Republican Judgement

[Minor Axis]

So stop latching onto party. Start prying party away from the legislature.

We had this talk before. People naturally drift into voting blocks that get organized, unless your plan would be to outlaw political parties. Blocks would still exist in the background...

 

[Accountable]

We had this talk before. People naturally drift into voting blocks that get organized, unless your plan would be to outlaw political parties. Blocks would still exist in the background...

Background is fine.
Having state representatives sit with their party rather than their fellow reps is not.
Assigning electors by party is not.
Having majority/minority leaders based on party is not.
We are not a parliament.

 

[The Man]

Aren't gambling winnings taxed as regular income?

Doesnt make it right...for when one loses...they lost the investment..so that investment should be a write off...if we are going to tax it if we win.

 

[Stone]

Doesnt make it right...for when one loses...they lost the investment..so that investment should be a write off...if we are going to tax it if we win.

Capital losses are tax write offs against capital gains.

 

[Alien Allen]

don't ask me why but for the record gambling losses at a casino can be written off

I know this for a fact as I have a few friends that gamble quite a bit and they always get documentation from the casinos as to how much they lost

 

[The Man]

But that's not relevant to the discussion.
The dynamic of all influences would be better said.
Lost me.......the context was "consumer participation, employment and business profitability ", "capital gains tax " and the "balance of all transactions "
Gains of what, tax loss from what?
No....an increase in capital gains tax slows the incentive to buy and sell to capture a capital gain.

Reducing capital gains tax is not done with a focus to initiate investment with freshly earned income, it's mostly done to expand personal financial value by leveraging existing capital investments.
The current market is experiencing volatility from several aspects.
And it's easy to see how anything that influences massive trading to capture low taxed capital gains adds to the volatility.

Going back to previous CG tax rates doesn't have the same negative impact that increasing corporate, dividend/interest and earned income taxes does.
I don't like taxes.....but in funding an infrastructure, tax impact is relative and your argument not as significant as you've projected.
This congressional research is worth reading:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40411.pdf

There are many opposing papers out there, but they seem to commonly ignore that volatility aids wealth generation at the expense of the middle class investor.
Why.....because, as a generality, core investors are the participants that control and drive volatility for/to their own advantage. They capture from strength while the small investor is left to guess about the direction of volatility.
The middle class simply hasn't seen the projected benefits as they've been largely captured by the 1% ers. That's a reality, TM....not political rhetoric.
With out the strengthening of the consumer base, investment in new business ventures becomes less relevant......

As any tax, capital gains tax can be too high or too low, also.
Going back to previous rates could actually decrease volatility and have a positive influence on long term investing rather than focusing on short term investing.
It can easily be argued that our entire economic structure is under stress from the ignorance generated by both right and left wing dogma going back over a half century.......it's all about the general population reacting from a lack of knowledge.
These issues aren't black and white....there are shades of gray that are more advantageous....
.

But that's not relevant to the discussion.

Sure it is.
An investment is a risk
A salary isnt.
The govt doesnt pay you when you lose on an investment do they.
Nor do they pay you for property depreciation..so why take it a large portion of it when you play your cards right.

Lost me.......the context was "consumer participation, employment and business profitability ", "capital gains tax " and the "balance of all transactions "
Gains of what, tax loss from what?

Gains from investments....acclaimed revenue loss from gains tax.
If tax loss {revenue gains} are enough to be a concern..then there are enough investments to influence the economy.
The balance of all transactions influence the economy....Including investments with gains in mind.

No....an increase in capital gains tax slows the incentive to buy and sell to capture a capital gain.

Which is essentially what I said in a prior post.

Reducing capital gains tax is not done with a focus to initiate investment with freshly earned income, it's mostly done to expand personal financial value by leveraging existing capital investments.

Reducing capital gains tax...is to speed investments..With unruly taxes there is less incentive to invest..with less incentive to invest...there is slower growth.
Slow growth is bad for the economy.

The current market is experiencing volatility from several aspects.
And it's easy to see how anything that influences massive trading to capture low taxed capital gains adds to the volatility.

Well sure...and the same can be said if gains taxes are raised.

Going back to previous CG tax rates doesn't have the same negative impact that increasing corporate, dividend/interest and earned income taxes does.
I don't like taxes.....but in funding an infrastructure, tax impact is relative and your argument not as significant as you've projected.

Sure it does...as it slows investments.
I dont mind taxes stone..I dont want to see anymore tax rates go up.
I want to see Govt spending go down...Raising gains taxes will not help the economy...Bottom line.

