So all is not lost, we just have to lose our admiration of tax cuts to feed the already bloated rich.
Please actually READ and COMPREHEND these articles before you type a preconceived knee-jerk response. It's getting old.
Nonsense. The data clearly shows a direct correlation between the passing of the Bush tax cuts and improvement in the unemployment rates (hence job CREATION).Your data doesn't show strong job growth, it shows radical policy leading to a boom and bust, your citations even support that, not your claim.
Last edited by drj90210; Nov 17 2011 at 11:45 PM.
1) Why would a business owner not want to reinvest in his own company?
2) What does this have to do with capital gains taxes?
Business owners make up only a small percentage of those affected by capital gains taxes, so I fail to see your concern here. Isn't it a good thing for a person to "sit on" capital gains over "10-20 years", while they are in the process of preparing for their retirement? I see this as a huge positive, inasmuch as I like to see individuals aspiring for fiscally stable futures.Whats to stop them from taking the captial gains and sitting on them for the next 10-20 years???
Last edited by drj90210; Nov 17 2011 at 11:41 PM.
Without going back and again reading a cite by you that has the "wrong meter" pegged out, 6M jobs in 8 years makes even fascist Ronnie look competent. Add the cost at 4.9 trillion dollars and it's an even worse bargain.
Carter: 2.6M per year
Reagan: 2M per year
Clinton: 2.9M per year
GWB: 375K per year
You just don't do yourself a lot of favors by posting. The guy who takes the most robust economy in history, runs the highest debt and creates the least jobs is your hero.
No citation as usual. Others who have analyzed the data have reached a cost nearly half of what you state ($2.7 trillion over 8 years), and this does not account for the fact that these tax cuts brought us out of a recession.http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.ns...nk/CHAS-89LPZ9Add the cost at 4.9 trillion dollars and it's an even worse bargain.
Not sure your point is with all of these, but I'll play.Job creation:
Yeah, but his policies resulted in a massive increase in inflation rates http://inflationdata.com/inflation/i...inflation.aspx and a recession that Reagan was left to deal with.Carter: 2.6M per year
Yeah, but he also rescued us from runaway inflation rates, cured Carter's recession, and won the Cold War. Your comment how Reagan is a "fascist" is comicial, since he actually DEFEATED fascism.Reagan: 2M per year
A trained seal could have created 22 million jobs in the 1990s tech boom.Clinton: 2.9M per year
He also got us out of the recession that Clinton left us in, and was faced with the worst terrorist attack in American history, as well as the most costly natural disaster in American history.GWB: 375K per year
Are you on crack? Talk about revisionist history. Carter left Reagan with an out-of-control inflation rate, recession, and laughable foreign policy program. Reagan turned EVERYTHING around. Like everyone, he had his faults, but the picture that you are painting is an absurd travesty, and not based on history.You just don't do yourself a lot of favors by posting. The guy who takes the most robust economy in history, runs the highest debt and creates the least jobs is your hero.
So I guess you're saying Bush is less intelligent than a trained seal.
With that I concur.
It is humorous, however to see you credit Bush with "getting us out" of a recession, but then you give no credit to Clinton for 8 years of astronomical growth.
It's almost as if you spew nothing but talking points.
Last edited by Landru Guide Us; Nov 18 2011 at 01:31 PM.
Times like now for example, when consumer spending is stagnant and economic demand is not expected to increase for some time to come. In this case it would be advantageous for a business owner to gamble his profits in the markets where capital gains are taxed at a low rate and can be offset by losses that are tax deductible.
There are also many businesses where further capital investment is unnecessary. Low margin commodity producers will simply run their business as long as it is marginally profitable and then close it and sell off the machinery to producers in lower wage areas or move it themselves. Investing profits in the current business is a highly risky maneuver in an economy showing no signs of solid growth.
We see this now, where businesses are sitting on over $2Trillion in accumulated profits, investing them out only in the risk averse money market or other short term vehicles.
2) A low capital gains tax encourages money to move into the markets and away from other investment and savings vehicles. As a result of sheer number crunching it is often more profitable and less risky for a small or medium sized business owner to put his profits into the markets instead of his business.
It is a perverse incentive. A high capital gains tax would require out sized gains in market investing to be less risky and less profitable than the reinvestment of profits in business. Low capital gains tax has the opposite effect, small gains at little risk bring out sized after tax gains.
I hate to burst your bubble here but shareholders are business owners so really, it is mostly "business owners" who are effected by capital gains taxes. There is some capital gains tax on interest from savings accounts but these are insignificant.Business owners make up only a small percentage of those affected by capital gains taxes, so I fail to see your concern here. Isn't it a good thing for a person to "sit on" capital gains over "10-20 years", while they are in the process of preparing for their retirement? I see this as a huge positive, inasmuch as I like to see individuals aspiring for fiscally stable futures.
There is a big difference between the capital gains of the small business owner saving for his retirement and the capital gains of the wealthy who gain all their income from capital gains. The top income earners in the US obtain all their income from capital gains. A low capital gains tax means that they pay far less of their income in taxes than the middle class.
There are republicans who want to entirely eliminate the capital gains tax. This would eliminate taxes on the wealthiest and drive savings into the markets which would create a market boom that would make the rich even richer. On the other side of the ledger savings would move out of banks and bank lending would decline. Business capital investment and lending would grind to a halt. The economy would fall apart as the stock market roared. It would be the 1920s all over again. The crash will make 2008 look like a mild recession.
You can say that a shareholder owns part of a business but that is not always true.
If you own shares in a company that pays little or no dividends and elect to give corporate "big wigs" stock options and inflated salaries you are no more than a speculator (i.e. gambler) and you are only betting that the price of the stock will go up.
Then all you own is a ticket in a horserace.
Last edited by politicalcenter; Nov 18 2011 at 02:39 PM.
The truth is neither right or left...it is the truth.