Capital gains tax... should it be eliminated?

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: fitzov
Double taxation is all over the place. You get taxed on income and then whenever you buy anything, and then again if it's property. No?

But is it really double taxed?

Mine is, once by the state,once by the Feds, once by the county, once by the city, once by every store I buy from. That leaves me with ten cents out of every dollar. :brokenheart:OH! Is that more then two?:shocked:

 

[nageov3t]

how about we talk about tax cuts when we're not trillions of dollars in the red?

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: bobdelt

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Using double taxation for an excuse is poor, while I do support reducing the death tax, double taxation is everywhere.

From wikipedia "In 2006, the death tax is applicable to estates valued over $2,000,000 and the maximum rate is 46%, which is due to drop to 45% in 2007, where it will stay until 2010."

Why one earth does the death tax get so much attention?? How many people with 2 million dollars home die a year? Not enough to warrant all the bickering....

Well here in Washington state, about 215 families are affected by the Washington estate tax. That money goes towards helping fund higher education I believe.

One interesting thing is Bill Gates Sr. is the head of a group that advocates keeping the estate tax. Mostly the people I've heard calling for the elimination of the estate tax are nowhere near being affected by it.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: loki8481
how about we talk about tax cuts when we're not trillions of dollars in the red?

Haven't you been reading ProfJohn's posts?
Tax cut = More tax revenue...therefore eliminate taxes and maximize tax income.

Duh!

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: loki8481
how about we talk about tax cuts when we're not trillions of dollars in the red?

Haven't you been reading ProfJohn's posts?
Tax cut = More tax revenue.

well, sure. it's worked great so far for the past 6 years.

I mean, Bush's tax cuts tripled Clinton's surplus... with the Iraq war paying for itself (thank god they greated us as liberators, eh?) it's no wonder.

 

[Infohawk]

I'm not really bothered by the idea of double-taxation, but we shouldn't be taxing wise investment. We should taxed when the investment is sold. The sale price should be taxed as income.

 

[Stunt]

How does taxation work in the US??
In Canada it's a progressive system with Capital Gains = 1/2 Income rate and Dividends = 1/3 Income rate (no tax if income is below $40k).

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: bobdelt

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Using double taxation for an excuse is poor, while I do support reducing the death tax, double taxation is everywhere.

From wikipedia "In 2006, the death tax is applicable to estates valued over $2,000,000 and the maximum rate is 46%, which is due to drop to 45% in 2007, where it will stay until 2010."

Why one earth does the death tax get so much attention?? How many people with 2 million dollars home die a year? Not enough to warrant all the bickering....

The seven hundred thousand dollar home you bought today will be 2 million+$ when it's paid off. A twenty thousand $ house and lot is worth a hundred and twenty today. The trouble is the tax rate is stuck back in the nineteen-fifties, oh! calling the inhertance tax the (DEATH) tax is hype, just call it the Millionaire Drones' Tax.

 

[xenolith]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: loki8481
how about we talk about tax cuts when we're not trillions of dollars in the red?

Haven't you been reading ProfJohn's posts?
Tax cut = More tax revenue.

well, sure. it's worked great so far for the past 6 years.

I mean, Bush's tax cuts tripled Clinton's surplus... with the Iraq war paying for itself (thank god they greated us as liberators, eh?) it's no wonder.

Correction, it's worked pretty good for the past four years. If it weren't for record spending, the deficit would have shrunk even more.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: bobdelt

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Using double taxation for an excuse is poor, while I do support reducing the death tax, double taxation is everywhere.

From wikipedia "In 2006, the death tax is applicable to estates valued over $2,000,000 and the maximum rate is 46%, which is due to drop to 45% in 2007, where it will stay until 2010."

Why one earth does the death tax get so much attention?? How many people with 2 million dollars home die a year? Not enough to warrant all the bickering....

Well here in Washington state, about 215 families are affected by the Washington estate tax. That money goes towards helping fund higher education I believe.

One interesting thing is Bill Gates Sr. is the head of a group that advocates keeping the estate tax. Mostly the people I've heard calling for the elimination of the estate tax are nowhere near being affected by it.

Wannabes, just wannabes sucking-up! Really, I think they just made the issue up because it sounded good and ignorant people would buy into it.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: xenolith

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: loki8481
how about we talk about tax cuts when we're not trillions of dollars in the red?

Haven't you been reading ProfJohn's posts?
Tax cut = More tax revenue.

well, sure. it's worked great so far for the past 6 years.

I mean, Bush's tax cuts tripled Clinton's surplus... with the Iraq war paying for itself (thank god they greated us as liberators, eh?) it's no wonder.

Correction, it's worked pretty good for the past four years.

I don't know how Clinton and the Iraq war got pulled into the thread though.

Now how much higher would government revenues be without the tax cuts? I've read quite a few papers (the research kind not newspaper articles) that show that Bush's tax cuts haven't amounted to much.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: xenolith

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: loki8481
how about we talk about tax cuts when we're not trillions of dollars in the red?

Haven't you been reading ProfJohn's posts?
Tax cut = More tax revenue.

well, sure. it's worked great so far for the past 6 years.

