-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Democrats in the House introduce PAYGO
Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Bowfinger
Lifer
Please. That's a diversion, irrelevant to the point I made. Part of the profit goes to broker fees too. So? Neither expense materially changes my point. They do, however, undermine the claim that lowering capital gains taxes increases investment (given that some potential investment dollars are paid as taxes, even if it's a paltry 10-15%.)
And where did your "30%" figure come from? The whole discussion is about the profit-taking that resulted when capital gains rates were lowered.
Bowfinger
Lifer
I have little patience for liars, and that's exactly what you are. I neither said nor suggested anything remotely related to viewing taxation as punishment. If you are too lame to support your religious delusions through honest means, perhaps you should just crawl back under your bridge. You owe me an apology.
OK, I'm game. Show us your so-called "proof', real, honest proof accounting for all the major variables (including temporary surges) rather than simple-minded anecdotal claims based on cherry-picked data.
I think your right, it went from 30% to 15%. So in order to collect the same revenue from the same group of people (as Charrison claimed) their capital gains income had to more then double. If a rich person was paying capital gains tax on $100,000 yearly, they now have to make more then $200,000 on capital gains in order to be paying more.
The rich get the gold and the poor get the shaft.
Bowfinger
Lifer
I have little patience for liars, and that's exactly what you are. I neither said nor suggested anything remotely related to viewing taxation as punishment. If you are too lame to support your religious delusions through honest means, perhaps you should just crawl back under your bridge. You still owe me an apology.
As far as your continuing claim that lowering the captial gains rate increases tax revenue from the wealthy (as opposed to one-shot profit-taking and the multitude of other factors including the three I listed: increasing wealth, growing economy, and inflation), we're all bretahlessly awaiting your alleged "proof".
The facts back up both lowered top marginal rates and lowered capital gains taxes produce more revenue than when taxes become to high.
When money does not move, it does not get taxed.
You want to claim that raising the tax rate will always generate more revenue and that is false.
ProfJohn
Lifer
That is the most convoluted argument I have ever heard.
You are putting the cart before the horse.
You have a balanced budget because you cut spending, you don?t cut spending because you have a balanced budget.
And taxes and deficits are not related. You can increase taxes and still have a deficit if you increase spending as well.
The ONLY sure fire way to have a balanced budget is to control spending.
Look at the north east states that have balanced their budgeted in the recent past. They all did it mainly through spending control. They realized that their citizens were not going to stand for anymore tax increases.
Finally, we have only balanced the federal budget once in the last 40 years. I do not think you can look at that example as proof of concept (increase taxes, lower spending) There are not enough examples to PROVE that is the only way to balance the budget. There are a lot of examples from the states that show you can balance the budget without changing taxes rates. There is also the simple fact that if you limit the growth of spending to below the growth of taxes you will balance the budget. And you can do this without touching tax rates.
Bowfinger
Lifer
Lovely dodge since it totally avoids the definition of "to [sic] high". It is equally true -- and just as meaningless -- to say that higher taxes and capital gains produce more revenue than when taxes become too low. So what?
The fact of the matter is that in the United States, over the last 50+ years, tax revenues reach record highs almost every year, 90+% of the time. The single major exception is the term of George W. Bush, who with his tax loans had an absolutely unprecedented four-year hole without record revenue. That is a fact, a real fact, not the smoke and mirrors and cherry-picked stats you use.
Irrelevant. It will move, and be taxed, sooner or later.
More lies, I claimed no such thing. One has to question the strength of your claims when you so consistently resort to such dishonest arguments.
The problem is, it isn't good enough to talk about controlling spending..what specific things would you cut, and remember it has to be doable, something a majority would support.
See, I believe we have the government we want, we just don't want to pay for it. But I'd be happy to be proven wrong..
Please, ProfJohn- simply chanting anti-tax dogma isn't constructive, at all. Those of the "conservative" persuasion has shown themselves to be entirely willing to loot the future for their own gain, and have run us so far in the hole that a combination of tax increases and reduced spending is really the only way out. And it's only reasonable that those who have gained the most and who will really suffer the least should bear the brunt of necessary changes.
It's stunningly disingenuous, at best, for those who have increased federal spending at the greatest rate since the Johnson era now want fiscal restraint when the other party is in control, all without raising the taxes that they've lowered, effectively increasing the deficit situation brought on by their profligacy...
The far Right will only be satisfied with the economic situation in this country when they've achieved the same distribution of wealth and income seen in the third world... and they've chosen low taxes for themselves and illusions of prosperity thru deficits to accomplish that. The share of income of the top .01% has grown by leaps and bounds over the last 25 years, and is accelerating, rapidly pulling away from the rest of us. Left unchecked, those changes will destroy the middle class as wealth, rather than democracy, comes to the fore as the primary force in politics. They're creating a scenario where the international financial elite basically own the govt. Debt maintenance is rapidly becoming the largest single expenditure after the military and SS- a form of welfare for the rich, who own that debt... and a very powerful lever wrt policy in general.
