Mitt Romney: ‘I’m not concerned about the very poor’

The facts are the facts as is shown over and over, as Clinton himself had to admit. You raise taxes, you don't get the revenues you expect. Lower them, increase economic activity, grow the economy and the revenues soar.

So why would you want to go back to the higher rates when you have nothing to back an assertion revenues will increase.

Look at what happened when Clinton raise them during a recoverym increases slowed, then when forced to sign decrease they soared. Look at the revenues 2004-2007 at the lower rates, they make the revenues brought in at 29% laughable.

 

again... you hang your argument on your belief that lower tax rates invariably are the primary cause for improved economic activity. that is an argument that two data points do not prove. Every I wear blue shirts, by feet are cold.... that does not prove that wearing blue shirts causes cold feet. get it?

Here is a delightful article I suggest you add to your reading list:

http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/UBEN-8EL2Y8?OpenDocument

 

A TON of real estate is non-principal residence. Investment properties and commercial real estate make up a large portion.
Also, the massive increase in personal wealth that comes with a rise in the principal residence usually works it's way back into the economy through increased spending - which fuels capital gains (as STRONGLY demonstrated during the latest housing boom).

NASDAQ CHART


If you check your chart - you will see that the years '95 and '96 were the two highest tax rate years between '77-'07.

And what did the NASDAQ do in that time?

It went up by about 66%.


And when the NASDAQ burst - in '00/'01 - where were capital gains rates?

They were as low as the tax rate had been since '87...and in 2001, they were THE LOWEST they had been since '87.

And yet the NASDAQ plummeted.


No offense, your theory is wrong.

Investment opportunities spur on investments....not small-medium changes in capital gains tax rates.

 

So if increasd taxes is the way to go, why not take the top rate to where it was under Jimmy Carter and raise it to 70%? That is almost double what the rich are paying

Would that meet your fairness requirement?

 

I have not ever suggested returning to those rates. Why would you?

 

They do repeatedly, and higher revenues, try again.

Why would you want to raise the rates? When has that increased revenues to the extent lowering rates has?

Here let the WSJ educate when it comes to the rate on dividends.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...7225493025537660.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

 

Why not if you maintain that raising rates will increase revenues despite the historical evidence otherwise.

What happened when Clinton raised rates?

 

Go learn the difference between housing and commercial real estate. The vast majority of housing is not subject to capital gains taxes.

Yes they skyrocketed after the rate was cut in 97. And of course you left off the climb after 2005 at the lower rates.

But here is a better chart showing your years.



And by 1998 real estate only made up about 10% of capital gains taxes, that is commerical AND residential. The idea that housing caused the boom in captial gains taxes is fallacious as so much is excluded from the tax.

 

I NEVER typed residential real estate was not most of the total real estate in America. I simply typed that non-primary residence, commercial (and government, btw) make up a 'TON'. i.e. 'Lots', i.e. 'plenty of'.

And every time (that I can recall) a real estate boom was accompanied by a boom in the DOW - which fuels capital gains.

Please show me where it did not?

One - I do not give a rat's buttocks how much money the government collected in capital gains taxes.


I am a full time investor - and my point is you are asserting that the dot.com boom was substantially due to a 4%(?!?) drop in the capital gains tax rate (even though the market had boomed 66% in the two years prior to these tax rate drops.).

Think for a minute.

The average return on the DOW about 20 years before 2000 was about 15-18% per year (off the top of my head).

Now, if someone made 16% on a stock (long term) - then at 25% capital gains tax, they would pay 4%. At 20%, they would pay 3.2%.

You are seriously suggesting that an investor is going to suddenly jump into the stock market mostly because they can now make 12.8% instead of 12%?

And where are they going to get a return like that from if they do not invest in the market/real estate?

In cash and cash equivalents (subject to full income taxes - depending on their situation)?

Come on now.

 

And was not a part of the housing bubble and the collapse of Fannie and Freddie.

Obviously.


I am a full time investor - and my point is you are asserting that the dot.com boom was substantially due to a 4%(?!?) drop in the capital gains tax rate (even though the market had boomed 66% in the two years prior to these tax rate drops.).

No they would pay 25% and any investor worth anything would know that.

History speaks for itself.

