so he and McCain will be on even ground then.

How causal is the relationship that the graph illustrates?

PC LOAD LETTER: so he and McCain will be on even ground then.

No. McCain admits he doesn't know. Obama admits he doesn't care, he just wants to stick it to investors.

Yes, the capital gains tax effects the middle class as well as the wealthy.

Here's the issue though, a 1% change in capital gains tax doesn't nearly effect then nearly as much as a 1% change in payroll tax.

So when they are talking about what to cut and what to raise, start with cutting the payroll tax, then we can worry about the poor over taxed wealthy.

So when they are talking about what to cut and what to raise, start with cutting the payroll tax

Cut all of them, damn it.

/off to dental appointment, sorry I won't see this one develop.

which means the pair must have done a pretty good job moderating Wednesday's Democratic debate in Philadelphia.

I had to stop reading there.
Is this from The ONION?

The Capital gains tax is a ceiling not a floor.

Between your income rate and the capital gains tax - you pay the lower rate. If your income tax rate is 20% and the capital gains rate is 40%, you're paying 20% tax in your earnings.

There is no reason that the exercise of capital should be taxed less than the earnings of labor or intellect. If anything, it should be taxed more.

Seriously.

I_C_Weener: No. McCain admits he doesn't know. Obama admits he doesn't care, he just wants to stick it to investors.

No, he wants to stop giving them welfare. They have had more than they deserve from the Republicans for years. There has been zero benefit. Time to roll back to something more reasonable.

EvilEgg: Yes, the capital gains tax effects the middle class as well as the wealthy.

Here's the issue though, a 1% change in capital gains tax doesn't nearly effect then nearly as much as a 1% change in payroll tax.

So when they are talking about what to cut and what to raise, start with cutting the payroll tax, then we can worry about the poor over taxed wealthy.

Absolutely. How about abolishing the payroll tax for earners who make less than double the minimum wage, and abolishing the income tax for them as well ?

(yeah, if you make less than $26,000 - no matter how you make it - as an employee, contractor, or investment earner - no way should you be paying income or capital gains taxes)

rubi_con_man: The Capital gains tax is a ceiling not a floor.

Between your income rate and the capital gains tax - you pay the lower rate. If your income tax rate is 20% and the capital gains rate is 40%, you're paying 20% tax in your earnings.

There is no reason that the exercise of capital should be taxed less than the earnings of labor or intellect. If anything, it should be taxed more.

Seriously.

Well said. I also can't take any economic reporters seriously who assert something as ultimately simplistic as "when tax rates go down, revenue goes up."

anal brazil men: How causal is the relationship that the graph illustrates?

Very. Tax laws are known in advance, so if you're going to take a gain, you do it in the year that's going to cost you less. Seriously though, the rates haven't stayed stable enough to make that chart in any way predictive of anything.

rubi_con_man: There is no reason that the exercise of capital should be taxed less than the earnings of labor or intellect. If anything, it should be taxed more.

Except that you've already been taxed once on that money, encouraging investment and savings helps everyone, you'll kill retiree savings, and you will hurt over 50% of the population, you're right, no reason.

rubi_con_man: There is no reason that the exercise of capital should be taxed less than the earnings of labor or intellect. If anything, it should be taxed more.

Seriously.

Why? Not trying to bait you, just want to hear your rationale.

Face it: all anyone wants is a large flat-panel HDTV.

Therefore, the winning candidate will be the one who promises Executive Order 1080p. That, to promote the public good, everyone must be equipped with a 46" flat-screen HDTV and surround-sound.

Purchasing these on a national basis will incur huge savings in bulk, and will end all future crime in cities, as rich and poor alike can stay home and watch their goddamn Ultimate Fight shows and Oprah and America's Next Top Model all day and night.

College subsidies won't be necessary, as the only reason people go to college is so they can have money to buy this crap.

Expected for this thread:

1) GOBAMA
2) Open up, here comes Obama
3) Pacman graphs
4) Rap graphs
5) Pirate-Temperature graph

Obdicut: I also can't take any economic reporters seriously who assert something as ultimately simplistic as "when tax rates go down, revenue goes up."

why not? that's what's happening. it's pretty basic. when the rate is too high, it's a disincentive to divest that capital asset. so no revenue is generated. with a lower rate, capital moves more freely and revenue is generated with those transfers.

albo: why not? that's what's happening. it's pretty basic. when the rate is too high, it's a disincentive to divest that capital asset.

