Why doesn't Clinton 8% Capital Gains Tax Cut ever expire?

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,020
9
81
Can someone explain why the bush tax cuts have an expiration date, but Clinton's 8% cut to capital gains never expire?

This is stupid, they should expire when Bush 5% cut expire. No reason capital gains should be taxed at 15% or 20%, even 28% isn't high enough, but it is much more fair than either 15 or 20%.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
It also seems that the OP have minimal knowledge of what capital gains are
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Fair would be taxing capital gains at the same rates as regular income. Having one rate 28%+ across the board would hurt a lot of retirees. Not everyone who relies on investment income is Mitt Romney rich.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
Having one rate 28%+ across the board would hurt a lot of retirees.
Having income tax hurts people who save because it makes it so they have to borrow. My dad will never be able to retire if the Clinton rates go back into effect. It's so fucking funny how liberals love the income tax so much because it has made me a lot poorer than I would be if the damn govt hadn't distorted the fuck out of the market. My dad's investments have given pisspoor results (not his fault), that's for sure and by the govt distorting the market, then I'll have to live off of one of my brothers (or welfare if they don't want give me anything, but again, that's the govt's fault) if I don't ever find a job. Do you liberals and neocons ever consider what govt does to retards like me? There may or may not have been times when it helped me (and if it ever has helped me, then it hasn't helped me any more than anyone else, for sure), but it will certainly never be able to fully heal the wounds it's done.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
68,851
26,635
136
Having income tax hurts people who save because it makes it so they have to borrow. My dad will never be able to retire if the Clinton rates go back into effect. It's so fucking funny how liberals love the income tax so much because it has made me a lot poorer than I would be if the damn govt hadn't distorted the fuck out of the market. My dad's investments have given pisspoor results (not his fault), that's for sure and by the govt distorting the market, then I'll have to live off of one of my brothers (or welfare if they don't want give me anything, but again, that's the govt's fault) if I don't ever find a job. Do you liberals and neocons ever consider what govt does to retards like me? There may or may not have been times when it helped me (and if it ever has helped me, then it hasn't helped me any more than anyone else, for sure), but it will certainly never be able to fully heal the wounds it's done.

I'm on the cusp of a comment here but I'm still reflecting on the need for one.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,651
2,391
126
The Bush tax cuts were sold as an experiment. Bush claimed that they would more than pay for themselves, that the trickle down effect and the tremendous expansion of the economy would generate greater tax revenues and help reduce the deficit. The Democratic members of Congress were reluctant to believe this and the only way Bush could get enough votes was with a sunset provision to the law.

Turns out the Dems were 100% correct, that this single tax cut caused a greater increase in the deficit and unbalancing of the budget than either war or the recession.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Fair would be taxing capital gains at the same rates as regular income. Having one rate 28%+ across the board would hurt a lot of retirees. Not everyone who relies on investment income is Mitt Romney rich.

So like the OP post you do not understand the difference between Capital gains and earned income and the effect of inflation.
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,458
2
0
Does OP understand that Capital gains are effectivly the second round of taxes on the same money? That the investor has chosen to take a risk and if he succeeds the government wants a cut, and if he looses the government provides him with no cusion other than 3k a year of write-offs? If you let them write off all losses, then tax it as regular income!
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Taxes are a net drain on economy and are used to exploit markets and pick winners.
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,020
9
81
The Bush tax cuts were sold as an experiment. Bush claimed that they would more than pay for themselves, that the trickle down effect and the tremendous expansion of the economy would generate greater tax revenues and help reduce the deficit. The Democratic members of Congress were reluctant to believe this and the only way Bush could get enough votes was with a sunset provision to the law.

Turns out the Dems were 100% correct, that this single tax cut caused a greater increase in the deficit and unbalancing of the budget than either war or the recession.

I know that part about Bushes Tax cut, but why didn't the Capital Gains tax cut under Clinton have a sunset provision.
 

Fayd

Diamond Member
Jun 28, 2001
7,971
2
76
www.manwhoring.com
Can someone explain why the bush tax cuts have an expiration date, but Clinton's 8% cut to capital gains never expire?

