If you eliminate capital gains.

how many could start their own business if they were getting taxed at 15% ?

If you can't compete being taxed at the same rate as me, you need to get out of business.

 

One: I don't think you know many millionaires - because I do. And I can tell you that (especially for the self made ones) the word 'fear' is NOT in their vocabulary.

AND Two: your theories are making no sense to me. And considering I have NEVER heard ANY economist EVER state your theory before insofar as the Great Depression is concerned - I don't think your theories make much sense to anyone.

Find me ONE respected economist you agrees with you and I will consider it. Otherwise, I'll pass.

 

the market does not weed out good companies from bad companies, it rewards monopolies and oligopolies because those can provide the worst service and still afford to put the smaller companies out of business due to pricing power

lower capital gains taxes just helps big companies saturate the market with horrible practices and kick the better smaller busineses out of the competition

 

Oh God, quit the bravado. Usually they are (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) with big wallets. They pay people to protect them in physical situations and pay lawyers to protect them in litigous matters. Fear and greed; that's what drives the stock market - everyone knows that.

So instead of addressing my points you run off and just disregard them. Hmmm, nothing like having chicken before turkey. Go back and addess the points about low and high taxation and that constantly repreatable cycle.... or just keep being a chicken, I don't care.

Pass on the turkey for chicken? I think what you just did is called acquiescing. Of course you're too, "good" to be reduced to answering questions; you're just above it. Also, I did use your cite to reference Bermanke. Not to mention, your own WIKI cite states economists are still up in arms over what caused the GD.

So if you're too much of a follower to think on your own, then I guess you'll have to acquiesce. I guess if a respected astronomer, geologist or whomever said the earth is flat, you would agree. Sucks to be such a follower.

 

I do not even BEGIN to understand your point that people are going to invest LESS due to LOWER taxes. That does not even sound logical.
Lower taxes are an incentive to invest - not the other way around.

I am an investor. It is how I earn my living. And lower taxes are in NO way going to make me want to invest less. It is the TOTAL opposite. And to EVERY other investor I know (IMO).

Like I typed, you find me one respected economist that agrees with you and I will consider it.

And I did not answer all your other points because I do not have any desire to get into long, drawn out, back and forth debates over theories. Check my other posts - this is not the first time I have stated something like that.

I am interested in learning and teaching about facts/stats - not pointless debates over ideas/theories.

That might be your thing. Fine.

It's not mine.


Have a nice day.

 

I'll ask again, could I see the source for your 81% figure please. Corporations aren't suppossed to be gracious; They're suppossed to maximize profits for their investors while doing their fiduciary duties and obeying the law.

 

The fortune 500 have a marginal tax rate of 35% + whatever their state dictates. Where did this 15% figure come from? Are you talking about income taxes? Your comment needs to be clarified.

A single citizen can entice investors to invest in his company. A low capital gains tax encourages them to invest their capital in his company.

 

How on earth does low capital gains taxes help big businesses push small ones out? If actually does the complete opposite. Lower capital gains taxes means a great supply of capital. Small comapnies can't secure debt as easily as large corporations with established credit and large free cash flows. Equity financing is how many small companies come into existence and grow. High capital gains tax discourages equity financing and actually makes it more expensive.

Most monopolies are illegal under U.S. laws. Oligopolies are discouraged in a competitive market. In order for competitors to come into existence they need to be able to entice equity investors which is better accomplished by lower capital gains taxes.

 

If you make a killing, you have to pay taxes. So if taxes are low, you might be more likely to profit-take, if taxes are high, you would be more likely to keep investments or to reinvest. Many investments are short-term losses to writeoff profits, but hope they will grow huge in time.

It's not that difficult, if you quit posturing you could put it together: http://mkirtley.hubpages.com/hub/Low-Taxes-Do-Not-Create-Jobs

The truth about taxes is:

High taxes are an inducement to reinvest profits into a business.

Low taxes are an inducement to take profits out of a business.

It's not majic, it's not complex, lower taxes and investors, businesses will be more likely to yank cash, I know I would.

EXAMPLES:

- Carter kept top brkt at 70% and even with OPEC screwing us and his absentee presidency, his policies created jobs at 2.6M per year.