It's stunningly disingenuous, at best, for those who have increased federal spending at the greatest rate since the Johnson era now want fiscal restraint when the other party is in control, all without raising the taxes that they've lowered, effectively increasing the deficit situation brought on by their profligacy...
The far Right will only be satisfied with the economic situation in this country when they've achieved the same distribution of wealth and income seen in the third world... and they've chosen low taxes for themselves and illusions of prosperity thru deficits to accomplish that. The share of income of the top .01% has grown by leaps and bounds over the last 25 years, and is accelerating, rapidly pulling away from the rest of us. Left unchecked, those changes will destroy the middle class as wealth, rather than democracy, comes to the fore as the primary force in politics. They're creating a scenario where the international financial elite basically own the govt. Debt maintenance is rapidly becoming the largest single expenditure after the military and SS- a form of welfare for the rich, who own that debt... and a very powerful lever wrt policy in general.
But that is the very subject we are debating. Your claim is that is impossible for a lower tax rate to generate more revenue than a higher tax rate. You have flat out told me that is false when there is plenty of data confirming what I have posted.
So we are back to you wanting to "punish" the wealthy with higher tax rates rather than collect more revenue from them with lower tax rates.
Higher taxes causes money to move into tax shelters and it does not move until there is a reason for it to move. It is not a hard concept.
Bowfinger
Lifer
False. I have never made that claim. On the contrary, the only thing I've pointed out is that your claim that lowering taxes has been proven to increase revenues is false. No such proof exists. Yes, one can point to examples of tax revenues increasing after tax cuts. One can point to even more examples, however, of revenues increasing after taxes are increased, or taxes are left unchanged. One can also point to examples of tax revenues dropping after tax cuts, for example the Bush tax loans. The plain, simple fact is that no matter how many times you assert otherwise, your alleged "proof" does not exist.
First, you're ignoring the counter-examples. Second, you don't seem to grasp the concept that correlation does NOT prove causation. It is dishonest to cherry-pick just the years with tax cuts and present them as "proof" they increased revenues. The fact is that U.S. tax revenues reach new records almost every year (except during GWB's term).
Using your logic, I could probably "prove" that lopsided SuperBowl games increase tax revenues. You would correctly dismiss such a claim as absurd, yet the data confirms it just as well as yours ... i.e., not at all. In both cases, the data only confirms that we're looking at the wrong things.
That's your word dear, not mine, and it remains a lie. You discredit yourself by continuing to spread it.
I do believe in progressive taxation. That is the same as "punishment" only in the lexicon of the greedy elite and their gullible dupes. I believe that the wealthy not only are more able to pay higher taxes, but also should pay proportionately more because they receive far greater benefit from America's extraordinary physical, financial, and educational infrastucture, infrastructure largely funded through taxes. Higher taxes are the dues we pay for getting the best seats in life, and many of us have no problem with that whatsoever.
You, on the other hand, are advocating regressive taxes, where the wealthy pay dramatically less than their fair share. The sharply preferential treatment for capital gains you champion is a perfect example. There is no reason someone who works hard to earn a modest income should pay more -- MORE -- than someone who's reaping millions on investments. Maybe one could make a case for treating both types of income the same. Expecting lower rates for capital gains is sheer greed.
Yawn. Same old misdirection.
No, but it moves eventually. That is also not a hard concept. Creating an artificial incentive to cash in investments at fire-sale tax rates plunders future revenues. In your words, it "punishes" tomorrow's wage earners for the benefit of today's wealthy elite. In short, it is yet another BushCo wealth-transfer sham.
Edit: typo
This bears repeating.
The topics here, like the optimal tax approach, are hard enough without the right lying about the left's position and making the readers wade through 'punish the rich' and 'hate America' and "hate the troops' and all that sort of crap which are just lies that set the discussion back.
You're doing quite nicely, Bowfinger, wonder if anyone is benefitting.
Bowfinger,
Let me clear a few things up. First of all there is exists an optimal tax rate, meaning a rate that collects the most revenue for government. Going above this rate keeps money from being tax as it finds shelters to go into, that is what tax acountants are for. Going below this rate less revenue is generated simply because it is just not high enough. This is the basic laffer curve and that is how real life works. I am sorry you disagree with this, but most economist genenraly agree on this basic principle. The debate is more about where the optimal point is at.
At one point our top marginal rate was 90%, JFK dropped that 70%. Even with a lower rate, the wealthy in country found themselves paying a larger share of the government costs.