This is stupid, they should expire when Bush 5% cut expire. No reason capital gains should be taxed at 15% or 20%, even 28% isn't high enough, but it is much more fair than either 15 or 20%.

capital gains should be taxed at the same level as all other forms of income.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,581
472
126
I know that part about Bushes Tax cut, but why didn't the Capital Gains tax cut under Clinton have a sunset provision.

Because not enough Democrats would vote for it otherwise.... it might have been filibustered by the Democrats.

If there was an expiration date enough democrats could be convinced to vote for the initial tax cut.

Remember it took place in two stages and Democrats might have lost enough senate seats in 2002 that they couldn't threaten a filibuster by the time the second part was passed.
 
Last edited:

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
Because not enough Democrats would vote for it otherwise.... it might have been filibustered by the Democrats.
Then why didn't the Republicans make it permanent when they had both chambers of Congress?

The Clinton tax cut didn't expire because it was something he knew would be good, while Bush wanted to see if it increased revenue. It turned out the vast amount of revenue not stolen due to the Bush tax cuts was not due to the top marginal rate decrease, but rather was due to the Republicans cutting a few deductions out and reducing the bottom marginal rate more (in both relative and long-term absolute terms) than the top marginal rate.

If there is no production, then there is no income to tax. For those who want taxation (even though I'm not one of them) to reduce the deficit, import taxes at about 10-50% on some items with export taxes at 60% (or just prohibiting exporting some things) on other items would compliment the income tax... I don't endorse that, though, because it would only work in the short term.
 

brianmanahan

Lifer
Sep 2, 2006
24,202
5,608
136
whatever happens, long term cap gains must be taxed at a lower rate, it encourages long term investment.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Yes, right now income tax is 35% it should also be 35%.

Wrong. 40-50%* of average capital gains are inflation not income.

If you adjust for this the equivalent tax bracket would be 17.5-21%. So while the upper tax bracket for LTCG should be slightly higher it is no where near as unfair as liberals would have you believe. In fact putting it back at the 20% Clinton number would be about right.



Assuming 6-7% appreciation and 3% inflation
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,581
472
126
Then why didn't the Republicans make it permanent when they had both chambers of Congress?

Don't ask me ask them.

It could be that they wanted to have a political tool available to threaten democrats with in the future... they've used it as such in recent years.
 
Last edited:

Ricochet

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 1999
6,406
20
81
Does OP understand that Capital gains are effectivly the second round of taxes on the same money? That the investor has chosen to take a risk and if he succeeds the government wants a cut, and if he looses the government provides him with no cusion other than 3k a year of write-offs? If you let them write off all losses, then tax it as regular income!

This has been the mantra of people like the OP: Tax CG like income! Not one of them realize how detrimental that is to the middle class who use the already taxed income to set aside for investment for a rainy day.

I understand there are rich folks who solely rely on CG for their income but their numbers are not anywhere near the middle class.

Are people so butt-hurt by the rich that they're willing to bite the nose off to spite the face? (forgive me if I butchered the quote)

Giving more money to the government to burn is not going to help our situation.

whatever happens, long term cap gains must be taxed at a lower rate, it encourages long term investment.

Absolutely. Government should encourage savings and investment. People who are living pay check to pay check simply don't understand until they start saving for themselves.

I simply cannot fathom why anyone would want higher tax for capital gain.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
Does OP understand that Capital gains are effectivly the second round of taxes on the same money? That the investor has chosen to take a risk and if he succeeds the government wants a cut, and if he looses the government provides him with no cusion other than 3k a year of write-offs? If you let them write off all losses, then tax it as regular income!


So if if I invest 1,000,000 dollars and end up with 1,250,000 does the government tax me on the whole 1,250,000 or just the 250,000?
 

lamedude

Golden Member
Jan 14, 2011
1,206
10
81
I read up on the Byrd rule a little more. If it doesn't have a sunset provision it needs 60 votes in the Senate otherwise a simple majority will do. Clinton's tax cut only had 8 nays in the Senate so it wasn't needed.