What's happening is that people see "Oh, the rate's going up next year, I'll divest now". Or, "Oh, the rate's going down next year, I'll hang on to this until Jan 2".

FTA: The parsons of the press corps are furious with Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, which means the pair must have done a pretty good job moderating Wednesday's Democratic debate in Philadelphia.

DarthBrooks: Therefore, the winning candidate will be the one who promises Executive Order 1080p. That, to promote the public good, everyone must be equipped with a 46" flat-screen HDTV and surround-sound.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Fantastic!

EvilEgg: So when they are talking about what to cut and what to raise, start with cutting the payroll tax, then we can worry about the poor over taxed wealthy.

According to TFA Obama wants to remove the payroll tax cap, essentially a large payroll tax for families making over $102,000.

anal brazil men: How causal is the relationship that the graph illustrates?

None. look at the 98-99 peak in tax revenues. It's because of the dotcom boom, not because of a drop in the tax rate.

The drop in tax rate and tax revenue late 2001-2002 proves that Gibson an the author of the article are both incorrect.

albo: when the rate is too high, it's a disincentive to divest that capital asset. so no revenue is generated. with a lower rate, capital moves more freely and revenue is generated with those transfers.

I bolded the section that makes your statement an intelligent and correct one.

EatHam: Except that you've already been taxed once on that money

I'm sorry, man, I may agree with the rest of your statement, but the "already been taxed once!" meme is a intellectually bankrupt one.

I get paid money by my company-- I get payroll taxes on that money, social security taxes on that money, and income taxes on that money. When I go out to buy a TV with it I get taxed on that money, and when I buy electricity with it I get taxed on that money.

Double, triple, quadruple taxation is the norm, not something that's special in any way at all about capital gains tax.

KaponoFor3: Expected for this thread:

1) GOBAMA
2) Open up, here comes Obama
3) Pacman graphs
4) Rap graphs
5) Pirate-Temperature graph

One more for the list:

Obdicut: I'm sorry, man, I may agree with the rest of your statement, but the "already been taxed once!" meme is a intellectually bankrupt one.

No, it isn't.

Obdicut: Double, triple, quadruple taxation is the norm

That does not, in any way, mean that it should be tolerated.

rubi_con_man

A-freaking-men.

rubi_con_man: The Capital gains tax is a ceiling not a floor.

Between your income rate and the capital gains tax - you pay the lower rate. If your income tax rate is 20% and the capital gains rate is 40%, you're paying 20% tax in your earnings.

There is no reason that the exercise of capital should be taxed less than the earnings of labor or intellect. If anything, it should be taxed more.

Seriously.

not to mention the chance of even incurring capital gains taxes at low incomes is incredibly low.

but ya, people need to learn a thing or two about the tax code before they start talking about these things.

Obdicut: Double, triple, quadruple taxation is the norm

That does not, in any way, mean that it should be tolerated.

Good point, but there are better places to start than the capital gains tax. Start some place that effects the middle class more directly, like say payroll tax.

EatHam: Very. Tax laws are known in advance, so if you're going to take a gain, you do it in the year that's going to cost you less.

People invest more when the rate is low. So more capital gains are realized not just because of the rate, but because numerator grows.

Seriously though, the rates haven't stayed stable enough to make that chart in any way predictive of anything.

If that's true, doesn't that invalidate the editorial's argument?

EatHam: That does not, in any way, mean that it should be tolerated.

Why not? What's sacred about "money" being only taxed once? It's not even a possible goal.

If we can only tax money once, does that mean that that money should not be taxed again for sales tax? Should not be taxed again when the owner of the store takes that income to buy something from my company? should not be taxed again when my company uses that money to pay me?


What does "taxed once" mean? When do you consider it the same money, and when is it different money? At what point during the above process did the money become "new" again?

KaponoFor3: Expected for this thread:

1) GOBAMA
2) Open up, here comes Obama
3) Pacman graphs
4) Rap graphs
5) Pirate-Temperature graph







and now the opposition:

anal brazil men: If that's true, doesn't that invalidate the editorial's argument?

I think the entire premise of the editorial is wrong. And I really f*cking hate the premise that the goal is to maximize the revenue for the government. F*ck that. The goal should be to minimize the revenue for the government, and maximize it for the people.