There are many opposing papers out there, but they seem to commonly ignore that volatility aids wealth generation at the expense of the middle class investor.
Why.....because, as a generality, core investors are the participants that control and drive volatility for/to their own advantage. They capture from strength while the small investor is left to guess about the direction of volatility.
The middle class simply hasn't seen the projected benefits as they've been largely captured by the 1% ers. That's a reality, TM....not political rhetoric.
With out the strengthening of the consumer base, investment in new business ventures becomes less relevant.......this is why the wealthy are seen as becoming richer at the expense of the middle class.....the effect is the stockpiling of wealth as venture capital is funneled towards capturing capital gains in existing ventures.

Of course.....this scenario isn't ever lasting....eventually they're called 'bubbles' and as you might remember, from the bio tech bubble in the late 90's to the housing bubble in 2007, the crashes are worse than the risk.

As any tax, capital gains tax can be too high or too low, also.
Going back to previous rates could actually decrease volatility and have a positive influence on long term investing rather than focusing on short term investing.

One thing you will not find it papers is the reason people {wealthy} invest
Is not to gain stone....its not to lose.
If you dont invest you lose as the inflation eats away at your wealth.
You can have huge gains and still lose.

"Dont sit on your money" is meant to be literally taken if you have excessive funds
You either spend it now on stuff you want or invest.

Lets look at the inflation chart below.




From 1940 to 1950 we have a close to a quadruple ....which means you would have to have had close to 400 percent in gains just to break even.

Anything less is actually a loss....so why do we tax a loss?

from 1960 to present we have 10 fold inflation.

If someone says they grew their money ten times since the 60s...they havent grown...they merely broke even with inflation...10 fold profit is pretty rare...so these people actually lost....They have no gains they have a loss.

From 1990 to present about 2 fold on inflation..one would have to double the money just to break even.

As we can see gains often do not keep up and these people actually have a loss.

Investment is a requirement..not an option or watch your dollar lose its power.

To make it worse...its a gamble..not all investments are guaranteed to profit.
And many that do profit are actually not profiting per say they are merely changing value in accordance with the inflation.

If I bought a new Toyota back in 70 for 2200 bucks didnt drive it etc.
Then sold it for 3 grand tomorrow I lost money as there is a 7 fold inflation factor.
I would have to sell it for 15,400 bucks to break even {due to inflation}
I wouldnt have 800 dollars gain I would have several thousand in loss.

Same goes for gold etc....any investment whether the giant dept store or land or precious metals.

It can easily be argued that our entire economic structure is under stress from the ignorance generated by both right and left wing dogma going back over a half century.......it's all about the general population reacting from a lack of knowledge.
These issues aren't black and white....there are shades of gray that are more advantageous....

I'm a long term investor and I see little advantage to volatility.
If I was a short term raider, I would feel differently.

Its from every time there is an adjustment .....If I owned a bottled water company and sold water for 1 dollar....Later the govt Govt takes 50 cents and gives it to the less fortunate.
2 things happen...they now have more money so I can charge more and I have to raise my price by 50 cents...whats the point.
They just as well come up to the counter with a dollar ...I give them the fifity cents, then they give the fifty cents back to me...it accomplishes the same thing.
But the price has went from 1 dollar to a buck 50/ its inflation
Every time the minimum wages goes up we have inflation.
Every time we raise taxes we have inflation and slowed growth.
Every time we have a stimulus we have inflation with increased growth.
Since there is a lag and it inst instantaneous the employee is the last one to balance out with increased wages...so the minimum wage goes up again and entitlements are also increased which compounds the problem.

The fed state and local govt combined spent 6.1 trillion for 2011 for 313 million citizens....that's 19,489 dollars per citizen.
A little high IMO...this is a huge burden....Most of these costs are handed down at the checkout counter.
The roads arent even that great...we have homeless ...people that cant afford healthcare.....and fema doesnt have enough generators.
Polling machines malfunction.
I just dont see any how any more money is going to help anything...IMO to much tax fines and fees are already the problem.

 

[The Man]

I had a heck of a time responding..I ran into the character limitation problem.
As a result I had to keep going back and editing...I had to leave out bits and pieces of your post to shorten it enough to take it...Sorry bout that...I made every effort to not change the context of your post.

 

[Francis]

The economy isn't hinging on slow trade transactions nor capital gains rates.......

it is hinging on consumer participation, employment and business profitability......none of which factor capital gains (edit: tax) to any great degree.

