GOP scam Tax plan cuts for rich and hurts everyone else

"The 1099 MISC is a catch-all form for any income outside of a paycheck. It can be used to report salary, fees earned, royalties or payments, and even settlements. The form is frequently used to record payments to consultants and freelance services.

Read more: http://www.ehow.com/about_5552347_misc-vs-earned-income-ssi.html#ixzz2wckK5BTb"

Top 400, are you really serious that our tax system and tax rates should be based on just 400 people? And it is not a preferential, is THE rate and they pay a higher rate than the lower incomes

 

Yep just look at the capital gains revenues subject to taxation under the various rates. The best under Clintons 29.9% $260B under Bush's 15.7% $924B. That is people working and growing the economy and business making their own wages and salaries and paying taxes and NOT collecting government benefits.

But this is not about raising the most revenues in the least intrusive manner for the liberals, it is all about greed and envy.

 

The uber rich, your greed is truly a pathetic disgusting thing to watch.

But the 1% apologists are just fine that the uber rich get special low tax rates. Trickle down, baby. Because for heaven's sake, the 1% getting 20% of the nation's income and having about 40% of the nation's wealth, double from 30 years ago, just isn't enough for them is it? To the greed and selfish, more is never enough.

 

1996 Cap gains tax revenues were $66.4 billion.
In 2009 CG tax revenues were $36.7 billion.

This is not about making the most revenues. It's about greedy and selfish 1% apologists fighting to protect the special privileges of the uber rich.

Because for heaven's sake, the 1% getting 20% of the nation's income and having about 40% of the nation's wealth, double from 30 years ago, just isn't enough for them, is it? More is never enough to the greedy and selfish.

 

Note your own cherry picking.

I'm comparing periods with similar realizations.

Realizations were different.

Why did you leave out 2009 and 1996?

You tell me. You're the one who left it out.

Income taxes aren't even close to half of all federal revenues. But you cherry pick only them to excuse special privileges for the uber rich.

LMAO

No more response warranted.

 

You constantly make excuses for the special privileges for the uber rich.

Where's my envy? I'm just arguing that the uber rich should get special tax privileges.

Of course, 1% apologists do. Because for heaven's sake, the 1% getting 20% of the nation's income and having about 40% of the nation's wealth, double from 30 years ago, just isn't enough for you is it? More is never enough.

 

You're simply cherry picking the years when stock market realizations were highest and then comparing that to when realizations were far lower.

You're not comparing equivalent realizations. You're cherry picking and comparing apples and oranges. Typical tricks of 1% apologists to justify special tax privileges for the uber wealthy. Because more is never enough.

 

When discussing revenue and its relationship to tax rates it is important to take into consideration the business cycle. The variable that is extremely important is the state of the economy. Just throwing the data, ie and tax rate out does not mean that it suggests the tax rate is the most important variable.

- - - Updated - - -

I see no greed inn his posts. Why are you insulting him?

- - - Updated - - -

Never happen

 

In fact there are years when higher rates produced higher revenue and there are years when lower rates produced higher revenue. Only adjacent years can be accurately used for comparison as over a longer period economic variables skew the results.

 

Feel free to take into consideration whatever you want and report your analysis.

You wouldn't. I couldn't care less what say you see.

- - - Updated - - -

And why is that? CG tax rates only have a one year effect?

 

Yes such as during a recession period or during a growth period, NOT as Iriemon did comparing a highest growth period to two recession periods. Although his doing so showed that even during a recession period the lower rate produced simlar economic activity subject to cap gains taxation as with the higher rates during growth periods, don't think he realized that.

We aren't taxing the higher earners enough give me more................sounds like greed to me.

You are probably correct.

 

Prove CG tax rates affect realizations and how.

Prove CG tax rates affect business activity and how.

 

I posted the ENTIRE HISTORY but thanks for showing that even during a recession the lower rates produced similar business activity as to that at the higher rates. The fact remains rates effect realizations not the other way around.