This happened again with reagan when he droppd the 70% rate to 38%. The same thing happened, the rich found themselves paying a larger share of governments costs. ANd the same thing has happened with the latest tax cuts, they rich have found themselves paying a larger share of governments cost. This is nto even up for debate as it is backed up by many years of IRS data. The same thing happened in the 90s when capital gains was cut, Same thing happened with the latest capital gains cut. The same thing has happened in other countries that dropped their top marginal rates, so we are not in a unique situation. So without a doubt the data backs up the laffer curve.
So we are back to, do you want to collect less revenue at a higher tax rate. or more revenue at a lower tax rate. You seem to keep opting for the higher rates, even though the data continues to show them being less effective at collecting revenue.
And as far as regressive taxation goes, that has not even been discussed. But as far a greed goes, the only thing greedy is a government wanting a 30% cut for one mans labor or investment.
Let me clear a few things up. First of all there is exists an optimal tax rate, meaning a rate that collects the most revenue for government. Going above this rate keeps money from being tax as it finds shelters to go into, that is what tax acountants are for. Going below this rate less revenue is generated simply because it is just not high enough. This is the basic laffer curve and that is how real life works. I am sorry you disagree with this, but most economist genenraly agree on this basic principle. The debate is more about where the optimal point is at.
At one point our top marginal rate was 90%, JFK dropped that 70%. Even with a lower rate, the wealthy in country found themselves paying a larger share of the government costs.
This happened again with reagan when he droppd the 70% rate to 38%. The same thing happened, the rich found themselves paying a larger share of governments costs. ANd the same thing has happened with the latest tax cuts, they rich have found themselves paying a larger share of governments cost. This is nto even up for debate as it is backed up by many years of IRS data. The same thing happened in the 90s when capital gains was cut, Same thing happened with the latest capital gains cut. The same thing has happened in other countries that dropped their top marginal rates, so we are not in a unique situation. So without a doubt the data backs up the laffer curve.
So we are back to, do you want to collect less revenue at a higher tax rate. or more revenue at a lower tax rate. You seem to keep opting for the higher rates, even though the data continues to show them being less effective at collecting revenue.
And as far as regressive taxation goes, that has not even been discussed. But as far a greed goes, the only thing greedy is a government wanting a 30% cut for one mans labor or investment.
JD50
Lifer
How is that a lie? Taking more money from someone, just because they have been more succesful than someone else is punishing them for their success. I have seen it said many times here, that the rich should pay more as a percentage of taxes, because they just don't need the money, or other silly claims. The rich, percentage wise, pay much more in taxes than the poor do. Generally, the poor pays no taxes. So where is the lie?
"How is that a lie? Taking more money from someone, just because they have been more succesful than someone else is punishing them for their success. I have seen it said many times here, that the rich should pay more as a percentage of taxes, because they just don't need the money, or other silly claims. The rich, percentage wise, pay much more in taxes than the poor do. Generally, the poor pays no taxes. So where is the lie?"
Totally misleading, because you ignore the effects of all the other taxes that everybody pays. Federal income taxes don't exist in a vacuum, even though the rightwing generally tries to represent it that way. The progressivity of federal income taxes is the only thing that keeps those at the top from paying much lower total tax rates than the rest of us...
Totally misleading, because you ignore the effects of all the other taxes that everybody pays. Federal income taxes don't exist in a vacuum, even though the rightwing generally tries to represent it that way. The progressivity of federal income taxes is the only thing that keeps those at the top from paying much lower total tax rates than the rest of us...
"Taking more money from someone, just because they have been more succesful than someone else is punishing them for their success."
Tax brackets don't take more money from people with higher incomes. Everybody pays exactly the same tax rate, within each bracket.
So David Lettermen pays the same tax as the poorest taxpayer on his first 15k of income, nothing, and the same as any middle class taxpayer on the next 100k.
Of course people who don't have income above a million dollars don't pay taxes on the income they don't have, but Letterman isn't paying a higher rate than anybody else on the income they DO have.
Tax brackets don't take more money from people with higher incomes. Everybody pays exactly the same tax rate, within each bracket.
So David Lettermen pays the same tax as the poorest taxpayer on his first 15k of income, nothing, and the same as any middle class taxpayer on the next 100k.
Of course people who don't have income above a million dollars don't pay taxes on the income they don't have, but Letterman isn't paying a higher rate than anybody else on the income they DO have.
imported_Shivetya
Platinum Member
and lets not forget the other favorite 🙂
We cut spending is defined as not actually cutting back a program but not allowing it the full increase it was due for the year...
got to love Congress's definitions
We cut spending is defined as not actually cutting back a program but not allowing it the full increase it was due for the year...
got to love Congress's definitions
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
