McCain DID IT! He really DID IT! He found a way!

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: venkman
Maybe he should try another method, trickle up.

Ya because so many poor and working class people tend to spend additional income, increasing general cash flow for businesses and helping to create jobs.

Reinterpreted.


(I get tired of everybody posting "fixed")

 

[venkman]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: venkman
Maybe he should try another method, trickle up.

Ya because so many poor and working class people create jobs and make investments or bother saving money.

Fair enough, but how about this. Selective trickle down aka incentive based tax cuts.

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: venkman
Maybe he should try another method, trickle up.

Ya because so many poor and working class people tend to spend additional income, increasing general cash flow for businesses and helping to create jobs.

Reinterpreted.


(I get tired of everybody posting "fixed")

Only problem with that is the increased cash flow would be moving across the pacific into China.

 

[venkman]

Double Post

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
-snip-
I just want to know if that's right, it seems like it would be. If you reduce capital gains taxes you reduce the capital loss that you can write off in 2008 and thus if, for example, this was in place now people would be losing out not just on the value of their portfolio but on the silver-lining benefit of a big tax reduction in 2008.

I'd like somebody to confirm that before I partake in the lolocaust.

No, it's not right.

People can take up to $3,000 of capital losses, deducted against ordinary/regular income each year. Amounts in excess of $3,000 are carried forward.

IMO, cutting cap gain rates is unikely to affect the stock market much; most people would have losses and the ones who purchased a long time ago should be unwilling to sell at such a low. Those who shorted the market might have a profit, but that's short-term gain and thus unavailable for the preferential LT treatment.

Could have an impact of real estate sales though, the R/E market is not down everywhere. Certainly those who came into the year with gold in their portfolio might benefit too. But who cares; these things have little to do with the stock market.

Cutting tax on dividends would help. That should encourage people to buy stocks that have a good history of paying dividends.

But to speak of this as a tax cut for the rich is premature IMO; we have no idea of the details of this possibly forthcoming plan.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

Wealthy people aren't putting money into the market atm- they're taking it out. It's called flight to liquidity. Many institutional investors are doing the same, in no small part because of the risk of counterparty default in the derivatives market.

Income redistribution is one of the prominent features of any modern, mature and wealthy mixed economy, and has been for decades. Get used to it, or move some place like Somalia. It takes a variety of forms, from labor unions to progressive taxes to subsidies for low end employers in the form of EIC or similar. Without it, we'd have degenerated into a plutocracy and a lower (much lower) two class society. Lords and Serfs. Patrones and Peons. Pick your language, it's the same deal.

Sometimes this redistribution occurs openly, and sometimes more stealthily. Sometimes it's honest, sometimes it's not. Governmental debt is a stealth method, and a dishonest one, because it redistributes income from the future to today. It's also a deception on the level of who'll be sticking around to pay the debt in the future, as well. Modern wealth is quite portable, and citizenship largely an issue of convenience for those who have it.

Trickledown economics are an expression of that basic deception. In reducing the redistribution of today's income, some substitution has to be made to provide the illusion of it, and deficits do that rather effectively, at least for awhile. When push comes to shove, it turns out that the govt is so far in debt to the world's wealthiest citizens that the govt is powerless, and must debase the currency, the citizenry, or both in order to pay the rent, the interest on the debt... Recovery is difficult, because investment in the productive capacity of the target economy has been removed, recapitalized elsewhere in the world with the largesse of taxbreaks for those at the top.

Trickledown can't be sold w/o huge deficits, simply because the electorate won't be content to watch the rich get richer as they get poorer paying for all the things that protect and concentrate wealth and privilege...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: techs
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2008/10/12/AR2008101200662.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain is considering rolling out a new comprehensive economic package to tackle the U.S. financial crisis, one of his closest supporters said on Sunday. "I think it goes along the lines that now is the time to lower tax rates for investors, capital gains tax, dividend tax rates, to make sure that we can get the economy jump-started," said Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.


He found a way to give more tax cuts for the rich!!!
I didn't think it was possible, but I got to hand it to McCain, he found a way.

Brilliant way to guarantee any (MRRR) Metal Recessive Rich Republicans that any notion of crossing over for some reason will not cross over.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Actually quite funny. How many people are going to be paying capital gains when the stock market just dropped 40%? Generally, people use a capital loss to offset their income taxes, so if they try that, wouldn't they thus end up being able to deduct LESS for their 2008 taxes, so in fact the net effect of this would actually be an increase in taxes?

I hadn't considered that.
The brilliance of Republicans who want to give tax cuts to the rich is astounding.

I just want to know if that's right, it seems like it would be. If you reduce capital gains taxes you reduce the capital loss that you can write off in 2008 and thus if, for example, this was in place now people would be losing out not just on the value of their portfolio but on the silver-lining benefit of a big tax reduction in 2008.