 

You're trying to compare periods of high realizations with periods of low realizations. Apples and oranges. Of course tax revenues will be higher during periods of high realizations.

The undisputed fact remains that in periods of equivalent realizations, lower tax rates produce lower tax revenues:

Year - Realized C/G - Tax rev.
1996 $260,696 $66,396 [Cap gains tax rate 28%]
2002 $268,615 $49,122 [Cap gains tax rate 20%]
2009 $263,460 $36,686 [Cap gains tax rate 15%]

 

See the chart, but do explain how realizations effects the rate not the other way around.

ROFL you really want to admit you don't know how? If so you have no credibility to discuss the matter.

"Conclusion
The tax treatment of capital gains and dividends greatly affects the quantity of capital created and
employed. The quantity of capital affects the productivity, wages, and employment of labor. Output
and incomes are lower at higher levels of taxation of capital. Raising the tax rate on capital by
increasing the tax rate on dividends and capital gains from current levels would shrink national
income across the board. People in all income classes would bear the burden of the tax. The lower
levels of income and economic activity would reduce the tax base (personal income, corporate
income, taxable payroll, goods subject to excises and tariffs, etc.). The reduced tax base would result
in a net decrease in federal revenue rather than an increase. State and local government budgets
would also be hurt by the weaker economy."
http://www.nber.org/chapters/c11346.pdf

- - - Updated - - -

Once again you have it backwards, rates affect realization not the other way around. And the issue here is REVENUES, at what rates do we produce the most in REVENUES?

 

How about let's look at apples to apples using Clinton's rates:

Here are some interesting breakdowns for actual tax rates paid and receipts in billions
1993 -23.3% -$ 31.393
1994 -23.6%- 33.920
1995 - 24.1% - 38.368
1996 - 25.1% - 58.782 The highest capital gains tax rate during Clintons terms
1997 - 21.1% - 69.572
1998 - 19.0% - 80.611
1999 - 19.0% - 91.416
2000 - 19.0% 111.501 The highest Revenue during Clinton's terms
​

Looking at the highest rate and all over lower rates after 1996 (consecutive years) shows higher receipts for lower rates. Is that causation?

 

Question: what is the difference between realizations and receipts? I see realizations as the amount of capital gains reported and receipts as the tax revenue garnered from that realization.

The charts show an increase in receipts in the amounts of:
........................Effective tax rates paid
1996 - 3.33 25.5
1997 - 4.38 21.7
1998 - 5.18 19.6
1999 - 5.91 20.2
2000 - 6.47 18.8
Which tells us that there were realized gains as a % of GDP with lower effective tax rates paid after the peak of the effective rate paid in 1996

 

If any investment was guaranteed, it really wouldn't matter what the tax rate is. Since this is not that case, any investment taken must be considered based on its 'post tax' return.

 

Gotta go, my naptime caught up with me. Suggestion, DON'T GET OLD LIKE ME. At 78 I have a lot less stamina than ever before.

 

LOL! Just the level of "proof" I'd expect from you.

Experts Agree That Capital Gains Tax Cuts Lose Revenue
Cutting capital gains rates reduces revenues over the long run. That’s the conclusion of the federal government’s official revenue-estimating agencies, as well as outside experts and the Bush Administration’s own Treasury Department.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation have estimated that extending the capital gains tax cut enacted in 2003 would cost $100 billion over the next decade. The Administration’s Office of Management and Budget included a similar estimate in the President’s budget.

After reviewing numerous studies of how investors respond to capital gains tax cuts, CBO commented that “the best estimates of taxpayers’ response to changes in the capital gains rate do not suggest a large revenue increase from additional realizations of capital gains — and certainly not an increase large enough to offset the losses from a lower rate.”

The Bush Administration Treasury Department examined the economic effects of extending the capital gains and dividend tax cuts. Even under the Treasury’s most optimistic scenario about the economic effects of these tax cuts, the tax cuts would not generate anywhere close to enough added economic growth to pay for themselves — and would thus lose money.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1286

ROFL

Prove it. Your making a baseless assertion based on nothing.

