Obama's Going to Do What?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]100meters wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
End result is the same: He’s raising taxes in a recession. I’m waiting for someone to tell me why this is a good idea. I’m also willing to let you explain how increasing the CG tax to 20% (from 15%) will spur investment, growth, and all the other good things that happen when you move OUT of a recession.

It’s a good idea, because we have to lower the deficit. So likely we’ll be cutting spending and letting taxes return to their “communist” but still historically very low levels of 2000.[/quote]

Oh, well then maybe it would have been an even better idea to NOT BLOW OUT THE DEFICIT BY ANOTHER TRILLION DOLLARS IN HIS FIRST FOUR WEEKS IN OFFICE with the recent tera-pork bill, ya think?

22

[quote]100meters wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
100meters wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
I’m still clinging to hope that the sources have their facts wrong.

It’s being widely reported that Obama will announce in his speech to congress tomorrow that he’s imposing an increase in the captial gains tax.

Let me understand this: Even the most liberal economists oppose this because it will actually result in LESS tax revenue. Clinton reduced it, tax receipts rose. Bush reduced it further, tax receipts rose again. The trend is simple: Lower taxes = MORE investment = MORE tax $ for the fed.

By raising the tax we’ll see LESS investment and LESS revenue for the federal government.

The market is headed under 7,000. People are losing their savings, 401Ks, etc. Don’t we WANT more investment? Don’t we WANT people to EARN? Doesn’t the fed WANT more tax dollars?

Someone help me out here. What am I missing? WHY would a president do something that is bad for government, bad for citizens? Perhaps someone can give us an opinion as why this is actually a GOOD thing?
He’s not imposing. He’s letting the tax cuts expire on the wealthy. That’s the way republicans wrote them into law, with expiration dates in 2010, so they could , you know, hide the long-term costs, as in these things don’t pay for themselves.

End result is the same: He’s raising taxes in a recession. I’m waiting for someone to tell me why this is a good idea. I’m also willing to let you explain how increasing the CG tax to 20% (from 15%) will spur investment, growth, and all the other good things that happen when you move OUT of a recession.

It’s a good idea, because we have to lower the deficit. So likely we’ll be cutting spending and letting taxes return to their “communist” but still historically very low levels of 2000.[/quote]

If we have to lower the deficit so badly, why did Pelosi, Reid, and Obama just add an extra trillion-plus dollars to it? Weren’t we just hearing last week that the deficit is irrelevant at times like this? As a matter of fact, shortly before the election the god-king himself said, “spending is necessary to boost an economy that is likely to get worse before it gets better…deficits don’t matter, we can’t worry, short-term, about the deficit.”

Want to try again or do you want to wait for the talking points?

23

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
(The below is in reference to income tax, for which I have the figures – the same principle would apply to capital gains tax.)

Ah, I see.

Those small businesses – most of which file their profits as personal 1040 income – that have been paying at a 33% rate, thus having 67 dollars out of every 100 of profit left to them, and will under Obama be taxed at a 39% rate (I read in some major media source within the last couple of days it will be over 39% though) and therefore have only 61 or fewer dollars left to them, will not see this as having only 61/67ths or less of their profits remaining, and thus less left for anything that might grow their business or hire more people.

Nope, they will see it as taxes just going back to what they {“really have been all along” and thus no change, no increase! And therefore no adverse effect on the economy.

It is only those double-speaking right wingers that would call going from 33% to 39% or more a “tax increase.” You are right.[/quote]

In other words 2% of small business would be effected by this.
It’s funny, because Limbaugh went on about this just today, saying “most businesses” would have their taxes raised, which must be confusing, since factually “most will not”. I wonder how many of his listeners assumed he was telling the truth.

24

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
100meters wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
End result is the same: He’s raising taxes in a recession. I’m waiting for someone to tell me why this is a good idea. I’m also willing to let you explain how increasing the CG tax to 20% (from 15%) will spur investment, growth, and all the other good things that happen when you move OUT of a recession.

It’s a good idea, because we have to lower the deficit. So likely we’ll be cutting spending and letting taxes return to their “communist” but still historically very low levels of 2000.