Just as the time immediately following the kidnapping of a cute white kid is a bad time to make a new law, any time the premise is "people being rich is unfair" is the time for Really Bad Laws.

DarthBrooks: ust as the time immediately following the kidnapping of a cute white kid is a bad time to make a new law, any time the premise is "people being rich is unfair" is the time for Really Bad Laws.

I think that sounded a little better in your head than it did when you said it. What on earth do you mean?

Here's a thought: what if we removed the income tax and capital gains tax and just had a national sales tax?

/Is he serious?
//Is he trolling?
///The world may never know.

Obdicut: If we can only tax money once, does that mean that that money should not be taxed again for sales tax?

Yes. Nor for property tax, use tax, cigarette tax, road tolls, car registration, or any other one of the myriad taxes.

At what point during the above process did the money become "new" again?

There's no "again". It's new exactly once. When it's earned. In your example, I wouldn't pay sales tax, as that money is not new. However, the store owner to whom I paid the money would pay income tax on it, as it is new to him.

EatHam: I really f*cking hate the premise that the goal is to maximize the revenue for the government. F*ck that. The goal should be to minimize the revenue for the government, and maximize it for the people.

But then how will they fund their cool military excursions and bridges to nowhere?

Broken9754: Here's a thought: what if we removed the income tax and capital gains tax and just had a national sales tax?

/Is he serious?
//Is he trolling?
///The world may never know.

Dammit. The VAT/fair tax thread was earlier this week. Cut it out.

James Pethokoukis of US News and World Report had a bruising analysis of Obama's farcical economic theory, as revealed in this week's debate:

"1) If Obama is correct and the economy (where the current jobless rate is 5.1 percent vs. recessionary peaks of 8.8 percent in 1975, 10.8 percent in 1982, 7.8 percent in 1992, and 6.3 percent in 2003) is "in a shambles" and "teetering not just on the edge of recession, but potentially worse," why would he want to nearly double the capital-gains-tax rate, which is a tax on savings, investment, and, yes, housing?

In the YouTube moment of the debate, comoderator Charlie Gibson of ABC News asked Obama twice why he wanted to raise capital-gains taxes since such a move would both 1) hit the middle class and 2) produce less government revenue. Obama-who didn't seem to know that middle-class people pay capital-gains taxes, since he had just moments earlier promised not to raise taxes on people making under the $200,000-to-$250,000 range-gave this answer:

Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital-gains tax for purposes of fairness....[And as to higher rates bringing in less revenue], well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what's happening on Wall Street and how business is going.... ...And if we can stabilize that market and we can get credit flowing again, then I think we'll see stocks do well, and once again I think we can generate the revenue that we need to run this government and hopefully to pay down some of this debt.

OK, let me get this straight: Obama thinks we may be heading into a near depression, and he wants to double a tax that might or might not, as he sees it, have a negative effect on economic activity, all for the sake of "fairness." Now that is a man of principle.

2) If Obama is correct and the economy is "in a shambles" and "teetering not just on the edge of recession, but potentially worse," why would he want raise payroll taxes by 6 to 12 percentage points on people making $100,000 or more? And again, Obama said this right after pledging not to raise taxes on people making under $200,000 to $250,000. Here are Obama's exact words:

What I have proposed is that we raise the cap on the payroll tax, because right now millionaires and billionaires don't have to pay beyond $97,000 a year. That's where it's kept. Now most firefighters, most teachers, you know, they're not making over $100,000 a year. In fact, only 6 percent of the population does. And I've also said that I'd be willing to look at exempting people who are making slightly above that.

So he would be "willing to look" at exempting some middle-class folks at some income level, but no promises. Second, I keep hearing that Democrats only want to raise taxes on the top 2 percent of income earners, since they are the so-called rich. But now that number seems to be drifting downward to the top 6 percent. It is also clear, though, that Obama does take seriously the solvency problems of Social Security."


Source (new window)

Broken9754: But then how will they fund their cool military excursions and bridges to nowhere?

Not my f*cking problem. Sell naming rights to a tank or something. Name something the S.S. GoDaddy.com. I don't give a shiat.

EatHam: The goal should be to minimize the revenue for the government, and maximize it for the people.

and not allow the tax or its marginal rates provide an adverse impact on capital markets or the economy as a whole. which a higher capital gains tax rate will do

EatHam: Obdicut: If we can only tax money once, does that mean that that money should not be taxed again for sales tax?