I mean, Bush's tax cuts tripled Clinton's surplus... with the Iraq war paying for itself (thank god they greated us as liberators, eh?) it's no wonder.

Correction, it's worked pretty good for the past four years.

I don't know how Clinton and the Iraq war got pulled into the thread though.

While most are applauding the reducing deficit, it's being fueled by economic growth. If this slows (has been known to in the past), deficits could be worse than before. The US has been experiencing some fairly rapid growth (hence the inflation and aggressive rate increases) and in the good times budgets should be in balance or close to it. Large deficits in the good times is a scary thought.

Spending reductions have not been part of the deficit reduction and they should be. This will help during a slow down; unfortunately the "conservatives" and I want to emphasize the quotes...are too pu$$y to actually make the cuts needed to keep the US in good standing.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: xenolith

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: loki8481
how about we talk about tax cuts when we're not trillions of dollars in the red?

Haven't you been reading ProfJohn's posts?
Tax cut = More tax revenue.

well, sure. it's worked great so far for the past 6 years.

I mean, Bush's tax cuts tripled Clinton's surplus... with the Iraq war paying for itself (thank god they greated us as liberators, eh?) it's no wonder.

Correction, it's worked pretty good for the past four years. If it weren't for record spending, the deficit would have shrunk even more.

isn't that based on the inflated deficit projections?

 

[xenolith]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: xenolith

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: loki8481
how about we talk about tax cuts when we're not trillions of dollars in the red?

Haven't you been reading ProfJohn's posts?
Tax cut = More tax revenue.

well, sure. it's worked great so far for the past 6 years.

I mean, Bush's tax cuts tripled Clinton's surplus... with the Iraq war paying for itself (thank god they greated us as liberators, eh?) it's no wonder.

Correction, it's worked pretty good for the past four years.

I don't know how Clinton and the Iraq war got pulled into the thread though.

Now how much higher would government revenues be without the tax cuts? I've read quite a few papers (the research kind not newspaper articles) that show that Bush's tax cuts haven't amounted to much.

I don't know what papers you're referring to so it would be impossible for me to know the answer to that.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: loki8481
how about we talk about tax cuts when we're not trillions of dollars in the red?

Haven't you been reading ProfJohn's posts?
Tax cut = More tax revenue.

well, sure. it's worked great so far for the past 6 years.

I mean, Bush's tax cuts tripled Clinton's surplus... with the Iraq war paying for itself (thank god they greated us as liberators, eh?) it's no wonder.

I think you misunderstand the fact that deficits are more a result of spending than income. Revenue into the government is growing at HUGE rates, but spending is keeping up, as a result we see deficits.

I believe the figures for FY 2006 which just ended are a 11% increase in revenue and a 7% increase in spending, lower the rate of spending to 3-4% per year and we will balance the budget with in a few years. That is how it was done in the 1990. Spending was kept down as revenue went up.

 

[Stunt]

Spending increases should be no more than GDP growth unless there's a huge change in demographics.

 

[xenolith]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: xenolith

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: loki8481
how about we talk about tax cuts when we're not trillions of dollars in the red?

Haven't you been reading ProfJohn's posts?
Tax cut = More tax revenue.

well, sure. it's worked great so far for the past 6 years.

I mean, Bush's tax cuts tripled Clinton's surplus... with the Iraq war paying for itself (thank god they greated us as liberators, eh?) it's no wonder.

Correction, it's worked pretty good for the past four years. If it weren't for record spending, the deficit would have shrunk even more.

isn't that based on the inflated deficit projections?

The federal deficit in the budget year that just ended fell to a four- year low of $247.7 billion... The deficit for the budget year that ended Sept. 30 was 22.3 percent lower than the $318.7 billion imbalance for 2005

 

[Stunt]

xenolith,
Deficits will go down with higher than normal economic growth. Please dig up the numbers for spending over the same time period; this is a far better indicator of fiscal responsibility.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: xenolith

Originally posted by: loki8481
isn't that based on the inflated deficit projections?

The federal deficit in the budget year that just ended fell to a four- year low of $247.7 billion... The deficit for the budget year that ended Sept. 30 was 22.3 percent lower than the $318.7 billion imbalance for 2005

The best gauge of the true size of the federal government's deficit spending over the last year is to take the national debt on the last work day (Sept. 29) of fiscal 2006 -- $8,506,973,899,215.23 -- and subtract the national debt at the end of fiscal 2005 -- $7,932,709,661,723.50. The result -- $579,264,237,491.73, or $579 billion for short -- accurately reflects just how much deeper in debt the government has gone in the last 12 months. That's $326 billion more than the president's figure.

http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/patr...se/opinion/1160690119169100.xml&coll=1

(random google news article search)

could be wrong... I'll be honest, I dropped out of an econ elective class in high school and took a psychology elective instead when I was finally forced to take econ in college, I slid by with a C-. lol. my lowest grade in all 4 years of college.

 

[xenolith]

Originally posted by: Stunt
xenolith,
Deficits will go down with higher than normal economic growth. Please dig up the numbers for spending over the same time period; this is a far better indicator of fiscal responsibility.

Absolutely. No aurgument there Stunt.

