If you eliminate capital gains.

Don't assess your cowardice on me. You possess a set of values taht you cannot support, sucks to be you. Don't worry, these all end this way as your position, shared by other sociopaths, cannot be supported so the tough questions are averted, in this case all questions are averted, hell, I even shot you an economist that you demanded and you ran from that.

Emotional instability? Who has to go bold?




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

Again, your economist, GREENSPAN SAID TAX CUTS DO NOT PAY FOR THEMSELVES, so where is your address to that? I even catered to your wish and you chicken out.

 

As I said, he means corp tax. Let's make you happy and let the corporations control everything. Oh wait, we've done that hence we're the greatest creditor in the world who now has the greatest rate of poverty on record per the Census Bureau and the greatest disparity in wealth ever or at least since the Great Depression. But you say more, huh? Yea.....

 

You were wrong, corporations don't pay capital gains taxes.

 

A single citizen can start his own business if you taxed his income at 15%

 

That statement makes no sense. More than half of all Americans don't even have an average tax rate of 15%.

 

Yea, largley rich individuals use the reduced CG tax to get even more rich and spread the disparity.

 

Not sure about that, but 93% of financial wealth is held by the top 20%, so what's your point?

 

all the rich investors put their money in less risk or bigger companies thats why low capital gains benefits oligopolies.

the investors with little money always go with more risk in small companies to make money, they should have lower capital gains taxes

lower capital gains on big business and the rich perpetuates a too big to fail market

 

So I because I won't come out and play - then I am a sociopathic coward?

Lol...yeah...you are REAL stable.




And btw, your Greenspan quote has nothing to do with your theory.

I am done with you.


Have a nice day.

 

- You're a coward due to you refusing to answer questions directly related to economics in general.

- You're a sociopath due to you putting money over people.

a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

Cut social programs, cut taxesa which clearly shifts wealth to the top, yea, that is characteristic of people who have no moral conscience.

- Greenspan quote has a general reference to tax cuts, in case you forgot, we are talking taxes, now go and try to limit the conversation to suit your needs.

- You never started with me, you've been running, looking for a name-dropper from the first post. If economists were so great then explain how, like weathermen, they are so often wrong and why the country often goes down a bad road with the economists direction.

- I know, tax cuts, my friends and you can't show me where major federal tax cuts have ever helped, only created disaster. Yet you're too stubborn to admit that, apparently not bright enough to just stay away.

 

That's not true either. Wealthy investors tend to have more market knowledge because of financial advisors/experience etc. and are much more willing to throw money into smaller more risky companies. Hedge funds are a perfect example of this. Your average small investor with little experience is more likely to invest in a company he's heard of and can find plenty of information about.

 

And due to insider trading.

Right, as in buy Yahoo 1/2 way to 3/4 of the way up and lose their azz, whereas the boys know what's gonna climb and whats gonna fall and when. Amateurs pay the pros in any sport, why are stocks different? Theey're not.

 

Last I heard, people like Larry Summers did research that said eliminating the capital gains tax would lead to 1% higher growth after 10 years. No idea if this research has been found flawed or not. While 1% growth isn't super high, it isn't anything to scoff at either, since growth compounds overtime. Granted this is much lower then conservative political commentators claim and higher then liberal political commentators claim.

 

I wouldn't use Larry Summers work if I were anyone. The research should be done again considering he was one of the idiots who pushed not regulated CDS or MBS market.

 

IMO, Larry Summers is one of the most overrated economists in human history.

 

He's kind of a weird bird, he's all over the place in his theories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers

He does claim lower CG taxes willhelp growth, but then advocates higher income tax. I realize that isn't totally out there, but a lot of his claims seem contradictory.

As a researcher, Summers has made important contributions in many areas of economics, primarily public finance, labor economics, financial economics, and macroeconomics. Some of Summers's early papers concluded that corporate and capital gains taxes are an inefficient form of taxation.[citation needed] Cutting the capital gains tax rate, Summers found, could help the economy grow.

So he says their innefficent and in reality he's right, the CBO claims CG taxes account for 2-3% of all fed receipts, so what's the big deal? It becomes a principal issue then to worry about such a meaningless area of the tax code.

Basically saying that if we cut unemp and welfare that peopel would be firced to make it work. Some would, some would become more destitute and become street wanderers. Then he opposes tax cuts in 1999:

As Treasury Secretary, Summers led the Clinton Administration's opposition to tax cuts proposed by the Republican Congress in 1999

Then he pushed Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which many say contributed to the Great Recession meltdown.

Summers hailed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999, which lifted more than six decades of restrictions against banks offering commercial banking, insurance, and investment services (by repealing key provisions in the 1933 Glass–Steagall Act):

Then he about bankrupted Harvard:



During Summers's presidency at Harvard, the University entered into a series totalling US$3.52 billion of interest rate swaps, financial derivatives that can be used for either hedging or speculation.[44] Summers approved the decision to enter into the swap contracts as president of the university and as a member of Harvard Corp., "the university's seven-member ruling body" which bears "the school's ultimate fiduciary responsibility."[45] By late 2008, those positions had lost approximately $1 billion in value, a setback which forced Harvard to borrow significant sums in distressed market conditions to meet margin calls on the swaps.[46] In the end Harvard paid $497.6 million in termination fees to investment banks and has agreed to pay another $425 million over 30–40 years.[45] The decision to enter into the swap positions has been attributed to Summers and has been termed a "massive interest-rate gamble" that ended badly.[47]

So altho he looks primarily conservative, he is also a big loser and seems like his postion is for sale.


All said, CG taxes could be cut if the top marginal brkt would stay above 50% and all would be well. To me, the top brkt of fed income tax is far more important as they represent most of the fed receipts and encourage profiteers to reinvest, but when both are low as in now, we are just in trouble. Show me a time when both have been low and we have been ok.

 

As long as capital gains are taxed as personal income you might have a point. As it is, the top percent of income earners gain over 95% of their income from capital gains. Since these gains are such a large percentage of national personal income, 30% or more by some accounts, it does not seem very fair that they should be excluded from being taxed as income.

If reinvestment in business improvement is the goal then ideally there would be a high tax on capital gains and a relatively lower tax on business profits and marginal personal income. A comparatively high capital gains tax requires out sized gains in market speculation to make it less risky than other capital investment. Conversely, a low capital gains tax makes market speculation less risky compared to other capital investments.

Eliminating the capital gains tax would attract all available investment monies into speculation and away from all other investments. The risk of market speculation would be reduced far below that of any other possible investment opportunity.

If you do not think that this is the case, please explain your thinking.

 

I agree with you, the people reaping profits aren't working hard at all! They are just taking advantage of the corrupted policies benefiting them while they bust the unions of their workers and pay them as little as possible.