Obama's Capital Gains Tax

[Patroklos]

You should readjust your rich income sources as Ramo provided the graph that says your average millionare (which of course is a tiny subset of the rich overall so 11% is more appropriate) gets only 30% of income from CG, not 80%. The idea of millions of trust fund babies living off their CGs is a myth.

[Jon Miller]

Are you being willfully obtuse?

JM

[Patroklos]

I am still waiting for you and Ramo to follow a single line of thought.

Nothing snoppy said really has an merit on my orignial point, that Obama's CGT increase will affect more middle class people than rich people.

FACT: There are more middle class people invested in stocks (non IRA) than rich people. Hell, there are probably more middle class people invested in stocks than there are rich people period.

My other point, which snoopy's post isn't in respose to is that raising the CGT is 1.) harmful to the economy and thus everyone whether they get CGs or not and 2.) since Ramo is all about tax revenue actually decreases tax revenue.

I am taking snoopy seriously and I may be using regressive and progressive wrong, but that has nothing to do with the meat of my position (we are only discussing that at all because Ramo can't read); a CGT increase affects more middle class people than rich people and thus isn't worth it using Obama's own stated rational without even taking into acount any actual economic logic.

[Ramo]

No, it is just from a professional researcher from a reputable research body being published in a reputable publication. Then again, you haven't provided anything to back you position up at all besides graphs that don't help you.

You aren't talking about a peer-reviewed publication, but one man's opinion. Keep up.

Incidentally, I didn't claim that my ideas on this issue were fact. You did. Only you. But you're too lazy to verify your right wing dogma, I understand...

BTW, I did bother to look through the literature last time this issue came up. And no, your claim is certainly not "fact." Far from it. I don't particularly feel like searching through the literature again at the moment, but KH helpfully sent me a reference:

Most economists will clearly state that capital gains tax cuts are partly self-financing in the long run, but are not fully so (and cetainly do not increase the long-run tax receipts). One of the better recent studies of this is a paper by Greg Mankiw and Matt Weinzierl (Greg Mankiw was chairman of the Council of Economic advisors under Bush from 2003 to 2005):

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...9999999%2399999!&_cdi=5834& amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;am
p;amp;amp;view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8391d808449a05b05f1090799867f334

Consistent with other studies, it finds that capital gains tax cuts are ~50% self-financing i.e. If I collect 100 billion$ in revenue when the rate is at 20% and I cut the rate to 10% a static analysis would conclude that I would lose 50 billion$ in revenue, while in actuality increased investment due to the cut will make my loss only 25 billion$.

You just beat yourself up by proving the rich don't live off their CGs.

I didn't ****ing say that. Ever. I pointed this out multiple times. Yet you keep claiming that I have. Why do you have to be so dishonest about this?

you love to argue a flat income tax is regressive.

I never said. I explicitly said otherwise. A flat tax is, in fact, neither progressive or regressive, but flat.

Those making >$1 million are responsible for 60.6% of capital gains. How's that for "ridiculously false."


Unfortunetly for you that is now what you said. Lets examine it

"That's not the case for the rich, who predominantly pay the tax."

Again, your inability to read has made you the fool. I have repeatedly stated the precentage of the CGT the .01 pay or even all the rich pay is irrelevant. There are 100 million Americans with stock in America and if you think 1/3 of the nation is "rich" then getting boot stomped in this thread is the least of your worries.

Of those 100 million the vast majority are not rich, but middle class (or lower). That means this tax affects the middle class more than the upper class, especially since the middle class worker's dollars are worth more to them than the rich as any progressive tax proponent will tell you.

The rich pay the majority of the CGT. Those making over $1 million earn >60% of capital gains. That's what I said. I don't what the hell you're trying to read into it, but that's it.

I give up. Your inability to comprehend elementary logic or honestly try to read what I wrote has made this enterprise pointless.

[Ramo]

a CGT increase affects more middle class people than rich people

Quite possibly the dumbest point ever made on Poly. Congrats.

[Patroklos]

The rich pay the majority of the CGT. Those making over $1 million earn >60% of capital gains. That's what I said. I don't what the hell you're trying to read into it, but that's it.

I am reading nothing into you, you started attacking me because of a very simple thing I said; More individual people (I even used that word, individual) of the middle class will be affected by this tax than rich trust fund baby types.

Thats all I said.

Thats it.

Then you, as per usual, read something else into what I said and have now dragged us through pages of you swinging at your own reflection because you imagined I said something about the income tax being more regresive or progressive than the CGT (which I never even mentioned before you stumbled into this thread).

Please Ramo, for the love of God, RTFT!

The rich pay the majority of the CGT.

Which has nothing to do with my point whatsoever. Why you keep bringing it up to left hook yourself or whatever imaginary opponent you think you are fighting is beyond me.

Again, you could have avoided all your embarrasment by actually reading the thread.

Quite possibly the dumbest point ever made on Poly. Congrats.

It went over your head for two pages, don't degrade yourself so.