- Reagan chopped taxes to nothing and created 2M jobs per year while hammering the deficit/debt, something Carter didn't do.

- Clinton raised taxes and slightly cut spending, he created 2.9M jobs per year while lowering the 290B/yr deficit he inherited and leaving a 236B surplus.

So your theory is reallly, really nice on paper, but it harshly flunks the means test, it just stinks.


Here's an illustration: Let's imagine a hypothetical business owner who is making 1 million profit (almost all wealthy people are business owners). Now let's suppose this person is taxed at 90% on profit over three hundred thousand. Obviously he is going to do everything he can to avoid paying a 90% tax on the seven hundred thousand and the tax code does give him a way out. If he reinvests the $700,000 into his business he can avoid the tax while increasing his net worth and creating jobs.

Now let's look at the same business owner but with a much lower 25% tax rate. He is not so desperate to avoid a confiscatory tax, therefore he is more likely to take the money out of his business and spend it on things like real estate or a Lexus or travel abroad or playing the Wall Street casino. These expenditures, while creating a little bit of demand, create far fewer jobs and growth than business reinvestment. This explains why times of high tax rates have ALWAYS been accompanied by the highest rates of job growth our country has seen.

Read the article, it says more of this and explains it well. I'm sorry I can't name-drop as you like, but this is himan nature stuff, if I were filthy rich I would follow this guideline.

Really, if you were taxed at 70% for the profit you took, you would keep 30% and mail a check for the 70%? Do you realy think we're that stupid?

You can follow the name-droppers like some sorority queen in heat, but if you ignore the data then you are being as illogical as you can be. Explain how that lame duck Carter created more jobs under his 70% taxation policy and OPEC's nasty hand than your messiah Reagan with his 28% top brkt. Oh, sorry, don't have any heroes to name drop for you, just BLS data, IRS data.

Here's an example of repatriotated funds and corporate tax breaks that talks about job creation: http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/10/13/a-repatriation-tax-holiday-wouldnt-create-jobs/ It's from Forbe's a RW pro-investor site.


http://conceptualmath.org/philo/status1.htm

Although we would expect tax cuts to bolster the economy, empirical evidence shows that they typically don't. Tax cuts to the rich are more likely to promote investment bubbles than job creation. Tax incentives to corporations frequently promote job destroying choices, or simply become handouts to the executives and the investors.

Oh, I know, you've run chicken from many of my posts, no need to reitterate that.

Then where's your data, oh teacher? See, you provide no data, not off teh top of your head, not from an objective site. At best you might throw in an article from Heritage maggotted site. Your points are worthless w/o objective data; they're just skewed opinion.

I feel the need to be emprical and resort to objecctive data, i don't know what came over me.

Duh, Captain Obvious. You just throw out your opinion, wait for a name dropper and ignore empirical data. In college/univeristy we call that a grade repeater. See, my silly university required me to actually research data and put together an argument, not just focus on a well-rounded bibliography devoid of any text in the body of the paper. Sucks to be you.

Be as smarmy as you wish, you lose, you acquiesce and fail to even make an argument, let alone support it.

 

Yes, they are supposed to cut throats for profit; a great model by which to run our country.

I had posted the citation before in a previosu thread, I will research it again w/o going back, I will find numerous citations.

http://maxkeiser.com/2011/08/14/sin...-little-effect-on-the-bottom-90-of-americans/

http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_589.pdf

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

 

Lose? Is this some sort of juvenile competition?

Okaaaaaaay. Way to take a simple conversation WAAY too seriously.

I suggest you get more things in your life.


Anyway...from what I saw, you have no name of ANY respected economist who has EVER agreed with your idea.

Noted.


Have a nice day.

 

lower capital gains benefits big businesses over smaller businesses, they get the most money out of the deal and have more money to saturate the market with their subpar products and services

it does not spur innovation or promote competition by giving more power to oligopolies aka big businesses

if capital gains is to be lowered, it should only apply to small to midsize companies that is all

 

Apparently not, a competition takes 2 people and there's at least one adult; me. What do you think happens in these forums? People come and voice their psotion, some come correct and support theirs well, others come and talk from the cuff how they would like to see it or how it works best for them and act as tho it would work best for everyone that way.

