Again, it isn't about bringing the bell down, it is about removing the weight vest that many, many people have to wear while climbing your hypothetical rope. I would argue that helping people work on strength, conditioning, technique, and diet (which I would see as education and other forms of training) are absolutely essential, but we are dramatically cutting funds for higher education, forcing students to take on massive student loan debt, one more of the weight vests youleft out of your hypothetical.
This sums it up. Due to the risk of investing, if you lose, your next however much in gains are tax free. That is a very important component that the wekkos of the world need to understand. The lowering of the rate on cap gains was nothing more than tax relief for those who need it the least.
I would argue that too much help is given to the people, that they never learn to pull their own weight, or even try. An example is a single mother having 8 kids all from different men. For education, why don't you start with finishing high school? You don't need massive student loans to get a GED, go to community college, a 2 year associate degree, or go to technical college. If you are poor and are capable of going to college, there are plenty of government money available for you.
I like how you continually ignore the fact that I subsequently provided the same principle using real capital gains tax rates which proved the same point.
Hold up. Now you're acknowledging that lowering capital gains rates did at times increase revenue? But how can that be? Earlier, you were very clear on that matter: So first, you claimed that a lower capital gains tax rate doesn't increase revenue for the government. After all, you've personally done statistical analysis incorporating capital gains tax rates, right? And when I provided you data showing otherwise, your argument changed into: I haven't personally done any statistical analysis on this, but it sounds like you're changing your argument....
Not really a good analogy. For a doctor to lose his career, he needs to make a major mistake. An investor can do all the research/analysis in the world and still lose his shirt.
Disagree. Look at it this way. Investing has the potential to be significantly more lucrative than actual labor. If actual labor requires more time and effort, wouldn't it be logical for people to give up labor and start investing? I think that starting this year, there's going to be a medicare tax on investment income. Regarding the market crash, you were savvy enough to stay in the market and weather the storm. A lot of people didn't. They realized their losses and were very hesitant to get back into the market. How will those people ever make enough capital gains to take advantage of their offsetting capital losses?
Yes, I'm well aware of this. I took a few accounting courses in college... What you need to understand is that future capital gains aren't guaranteed.
There are minuscule numbers of people who collect welfare, which I would personally change into "workfare," but you are arguing about a tiny sliver of America when the VAST majority of us DO work every day and pull our own weight. Have you seen the pay you get with a GED? Even community college and especially technical college graduates get out of school with a considerable amount of debt these days. The government money that is available is loans, plus very small amounts of Pell grant money. The reason, BTW, that student loans have expanded so dramatically is because the states have reduced their contributions to higher education dramatically over the last couple of decades, forcing tuition increases that the students now have to bear, all in the name of tax cuts for people who are already wealthy.
When the left talks about inequality, we're not usually talking about the poorest of the poor. Our public aid programs are pretty close to what they should be - sufficient to ensure that no American needs to live in misery, but spartan enough that work and personal development offer a much nicer life. What we're talking about is how most Americans, including the ones who have finished school, gotten jobs, entered stable marriages, and generally followed the rules, are struggling so much more than our parents and grandparents did. Our median incomes are stagnant, while costs of healthcare, housing, and education have been gobbling up increasing shares of household income for the last three decades, with no end in sight. More and more families are only a serious illness or a layoff (to either earner) away from financial ruin. At the same time, the wealthiest Americans have taken home an ever-increasing share of the country's income. Do you deny that this is happening? Or do you just not think it's a problem?
Because you are misreading what I have written, purposefully. Inflation and GDP growth account for the VAST majority of the increases in capital gains increases. Yes, and posted the research which shows that capital gains tax rate reductions do not account for the GDP growth which caused the cap gains revenues to increase. I'm sorry you didn't understand my research. Read it again, it is extremely clear. Nope, not at all. All that is going on here is that you are avoiding the point because you don't have an answer for the questions I have asked. Why is it a good thing to encourage investors to cash out with preferential tax rates? Why should we be targeting preferential tax rates at a particular class (the investor class) while the working class pays lower rates? Try to twist my words and make up as many hypothetical situations as you like, but we are supposed to have a progressive income tax, the current system allows corporations and rich people to pay unbelievably low rates as compared to those of us who work for a living.
A good investor with enough capital is unlikely to "lose his shirt" without systemic problems like those we failed to address in 2007. I would say about as likely as a doctor is to make an egregious mistake that could cost him his license.
No, I didn't ignore anything. You made up a second hypothetical, choosing to ignore that increases in capital gains receipts were affected primarily by GDP growth and inflation.
Investing requires capital, it is impossible for most of us to just give up our work and invest for a living. Good, investors shouldn't be allowed to freeload, they already enjoy preferential tax rates.
Ok, the way I read this, lingling is arguing that a lower capital gains tax rate actually increases revenue for the government, and you claim it doesn't. Since you think I've been misreading this, why don't you tell me how I should be interpreting this?
Start with $1,000. If investing is as easy as you guys make it seem, you should be able to double or triple that fairly quickly...
I ignored it b/c it was irrelevant to your original assertion. Don't forget, your original assertion was that lowering capital gains didn't increase revenue for the govt. I even told you that unless you qualified it, that was an incorrect statement. You then proceeded to call me stupid, dumb, doubling down on stupid, etc... And now you're accusing me of ignoring qualifications that you never made which I asked you to make...
I don't see how the rich making a lot of money affect me negatively. They sell big fancy cars, shiny new things, make lots of money but at the end of the day, I don't have to buy. You can try to tax them to even things out, but you only ending up hitting the middle class and the people working to get rich. Show me a tax plan that can hit Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and the like that doesn't hit the middle class and I'll be on board. The rich's passion is to work and make money. The poor's passion is have money so they don't have to work.