I'd like somebody to confirm that before I partake in the lolocaust.

EDIT: if you did this, you'd want to do it when the market is "stable", so that people will not lose the predictability at least of their taxes. You'd certainly not want to do it in the same tax year of a major bear, I wouldn't think.

Um, you guys are a little confused.

If you have long term capital gains in excess of your short term capital losses, the excess long term gain (or all of that gain if there are no short-term capital losses) is taxed at 15% (or 5%, for those who are at less than the 25% marginal income tax bracket).

If you have a net capital loss for the year (which will happen for tons of people this year), you can claim at most $3000 of that loss (and carry over to future tax years any unclaimed capital losses). The effect of that $3000 deducton is a tax savings of $3000 x your marginal tax rate. For someone in the highest (35%) bracket, the savings would be about $1050 on their federal taxes.

Note that the long term capital gains tax rate - whether 15% or lowered by McCain to 10% - has no effect on the $3000 cap on capital losses that can be claimed.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Actually quite funny. How many people are going to be paying capital gains when the stock market just dropped 40%? Generally, people use a capital loss to offset their income taxes, so if they try that, wouldn't they thus end up being able to deduct LESS for their 2008 taxes, so in fact the net effect of this would actually be an increase in taxes?

I hadn't considered that.
The brilliance of Republicans who want to give tax cuts to the rich is astounding.

I just want to know if that's right, it seems like it would be. If you reduce capital gains taxes you reduce the capital loss that you can write off in 2008 and thus if, for example, this was in place now people would be losing out not just on the value of their portfolio but on the silver-lining benefit of a big tax reduction in 2008.

I'd like somebody to confirm that before I partake in the lolocaust.

EDIT: if you did this, you'd want to do it when the market is "stable", so that people will not lose the predictability at least of their taxes. You'd certainly not want to do it in the same tax year of a major bear, I wouldn't think.

Um, you guys are a little confused.

If you have long term capital gains in excess of your short term capital losses, the excess long term gain (or all of that gain if there are no short-term capital losses) is taxed at 15% (or 5%, for those who are at less than the 25% marginal income tax bracket).

If you have a net capital loss for the year (which will happen for tons of people this year), you can claim at most $3000 of that loss (and carry over to future tax years any unclaimed capital losses). The effect of that $3000 deducton is a tax savings of $3000 x your marginal tax rate. For someone in the highest (35%) bracket, the savings would be about $1050 on their federal taxes.

Note that the long term capital gains tax rate - whether 15% or lowered by McCain to 10% - has no effect on the $3000 cap on capital losses that can be claimed.

Maybe McCain will promise the raise the limit of the capital losses allowed to be deducted per year. That would probably be very helpful right now!

 

[StageLeft]

Now we know about the 3k limit. I never knew of it as I've never sold stock at a loss (which is to say I've only sold it once and it was exercising stock options).

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Now we know about the 3k limit. I never knew of it as I've never sold stock at a loss (which is to say I've only sold it once and it was exercising stock options).

Sadly, I know it all too well and will be reminded for years to come (and it's not from this year's drop in stock values).

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: venkman
Maybe he should try another method, trickle up.

Ya because so many poor and working class people tend to spend additional income, increasing general cash flow for businesses and helping to create jobs.

Reinterpreted.


(I get tired of everybody posting "fixed")

You mean the way all those Katrina victims blew their money at bars for pricey liquors?

Well, if that's the industry you want to prop up...

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: venkman
Maybe he should try another method, trickle up.

Ya because so many poor and working class people tend to spend additional income, increasing general cash flow for businesses and helping to create jobs.

Reinterpreted.


(I get tired of everybody posting "fixed")

You mean the way all those Katrina victims blew their money at bars for pricey liquors?

Well, if that's the industry you want to prop up...

Yeh- I'm really, really sure that every last one of the Katrina victims did so, rather than a very few who became the poster children for the rabid Right...

 

[piasabird]

It was the left wing politicians that spent all the money in Louisiana. These are the people that the democrats that voted into power.

You might ask yourself why things go better in Florida than Louisiana.

How is this any differrent than the floods of 93 along the Mississippi River?

If you wait for the Federal Government to save you, you will be waiting a long time.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: piasabird
It was the left wing politicians that spent all the money in Louisiana. These are the people that the democrats that voted into power.

You might ask yourself why things go better in Florida than Louisiana.

How is this any differrent than the floods of 93 along the Mississippi River?

If you wait for the Federal Government to save you, you will be waiting a long time.

Yes, lets give the rich another tax cut because some of the Katrina victims misused their government assistance.

 

[ch33kym0use]

I do not support giving the rich tax cuts, tax breaks or tax incentives or loopholes of any kind.