Capital Gains is really dependant on the type you have.. I will not bias this report that you can read for yourself and form your own opinion that I believe was well done..

http://www.adamsmith.org/sites/default/files/resources/capital-gains-tax.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax


I'm not sure what you mean by Consumer participation but if its consumer confidence here is my opinion.. Even when the markets were going sour in 2008 people still believed things were good and bought houses and businesses.. You need only to have a momentum in a few sectors to start an upswing in people believing things are good to restart confidence.. The best way to show this is by comparing it to the stock market and any bump in the Oil Reserve Risk and you see an immediate jump at the gas pump.. Why nothing has really happened yet to impact the pump pricing yet ? Yet people accept the price increase right away.. Or a new Apple iPhone comes out and people sleep for a week for its release in the worse economy with the last iPhone in hand.. Sell people with positive marketing and they will buy it.. Tell them its all bad news and they will eat it up faster. Bad news spreads much easier than good.

 

[Stone]

Sure it is........................


( edited for brevity )

An investment is a risk
A salary isnt.

Still irrelevant to capital gains taxation.

The govt doesnt pay you when you lose on an investment do they.

Also irrelevant to capital gains taxation.

Nor do they pay you for property depreciation..so why take it a large portion of it when you play your cards right.

Makes no sense.

If tax loss {revenue gains} are enough to be a concern..then there are enough investments to influence the economy.

You aren't being specific enough to understand your argument.
Tax loss from what and how can a tax loss be a revenue gain?
Your conclusion is a non sequitur.

The balance of all transactions influence the economy....Including investments with gains in mind.

Indeed....and as events have shown, since Bush lowered capital gains in a troubled economy and it got worse, volatility in the stock market has been a negative to economic recovery with wealth accumulating in the 1%ers with little benefit to the middle class.
Tax cuts on income should have focused to a greater extent where economic growth is driven.....an expanding consumer base that creates greater demand. It's simple economics....
the middle class. With out the demand, there is no need for increasing supply and with out demand, no need for unproductive investing.

Which is essentially what I said in a prior post.

No, you didn't.
And you've repeated in this post:

Reducing capital gains tax...is to speed investments

It speeds investing in an attempt to create greater capital gains......this is investor related, not the same as investing to create markets.

.With unruly taxes there is less incentive to invest

Indeed, but the topic is capital gains taxation, not dividend and interest taxation.

.with less incentive to invest...there is slower growth.

As I've shown in past comments, in a troubled economy....and this is the last decade and still fresh in most peoples minds.....Low capital gains taxation has sped up the buy and sell cycle, but that doesn't equate to a slower economic growth.....as we have been experiencing, it leads to volatility and as I've mentioned before, much of that does go to empire building rather than economic growth.
It's a reality you need to face TM.
I suggest you start watching the markets to get a feel for it.

Slow growth is bad for the economy.

No shit?.....

The current market is experiencing volatility from several aspects.
And it's easy to see how anything that influences massive trading to capture low taxed capital gains adds to the volatility.

Well sure...and the same can be said if gains taxes are raised.

No.

Going back to previous CG tax rates doesn't have the same negative impact that increasing corporate, dividend/interest and earned income taxes does.
I don't like taxes.....but in funding an infrastructure, tax impact is relative and your argument not as significant as you've projected.

Sure it does...as it slows investments.

You are confusing rapid turnovers in ownership to the injection of capital.
It's not the same effect.

One thing you will not find it papers is the reason people {wealthy} invest
Is not to gain stone....its not to lose.
If you dont invest you lose as the inflation eat away at your wealth.
You can have huge gains and still lose.

TM.....sincerely.....you really shouldn't post crap like that, it's meaningless to the discussion.
Serious investors don't even consider getting involved in stocks or any investments that they think can't beat inflation.
That's loser territory and I see no reason to be subsidizing loser mentality......it's not a capitalistic trait to start with

"Dont sit on your money" is meant to be literally taken if you have excessive funds
You either spend it now on stuff you want or invest.

Off topic.....that's capital infusion.

Lets look at the inflation chart below.

Let's not.
I'd rather discuss the concept of capital gains taxation.

As we can see gains often do not keep up and these people actually have a loss.

You built a list of fallacies.

from 1960 to present we have 10 fold inflation.

In 1960, the DOW was about 600, today it's almost 13000.
It beat inflation and that includes a lot of losers.

If someone says they grew their money ten times since the 60s...they havent grown...they merely broke even with inflation.

I would say they weren't very good at investing and didn't meet the expectations of the average investor.

From 1990 to present about 2 fold on inflation..one would have to double the money just to break even.

. No. Not unless the inflation rate was 200%......

Investment is a requirement..not an option or watch your dollar lose its power.

Indeed, but you don't seem to grasp what is actually occurring.

To make it worse...its a gamble..not all investments are guaranteed to profit.

That's not a reasonable argument for any kind of capital gains tax rate change.
It's sounds more like an attempt to subsidize failure.