It is a very relevant point given Obama's stated motivation. He is willing to take money from the middle class to punish the rich. Now, if his reasons were tax revenue like you falsely attribute that might be okay (even though it won't increas revenue), but it is not. Honesly if he had ANY reason other than just to stick it to trust fund babies living off of CGs it would be better. He is asking the middle class to pay more so someone else can pay even more for nothing but "fairness."

Hell, how hard would it be for Obama to just suggest taxing onlyl CGs over 50k at the increased rate if he is all about fairness? His position is retarded all around even at accomplishing it's stated goal.

[Ramo]

I don't think you fully understand how retarded the point that you're trying make is. It truly boggles the mind...

[Ramo]

As for a raise in CGT now, it would reduce economic activity, or enhance selloff (followed by reduced economic activity) depending on whether the market viewed it as "temporary" or the "first step". I don't think it's a cure for what ails us either way.

Aeson, I agree raising the CGT now is a bad idea. But in a couple years when the market's better off (probably the time frame that Obama has in mind), it's probably a good idea...

I'd prefer we cut spending. We have a better chance to fund our necessary spending with a healthy economy. It's hurting enough already without undermining it more.

Universal health care, climate change legislation, infrastructure (i.e. mass transit) is all going to be expensive. They're also going to be good investments with high rates of return. I don't think totally deficit spending our way through this is viable (even if partial funding through deficits is fine). About discretionary spending, we can cut Iraq. We can fix Medicare Part D. There's not much else, though. We're going to need to raise taxes.

[Ramo]

Which has nothing to do with my point whatsoever. Why you keep bringing it up to left hook yourself or whatever imaginary opponent you think you are fighting is beyond me.

You keep mentioning the middle class as if they were the least bit relevant wrt CGT. They aren't.

[Patroklos]

I don't think you fully understand how retarded the point that you're trying make is. It truly boggles the mind...

Lets ask the middle class voters how they feel?

"Who here wants to give up five dollars so that I can take ten from that guy just because?"

But I acknowledge your admission that everything you have said in the last two pages was irrelvant to anything being discussed before you went hysterical. Again, read the thread next time to avoid such needless loss of dignity

You keep mentioning the middle class as if they were the least bit relevant wrt CGT. They aren't.

Yes, we have established that you and Obama believe they simply have to take it on the chin so you can crusade for "fairness." Perhaps we can kill all first born children so that the average single child rich can't pass on their wealth too? I am sure none of the other classes will mind, I mean it is a sacrifice for the sake of "fairness" after all, and it isn't like the lower income citizens don't have children to spare.

[Ramo]

The $5/$10 comparison is a perfect example of how ****ed your understanding of arithmetic here is...

[Patroklos]

The $5/$10 comparison is a perfect example of how ****ed your understanding of arithmetic here is...

So 5>10 now? Don't stop now Ramo, you're on a roll!

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Patroklos


I am still waiting for you and Ramo to follow a single line of thought.

Nothing snoppy said really has an merit on my orignial point, that Obama's CGT increase will affect more middle class people than rich people.

FACT: There are more middle class people invested in stocks (non IRA) than rich people. Hell, there are probably more middle class people invested in stocks than there are rich people period.

My other point, which snoopy's post isn't in respose to is that raising the CGT is 1.) harmful to the economy and thus everyone whether they get CGs or not and 2.) since Ramo is all about tax revenue actually decreases tax revenue.

I am taking snoopy seriously and I may be using regressive and progressive wrong, but that has nothing to do with the meat of my position (we are only discussing that at all because Ramo can't read); a CGT increase affects more middle class people than rich people and thus isn't worth it using Obama's own stated rational without even taking into acount any actual economic logic.

'more people' != 'larger effect', as you should well know.

Regardless, I don't give a **** if it affects more MC people than rich people. Investment income is by nature disposable income, except where it is an IRA or other retirement savings - in which case CGT is not applicable for quite a reasonable amount. Any reasonable set of numbers would show the CG increase disproportionately affecting the rich, and being a highly progressive tax - which based on Obama's economic and moral principles makes it a good thing.

I believe the CGT should be set appropriately to encourage investment or discourage it (and probably shouldn't be raised now, so long as it is raised at some point); but I'm not insane enough to suggest that it affects middle class people more than rich people. That defies any sort of economic principles.

[Patroklos]

but I'm not insane enough to suggest that it affects middle class people more than rich people.

I said it affects MORE middle class people, and that those fewer dollars mean more to middle class people than the larger amounts taken from the rich will to the rich. Physical dollars collected is not the sum total of effect.

I stated myself that the rich will pay the majority of the phyiscal dollars, that is irrelevant to what I was saying.

It is a classic lety arguement for rich taxation, there is no good reason to tax all CGs at the same rate especially given Obama's leanings. I don't oppose a CGT hike because I love rich poeple, I oppose it because it will **** the economy. But if there has to be one for forms sake, spare the average joe shmoe investor just trying to make some extra scratch from money he was wise enough to not spent on plasma televisions.

[Ramo]

It's just precious that Patty has tried to make an argument about capital gains taxes exclusively about the idea that the middle class is typically classified as outnumbering the upper class. Absolutely surreal...

Solid Ben territory.