If you eliminate capital gains.

Not at all. We need to fund a government. Why would your transfer be exempt from taxes and a working person's labor not?

 

An everything I hear from washington is that they want to help the middle class.

Do you believe everything the rich and powerful say ?

 

"fund government" AKA fund government buddies in the finance industry, even as they transfer $130T of their bad bets onto public insured accounts.

I did start a thread about it. Why don't you comment, as you are so much for benevolent government and helping the little guy.


your charade is charming.

 

Good point!

 

Not at all. Government does far more than intervene to save the economy from the abuses of capitalism and negligence of prior administrations.

Your dodge is typical.

 

But you asked about Real Estate not liquid assets.

Money formerly taken through capital gains will be spent which will cause more tax revenue.

No one

The issue you and I are discussing is real estate however, if capital gains were to be rescinded, developers and investors will not be punished for re-investing in development which will create more work for contractors, and everyone involved with real estate.

 

Terribly naive. If we didn't have an economy characterised by market concentration the fellow may have accidentally said something relevant. But lets stick with reality!

 

1. the negligence was on the part of the entire government and spanned multiple administrations, lest we forget Brooklsey Borne.

2. The "interventions" are nothing but the enrichment of their pimps at the expense of the rest of us

The banks and the profits should belong to us, since we prevented their collapse. Instead they keep their businesses and profits, and we get their losses.

Any comment on BoA and JPM transferring $130T of their derivatives exposure from their securities divisions to their FDIC insure retail banking divisions, or will you tell us again how much the government we "need to fund" is providing useful service.

You always claim to be for the little guy, yet never pass up a chance to defend the enrichers of wall street.

 

You'd only have a point if you were a socialist. You're not. You follow a fake libertarian outlook that has only designed been to enable 'economic rent' profiteering

 

We can refer to public good, merit goods and a heap of reductions in the losses from market failure. However, ultimately government is the key economic agent in capitalism. Without interventionism, for good or bad, capitalism dies

 

Government created the housing crisis by mandating loans to the insolvent. This is a classic case of government creating a problem then taking tax dollars in order to fix the problem they created.

Before 'affordable housing' programs, banks had a borrower-qualification system in place to ensure their ROI. That's called capitalism. What the government did is called socialism.

 

No neo-liberalism created the crisis as it ensured the hegemony of the financial class. We can thank 'free market economics' lunacy for that

 

See, you learn something new everyday!

 

I agree. But that is what happens when you elect an administration with a "hands off" regulatory attitude based on the theory that the market will police itself.

History has taught us several times that is not true. Unfortunately, we had to re-learn the lesson again the hard way.

 

are you speaking of the Clinton admin, the one that signed Gramm-Leech-Bliley and removed Brooksley Born when she tried to regualte derivatives ?

 

neo-liberalism is "free market" ?
do tell

 

Capitalism and free markwt aren't chums! Neo-liberalism is the use of 'free market economics' to coerce the hegemony of the financial class. The market suffers, but with instabilities actually providing opportunities for profiteering

 

You personally may overall get equal to less than you put into the system, BUT there are loads of people that pay very little into the system and take SOOOO much out of it. For that reason, SS is going bankrupt.

No, you aren't, and I'll tell you why. I am 30 years old and I do not expect SS to be around when I retire many years from now. Thus, for those in my generation, we will be putting money into SS (just like you are) to pay for benefits from ungrateful members of your generation, who believe that are entitled to more money than they put in. Thus, you are not entitled to SS, because that means that you are entitled to money that will be essentially stolen from my generation and future generations.

There are so many problems in your statement, I'm not sure where to begin. First of all, these social programs are not "needed" because society existed and flourished long before these social programs were ever conceived. Second, the poor, rather than being "starving masses," are becoming more and more obese and spoiled. That just tells you that the system is broken (obese people on food stamps is a travesty). Regarding the welfare babies, of course they are innocent, but I do not argee with taxpayer money going towards the irresponsible PARENT without repercussions, who often squanders the money away and has more out-of-wedlock pregancies.

That's the understatement of the century.

Sure they do. They've already paid tax on the income. Why should they be taxed again? People should be able to reap the benefits of their hard labors. Who are you to tell others what they "need?" I don't like dictators. As I said before, in a free country you have no business telling another person how they should spend their hard-earned money.

When? You mean in the 1990s when the capital gains tax was 28%? Do you know why the economy did fine? It was because the stock macket was BOOMING (1990s tech boom). It was not unusual to see a 15% growth in one's investment, even with a lower risk portfolio. Compare that with today, where my 5-year investment return is <1%

 

Can you explain how instabilities provide profit opportunities for the financial class?

 

What you are saying about taxing capital gains and passive income at a preferential rate is that labor ain't worth spit. I'll take my future now, thank you.

 

Try this paper

 

The market will police itself IF the government does not mandate bad business procedures like it did in mandating 'affordable housing' programs underwritten by Fannie Mae. As I already said, lenders adequately policed THEMSELVES which is why they didn't lend to insolvent borrowers UNTIL Barney Frank and Herb Moses created loan programs that significantly lowered loan qualification criteria with the 'hammer' of the Fair Housing act poised to thump any lender suspected of NOT lending to low income folks.

This was NOT a matter of any 'hands off' policy it was a matter of government sticking their hands into the private market via Fannie Mae which is a private enterprise that is controlled by the Federal Government. In case you don't know, most home loans are underwritten by Fannie Mae, using Fannie Mae guidelines for developing the loan package as well as using Fannie Mae guidelines in developing the appraisal of the property.

Intrusive government regulation caused the housing crash. To say that we don't have enough government regulation is missing the problem.

 

Markets will NOT police themselves. Not the stock markets nor consumer markets.

If I managed to aquire 2,000 gas stations and wanted to expand.

I could build or buy a station next to an independant operator and sell my gas at below cost and let my other 1,999 absorb the cost. The independant owner could not compete and would have to sell or close.

Then I could sell my gas at a substantial profit because I was "the only game in town". Then on to the next "little guy".