And many that do profit are actually not profiting per say they are merely changing value in accordance with the inflation.

Poor investing isn't a rationale for tax reduction, TM.
And how many are 'many'?

If I bought a new Toyota back in 70 for 2200 bucks didnt drive it etc.
Then sold it for 3 grand tomorrow I lost money as there is a 7 fold inflation factor.

Irrelevant.....it wasn't bought as an investment and not a profit driven venture to start with.
If you bought a new 1963 Cobra and sold it recently, it would have gone from $5999 to about a quarter million today.
Personally, I would have driven the wheels of the truck and thrown it away when it was used up.....but every one is different.

Same goes for gold etc....any investment whether the giant dept store or land or precious metals.

You are dreaming or simply don't understand you've started with the concept of initial value having to multiply at the same rates inflation ( a small percentage ) does to maintain value......incredibly bad math, TM

Major fallacy.

Its from every time there is an adjustment .....If I owned a bottled water company and sold water for 1 dollar....Later the govt Govt takes 50 cents and give it to the less fortunate.
2 things happen...they now have more money so I can charge more and I have to raise my price by 50 cents...whats the point.

The point is......that has nothing to do with capital gains taxation.

The fed state and local govt combined spent 6.1 trillion for 2011 for 313 million citizens....that's 19,489 dollars per citizen.
A little high IMO...this is a huge burden....Most of these costs are handed down at the checkout counter.

Again....not to topic....capital gains tax.

The roads arent even that great...we have homeless ...people that cant afford healthcare.....and fema doesnt have enough generators.
Polling machines malfunction.
I just dont see any how any more money is going to help anything...IMO to much tax fines and fees are already the problem.

Interesting rant....but it isn't addressing taxation on capital gains.

 

[Stone]

Capital Gains is really dependant on the type you have.. I will not bias this report that you can read for yourself and form your own opinion that I believe was well done..

http://www.adamsmith.org/sites/default/files/resources/capital-gains-tax.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax


I'm not sure what you mean by Consumer participation but if its consumer confidence here is my opinion.. Even when the markets were going sour in 2008 people still believed things were good and bought houses and businesses.. You need only to have a momentum in a few sectors to start an upswing in people believing things are good to restart confidence.. The best way to show this is by comparing it to the stock market and any bump in the Oil Reserve Risk and you see an immediate jump at the gas pump.. Why nothing has really happened yet to impact the pump pricing yet ? Yet people accept the price increase right away.. Or a new Apple iPhone comes out and people sleep for a week for its release in the worse economy with the last iPhone in hand.. Sell people with positive marketing and they will buy it.. Tell them its all bad news and they will eat it up faster. Bad news spreads much easier than good.

'm not sure what you mean by Consumer participation but if its consumer confidence here is my opinion.

Same.

Even when the markets were going sour in 2008 people still believed things were good and bought houses and businesses.. You need only to have a momentum in a few sectors to start an upswing in people believing things are good to restart confidence.. The best way to show this is by comparing it to the stock market and any bump in the Oil Reserve Risk and you see an immediate jump at the gas pump.. Why nothing has really happened yet to impact the pump pricing yet ? Yet people accept the price increase right away.. Or a new Apple iPhone comes out and people sleep for a week for its release in the worse economy with the last iPhone in hand.. Sell people with positive marketing and they will buy it.. Tell them its all bad news and they will eat it up faster. Bad news spreads much easier than good

Agree....but the topic in discussion relates to impact of capital gains rates and the side effects on the middle class during the recent economic recovery and the volatility of the stock market.
The trickle down has been focusing economic gains to the 1%ers as an argument for economic recovery.
But it's the consumer that drives demand.....so realistically, if greater demand drives the need to expand production and services ( increasing supply to meet demand), tilting tax codes that favor the wealthiest over the consumer base, favors wealth creation where it's needed least for the purpose of economic growth.....in our present situation.
Job creation depends on increased demands for there to be investment incentives.

This is of course a generality with limits.....Consumption may drive demand, but investments to drive increased production needs to exist at the same time.
Tax both too much and it's game over.



I looked at http://www.adamsmith.org/sites/default/files/resources/capital-gains-tax.pdf
but I don't see any correlation of those rates to the middle class/consumer base.
Nor the effects of volatility on tax revenues.

 

[The Man]

Still .. ....

Still irrelevant to capital gains taxation.

Its very relevant ...one is salary the other is a change in value over time.

Also irrelevant to capital gains taxation.

Very relevant.
You are proposing a tax on gain but ignore the loss.

Makes no sense.

Makes perfect sense...if value goes down you eat it if it gains then they take a chunk.