Meaning you're taking it lightly, ok, go to an IM site with lots of emotocons, as you can't/are unabale to address real issues.

I suggest you get an eduction or go post on the Peewee Herman's website or the ilk. You make bold assertions, get your azz handd to you and now you want to play it down; you look silly.

I think name-dropping is a Hollywood thing, but to drop one to appease you: Alan Greenspan said on Meet the Press that tax cuts don't pay fopr themselves, meaning they cost money not create revenue. Again, I'm posting data, you follow economists who are still not in agreement as to how we got into stagflation or even the Great Depression. I guess w/o your heroes by your side you cannot function; that sucks.

Note it all you want, you still have yet to address any points, why even post? Just go away, you look silly acting as tho you're respnding, you have no answers to my points, so let it go at that before you look sillier.

Go to the Netflix site and post your opinions on the latest movies, that's as deep as you run, but until then address ALL OF these:



If you make a killing, you have to pay taxes. So if taxes are low, you might be more likely to profit-take, if taxes are high, you would be more likely to keep investments or to reinvest. Many investments are short-term losses to writeoff profits, but hope they will grow huge in time.

It's not that difficult, if you quit posturing you could put it together: http://mkirtley.hubpages.com/hub/Low-Taxes-Do-Not-Create-Jobs

The truth about taxes is:

High taxes are an inducement to reinvest profits into a business.

Low taxes are an inducement to take profits out of a business.

It's not majic, it's not complex, lower taxes and investors, businesses will be more likely to yank cash, I know I would.

EXAMPLES:

- Carter kept top brkt at 70% and even with OPEC screwing us and his absentee presidency, his policies created jobs at 2.6M per year.

- Reagan chopped taxes to nothing and created 2M jobs per year while hammering the deficit/debt, something Carter didn't do.

- Clinton raised taxes and slightly cut spending, he created 2.9M jobs per year while lowering the 290B/yr deficit he inherited and leaving a 236B surplus.

So your theory is reallly, really nice on paper, but it harshly flunks the means test, it just stinks.


Here's an illustration: Let's imagine a hypothetical business owner who is making 1 million profit (almost all wealthy people are business owners). Now let's suppose this person is taxed at 90% on profit over three hundred thousand. Obviously he is going to do everything he can to avoid paying a 90% tax on the seven hundred thousand and the tax code does give him a way out. If he reinvests the $700,000 into his business he can avoid the tax while increasing his net worth and creating jobs.

Now let's look at the same business owner but with a much lower 25% tax rate. He is not so desperate to avoid a confiscatory tax, therefore he is more likely to take the money out of his business and spend it on things like real estate or a Lexus or travel abroad or playing the Wall Street casino. These expenditures, while creating a little bit of demand, create far fewer jobs and growth than business reinvestment. This explains why times of high tax rates have ALWAYS been accompanied by the highest rates of job growth our country has seen.

Read the article, it says more of this and explains it well. I'm sorry I can't name-drop as you like, but this is himan nature stuff, if I were filthy rich I would follow this guideline.



Really, if you were taxed at 70% for the profit you took, you would keep 30% and mail a check for the 70%? Do you realy think we're that stupid?



You can follow the name-droppers like some sorority queen in heat, but if you ignore the data then you are being as illogical as you can be. Explain how that lame duck Carter created more jobs under his 70% taxation policy and OPEC's nasty hand than your messiah Reagan with his 28% top brkt. Oh, sorry, don't have any heroes to name drop for you, just BLS data, IRS data.

Here's an example of repatriatated funds and corporate tax breaks that talks about job creation: http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/10/13/a-repatriation-tax-holiday-wouldnt-create-jobs/ It's from Forbe's a RW pro-investor site.


http://conceptualmath.org/philo/status1.htm

Although we would expect tax cuts to bolster the economy, empirical evidence shows that they typically don't. Tax cuts to the rich are more likely to promote investment bubbles than job creation. Tax incentives to corporations frequently promote job destroying choices, or simply become handouts to the executives and the investors.