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: piasabird
It was the left wing politicians that spent all the money in Louisiana. These are the people that the democrats that voted into power.

You might ask yourself why things go better in Florida than Louisiana.

How is this any differrent than the floods of 93 along the Mississippi River?

If you wait for the Federal Government to save you, you will be waiting a long time.

Exquisitely lame.

Lemme see...

when a hurricane is over in Florida, the place dries out...

when the mississippi floods, it recedes, and affected areas dry out...

when Katrina was over, New Orleans was under water, and stayed that way for a very long time...

I'm sure, however, that if taxes had been lower for America's wealthiest that recovery from Katrina would have gone much, much more smoothly... so would Iraq, and the current economic crisis never would have happened, either...

 

[Dari]

This latest gimmick is dead

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Now we know about the 3k limit. I never knew of it as I've never sold stock at a loss (which is to say I've only sold it once and it was exercising stock options).

Sadly, I know it all too well and will be reminded for years to come (and it's not from this year's drop in stock values).

Yeah, me too. I had $75K in a company called Whitmann Hart that pulled an Enron before Enron itself. Ouch.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: rezinn
So he wants to reduce the risk of investment in a time when people have very little confidence in it? Wow, he sure is stupid huh.

At time when huge number of lower and middle class people are in danger of losing their homes because they can't pay their mortgages lets give tax cuts to the rich!
Trickle down! Trickle down!

Because a lot of those lower and middle class people were stupid in the first place, and don't deserve to own the houses they own (or live the lifestyle they live).

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Dari
This latest gimmick is dead

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After all the commercials McCain had aired to the effect that he was going to kick
Obama's "you know what."

When I first head about it, I was skeptical on two fronts. (a) By pulling such a risky grandstanding stunt before all information was in, any such McCain plan was likely to conflict with those now administering the bail out. A possible yes no that could be rigged by a co operating GWB&allies on the economic bail planning for McCain political advantage. (b) Would it actually be a wise plan and be so perceived by the American people. Again, somewhat of a yes no, but also a potential McCain strike out if the bail out plan goes in a totally different direction.

And if we perceive that as a 2x2 decision matrix, with all yes no answers equally probable, McCain wins only one time in 4.

But I suspect the plan was scrubbed when those administering the bail out basically told McCain his hastily concocted plan would not work and he should shut up.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: venkman
Maybe he should try another method, trickle up.

Ya because so many poor and working class people create jobs and make investments or bother saving money.

creating jobs and investing don't create wealth, they enable the creation of wealth.

The only way to create wealth is through work. making something more useful creates wealth.

Wealth can be transferred, which is what happens with any kind of tax program, or tax cut. When money is printed, not collected in taxes, to fund anything, including tax cuts, all that ultimately happens is money loses it's value, which is called inflation.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Actually quite funny. How many people are going to be paying capital gains when the stock market just dropped 40%? Generally, people use a capital loss to offset their income taxes, so if they try that, wouldn't they thus end up being able to deduct LESS for their 2008 taxes, so in fact the net effect of this would actually be an increase in taxes?

I hadn't considered that.
The brilliance of Republicans who want to give tax cuts to the rich is astounding.

So even though they pay a larger percentage and dollar amount in taxes they shouldn't get a break too?

The cry to burden the rich is the cry of socialists verging on communist.

 

[Specop 007]

Handouts and taxes. The great battle of class warfare.

Flat tax and no free money or handouts. Shanequa is just gonna have to quit fucking or raise those kids on her own.

Wouldnt that be nice?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Actually quite funny. How many people are going to be paying capital gains when the stock market just dropped 40%? Generally, people use a capital loss to offset their income taxes, so if they try that, wouldn't they thus end up being able to deduct LESS for their 2008 taxes, so in fact the net effect of this would actually be an increase in taxes?

I hadn't considered that.
The brilliance of Republicans who want to give tax cuts to the rich is astounding.

So even though they pay a larger percentage and dollar amount in taxes they shouldn't get a break too?

The cry to burden the rich is the cry of socialists verging on communist.

As long as they aren't taxed so much that they are not still extremely wealthy what's the problem? I'd be glad to pay a higher percentage if I was extremely wealthy, I don't see how that would be a burden. On the other hand if I was just barely getting by paying rent, putting food on the table and clothing my children any increased tax would be an extreme burden. I'm sorry but I haven't any sympathy for the Wealthy having to pay a higher percentage.

Now before any of you red assed wankers start calling me a Communist, I don't want to take all the money from the Rich, I don't want to tax them so much as they would not be rich anymore. They can still keep their yachts, Lear Jets and 13 homes. Ok they might have to downsize to 12 homes.

 

[techs]

Why is it when Republcans cut taxes for the rich its for economic stimulus and when Democrats cut taxes for the middle class and poor its "class warfare"?