Obama's Capital Gains Tax

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by PLATO
Raising Capital Gains Tax is a stupid idea.

Investors are running for the hills even as we speak. Raise the CG tax and they will stay there.

Obama really doesn't get economics.

Again... raising the rate today, based on today's economic situation is a stupid idea.

If and when either side begins talking of adjusting the CG rate up AND down based on the current economic situation, there would be no problem with thinking exclusively this way.

For so long as it remains a political issue, it should probably go up some from the current extremely low rate (if it's going to be set at some value and stay there indefinitely).

I support continuing the 15% rate for a year or two more. I would not support, in a million years, having a permanent CG rate of 15%. It's simply unacceptably low in terms of the long term effect it would have on income distribution, on the economic health of the government, and the instability it would add to the investment system (in encouraging investment when it is inappropriate to do so).

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm sorry.

Did someone actually cite wikipedia as an accurate source?

Snoopy, show me a real source that you didn't edit yourself.

[Ben Kenobi]

Zkribbler,

You misunderstand.

Robert Byrd was leading the crusade against Stevens and his bridge to nowhere.

He was also leading his crusade to keep the pork flowing in West Virginia.

It's obvious. Dems like bonfires too, so long as they get to be the ones with the gasoline.

[snoopy369]

Ben, you amuse me greatly. You argue with people in their areas of expertise, and act as if you know what the **** you are talking about, but the thing is that you are arguing with people who know you don't. You'd argue with Gary Kasparov over the correct opposition to the Sicilian defense, wouldn't you ...

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, you amuse me greatly. You argue with people in their areas of expertise, and act as if you know what the **** you are talking about, but the thing is that you are arguing with people who know you don't. You'd argue with Gary Kasparov over the correct opposition to the Sicilian defense, wouldn't you ...

If he cited wikipedia to prove his point, yes I would.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by snoopy369


Again... raising the rate today, based on today's economic situation is a stupid idea.

If and when either side begins talking of adjusting the CG rate up AND down based on the current economic situation, there would be no problem with thinking exclusively this way.

For so long as it remains a political issue, it should probably go up some from the current extremely low rate (if it's going to be set at some value and stay there indefinitely).

I support continuing the 15% rate for a year or two more. I would not support, in a million years, having a permanent CG rate of 15%. It's simply unacceptably low in terms of the long term effect it would have on income distribution, on the economic health of the government, and the instability it would add to the investment system (in encouraging investment when it is inappropriate to do so).

Sorry, wasn't arguing with what you said. Just stating that talking about raising the CG tax now is a stupid idea...and a demonstration of how economically niave Obama is.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


If he cited wikipedia to prove his point, yes I would.

I cite wikipedia to give you an easy to read explanation of what CG Tax is. The people reading this thread who know that already know you're wrong, I'm not proving anything to them. I give you an example so you can educate yourself

[Ben Kenobi]

I cite wikipedia to give you an easy to read explanation of what CG Tax is. The people reading this thread who know that already know you're wrong, I'm not proving anything to them. I give you an example so you can educate yourself

Couple things wrong with your approach.

1. I'm a college graduate. I don't need economics lessons 'dumbed down'.

2. Since you presume to be an expert on economic theory, why is it so difficult to cite a source that economists find persuasive?

3. You are assuming I myself will not check the sources, and presuming I am unwilling to learn more about the topic, and also presuming I haven't already read that particular article.

4. You are assuming that 'everyone who reads this thread agrees with you', which is not true.

5. You also managed to misrepresent my own position, all in the span of a single post.

That's 5 things wrong with your statement right there.

Please cite a source that economists will find persuasive and I promise you I will read it and consider your evidence.

I don't believe that a 15 percent capital gains tax is detrimental to revenues in the long term, and I would be interested in seeing evidence that corroborates with your BAM.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Are you referring to the article I posted? It's here: LINK

I'm confused why you thought it a valid response to my post given that Obama specifically rejected an economic arguement for raising the tax and instead chose to focus on issues of fairness regarding how important it would be to raise it.

[Ramo]

Sorry, wasn't arguing with what you said. Just stating that talking about raising the CG tax now is a stupid idea...and a demonstration of how economically niave Obama is.

He obviously doesn't have any plans to raise the CG rate immediately. Hence the ambiguity on what rate it ought to be raised to. He says that at some point he'd like to raise them, and to no more than the Clinton-era levels.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ramo


He obviously doesn't have any plans to raise the CG rate immediately. Hence the ambiguity on what rate it ought to be raised to. He says that at some point he'd like to raise them, and to no more than the Clinton-era levels.

Granted, but why even discuss raising the CG now when investment is desperately needed? Anybody who knows much about economics knows what a huge impact that confidence has. He is creating uncertainty in an environment that needs stability.

If he had said (like snoop said) that the rate should remain steady for two years and then be reevaluated based upon the investment level and economic performance at that time then he would have done some good.

What he did say, otoh, creates uncertainty and that is just stupid at this point...or maybe I should say ignorant (which is probably closer to the truth. Obama needs serious help with economics)

edit: I just reread the article. It does not look obvious to me at all that he is not planning on looking at this right away...in fact, the opposite seems obvious.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm confused why you thought it a valid response to my post given that Obama specifically rejected an economic arguement for raising the tax and instead chose to focus on issues of fairness regarding how important it would be to raise it.

Because the chief argument raised to Obama's fairness rationale was the incorrect argument that cutting the capital gains tax raised revenues.

[Ramo]

Granted, but why even discuss raising the CG now when investment is desperately needed?

Because the Presidency is a four year term...

If he had said (like snoop said) that the rate should remain steady for two years and then be reevaluated based upon the investment level and economic performance at that time then he would have done some good.

From the ABC debate:

MR. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what's happening on Wall Street and how business is going. I think the biggest problem that we've got on Wall Street right now is the fact that we've got a housing crisis that this president has not been attentive to and that it took John McCain three tries before he got it right.

And if we can stabilize that market and we can get credit flowing again, then I think we'll see stocks do well, and once again I think we can generate the revenue that we need to run this government and hopefully to pay down some of this debt.

So it's clear that he wants to stabilize the market before raising CG rates.

[Zkribbler]

Granted, but why even discuss raising the CG now when investment is desperately needed? Anybody who knows much about economics knows what a huge impact that confidence has. He is creating uncertainty in an environment that needs stability.

Investment isn't needed so much as consumer confidence. That's hard to achieve when the budget deficit is soaring and the gap between the rich and middle class is continuing to widen.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by snoopy369


Because if it had been higher in 1999 you would have not invested as much

Is that supposed to be an answer to my question? it doesnt look like it.

EDIT: after reading a subsequent response I believe I understand your meaning.

Werent you planning to be a buddist monk or something? I'm not sure how that coincides with what appears to be your desire to use the CG tax rate to effect investment cash flow (primarily from the middle class). Is that out of the Marxist monk handbook?