Oh, I know, you've run chicken from many of my posts, no need to reitterate that.



Then where's your data, oh teacher? See, you provide no data, not off teh top of your head, not from an objective site. At best you might throw in an article from Heritage maggotted site. Your points are worthless w/o objective data; they're just skewed opinion.



I feel the need to be emprical and resort to objecctive data, i don't know what came over me.



Duh, Captain Obvious. You just throw out your opinion, wait for a name dropper and ignore empirical data. In college/univeristy we call that a grade repeater. See, my silly university required me to actually research data and put together an argument, not just focus on a well-rounded bibliography devoid of any text in the body of the paper. Sucks to be you.



Be as smarmy as you wish, you lose, you acquiesce and fail to even make an argument, let alone support it.

 

Okaaaaay....so I have to talk about whatever you want, for as long as you want, whether the subject interests me very much or not?

Gotcha Ya.

Well you have a nice day now.

 

How do big businesses get more money out the deal? Businesses don't pay capital gains taxes on their profits....investors do.

 

The answers get smaller until they equal to and merge with your mind. Now go address the issues, after all, you have a pint to make, don't you?

 

Just wondering?

Do you often spend lots of time talking about subjects that do not interest you very much with people who you have little respect for on those particular subjects?

If your answer is 'no' - then you understand how I feel about responding to you on this subject...no offense.


Have a nice day.

 

He probably means corporate taxes. If businesses owned stock or sold property they could be subject to CG I bet.

 

1) These subjects interest me enormously

2) I have little respect for people who put profits before people, but not to worry, as soon as they're in a position of need, they lose their sociopathic side

3) I prefer to debate with people who have opposing views, I can learn things if nothing else by having to research thier assetions. Unforrtunatley, there is little return on teh eother end.

Well, that's bout the extent of your repsonses, 1 or 2 words; zero substance.

So, now that you think you've cleverly introduced your ad hominem and misdirected the topic, you haven't. Go back thru and address the questions/points, or be seen as a person who has no clue. Do you think anyone but the Beck-lovers buy your non-answers? Most people, lefft or right want to see issues addressed. Now when you bring in extremists, they have a blind agenda, so they cannot be appeased, they've already made up their mind.

 

corporate taxes and all the major investors with money stick with the big companies because their money is safer in an oligopoly than a small or mid size company

capital gains in macro outlook always benefits the big business over the little guys

 

I'll take that as a 'no'.


Have a nice day.

 

Are you gonna address these? I'll assume, 'no.'








Apparently not, a competition takes 2 people and there's at least one adult; me. What do you think happens in these forums? People come and voice their psotion, some come correct and support theirs well, others come and talk from the cuff how they would like to see it or how it works best for them and act as tho it would work best for everyone that way.



Meaning you're taking it lightly, ok, go to an IM site with lots of emotocons, as you can't/are unabale to address real issues.



I suggest you get an eduction or go post on the Peewee Herman's website or the ilk. You make bold assertions, get your azz handd to you and now you want to play it down; you look silly.




I think name-dropping is a Hollywood thing, but to drop one to appease you: Alan Greenspan said on Meet the Press that tax cuts don't pay fopr themselves, meaning they cost money not create revenue. Again, I'm posting data, you follow economists who are still not in agreement as to how we got into stagflation or even the Great Depression. I guess w/o your heroes by your side you cannot function; that sucks.



Note it all you want, you still have yet to address any points, why even post? Just go away, you look silly acting as tho you're respnding, you have no answers to my points, so let it go at that before you look sillier.



Go to the Netflix site and post your opinions on the latest movies, that's as deep as you run, but until then address ALL OF these:



If you make a killing, you have to pay taxes. So if taxes are low, you might be more likely to profit-take, if taxes are high, you would be more likely to keep investments or to reinvest. Many investments are short-term losses to writeoff profits, but hope they will grow huge in time.

It's not that difficult, if you quit posturing you could put it together: http://mkirtley.hubpages.com/hub/Low-Taxes-Do-Not-Create-Jobs

The truth about taxes is:

High taxes are an inducement to reinvest profits into a business.

Low taxes are an inducement to take profits out of a business.

