Thread: If you eliminate capital gains.

Originally Posted by gamewell45

The main reason this won't work is becuase there are no guarantees that business owners are going to reinvest in anything other then their own pockets. Whats to stop them from taking the captial gains and sitting on them for the next 10-20 years???

Or just investing their money off shore or in commodities?

The economy stinks and will (IMO) get stinkier - and if it does, there will be little reason to invest in it.

Originally Posted by gamewell45

The main reason this won't work is becuase there are no guarantees that business owners are going to reinvest in anything other then their own pockets. Whats to stop them from taking the captial gains and sitting on them for the next 10-20 years???

Exactly, high taxes keep the money in the game. Taxes aren't stealing, as our lovley RWers chant, high taxes are leveraging, forcing people with profits to reinvest some or even most of it, depending upon the actual rate. Some delluded folks act as tho these rich love this country and will do what they can to ensue its survival. Truth is, they just parasite off of it and extort what they can, Reaganism illustrates this.

Originally Posted by DA60

Or just investing their money off shore or in commodities?

The economy stinks and will (IMO) get stinkier - and if it does, there will be little reason to invest in it.

The US is still a good bargain, just look at the stock market. Many investors are coming here now and buying land. If the Chinese would quit lending us and let our dollar sink to where it should, then our products would become an enormous baragin as the USD would be deflated, this would bring manufacturing back.

So all is not lost, we just have to lose our admiration of tax cuts to feed the already bloated rich.

Originally Posted by Political Ed

It's funny to watch people who don't cite data, try to leaen how. Uh, the data you cited doesn't support your claim, the "False" meter shows the Boener's claim is wrong about GWB tax cuts creting jobs.

If you actually READ the article, you would realize that Boener's claim of "eight million jobs" created was indeed an overstatement. The article corrected this piece of data, stating instead that "six million jobs" were created. I echoed this fact, citing the article to buttress my statement.

Please actually READ and COMPREHEND these articles before you type a preconceived knee-jerk response. It's getting old.

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.

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).

Originally Posted by gamewell45

The main reason this won't work is becuase there are no guarantees that business owners are going to reinvest in anything other then their own pockets.

Are you saying that business owners would take profits from their company and, instead of reinvesting the profits into their company, just "pocket" the money into a private account? If so, then I have 2 questions for you:

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?

Whats to stop them from taking the captial gains and sitting on them for the next 10-20 years???

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.

Originally Posted by drj90210

If you actually READ the article, you would realize that Boener's claim of "eight million jobs" created was indeed an overstatement. The article corrected this piece of data, stating instead that "six million jobs" were created. I echoed this fact, citing the article to buttress my statement.

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).

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.

Job creation:

Carter: 2.6M per year

Reagan: 2M per year

Clinton: 2.9M per year

GWB: 375K per year

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/...ord-on-record/

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.

Originally Posted by Political Ed

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.

So are you going to admit that you were wrong, or are you too stubborn?

Add the cost at 4.9 trillion dollars and it's an even worse bargain.

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-89LPZ9

Job creation:

Not sure your point is with all of these, but I'll play.

Carter: 2.6M per year

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.

Reagan: 2M 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.

Clinton: 2.9M per year

A trained seal could have created 22 million jobs in the 1990s tech boom.

GWB: 375K 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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by drj90210

A trained seal could have created 22 million jobs in the 1990s tech boom. .

Uhh, you do realize that Bush got a tech boom, that included Facebook, Google, Youtube, and all his conservative policies produced was a measley $2M jobs in 10 years.

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.

Originally Posted by drj90210

Are you saying that business owners would take profits from their company and, instead of reinvesting the profits into their company, just "pocket" the money into a private account? If so, then I have 2 questions for you:

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?

1) There are many cases where a business owner would be better of to not reinvest profits in growing the business.

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.

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.

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.

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.