Yes. Nor for property tax, use tax, cigarette tax, road tolls, car registration, or any other one of the myriad taxes.

At what point during the above process did the money become "new" again?

There's no "again". It's new exactly once. When it's earned. In your example, I wouldn't pay sales tax, as that money is not new. However, the store owner to whom I paid the money would pay income tax on it, as it is new to him.

Then in your argument capital gains tax is fine and should be equal to the income tax.

You buy something for $10, sell it for $100, $90 is new to you, therefore should be taxed.

Obdicut: What on earth do you mean?

You know how the Amber Alerts and the Megan's Laws and stuff all start showing up after a media blast, and it sounds okay at first, and then all of a sudden you get a bill from your local phone service saying they're going to have to raise your rates so that the new Amber Alert systems can be installed? And you wind up with stuff like the Beltway shooters in DC getting reported as a guy in a white panel truck (and everyone in a white panel truck gets pulled over 3 or 4 times a day for that) when later on it turned out to be two guys in a blue passenger car? Yeah, like that.

Broken9754: what if we removed the income tax and capital gains tax and just had a national sales tax?

it's called the "fair tax." and it's dumber than watching lindsay lohan trie to read a book on particle physics, and about as likely to succeed.

Hot Carl To Go: Dammit. The VAT/fair tax thread was earlier this week. Cut it out.

Shucks, I missed it.

EatHam: There's no "again". It's new exactly once. When it's earned. In your example, I wouldn't pay sales tax, as that money is not new. However, the store owner to whom I paid the money would pay income tax on it, as it is new to him.


Okay. So how is the sale of stock, or other capital, which then produces income, a double taxation, under your example? The money is "new". It didn't used to be money, it used to be an asset.

EvilEgg: Then in your argument capital gains tax is fine and should be equal to the income tax.

You buy something for $10, sell it for $100, $90 is new to you, therefore should be taxed.

Sort of. I'm saying that there should be no such thing as a capital gains tax at all. It's either income or it isn't. If it isn't, it isn't taxed. If it is, tax it. And at a fair rate, so nobody's overall tax burden exceeds something like 10%.

albo: it's called the "fair tax." and it's dumber than watching lindsay lohan trie to read a book on particle physics, and about as likely to succeed.

I know what it is. Just stirring the pot. I love tax threads.

Obdicut: Okay. So how is the sale of stock, or other capital, which then produces income, a double taxation, under your example?

I think I phrased it badly - I don't mind tax on income, I mind 900 different taxes.

EatHam: Not my f*cking problem. Sell naming rights to a tank or something. Name something the S.S. GoDaddy.com. I don't give a shiat.

If I write in EatHam on my ballot, will they be able to find you when you win?

rubi_con_man: The Capital gains tax is a ceiling not a floor.

Between your income rate and the capital gains tax - you pay the lower rate. If your income tax rate is 20% and the capital gains rate is 40%, you're paying 20% tax in your earnings.

There is no reason that the exercise of capital should be taxed less than the earnings of labor or intellect. If anything, it should be taxed more.

Seriously.

It should be taxed the same -- 0%. Since we won't be taxing labor or capital, but we like a certain level of government services, we have to tax land (LVT). Include things like societal costs, economic rent, and natural monopolies, and you'd have enough revenue without distorting the market. Everyone benefits.

/Well, except for those whose profit comes from investing in land or real estate mortgage debt, instead of producing a good or service. Please, won't someone think of the bankers?
//Trying to get here before the "fair" tax people.

DarthBrooks: You know how the Amber Alerts and the Megan's Laws and stuff all start showing up after a media blast, and it sounds okay at first, and then all of a sudden you get a bill from your local phone service saying they're going to have to raise your rates so that the new Amber Alert systems can be installed?

Do you know the Amber alerts actually work pretty damn well? You may think that the cost outweighs the benefit, but the system actually does what it claims. So if you want to use an example of how crisis moments cause bad laws to be passed, I wouldn't go with the Amber Alert stuff; try the Japanese internment camps or the Jim Crow laws.

albo: it's called the "fair tax." and it's dumber than watching lindsay lohan trie to read a book on particle physics, and about as likely to succeed.

Snarfangel:
//Trying to get here before the "fair" tax people.

Too late.