You aren't being specific enough to understand your argument.
Tax loss from what and how can a tax loss be a revenue gain?
Your conclusion is a non sequitur.

Revenue loss by lower tax rates revenue gains was in parenthesis and did not imply revenue gains as tax loss..The argument is how much of a concern are they

Indeed....and as events have shown, since Bush lowered capital gains in a troubled economy and it got worse, volatility in the stock market has been a negative to economic recovery with wealth accumulating in the 1%ers with little benefit to the middle class.
Tax cuts on income should have focused to a greater extent where economic growth is driven.....an expanding consumer base that creates greater demand. It's simple economics....
the middle class. With out the demand, there is no need for increasing supply and with out demand, no need for unproductive investing.

There is nothing to directly lay blame to the tax cut on gains...He lowered them in an already troubled economy...there were not the cause of the troubled economy.

No, you didn't.
And you've repeated in this post:

I have stated that.

It speeds investing in an attempt to create greater capital gains......this is investor related, not the same as investing to create markets.

Well sure it is invested with the intent of gain..whether creating market or nor..someone has to invest in them.

Indeed, but the topic is capital gains taxation, not dividend and interest taxation.

Of which still applies..with over taxation there is less incentive to invest.

As I've shown in past comments, in a troubled economy....and this is the last decade and still fresh in most peoples minds.....Low capital gains taxation has sped up the buy and sell cycle, but that doesn't equate to a slower economic growth.....as we have been experiencing, it leads to volatility and as I've mentioned before, much of that does go to empire building rather than economic growth.
It's a reality you need to face TM.
I suggest you start watching the markets to get a feel for it.

You just agreed that it sped the cycle.
If higher tax rates interfere with empire growth...then you are only proposing to punish those that succeed if you propose a higher tax.

No.

Sure it does from the bounce.

You are confusing rapid turnovers in ownership to the injection of capital.
It's not the same effect.

A gain is a gain....the intent is later gain.

TM.....sincerely.....you really shouldn't post crap like that, it's meaningless to the discussion.
Serious investors don't even consider getting involved in stocks or any investments that they think can't beat inflation.
That's loser territory and I see no reason to be subsidizing loser mentality......it's not a capitalistic trait to start with

Far from crap..its the primary reason to make the gamble investment.
Inflation can easily outrace gains if not equated in.

We must also not forget we cant guess the future inflation rate...so aim for the most gain..which often can result in a higher gamble.

Off topic.....that's capital infusion

Very to topic and a motive for seeking gains.

Let's not.
I'd rather discuss the concept of capital gains taxation.

We are..if your gain has not kept up with inflation you have no gain.

You built a list of fallacies.

Not at all inflation is very real 200 percent since 1990.

Look at the chart.

In 1960, the DOW was about 600, today it's almost 13000.
It beat inflation and that includes a lot of losers.

Its not guaranteed...many people have lost..crashes are not rare.

I would say they weren't very good at investing and didn't meet the expectations of the average investor.

beside the point...you would have to have 10 fold in the time frame to have a gain.

. No. Not unless the inflation rate was 200%

And that it was look at the chart.

Indeed, but you don't seem to grasp what is actually occurring.

Sure I do ....motive and outcome are not always the same.

That's not a reasonable argument for any kind of capital gains tax rate change.
It's sounds more like an attempt to subsidize failure.

Not at all ..I am proposing no tax hikes on risk investments.
It would only be fair to compensate on losses.
But to add further..higher tax rates make the investments riskier as it reduces the chance of gain.

Poor investing isn't a rationale for tax reduction, TM.
And how many are 'many'?

My statement was many are not actually profiting as gains do not keep up with inflation....nothing is guaranteed with risk investment.
A wage is.
An investment not returning as planned is a loss.
Many? I dont know..but people lose all the time.

To win you need to double approx 15 to 20 years often times at even a faster rate..if not you lose to inflation....just as well had spent it.

Irrelevant.....it wasn't bought as an investment and not a profit driven venture to start with.
If you bought a new 1963 Cobra and sold it recently, it would have gone from $5999 to about a quarter million today.
Personally, I would have driven the wheels of the truck and thrown it away when it was used up.....but every one is different.

Very relevant and the reason I chose a run of the mill car for my analogy.
The point is inflation itself ...with your example..the cobra didnt go up due to inflation but due to it is an exotic vehicle.

You are dreaming or simply don't understand you've started with the concept of initial value having to multiply at the same rates inflation ( a small percentage ) does to maintain value......incredibly bad math, TM

Major fallacy.

Not at all.
If the value of gold does not go up faster than the inflation rate its a loss...not a gain.

The point is......that has nothing to do with capital gains taxation.