 

Realizations are the amount of capital gains revenues that were subject to taxation.

 

Realizations are capital gains that are "realized" by sale of the asset.

If you bought an asset at $100 and it is now worth $500 you have an unrealized gain of $400. If you sell the asset at $500 you now have a realized gain of $400. Realized capital gains are taxed; unrealized capital gains are not taxed.

Receipts are the amount of tax revenues. They are a function of the realized capital gains times the effective tax rate.

 

What is the source? Those may be effective rates, they are not nominal rates.

No proof of that. Realizations are effected by different things, including the economy, the stock market, and expectations of the stock market, as well as short term anticipations of tax policy.

In the late 1990s the stock markets were booming thus driving higher capital gains and realizations.

 

Yes the honest and complete history not cherry picked as you did.



Experts Agree That Capital Gains Tax Cuts Lose Revenue

Prove it. Your making a baseless assertion based on nothing.[/QUOTE]

And my cite debunked the two studies you produced as does the actual history. CBO and JCT have never been adept at forecasting revenues or the effects of tax rate changes because they us static models.

Want more


• 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. But 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. Tax
revenues did not climb by 40 percent. Rather the opposite occurred. In
1990, the US 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 jumped to
$100 billion.
• After the 2003 capital gains cut, federal revenues increased in four
years by $740 billion. CGT revenues grew from $55 billion in 2002 to
$110 billion in 2006. Every indicator demonstrates that the 2003 CGT
cut helped increase growth, share values and federal tax revenues..........

The inaccuracy of official forecasts
Government organizations, notably tax authorities, have been consistently
wrong in forecasting the revenue effects of changes in capital gains tax rates.
For example, in April 1978 the US Treasury Department stated that capital
gains tax relief would cost $2.2 billion in revenue, but in reality capital gains
taxes paid by individuals increased by some $1.6 billion or 19%. Tax receipts
were $3.5 billion – 56% higher than Treasury analysts predicted.

Official estimates were just as wrong when the US capital gains tax was
increased after 1986. Their estimates of realizations and revenues turned out
to be too high. Professor Martin Feldstein commented as follows:

“The Treasury staff projected that capital gains would reach $256
billion in 1992, while the Congressional Budget Office projected capital
gains of $287 billion. In fact capital gains have continued to decline
since 1988, falling nearly 40 percent on real terms despite a 34 percent
rise in the real level of [stock] prices. The actual 1992 level of capital
gains was only 41 percent of the level projected by the Congressional
Budget Office.”iv

More recent estimates have continued to be wrong. The gains in tax receipts
following the reduction of the CGT rate to 15% in 2003 were not expected by
the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation, which
officially score tax changes. The graph below compares actual capital gains
revenues with the forecasts made when the tax cut was proposed:

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

2.3 Econometric Results
The data on capital gains tax rates, realizations, and household wealth
were analyzed statistically. The basic results showed that a one-
percentage-point reduction in the capital gains tax rate resulted in 6.2%
more net gains realized. The implication of this finding is that revenues
from capital gains taxes are maximized when the capital gains tax rate
is 16%. At higher tax rates, the revenue gained from taxing realized
gains at higher rates is more than offset by a reduction in the amount
of capital gains realized. At lower tax rates, the revenue lost from the
lower rate is not recouped by the broadening of the tax base. This
estimate of the revenue-maximizing rate is best interpreted as being in
the center of a range of possible rates from 14.3% to 18.5%.
Capital gains realizations also appeared to rise in direct proportion
to the value of traded assets in household wealth. This is as expected.
http://www.nber.org/chapters/c7686.pdf







Still waiting for you to explain how realizations effect rates and not the other way around.

 

Just like I thought. I wanted to make sure we were on the same sheet of semantics.

Yepper!

So without a doubt we are talking about the same thing. Sometimes it seems like you are talking lemons while I am talking oranges.