereas the secretary would be taxed .33 of every dollar of taxable income. Of course, you won't be able to provide the argument just as neither Hillary nor Barack were able. Maybe you should educate your preferred candidates for President of the United States?

This is nothing more than compartmentalizing people into "classes" and the inherent punitive mentality that follows. The top 5% of wage-earners pay more than half of all Federal Income taxes, but this isn't fair.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There were tons of earmarks that were passed by Bush prior to the Democratic majority, no?

... and you still hate him? Shocking!

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Oh please, look who's talking. You simply can't stand the fact that your obsession with raising taxes doesn't actually correspond with raising revenues, and that your real motivations for it are something other than any real desire to deal with budget deficits or revenue. You've got no facts at all to show that raising revenues on CG taxes raises revenues, so rather than explain why you're so gung ho to raise rates anyway, you simply try and snipe at the facts that show the opposite. And that's not emotionalism? Give me a break.


Investors invest to make money. When you create a situation where there's less money to be had from an investment (whether its by raising the tax rate or whatever else) then people will find ways around it, and you'll see less revenue on that tax rate.


This is a funny bit of your typical smoke-screening, because you're the one who's entire life clearly revolves around a desire for the government to be doing something for you, usually in the form of taxing someone else. You're fine with Obama rasing the CG rate, despite the fact that it's clear (and you've certainly failed to prove otherwise) that there's NO revenue increase to be gained from it. You expect some magical 'fairness' to happen simply because you've hiked up a tax rate to stick it to someone. How else do you explain it?

Meanwhile, I don't think I've said once I'm waiting around for the government to do jack diddly- just leave the friggen 15% rate alone. It's clearly working fine, hasn't led to any decrease of revenue -in fact, the opposite- and the lower rate is good for investors- middle class, rich, or otherwise.

You're the one arguing for the government to change something- and yet you've cited no factual reason behind it, and have no numbers to support it.


I've never said the stock market as a whole didn't have anything to do with the numbers- just that the fact remains:

"Over the past 30 years a consistent pattern has emerged: every time the capital gains tax has been cut, capital gains tax revenues have risen. Every time the capital gains tax has been raised, capital gains tax revenues have fallen."

That statement doesn't say, "...and no other market factor has anything to do with rates." Which is now what you're trying to backtrack into, rather than address the issue. You claimed that what Gibson said was wrong- yet you've completely failed to prove it wrong.

When has raising the CG tax rate led to a significant increase in revenue? How can Obama claim to spend 'increased revenues' from his desire to raise the rate, when there's no historical evidence to support that this would happen- in fact, the opposite. Talk about emotionalism- you're simply incapable of admitting that he's playing to the voters who think any time you "stick it to someone who has a buck more than you do" that it's a good thing. Just saying "I'm going to raise a tax!" sounds good to people like you, and you're incapable of making a real, substantive case for it.


Spin it all you like, but the rate decrease led to a revenue increase. Just because it doesn't match the same rate of increase as another factor of the market, doesn't make that fact not true. You're simply trying to say that "well, since revenue fluctuations can occur with other market factors, we must discount the fact that my entire premise of tax cuts= baaaad, tax increases= gooood is completely false. Nice try, but no sale. The tax rate cut of 1997 was followed by increased revenues- double that of just a few years earlier.


Nice wax over, but that would be the part that destroys Obama's desire to raise rates- where the raising of rates killed an upward trend in revenue. The question then remains: why raise rates?


I think you want it to be completely random, like reading tarot cards and tea leaves, but that's a really weak argument in favor of raising rates, when even the reading of the tea leaves doesn't show it to produce any real results.



That's a contradiction: you say you've got no motivation to raise rates, yet you think they should be taxed at a higher rate as a matter of 'fairness'. What is that, but emotional goobledygook? This goes back to the point of taxes not being silly, illogical, emotion-based social policies, but sound fiscal policies. It really doesn't matter if you think an investment, by not being taxed to the point of less profitability, is being "treated as superior to work". As if people that invest, don't also work and have already paid their taxes on the amounts they invest.. So basically, Obama is willing (like most tax and spend liberals) to use the tax code as a bludgeon to enact misguided social policy and pass judgments, and actual revenues and fiscal responsibility be damned.


Again, prove it.


You haven't proven a CG tax hike would produce more revenues, so I don't see how you can argue something that hasn't happened.


Opps, sorry- yes Gibson.


Too funny. This from the guy who thinks everyone is waiting around for Obama to make things "more fair" by "not treating investments as superior to work, so let's nearly double the rate, revenues and sound fiscal policy be damed".


Wow... really? Holy cow! Y-you mean people can actually do for SELF, and don't need the government enacting policy to make the world go around? WOW! So no more waiting around for government to give everyone healthcare, welfare, and wealth too?

Money actually flows from the private sector, and not from government, or any of the dipshits sitting around in Washington?! Holy cow Brussel, that's radical thinking! Next thing we may even hear radical concepts like "Bush doesn't get all the blame for bad economic news, and Clinton (or whatever Dem) doesn't get all the credit for the good. I'd love to see more of this radical thinking from you in future debates! It sounds... dare I say it, almost conservative!

It's the basic difference between you and me, crash, and perhaps between conservatism and liberalism more generally. You're ranting, calling names, getting emotional about leftists and liberals, and making only glancing reference to what's actually true or false. Your table shows that lowering the capital gains tax rate did nothing to revenues. The yearly rate of increase remained the same. The highest revenue growth came before the mid-1990s rate reduction, and it never grew that much again. It changes based on economic conditions - primarily the stock market - not government action. Gibson, and you, claimed that capital gains tax cuts increased revenues. That is factually false.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

First of all, I'd like to see some information on Buffet's tax rate compared to his secretary @ $50k. You might know that Buffet would be taxed approximately .45 for every dollar of taxable income whereas the secretary would be taxed .33 of every dollar of taxable income. Of course, you won't be able to provide the argument just as neither Hillary nor Barack were able. Maybe you should educate your preferred candidates for President of the United States?

You're factually incorrect. Buffet is an investor. He doesn't get a paycheck, rather, the money he makes is taxed as a capital gain. His secretary gets a paycheck. It is taxed as regular income. His capital gains tax rate is half of her income tax rate. You can google for Buffet's comments on the matter. It only takes a few seconds.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Your table shows that lowering the capital gains tax rate did nothing to revenues. The yearly rate of increase remained the same. The highest revenue growth came before the mid-1990s rate reduction, and it never grew that much again. It changes based on economic conditions - primarily the stock market - not government action. Gibson, and you, claimed that capital gains tax cuts increased revenues. That is factually false.

Here's another view of that data...

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

The yearly rate of increase remained the same. The highest revenue growth came before the mid-1990s rate reduction, and it never grew that much again. It changes based on economic conditions - primarily the stock market - not government action. Gibson, and you, claimed that capital gains tax cuts increased revenues. That is factually false.

Why all the effort to portray the data disingenuously?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

You're factually incorrect.

You're missing the point.

Buffet is an investor.

You can't be? His secretary can't be? Where is this notion that only the rich can invest? Does she own a home? Have a retirement account? Philanthropy? Children? Medical expenses? Tuition? Maybe the compassionate thing for Buffet to do would be to hire a tax preparer for his employees so they're paying the same rate he is.

He doesn't get a paycheck, rather, the money he makes is taxed as a capital gain. His secretary gets a paycheck. It is taxed as regular income. His capital gains tax rate is half of her income tax rate. You can google for Buffet's comments on the matter. It only takes a few seconds.

What... because a rich guy claims it's unfair to the poor? There are a bunch of rich guys claiming it's unfair to the rich. I'm sure if I looked hard enough, I could find a poor person who says welfare is bad policy. Back to square one I guess. You know, there's a special form you can fill out in order to give more in taxes. Buffet has yet to use it.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're missing the point.


You can't be? His secretary can't be? Where is this notion that only the rich can invest? Does she own a home? Have a retirement account? Philanthropy? Children? Medical expenses? Tuition? Maybe the compassionate thing for Buffet to do would be to hire a tax preparer for his employees so they're paying the same rate he is.


What... because a rich guy claims it's unfair to the poor? There are a bunch of rich guys claiming it's unfair to the rich. I'm sure if I looked hard enough, I could find a poor person who says welfare is bad policy. Back to square one I guess. You know, there's a special form you can fill out in order to give more in taxes. Buffet has yet to use it.

You're just going to roll right on past the fact that you were wrong, aren't you? Your primary point was this:

Originally Posted by ebuddy

You might know that Buffet would be taxed approximately .45 for every dollar of taxable income whereas the secretary would be taxed .33 of every dollar of taxable income. Of course, you won't be able to provide the argument just as neither Hillary nor Barack were able. Maybe you should educate your preferred candidates for President of the United States?

You claimed that Buffet paid a higher rate than his secretary. You claimed I wouldn't be able to "provide the argument" that Buffet actually pays lower. You claimed I need to educate my candidates. You were wrong. And you won't admit it, you'll just try to pretend like it didn't happen.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Your table shows that lowering the capital gains tax rate did nothing to revenues. The yearly rate of increase remained the same.

Wait, isn't that good? If we can lower the tax rate and still get just as much money for doing whatever taxes are good for (a whole other argument so let's not go there), shouldn't we be all over that like stink on a monkey?

[Chongo]

again, anyone with a 401(k) is an investor, albeit a passive one.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Wait, isn't that good? If we can lower the tax rate and still get just as much money for doing whatever taxes are good for (a whole other argument so let's not go there), shouldn't we be all over that like stink on a monkey?

Seems like it to me. But capital gains taxes are fairly narrow and capital gains themselves are determined so strongly by what the stock market is doing, rather than what the taxes are (unlike income taxes). Minor fiddling with the rates doesn't make that much of a difference. The problem is that Republicans have made this a philosophy - we can cut all kinds of taxes and raise spending, and not worry about anything.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

again, anyone with a 401(k) is an investor, albeit a passive one.

You don't pay capital gains taxes on those.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

You don't pay capital gains taxes on those.

You pay the tax when you withdraw money from it. In fact, Bill Clinton proposed a onetime (yeah, right) tax 401(k) accounts balances.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

You pay the tax when you withdraw money from it. In fact, Bill Clinton proposed a onetime (yeah, right) tax 401(k) accounts balances.

Isn't that an income tax though, and all capital gains are free of capital gains taxes?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Isn't that an income tax though, and all capital gains are free of capital gains taxes?

those are paid by the managers when transfers are made between funds each year

[Uncle Skeleton]

(I posted this before and it disappeared, so if it comes back and there's two, sorry)

edit: yep

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

You're just going to roll right on past the fact that you were wrong, aren't you? Your primary point was this: You claimed that Buffet paid a higher rate than his secretary. You claimed I wouldn't be able to "provide the argument" that Buffet actually pays lower. You claimed I need to educate my candidates. You were wrong. And you won't admit it, you'll just try to pretend like it didn't happen.

No, I'll perfectly well admit that I failed to consider Buffet's income source. I apologize.

See, the point is to encourage investment. An increase in this rate hurts everyone including future investors, worse it cannot be shown to increase revenues. To propose an increase under the guise of "fairness" is just asinine. To do this only when pressed a third time for more information on your obviously thoughtless tax policy is even more ridiculous.

If someone like Buffet wants to pay additional in tax, there's a form designed specifically for that purpose and he's yet to use it.

With regard to his secretary; she has items that would ensure she's not paying the full rate. I suspect she owns her home? Has a retirement account? Kids? Medical costs? Tuition? She doesn't need Buffet's "fairness in tax" policy, she needs a better tax preparer. One I'm sure the benevolent Buffet would be willing to provide her, but then he wouldn't be able to exploit her plight for his political statement.

So... yeah if it helps your ego, I was wrong on Buffet's income source. Care to address any of the other points made here?

[BRussell]

All I'm going to say is that I don't care much for Obama's tax plans, but Hillary Clinton's supporters sure have nice eyes.

[Big Mac]

Is that what we're supposed to be looking at in that photo of Natalie?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

All I'm going to say is that I don't care much for Obama's tax plans, but Hillary Clinton's supporters sure have nice eyes.

Okay I grant you, this transcends any political divide. Plus, I wanted to quote your post for another glimpse at her.

Check out the look on Hillary's face. That'd be the look on mine too.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Maybe Natalie is goosing her

[Chongo]

hmmm
YouTube - Pennsylvania Governor Rendell Praises Farrakhan and N.O.I.

[besson3c]

I'm thinking that if you are a Republican, there are plenty dire signs which may indicate that McCain's campaign is toast.

As far as fundraising goes, there were hopes that the Republican base would unify around their candidate with their donations. So far, that hasn't happened. Both Clinton and Obama have raised more than McCain - Obama by a large margin. Obama has broken George W. Bush's fundraising records, and remember that W did not win by a huge margin, yet was able to beat McCain.

Secondly, polls show Obama and Clinton doing well in the general election right now even, despite the Democratic nominee not being officially chosen and Hillary supporters swearing that they will not support Obama (history does not provide much of a precedent for this sort of thing, and given that Obama and Clinton are very similar on most issues it is expected that most Clinton supporters will come around and back Obama. Clinton herself has pledged to back Obama).

Thirdly, without the Republican spending machine and clear backing from the Republican base, you might say that the party is a little fractured right now. In addition, history indicates that where there is a recession the opposing party wins elections. McCain has said himself that his possibilities are tied to the success in Iraq, and it is far from a given that the situation in Iraq will improve shortly before November.

You could make the case that the Democratic infighting that is going on right now will hurt the party, but I don't think that we'll know for sure until after July, since Dean is calling for the Superdelegates to make their decisions public before that time. This will provide for some time to lick wounds and rally behind the nominee (Obama), so we shall see.

In short, I wouldn't be surprised if the Democratic infighting and the situation in MI and FL have a negative net effect on the general election (although Florida poll data has been solidly Republican for a long time now anyway), but there are also great causes for concern within the Republican party now too.

[lefty mclefty]

oh yeah, he's toast alright....the toast of PENNSYLVANIA!!!!!!!!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

In short, I wouldn't be surprised if the Democratic infighting and the situation in MI and FL have a negative net effect on the general election (although Florida poll data has been solidly Republican for a long time now anyway), but there are also great causes for concern within the Republican party now too.

Completely agree. And with an Obama fanboi no less.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

As far as fundraising goes, there were hopes that the Republican base would unify around their candidate with their donations. So far, that hasn't happened. Both Clinton and Obama have raised more than McCain - Obama by a large margin. Obama has broken George W. Bush's fundraising records, and remember that W did not win by a huge margin, yet was able to beat McCain.

I believe that there is a limit one can donate during the primaries, and then can donate again for the general

[Chongo]

did "Operation Chaos" help Hillary win?
NYT to unendorse Clinton?
The Low Road to Victory - New York Times

Published: April 23, 2008

The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by lefty mclefty 

oh yeah, he's toast alright....the toast of PENNSYLVANIA!!!!!!!!

I smell burnt toast.

[Eug]

Heh. I'm amused.

It's not quite the big win Hillary fans wanted, since she only won by 10 points in PA.

OTOH, it's not quite the close race Obama wanted, since it's not the single-digit difference Obama fans predicted.

And so the drama continues...

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Eug 

And so the drama continues...

McCain for sure is happy.

-t

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

I smell burnt toast.

You didn't provide a copy, paste and run to support yourself.

[Big Mac]

besson admitting that the Dems are in trouble is almost as revelatory a change for him as admitting to belief in the Lord God of Israel.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm thinking that if you are a Republican, there are plenty dire signs which may indicate that McCain's campaign is toast...

Right now, your arguments don't necessarily apply due to significant different situations. Obama and CLinton are fighting hard for their party's nomination. McCain won his a while ago.

I'd say an analysis in late September will be more appropriate to discuss the big race.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I believe that there is a limit one can donate during the primaries, and then can donate again for the general

But that money rolls over, right? Why procrastinate in raising funds?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Heh. I'm amused.

It's not quite the big win Hillary fans wanted, since she only won by 10 points in PA.

OTOH, it's not quite the close race Obama wanted, since it's not the single-digit difference Obama fans predicted.

And so the drama continues...

6 delegates... utterly meaningless.