You offered why the economy is doing poor I explained why.

Again....not to topic....capital gains tax.

Very to topic as it related directly to govt spending.

Interesting rant....but it isn't addressing taxation on capital gains.

Sure it is...I am addressing that it will not fix that on the list.

 

[robdawg1]

Oh my GOD...the point by point is starting to make my eyes cross...

 

[Johnfromokc]

Oh my GOD...the point by point is starting to make my eyes cross...

LOL - That's TM's MO - If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with mass quantities of bullshit". :24:

 

[Stone]

Its very relevant ...one is salary the other is a change in value over time.

( edited for brevity.

Its very relevant ...one is salary the other is a change in value over time.

Still irrelevant to the topic.

Very relevant.
You are proposing a tax on gain but ignore the loss.

Capital losses are deductible.

Nor do they pay you for property depreciation..so why take it a large portion of it when you play your cards right.

Makes perfect sense...if value goes down you eat it if it gains then they take a chunk.

logic doesn't follow.

If tax loss {revenue gains} are enough to be a concern..then there are enough investments to influence the economy.

Revenue loss by lower tax rates revenue gains was in parenthesis and did not imply revenue gains as tax loss..The argument is how much of a concern are they

Read it again.....one is a muddled claim, the next a question....you didn't clarify as asked.

There is nothing to directly lay blame to the tax cut on gains...He lowered them in an already troubled economy...there were not the cause of the troubled economy.

What part of : " events have shown, since Bush lowered capital gains in a troubled economy and it got worse, volatility in the stock market has been a negative to economic recovery with wealth accumulating in the 1%ers with little benefit to the middle class. "
didn't you understand?
This is exactly what has occurred.
The market has been tuned for taking profits.

Well sure it is invested with the intent of gain..whether creating market or nor..someone has to invest in them.

Creating a market is economic expansion, the repeated rapid cycle of buy and sell not so much as I keep explaining.

Of which still applies

A claim you repeat endlessly with out addressing cause and effect in actual ongoing events.
It amounts to howling at the moon.
I hear you but the message makes no sense as a logical reply.

with over taxation there is less incentive to invest.

The discussion isn't about over taxation and the investments in question have already been made.

You just agreed that it sped the cycle.

I have all along....so?

If higher tax rates interfere with empire growth...then you are only proposing to punish those that succeed if you propose a higher tax.

There is no 'if' about it.
But you have an unintentional point there......should empires be encouraged within a capitalistic system that that results in ostracizing the middle class?
No, they shouldn't because empire building is a contradiction to the competitive nature of capitalistic theory and becomes a model for corporatism.
This has been an issue through out the history of the US and addressed in legislation.

Sure it does from the bounce.

No....raising capital gains taxation does not induce volatility.
The concept tends to suppress it because in slows down the buy and sell cycle and reduces the effects of speculation.

A gain is a gain....the intent is later gain

And you keep forgetting.....this mentality has focused 'recovery' on those that control the markets. The middle class hasn't benefited to the same degree....And if economic recovery is an issue, it's consumption that needs focus, not empire building as you've proposed above.

Far from crap

Deep shit, TM.....your argument is just as much crap as 'taxation for prosperity' coming from the left.
It's not all black and white.......there are shades of gray that have advantages and they're not locked in as absolutes, they address present conditions not pie in the sky dogmatic absolutes.

We must also not forget we cant guess the future inflation rate...so aim for the most gain..which often can result in a higher gamble.

Not to topic.

Very to topic and a motive for seeking gains.

Still off topic.

We are..if your gain has not kept up with inflation you have no gain.

That's a reality.
Also a diversion away from the topic being discussed.

Not at all inflation is very real 200 percent since 1990.

Here's real:

Here's a chart of inflation since 1914.
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/
Your argument is about fast turnover. A buying and selling cycle of short duration.
As such, a long term investment dating back two decades isn't even in the realm of your argument, but withing the realm of that chart I just posted.
And at the same time, the market has adjusted to those inflationary pressures.
Like the weather, if you choose a point to argue, the whole picture can be lost.
Here is the history of the DOW since 1900:
http://www.analyzeindices.com/dow-jones-history.shtml
As far as long term investing goes....it beats inflation.

Its not guaranteed...many people have lost..crashes are not rare.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

beside the point...you would have to have 10 fold in the time frame to have a gain.

Stats don't support your claim.

Not at all ..I am proposing no tax hikes on risk investments.

I know that.....
It's called a free ride.

It would only be fair to compensate on losses.

Do you realize that's a direct contradiction to capitalist theory?
Enriching on the basis of achieving a decrease in value?
Not even a socialist is gonna but into that philosophy

But to add further..higher tax rates make the investments riskier as it reduces the chance of gain.

