Again, shortsightedness. If you are paying more in interests on your credit cards than spending on goods, the consumption rate goes down and will cause unemployment.
yes, and this is a big reason why WEALTH Inequality is increasing. The Middle class no longer saves - instead they buy buy buy and so their net worth goes DOWN because cars and xboxes always go down in value.
And yet there is no incentive to save. Interest rates are essentially zero %. You could jump into the market (not likely on small savings since trades would wipe out any real gain), but all indicators show it's on a bubble also due to no other alternatives to gain value on money. And this doesn't cover the fact that wages are not keeping up with inflation: http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/chart-graph/real-wage-vs-inflation-growth So even if you spend next to nothing, you will be dropping into a lower class due to increases in commodities. If you want to build wealth, it is going to be easier with a $.50/hr increase in pay every year vs saving $100 a month.
Coming from someone with no debt. I am an aggressive saver watching my money lose value through inflation.
Fist bump from a fellow aggressive saver. You are loosing value because of free money that is being printed.
I think that investment income should be taxed at the same rate as all other income. I also think that tax rates need to be high enough to pay for the federal government's spending.
No, it doesn't. This is a lie that you have been told and have chosen to believe, but it is a lie. So what? Reduced rates entice investors to cash out, no doubt about it, but what is wrong with encouraging longer term investments rather than cashing out? This relates to our discussion in what way?
A number on how high income taxes should be? I still find it strange how many people who despise big business and corporations somehow trust the government which is big business and lots of micro-interests will look after them have their best interests in mind. At least in a corporation whether its Wal-Mart, McDonalds etc. you can choose not to work or eat there, with the government it becomes law!
Capital gains..., not regular income. We do encourage long term investing. > 1 year gets reduced rates. Cashing out = revenue for the gov. No revenue for gov if someone doesn't sell, and yet still increase his net worth.
Yes, I know what you are claiming, you are wrong. I've personally done statistical analysis that incorporates capital gains tax rates. Cashing out of the stock market has a lower tax rate associated with it than working for many, many people. Yes, and the historically low tax rates have caused a great many people to cash out, paying a lower tax rate than people who get up and go to work every day.
High enough to balance the budget plus just a little bit to pay down the debt. I don't care what the rate ends up being, I care that the revenue coming in more than covers the spending going out. I find it strange how many people who choose not to think for themselves accuse others of "despis[ing] big business and corporations" and assume that those people can't assess the problems inherent in government. Yes, it becomes law that even the big corporations have to follow, which has led those corporations to create fake "news" agencies to spoon feed you opinions like there are a large number of liberals who "despise big business and corporations." They have also lobbied for and received preferential tax treatment to the point that this has been the result...
Maybe you should qualify your statement a little b/c as it stands, it's wrong. 100% capital gains tax rate = $0 revenue for the government. 50% capital gains tax rate = >$0 revenue for the government.
Nice straw man, there have never been nor is anyone advocating for capital gains tax rates of 100%. When capital gains taxes have been lowered in the past, the result has been lower revenue. The only way that the statement "lowering capital gains taxes increases revenue" can be true is if the lowered tax rates increase economic growth. Lowering these tax rates does NOT increase growth, even when the data is lagged by up to several years. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3E7IZf1pxPeMXpCY3JVakktTHM/edit?usp=sharing Lower tax rates DECREASE revenue and do NOT increase growth rates. Thus, Lowering tax rates results in lower revenue, no matter how many times Fox "News" pundits claim otherwise.
Not a strawman argument at all. It's a direct application of your logic. That's why I said that unless qualified, your original statement was wrong. It depends on the timing. By lowering capital gains tax rates, you give people the incentive to cash out now and pay the lower capital gains tax rates. Otherwise, there's no telling how long they would hold onto their stocks.
I just read through the whole thread and some interesting arguments. I agree that the increasing wealth inequality is a problem for the US and I think the solutions need to be multifaceted. I think there is something to be said about self-afflicted problems regarding spending by the middle and lower classes but that is far too simplistic to just blame it on them when so much of the system has been structurally rigged for the rich. To address the problem we need both cultural changes and structural changes to our tax code, finance system and etc... A couple of things I haven't seen addressed much in this thread though is how improving things like access to education and health care could address that issue. Also I think improving infrastructure would also help too.
My opinion WAS the same when Dick Cheney was the Vice President. The Bush tax cuts were the absolute wrong thing to do, particularly the second round, when we were fighting one war and running up to another.
I'm sorry you were unable to comprehend my original statement, I was talking about reality, not some hypothetical fantasy land where there were or someone was advocating for 100% capital gains tax rates. It was a straw man and in order to construct it, you needed to create a hypothetical fantasy world, double FAIL. No, there is no telling how long they would hang on to their stocks, but when they DID cash out, revenue to the government would be higher if the rates were higher.