 

Forget history, in this case.

Are you seriously suggesting that most investors are going to suddenly jump into the stock market mostly because they can now make 12.8% after taxes, but not at 12% after taxes?

Yes or no, please?


And if 'yes' - then what non-capital gains investment are they going to get that kind of after taxes return from, theoretically?

 

why not? what a ridiculous question. YOu think that marginal tax rate X is too high... I think that marginal tax rate X-Y is too low....Do you honestly think that there is not a rate that I would find too high as well? Figuring out that number is what the political process is all about. Let's do it like adults, eh?

 

If your real intent is to close the defcit - why not?

You are saying the higher taxes the more revenue that will come in to the government

and we know all the added revenue will NOT be spent but applied to the debt
right?

 

So even when past liberal polices have failed - you want to keep trying them again and again

OK, got it

 

History speaks for itself and you can't pretend it doesn't exist.

 

And you have the historical data and clearly the higher rates you suggest produce less revenue.

 

different economic conditions produce different results. you know that, but refuse to acknowledge that two data sets do not tell the whole story, nor can they be used to predict the future.

 

Is that a 'yes' or a 'no'?

'Are you seriously suggesting that most investors are going to suddenly jump into the stock market mostly because they can now make 12.8% after taxes, instead of 12% after taxes?'

Yes or no, please?

Let me know when you can answer that simple question.


Have a nice day.

 

If he doesn't want to focus on the rich then what is he going to do when he wants to raise taxes? If he's trying to protect the middle class, he needs the support of the upper class because that's who's he's going to be taxing.

 

Oh sorry. Not to be P.I. (which in will be until I die). I know w LOT more about Mormonism ( they used to hate that years ago)....but now that "I am a mormon" ad campaign just creeps me and my best buddy out totally. Those who do not know or care can remain oblivious to the truth. Those like me are concerned, the LDS who will deny all....we know the TRUTH. Take it or leave it. LDS will keep on trying. More money than the catholic church .too smart to too squeaky clean to get involved in scandal....yeah I am concerned.

 

Well is slience if golden then expatriate may have turned into Ft Knox

 

why not? because, at some point, a progressive tax burden becomes unreasonable, no matter how wealthy the individual is and how much he has disproportionately benefitted from the American system of selectively regulated capitalism. Clearly, determining that minuscule difference between marginal tax rate proposals from the left and the right is what politics is all about: finding acceptable compromise.

America's government is broken now because politicians from both sides are unwilling to compromise. Go back and look at the legislative record of the democrats in congress during Reagan's first term. They were willing to work with the new president, and things got accomplished. The republicans in THIS congress have made it clear that, rather than set a priority of putting Americans back to work, or improving schools or health care, or ANY issue whereby they might be able to productively work with democrats to get anything done for the good of the American people, instead, their stated goal has been to obstruct every single initiative of this president so that their candidate can prevail in the next election. A clear and unambiguous case of party over country. Nauseating... and America knows it. WHy do you think that congress has such an abysmal public approval rating? because they cannot get ANYTHING done.

 

If you already have 1 taxpayer out of 100 paying 40% of all the income taxes collected - and 50 out 100 taxpayers paying less then 3% - why demand the one taxpayer pay more, instead of demanding the 50 pay more?

 

because that one taxpayer continues to reap extraordinary and disproportionate benefits and amass even more wealth from living in this wonderful nation of ours, and the 50, who do the rich man's bidding AND buy the rich man's products AND shovel his snow and wash his tablecloths and mow his lawn and drive the trucks that bring his goods to market and pour the cement that those trucks drive on and do all the other myriad things that allow that one rich man to get even richer and richer every single day... THOSE 50 people are NOT reaping any extraordinary benefits from living in America... those people are struggling to make ends meet....those people don't have any healthcare coverage and are one serious illness away from homelessness and destitution. Thy don't HAVE the financial cushion to be able to have their taxes increased without significant suffering, while that one rich man...he will not hardly notice the two or three percent increase in his taxes and will continue to get richer and richer regardless. When you are rich in America, life is beyond good... it's fabulous... and the rich in America got that way, by wisdom and risk, no doubt, but the working poor in America work long and hard FOR those rich people and they deserve a lot more consideration than you give them, that's for sure.