 

[xenolith]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: xenolith

Originally posted by: loki8481
isn't that based on the inflated deficit projections?

The federal deficit in the budget year that just ended fell to a four- year low of $247.7 billion... The deficit for the budget year that ended Sept. 30 was 22.3 percent lower than the $318.7 billion imbalance for 2005

The best gauge of the true size of the federal government's deficit spending over the last year is to take the national debt on the last work day (Sept. 29) of fiscal 2006 -- $8,506,973,899,215.23 -- and subtract the national debt at the end of fiscal 2005 -- $7,932,709,661,723.50. The result -- $579,264,237,491.73, or $579 billion for short -- accurately reflects just how much deeper in debt the government has gone in the last 12 months. That's $326 billion more than the president's figure.

http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/patr...se/opinion/1160690119169100.xml&coll=1

(random google news article search)

could be wrong... I'll be honest, I dropped out of an econ elective class in high school and took a psychology elective instead when I was finally forced to take econ in college, I slid by with a C-. lol. my lowest grade in all 4 years of college.

That's the national debt, that will always go up with deficits.

EDIT: I see what your saying now. Don't know...

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: xenolith

Originally posted by: loki8481
isn't that based on the inflated deficit projections?

The federal deficit in the budget year that just ended fell to a four- year low of $247.7 billion... The deficit for the budget year that ended Sept. 30 was 22.3 percent lower than the $318.7 billion imbalance for 2005

The best gauge of the true size of the federal government's deficit spending over the last year is to take the national debt on the last work day (Sept. 29) of fiscal 2006 -- $8,506,973,899,215.23 -- and subtract the national debt at the end of fiscal 2005 -- $7,932,709,661,723.50. The result -- $579,264,237,491.73, or $579 billion for short -- accurately reflects just how much deeper in debt the government has gone in the last 12 months. That's $326 billion more than the president's figure.

http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/patr...se/opinion/1160690119169100.xml&coll=1

(random google news article search)

could be wrong... I'll be honest, I dropped out of an econ elective class in high school and took a psychology elective instead when I was finally forced to take econ in college, I slid by with a C-. lol. my lowest grade in all 4 years of college.

Very interesting, I would like to know why the figures are SO different. May have to look into this at another time hmmmm

 

[LunarRay]

Reducing Tax MAY increase revenue but it really depends on what the rates are before the reduction and what that prior tax money now disposable will be used for...

In Kennedy's day the rates were so high that a tax cut stimulated the economy and the trickle down created more revenue.. Art Laffer convinced the Reagan folks that alls well that ends well..... and as Reagan would say.. Well......... it coulda worked... heheheh Perhaps but the idea was to supply side the tax cuts... or IOW to the rich.. and from that point till this the poor have not gained in a percentage to the rich...

But... and in any event.. we are beyond the point where a tax cut can increase revenue.. We don't have the Mfg base to employ folks at the higher paying jobs to buy the expensive toys once made in America.. now they work at Wally World and buy cheapo toys.. We are in a World economy and until the World catches up.. we will lose ground to that World... only way it can go... equilibrium will occur.. and it will be about 40% less than it could have been if we isolated a bit more.. and became more Energy efficient.. What fools we were and are...

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So, bowfinger you are of the belief that the mere act of dying should be reason enough for the government to take as much as 40% of your assets?

Simple question, yes or no answer is all that is needed.

I already answered your question: "More misdirection. It's not the death that's taxed, it's the windfall inheritance. "Death tax" is pure propaganda."

I'll note you've yet again evaded almost every point I raised, and continue to spread the same willful disinformation. Run, PJ, run.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Some facts on the 2003 capital gains tax cuts.

In January of 2003 the CBO estimated that the capital-gains tax liabilities would be $60 billion in 2004 and $65 billion in 2005, for a two year total of $125 billion.

The tax cuts went into effect in 2004.

The actual liabilities for capital-gains taxes were $71 billion in 2004 and $80 billion in 2005. For a two year total of $151 billion.

Notice that the actual total was $26 billion MORE than what had been expected!

In other words, the cut in tax RATES ended up giving us more revenue.

Now bowfinger, you seem to have an aversion to facts and figure since you post a lot of hot air, but never seem to back up any of your statements with facts in figures. [You, sir, are a blatant liar. Just for the record.]

If as you say:

The available evidence strongly suggests that tax cuts reduce tax revenues, no matter how many times you want to cry otherwise.

All you have to do is find some data to back up your argument.
Since I seem to be the most hated person on ATPN I am sure you and all your friends would love to prove me wrong, so please, give it a try.

Source of info for my post.
2003 Projections
The Budget and Economic outlook published in 2003 on page 82 of PDF
Actual revenue
Budget and Economic Outlook page 112 of PDF

Ps. Please keep any attempt to prove me wrong focused on capital-gains taxes since that is the subject at hand.

Such a shameful display of dishonesty. I've already refuted your misdirection in another thread, a thread you immediately ran from rather than acknowledge your deception. If you truly want to defend your claims, go back and do it there. I'm not going to waste everyone's time hashing though all the facts again, especially since you'll ignore them anyway. Run, PJ, run.