Of course they can.....it's part of the dynamic.
At issue is you ignore too many other influencing factors and reality becomes irrelevant in your argument.

My statement was many are not actually profiting as gains do not keep up with inflation

In this post, I've proven you wrong, especially in short term gains.

nothing is guaranteed with risk investment.
A wage is.

Perhaps you missed the pizza man discussion?
Wages are always at risk....downsizing, off shoring, bankruptcy.....all elements that put wages at risk.
Are you going to present a living wage argument to compliment the subsidization of failure?
That is not a picture of any capitalist theory I've ever read.....

An investment not returning as planned is a loss.

No shit?
And you want to subsidize that activity?
That's Obama economics 101 :eek
I suspect the liberals are clapping on that one ...or falling off their chairs in laughter.

To win you need to double approx 15 to 20 years often times at even a faster rate..if not you lose to inflation....just as well had spent it.

Depends on the investment.....some beat inflation, some don't.
I suggest you, or anyone really, research before investing.
The opportunity is out there just as failure exists at the same time......but that's not a reason to reward failure.

Very relevant and the reason I chose a run of the mill car for my analogy.

And I showed why it was irrelevant.
That Cobra increased in value because of it's rarity in a supply and demand market.
Not so with a run of the mill truck.
The truck was a common commodity.
Poor analogy, TM.

The point is inflation itself ...with your example..the cobra didnt go up due to inflation but due to it is an exotic vehicle.

No shit?
That's the difference between picking winners and losers in investing.
Your truck was an incredibly poor choice you now claim you should be compensated for in making the decision to by it as an investment.
Your bad.

If the value of gold does not go up faster than the inflation rate its a loss...not a gain.

And yet, gold isn't the stock market.
When it doesn't beat inflation, new sales taper off and sell offs occur till the next round of speculation.
So what?
You think you should be compensated because you timed a poor investment.
Again......contrary to capitalist theory.
Maybe you aren't a capitalist?

You offered why the economy is doing poor I explained why.

No you didn't

You argued for empire building and enrichening of failure.

Very to topic as it related directly to govt spending.

Of course revenue generation is related to how much the gov't has access to spend.
At issue are the effects seen on consumerism( the middle class ) when you argue for empire building and rewarding failure.
You ignore them.

Sure it is...I am addressing that it will not fix that on the list.

I've shown otherwise.

 

[Stone]

Oh my GOD...the point by point is starting to make my eyes cross...

.


I have to get ready for a Thanksgiving get together. Relatives coming in from out of state, early.... so I'll be keeping it short from here on out for the next few days.......enjoy the peace

 

[Stone]

LOL - That's TM's MO - If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with mass quantities of bullshit". :24:

That's the problem with trying to defend absolutes and applying them to a changing dynamic.
It easily becomes bullshit.

 

[Stone]

Oddly....I think I'm having more fun in this forum since Obama won re-election....and I didn't even vote for him

 

[Francis]

but the topic in discussion relates to impact of capital gains rates and the side effects on the middle class during the recent economic recovery and the volatility of the stock market.

First you need to define the middle class.. Lower middle class that will never be able to get capital gains, or upper middle class that might get some but pay excessive tax on it due to their income bracket..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_middle_class

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_middle_class

The trickle down has been focusing economic gains to the 1%ers as an argument for economic recovery.

And when has the 1% ever been stopped from gaining capital gains.. Not even in the 28% tax bracket ever stopped them because it's exactly as it states, its a "gain". Every penny put in makes them money no matter how you cut it.

But it's the consumer that drives demand.....so realistically, if greater demand drives the need to expand production and services ( increasing supply to meet demand), tilting tax codes that favor the wealthiest over the consumer base, favors wealth creation where it's needed least for the purpose of economic growth.....in our present situation.
Job creation depends on increased demands for there to be investment incentives.

i have no idea what your babbling about here.. Well I do but don't understand why you put it in here.. But I guess you had to make a point.

Even people on welfare stifle or stimulate the economy on how much they spend or squander away.. Always have and always will. The 1ers never have had nor will they ever worry.

If your trying to prove to me that taxing the 1er less will increase job creating, your wrong.. Countries with income tax rates of 48%, 50% on the rich do not stop them from investing more and more. You need to explain to me how they got to be 1%ers if the tax rates were so high it killed them to get there and why they would not want to continue making money they so dearly love like me..

On that note, I would love income taxes to be at Zero for all and not just the 1ers but until the budgets are balanced and the debts paid off, countries need to keep clean books..