Oh, well then maybe it would have been an even better idea to NOT BLOW OUT THE DEFICIT BY ANOTHER TRILLION DOLLARS IN HIS FIRST FOUR WEEKS IN OFFICE with the recent tera-pork bill, ya think?

[/quote]

Which is like saying it would have been a good idea to not have followed Bush’s macro-economic policies, since we now need a trillion dollar stimulus to begin to repair the damage.

I forget did Bush raise or lower taxes and did the deficit go up or down? And how’d they go under Reagan/Bush?

25

[quote]100meters wrote:
He’s not imposing. He’s letting the tax cuts expire on the wealthy.
[/quote]
Semantics. Tax rates have much higher. Why don’t we run them back up to great depression rates?

What exactly do you mean here? What long term costs were being hidden? What don’t pay for themselves?

26

[quote]100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
So, increasing taxation by 1% of GDP reduces GDP by 3%?

Well worth it to reduce the country’s total production, therefore total wealth produced, if it means those fat cats will have less! I will feel better then! And that is well worth me being poorer as a result too!

You’ve really hit the nail on the head with this line of thought. There are those who would accept the nation as a whole being worse off, as long as those dastardly rich folks were hurt in the process.

Just how bad were they hurting in the year 2000? [/quote]

Look. Just explain why increasing the cap-gains tax from 15 to 20 when it will bring LESS money to the fed AND stifle investment AND decrease personal wealth AND harm retirement accounts and investments (owned by many, many people who are a far cry from being rich) is a GOOD idea and the issue will rest. That’s the original question.

You know, you do not have to defend the indefensible, even if it means disagreeing with Mr. Hope.

27

[quote]ProwlCat wrote:
100meters wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
100meters wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
I’m still clinging to hope that the sources have their facts wrong.

It’s being widely reported that Obama will announce in his speech to congress tomorrow that he’s imposing an increase in the captial gains tax.

Let me understand this: Even the most liberal economists oppose this because it will actually result in LESS tax revenue. Clinton reduced it, tax receipts rose. Bush reduced it further, tax receipts rose again. The trend is simple: Lower taxes = MORE investment = MORE tax $ for the fed.

By raising the tax we’ll see LESS investment and LESS revenue for the federal government.

The market is headed under 7,000. People are losing their savings, 401Ks, etc. Don’t we WANT more investment? Don’t we WANT people to EARN? Doesn’t the fed WANT more tax dollars?

Someone help me out here. What am I missing? WHY would a president do something that is bad for government, bad for citizens? Perhaps someone can give us an opinion as why this is actually a GOOD thing?
He’s not imposing. He’s letting the tax cuts expire on the wealthy. That’s the way republicans wrote them into law, with expiration dates in 2010, so they could , you know, hide the long-term costs, as in these things don’t pay for themselves.

End result is the same: He’s raising taxes in a recession. I’m waiting for someone to tell me why this is a good idea. I’m also willing to let you explain how increasing the CG tax to 20% (from 15%) will spur investment, growth, and all the other good things that happen when you move OUT of a recession.

It’s a good idea, because we have to lower the deficit. So likely we’ll be cutting spending and letting taxes return to their “communist” but still historically very low levels of 2000.

If we have to lower the deficit so badly, why did Pelosi, Reid, and Obama just add an extra trillion-plus dollars to it? Weren’t we just hearing last week that the deficit is irrelevant at times like this? As a matter of fact, shortly before the election the god-king himself said, “spending is necessary to boost an economy that is likely to get worse before it gets better…deficits don’t matter, we can’t worry, short-term, about the deficit.”

Want to try again or do you want to wait for the talking points?
[/quote]
We either massively spend right now or go through a long, long, pronounced depression with devastating consequences. Longer-term and assuming we get through this, we have to pay down this inherited deficit. This is basic economics.

28

[quote]100meters wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
100meters wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
End result is the same: He’s raising taxes in a recession. I’m waiting for someone to tell me why this is a good idea. I’m also willing to let you explain how increasing the CG tax to 20% (from 15%) will spur investment, growth, and all the other good things that happen when you move OUT of a recession.

It’s a good idea, because we have to lower the deficit. So likely we’ll be cutting spending and letting taxes return to their “communist” but still historically very low levels of 2000.

Oh, well then maybe it would have been an even better idea to NOT BLOW OUT THE DEFICIT BY ANOTHER TRILLION DOLLARS IN HIS FIRST FOUR WEEKS IN OFFICE with the recent tera-pork bill, ya think?

Which is like saying it would have been a good idea to not have followed Bush’s macro-economic policies, since we now need a trillion dollar stimulus to begin to repair the damage.[/quote]

Wrong

Maybe you should do some research, and include “spending” among the things you look at. Include national defense considerations (humor us and either operate under the assumption that such expenses are necessary, or isolate that as separate issue, which it is.)

Lastly, find out what a government sponsored entity is, determine if that is what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are, and tell us whether GSE’s are under the control of the executive branch or the legislative. And see if you can remember who has been running Congress the last couple of years.

29

[quote]100meters wrote:

It’s a good idea, because we have to lower the deficit. So likely we’ll be cutting spending and letting taxes return to their “communist” but still historically very low levels of 2000.[/quote]

how many times does it have be explained to you that raising taxes is not a zero sum game. For every dollar you raise, you do some multiple of harm. It’s quite probabe that raising tax rates on those who already pay most of the income tax willl result in less revenue. Do you plan on closing the deficite with % points or dollars? Why can’t you grasp this? Every single thing they do and you defend is undermining the economy in very real terms.

30

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
So, increasing taxation by 1% of GDP reduces GDP by 3%?

Well worth it to reduce the country’s total production, therefore total wealth produced, if it means those fat cats will have less! I will feel better then! And that is well worth me being poorer as a result too![/quote]

The lakes will be pristine again, the sky clear and blue. You will probably die when you’re 35, but industry was shut down so the toads and antelope can run and play.

If you’re over 35, turn towards the nearest and dirtiest factory you can, and say a silent ‘thanks’.

31

[quote]dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:
He’s not imposing. He’s letting the tax cuts expire on the wealthy.

Semantics. Tax rates have much higher. Why don’t we run them back up to great depression rates?

That’s the way republicans wrote them into law, with expiration dates in 2010, so they could , you know, hide the long-term costs, as in these things don’t pay for themselves.

What exactly do you mean here? What long term costs were being hidden? What don’t pay for themselves?
[/quote]

2000 wasn’t the great depression.

The sunsets on the tax cuts were written to hide the long term costs of the taxcuts, under the assumption that they’d be passed in the fu ture, but thanks to the sunsets wouldn’t have to be currently (currently as in when the tax cuts were enacted) accounted for on the 10 year budget projections.

Tax cuts don’t pay for themselves. See 2000-2008.

32

[quote]100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
So, increasing taxation by 1% of GDP reduces GDP by 3%?

Well worth it to reduce the country’s total production, therefore total wealth produced, if it means those fat cats will have less! I will feel better then! And that is well worth me being poorer as a result too!

You’ve really hit the nail on the head with this line of thought. There are those who would accept the nation as a whole being worse off, as long as those dastardly rich folks were hurt in the process.

Just how bad were they hurting in the year 2000? [/quote]

Compared to what? How well of we all would have been with less gov’t spending and intervention? If this is what you mean then we were all hurting pretty bad.

33

[quote]100meters wrote:
We either massively spend right now or go through a long, long, pronounced depression with devastating consequences. Longer-term and assuming we get through this, we have to pay down this inherited deficit. This is basic economics.
[/quote]

I suggest changing your screen name to “KoolAidDrinker”

34

if CD taxes are so terrible

why weren’t they removed completely during Reagan or any of the Bush years?

or completely gutted to insignificant levels?

if having lower CD tax = more Fed revenue, wouldn’t having NO CD tax = much more Fed revenue?

I agree with you guys that the stupid robber gang mentality exists in politics, especially when its narrowed down to two parties.

but the CG tax is dropped, and people benefiting from that make money, and the Fed makes money (balancing out losses from CD tax?) people will be pissed if there’s no expansion of social programs for them to use.

of course people will be pissed if everyone but them is making money from the action of their own government.

35

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

Which is like saying it would have been a good idea to not have followed Bush’s macro-economic policies, since we now need a trillion dollar stimulus to begin to repair the damage.

Wrong

I forget did Bush raise or lower taxes and did the deficit go up or down? And how’d they go under Reagan/Bush?

Maybe you should do some research, and include “spending” among the things you look at. Include national defense considerations (humor us and either operate under the assumption that such expenses are necessary, or isolate that as separate issue, which it is.)[/quote]

We just passed the stimulus, and did so because we’re facing a 2-3 trillion dollar shortcoming in the next 2 years. That’s an inherited problem. So by wrong, you mean right–because it’s already happened.

Yes, they spent more too, that’s what republicans typically do. So you have revenue shortfalls and massive spending. That’s why we don’t listen to republicans on economic matters right?

36

[quote]100meters wrote:
dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:
He’s not imposing. He’s letting the tax cuts expire on the wealthy.

Semantics. Tax rates have much higher. Why don’t we run them back up to great depression rates?

That’s the way republicans wrote them into law, with expiration dates in 2010, so they could , you know, hide the long-term costs, as in these things don’t pay for themselves.

What exactly do you mean here? What long term costs were being hidden? What don’t pay for themselves?

2000 wasn’t the great depression.

The sunsets on the tax cuts were written to hide the long term costs of the taxcuts, under the assumption that they’d be passed in the fu ture, but thanks to the sunsets wouldn’t have to be currently (currently as in when the tax cuts were enacted) accounted for on the 10 year budget projections.

Tax cuts don’t pay for themselves. See 2000-2008.[/quote]

Do you understand the difference between causation and correlation? Was there nothing else happening in the late 90s early 2000s that could have possibly contributed to economic result?

Back to the question at hand. How much more money to do think raising tax rates will raise? And at what cost? You seem perfectly happy to mortgage our entire economic future to solve immediate issues. What you will soon find out is that we won’t even receive short term benefit from any of this.

You seem incapable of looking past immediate assumed results, so I guess you will just have to hang out and wait to see what’s going to happen.

37

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
100meters wrote:
We either massively spend right now or go through a long, long, pronounced depression with devastating consequences. Longer-term and assuming we get through this, we have to pay down this inherited deficit. This is basic economics.

I suggest changing your screen name to “KoolAidDrinker”[/quote]

So you live at home too? I’m noticing there’s a lot of wingnuts in here posing as adults. Most of us old enough to know understand we have a major recession going on.

Of course if you get to old like McCain, then you think the fundamentals of the economy are strong. So you’re either 15 or 75 years old. Given this is T-Nation, I’ll assume 15.

38

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
if CD taxes are so terrible

why weren’t they removed completely during Reagan or any of the Bush years?

or completely gutted to insignificant levels?

if having lower CD tax = more Fed revenue, wouldn’t having NO CD tax = much more Fed revenue? [/quote]

I am not sure, but I seem to remember from arithmetic class that zero percent of something, even a large number, is still zero.

The Laffer Curve is called that because it is a CURVE with an inflection point, not a straight line. It is not that revenues from taxes increase as tax rates decrease no matter how much they decrease: that would be nonsensical for the above reason I gave. But rather that there is an optimal area, and either exceeding that percentage rate or going below it decreases revenues. Taxes at the time Reagan brought this to public attention were above that optimal point.

It’s already been shown that capital gains rates above the current rate yield less revenue.

It is not the case that zero percent would yield more revenue from this source: in fact it would yield zero revenue from this source.

39

Correction, 100meters: on further evidence just provided, the most appropriate screen name for you would be Idiot.

Goodbye.

40

[quote]100meters wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
100meters wrote:
We either massively spend right now or go through a long, long, pronounced depression with devastating consequences. Longer-term and assuming we get through this, we have to pay down this inherited deficit. This is basic economics.

I suggest changing your screen name to “KoolAidDrinker”

So you live at home too? I’m noticing there’s a lot of wingnuts in here posing as adults. Most of us old enough to know understand we have a major recession going on.

Of course if you get to old like McCain, then you think the fundamentals of the economy are strong. So you’re either 15 or 75 years old. Given this is T-Nation, I’ll assume 15.[/quote]

You are an economic moron. most here understand this. I think you are starting to understand this yourself.