It's not majic, it's not complex, lower taxes and investors, businesses will be more likely to yank cash, I know I would.

EXAMPLES:

- Carter kept top brkt at 70% and even with OPEC screwing us and his absentee presidency, his policies created jobs at 2.6M per year.

- Reagan chopped taxes to nothing and created 2M jobs per year while hammering the deficit/debt, something Carter didn't do.

- Clinton raised taxes and slightly cut spending, he created 2.9M jobs per year while lowering the 290B/yr deficit he inherited and leaving a 236B surplus.

So your theory is reallly, really nice on paper, but it harshly flunks the means test, it just stinks.


Here's an illustration: Let's imagine a hypothetical business owner who is making 1 million profit (almost all wealthy people are business owners). Now let's suppose this person is taxed at 90% on profit over three hundred thousand. Obviously he is going to do everything he can to avoid paying a 90% tax on the seven hundred thousand and the tax code does give him a way out. If he reinvests the $700,000 into his business he can avoid the tax while increasing his net worth and creating jobs.

Now let's look at the same business owner but with a much lower 25% tax rate. He is not so desperate to avoid a confiscatory tax, therefore he is more likely to take the money out of his business and spend it on things like real estate or a Lexus or travel abroad or playing the Wall Street casino. These expenditures, while creating a little bit of demand, create far fewer jobs and growth than business reinvestment. This explains why times of high tax rates have ALWAYS been accompanied by the highest rates of job growth our country has seen.

Read the article, it says more of this and explains it well. I'm sorry I can't name-drop as you like, but this is himan nature stuff, if I were filthy rich I would follow this guideline.



Really, if you were taxed at 70% for the profit you took, you would keep 30% and mail a check for the 70%? Do you realy think we're that stupid?



You can follow the name-droppers like some sorority queen in heat, but if you ignore the data then you are being as illogical as you can be. Explain how that lame duck Carter created more jobs under his 70% taxation policy and OPEC's nasty hand than your messiah Reagan with his 28% top brkt. Oh, sorry, don't have any heroes to name drop for you, just BLS data, IRS data.

Here's an example of repatriatated funds and corporate tax breaks that talks about job creation: http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/10/13/a-repatriation-tax-holiday-wouldnt-create-jobs/ It's from Forbe's a RW pro-investor site.


http://conceptualmath.org/philo/status1.htm

Although we would expect tax cuts to bolster the economy, empirical evidence shows that they typically don't. Tax cuts to the rich are more likely to promote investment bubbles than job creation. Tax incentives to corporations frequently promote job destroying choices, or simply become handouts to the executives and the investors.



Oh, I know, you've run chicken from many of my posts, no need to reitterate that.



Then where's your data, oh teacher? See, you provide no data, not off teh top of your head, not from an objective site. At best you might throw in an article from Heritage maggotted site. Your points are worthless w/o objective data; they're just skewed opinion.



I feel the need to be emprical and resort to objecctive data, i don't know what came over me.



Duh, Captain Obvious. You just throw out your opinion, wait for a name dropper and ignore empirical data. In college/univeristy we call that a grade repeater. See, my silly university required me to actually research data and put together an argument, not just focus on a well-rounded bibliography devoid of any text in the body of the paper. Sucks to be you.



Be as smarmy as you wish, you lose, you acquiesce and fail to even make an argument, let alone support it.

 

I already did.

Let me make it so clear that even you can understand:

I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR ASININE THEORY THAT NO RESPECTED ECONOMIST HAS EVER AGREED WITH AND I DON'T RESPECT YOUR EMOTIONAL STABILITY.

You got it now...yes or no?


Have a nice day.

 

Well you bet wrong. Gains on property and stock owned by corporations is taxed at the corporate rate (35%).

 

That makes no sense. Small company stocks historically earn higher returns than large company stocks. There's almost always more opportunity in smaller stocks because market inefficiencies are more apparent at that level. There's a lot less information on those types of stocks so the price often doesn't reflect its true value. On the reverse side, small stocks are typically more risky. How do capital gains stocks benefit big businesses over small ones? You've said it twice without explaining or providing evidence how.