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/tax-rates-u-highest-world-183946787.html

This is of course a generality with limits.....Consumption may drive demand, but investments to drive increased production needs to exist at the same time.
Tax both too much and it's game over.

Wow, this is old way of thinking... Yah Consumption may drive demand, but you best invest before production needs exist or you will never meet demand in today's JIT type of world. And customers don't want to wait until you can meet demand, they move on to the next guy who did invest and has capacity to produce.. Its a fine balance of knowing how to keep up with demand but if you wait to invest, you're dead in today's market place..

I looked at http://www.adamsmith.org/sites/default/files/resources/capital-gains-tax.pdf
but I don't see any correlation of those rates to the middle class/consumer base.
Nor the effects of volatility on tax revenues.

I guess you only see what you want..

 

[Stone]

First you need to define the middle class.. Lower middle class that will never be able to get capital gains, or upper middle class that might get some but pay excessive tax on it due to their income bracket..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_middle_class

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_middle_class



And when has the 1% ever been stopped from gaining capital gains.. Not even in the 28% tax bracket ever stopped them because it's exactly as it states, its a "gain". Every penny put in makes them money no matter how you cut it.



i have no idea what your babbling about here.. Well I do but don't understand why you put it in here.. But I guess you had to make a point.

Even people on welfare stifle or stimulate the economy on how much they spend or squander away.. Always have and always will. The 1ers never have had nor will they ever worry.

If your trying to prove to me that taxing the 1er less will increase job creating, your wrong.. Countries with income tax rates of 48%, 50% on the rich do not stop them from investing more and more. You need to explain to me how they got to be 1%ers if the tax rates were so high it killed them to get there and why they would not want to continue making money they so dearly love like me..

On that note, I would love income taxes to be at Zero for all and not just the 1ers but until the budgets are balanced and the debts paid off, countries need to keep clean books..

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/tax-rates-u-highest-world-183946787.html



Wow, this is old way of thinking... Yah Consumption may drive demand, but you best invest before production needs exist or you will never meet demand in today's JIT type of world. And customers don't want to wait until you can meet demand, they move on to the next guy who did invest and has capacity to produce.. Its a fine balance of knowing how to keep up with demand but if you wait to invest, you're dead in today's market place..



I guess you only see what you want..

First you need to define the middle class.. Lower middle class that will never be able to get capital gains, or upper middle class that might get some but pay excessive tax on it due to their income bracket..

You might and have, but I don't have issues with it.

And when has the 1% ever been stopped from gaining capital gains..

Irrelevant to the discussion with TM.

Not even in the 28% tax bracket ever stopped them because it's exactly as it states, its a "gain". Every penny put in makes them money no matter how you cut it.

Indeed.....but the topic is about presenting a best case scenario for economic recovery in consideration of capital gains tax rates.
The Bush plan focused heavily on maintaining a class of wealth.

i have no idea what your babbling about here.. Well I do but don't understand why you put it in here.. But I guess you had to make a point.

And your reason for that comment is likely retaliation for the butt kicking you've received in the past

Even people on welfare stifle or stimulate the economy on how much they spend or squander away.. Always have and always will.

Mostly stifle as they remove purchasing power of the middle class and investment capital of the upper middle class and wealth at the top.
But as with TM....irrelevant to my discussion with TM on capital gains tax rates and it's effect on the economy.

If your trying to prove to me that taxing the 1er less will increase job creating, your wrong.

Reading comprehension issues, much?
That's TM's argument concerning capital gains tax rates, not mine.

On that note, I would love income taxes to be at Zero for all and not just the 1ers but until the budgets are balanced and the debts paid off, countries need to keep clean books..

Not only off topic.....a nice touch of insanity at the same time......:thumbup
I'm calling insanity as a logical fallacy on that one
Did you really mean that?
Zero income taxes as a means of reducing our debt crisis?

How in the world can I ever take you seriously?

Yah Consumption may drive demand

There is no, 'may' about it. It's a given.

but you best invest before production needs exist or you will never meet demand in today's JIT type of world.

Of course......but if you maintain a weak consumer base, those would be unproductive investments dependent upon middle class recovery........and this is what we've recently seen in the US....wealth creation at record rates but job creation lagging.

Its a fine balance of knowing how to keep up with demand but if you wait to invest, you're dead in today's market place..

Indeed, I've addressed that in the past and agree.....So?

I guess you only see what you want..

Of course......TM and I defined a discussion and you've interjected with off topic commentary.
I didn't see anything pertinent to my discussion with TM

You obviously still hate me for bettering you in the past.



( tough shit )

 

[Natasha]

I have nothing to add to the thread at all, and will be unsubscribing after I send this...but I just wanted to note that everytime I open this thread all I think is "TLDR." :24: