This is typical. There is all sorts of argument and redirection of the conversation. “You bastard you made fun of the poor and food stamps!” God DAMN you! But no one has even attempted to answer the original mother fucking question: How is raising the cap-gains tax good? To recap, again! It generates LESS revenue for the fed, punishes and discourages investment…BUT! It DOES punish those fat-cats! Damn them!
Can anyone make an argument? Anyone at all? Last call!
[quote]dhickey wrote:
I guess I don’t get why stocks are a poor investment compared to long bonds. Are we assuming a pure ROI model? I don’t think that is the only value stocks have. Like any other hard asset, they should provide some protection against inflation. How would long bonds look with double digit inflation? 30 years is a lot of time for stocks to provide value. Especially in a few months when stocks are REALLY cheap.
Finance is not my expertise, so maybe someone can dumb this down for me.[/quote]
I did not read the link and wouldn’t presume to judge the specific analysis.
Speaking generally though, investments or non-producing physical goods that produce litte to no enjoyment, e.g. collectible postage stamps, have value from one or both of these effects:
1b) Where the investment represents fractional ownership, the value one places on growth in value expected from growth of the owned asset, e.g. a corporation. But unless the corporation is going to be sold off for assets, this arguably is not actually an additional point, but rather could be placed under point 1: the increase in value from growth results from the increased ability to produce profits and dividends, already accounted for under point 1.
Where the market price of an investment is generated on account of being valued under the greater fool theory, it’s impossible to rationally predict value.
To some extent stocks blend these two investment aspects. People expect not only to obtain value from dividends over the years – which arguably should be the main valuation criterion and apparently is in the article in question – and expect to obtain a profit if ever selling due to higher valuation of the stock at that time due to profit-generating ability of the company, but also many believe that stocks “just go up” on top of such rational concerns.
And in some cases they do.
Risk needs to be figured as well.
If the article’s argument looks purely at dividends of stocks versus other investment instruments and does not consider that even with zero growth, on average the principal value of the stock should compensate for inflation, then the article would be missing an important point. And if expecting actual economic growth for the company then if the article is not figuring that, it is really missing it. But I don’t know how the article came to its conclusions: I’m just addressing your general question.
Bringing this back to the original topic:
Suppose under the current tax code if a share of stock yields say $5 profit that the company is able to pay out in dividends, and the IRS demands 15% taxation of these dividends thus leaving the stockholder with $4.25, stock buyers are willing to pay $100 for this, but not more than that.
(The exact number does not matter: this is illustration and will work the same for any example figure.)
Now along comes Mr Obama. First, those evil corporations aren’t paying enough corporate tax. One of those five dollars, let’s say, needs to go to pay increased taxes, leaving $4 per share to be distributed as dividends.
Next, those fat cat stockholders should not be getting away with paying only 15% tax on their dividends. They should pay 20%. Thus leaving the stockholder with only $3.20 per share.
Now, if stock buyers were willing to pay only $100 to get net dividends of $4.25, what would they rationally pay now that they can net dividends of only $3.20 thanks to what a fine “progressive” Mr Obama is?
Well, 3.20/4.25 is about 75%. They should rationally, if their concern is what they earn from their stock, be willing to pay only about 3/4 as much for their stock.
But wait!
On top of this, if the stock enjoys capital gains and they sell, it’s going to be taxed more heavily too!
So maybe not even 75%.
Gee, I wonder why the stock market started going south as soon as Obama clinched the nomination, and really tanked once he won the election?
Could it be RATIONAL adjustment of prices to reflect expected, indeed promised, tax changes?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
?Ultimately, what you get out of investing in stocks is the cash flow from dividends,? said Laurence Booth, finance professor at University of Toronto?s Rotman School of Management and a colleague of Myron J. Gordon, who developed the constant growth version of the so-called dividend discount model in 1959.
The measure, which values a stock as the sum of all its future dividends, shows equities are still overpriced. With S&P 500 companies projected to pay a combined $25.27 in dividends this year, the index would need to fall to 526.46 before investors are compensated for owning shares."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601213&sid=a0lVup_0DDwI&refer=home
The S&P 500 is currently at about 743. It must therefore drop at least 220 pts (about 30%) just to make buying those stocks worthwhile, compared to US Long Bonds. Increasing tax rates probably means the index needs to go to at least 450.
The depression has just begun.
Link doesn’t work for me. can’t see the article detail, but I think I understand the premis.
I guess I don’t get why stocks are a poor investment compared to long bonds. Are we assuming a pure ROI model? I don’t think that is the only value stocks have. Like any other hard asset, they should provide some protection against inflation. How would long bonds look with double digit inflation? 30 years is a lot of time for stocks to provide value. Especially in a few months when stocks are REALLY cheap.
Finance is not my expertise, so maybe someone can dumb this down for me.
Since the year 1900, most of the return from stocks has been the dividends. If dividends go down, there is less reason to take the risk with stocks and more reason for the absolute safety of Treasury debt.
This will cause less capital inflows (stocks). Taxing capital gains combined with reduced dividends lessens the value of stocks. These two factors are a big reason that stocks have tanked since the prospect of Obama, and then the Obama administration.
[/quote]
got it. I think i’ll take my chances with stocks when they hit the shitter. Just trying not to spend my investment money before it happens.
I have noticed all the buy gold adds drying up. Maybe it’s a good time to finally buy some gold. I need to do something with my emergency stash that will provide liquidity and inflation protection.
[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]
I literally laughed out loud reading this post. The irony is mind-numbing.
Still waiting. Raising the CG tax is good because…?
Could someone post an article that discusses Obama increasing the CG tax from 15% to 20%? Or is it just the Bush tax cuts running out in 2010?.
About the bloomberg article HH posted earlier… I have some qualms with it.
I did some stock valuations last semester on business that weren’t in the financial sector, and found that their market value at that time (this was in November 2008) reflected the opinion that the stock would be liquidated immediately. Which was nowhere NEAR what most analysts expected would happen.
Essentially, the market value of firms the firms we analyzed were severely undervalued. So I have difficulty accepting the idea that most stocks are CURRENTLY overvalued (unless, of course, we’re talking about the financial industry, which is definitely in serious shit).
Second, the article didn’t mark a distinction between dividends and free cash flows. Dividends in common parliance are what the managers give you every quarter for owning their stock. Dividends in valuation jargon can also include any profit held on by the corporation in addition to the base level of cash it needs to continue its existence. This latter definition is also referred to as free cash flows (to equity). Not knowing which definition the author is using makes me even more skeptical of his findings.
Last, as near as I can tell, banks are raising the interest rates on the loans they give to corporations. Corporations are making moves to pay down this debt instead of giving out money to shareholders in the form of dividends (first definition). That would explain why their dividends have decreased this year. That, and they haven’t been making quite as much money, because we’ve been in a recession for a while.
[quote]ProwlCat wrote:
Still waiting. Raising the CG tax is good because…?[/quote]
It still raises revenue is the answer again. taxes=revenue.
[quote]doubleh wrote:
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.
I literally laughed out loud reading this post. The irony is mind-numbing.
[/quote]
So, lowering the bush deficit is ironic or tax levels were still (relatively) low in 2000 is ironic?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
dhickey wrote:
I guess I don’t get why stocks are a poor investment compared to long bonds. Are we assuming a pure ROI model? I don’t think that is the only value stocks have. Like any other hard asset, they should provide some protection against inflation. How would long bonds look with double digit inflation? 30 years is a lot of time for stocks to provide value. Especially in a few months when stocks are REALLY cheap.
Finance is not my expertise, so maybe someone can dumb this down for me.
I did not read the link and wouldn’t presume to judge the specific analysis.
Speaking generally though, investments or non-producing physical goods that produce litte to no enjoyment, e.g. collectible postage stamps, have value from one or both of these effects:
1b) Where the investment represents fractional ownership, the value one places on growth in value expected from growth of the owned asset, e.g. a corporation. But unless the corporation is going to be sold off for assets, this arguably is not actually an additional point, but rather could be placed under point 1: the increase in value from growth results from the increased ability to produce profits and dividends, already accounted for under point 1.
Where the market price of an investment is generated on account of being valued under the greater fool theory, it’s impossible to rationally predict value.
To some extent stocks blend these two investment aspects. People expect not only to obtain value from dividends over the years – which arguably should be the main valuation criterion and apparently is in the article in question – and expect to obtain a profit if ever selling due to higher valuation of the stock at that time due to profit-generating ability of the company, but also many believe that stocks “just go up” on top of such rational concerns.
And in some cases they do.
Risk needs to be figured as well.
If the article’s argument looks purely at dividends of stocks versus other investment instruments and does not consider that even with zero growth, on average the principal value of the stock should compensate for inflation, then the article would be missing an important point. And if expecting actual economic growth for the company then if the article is not figuring that, it is really missing it. But I don’t know how the article came to its conclusions: I’m just addressing your general question.
Bringing this back to the original topic:
Suppose under the current tax code if a share of stock yields say $5 profit that the company is able to pay out in dividends, and the IRS demands 15% taxation of these dividends thus leaving the stockholder with $4.25, stock buyers are willing to pay $100 for this, but not more than that.
(The exact number does not matter: this is illustration and will work the same for any example figure.)
Now along comes Mr Obama. First, those evil corporations aren’t paying enough corporate tax. One of those five dollars, let’s say, needs to go to pay increased taxes, leaving $4 per share to be distributed as dividends.
Next, those fat cat stockholders should not be getting away with paying only 15% tax on their dividends. They should pay 20%. Thus leaving the stockholder with only $3.20 per share.
Now, if stock buyers were willing to pay only $100 to get net dividends of $4.25, what would they rationally pay now that they can net dividends of only $3.20 thanks to what a fine “progressive” Mr Obama is?
Well, 3.20/4.25 is about 75%. They should rationally, if their concern is what they earn from their stock, be willing to pay only about 3/4 as much for their stock.
But wait!
On top of this, if the stock enjoys capital gains and they sell, it’s going to be taxed more heavily too!
So maybe not even 75%.
Gee, I wonder why the stock market started going south as soon as Obama clinched the nomination, and really tanked once he won the election?
Could it be RATIONAL adjustment of prices to reflect expected, indeed promised, tax changes?
[/quote]
Uh, no. There’s a recession. The stock market started tanking during the Bush admin, and obviously we’re still in that recession.
[quote]ProwlCat wrote:
This is typical. There is all sorts of argument and redirection of the conversation. “You bastard you made fun of the poor and food stamps!” God DAMN you! But no one has even attempted to answer the original mother fucking question: How is raising the cap-gains tax good? To recap, again! It generates LESS revenue for the fed, punishes and discourages investment…BUT! It DOES punish those fat-cats! Damn them!
Can anyone make an argument? Anyone at all? Last call![/quote]
Dude, it raises revenue. You’re confused. Short term it may lead to some increase due to tax timing,etc, but longer term you just lose revenue. The CBO estimated that extending the 2003 cap gains tax cut costs 20 billion dollars over 10 years. Of course the losses from the income tax cuts really hurt, but still the point is you raise them for revenue.
Your beloved democratic icon JFK on taxes…
“In short, it is a paradoxical truth that … the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country’s own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”
? John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, news conference, my emphasis
“The largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive.”
? John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, special message to Congress on tax reduction and reform
“Expansion and modernization of the nation’s productive plant is essential to accelerate economic growth and to improve the international competitive position of American industry … An early stimulus to business investment will promote recovery and increase employment.”
? John F. Kennedy, Feb. 2, 1961, message on economic recovery
“We must start now to provide additional stimulus to the modernization of American industrial plants … I shall propose to the Congress a new tax incentive for businesses to expand their normal investment in plant and equipment.”
? John F. Kennedy, Feb. 13, 1961, National Industrial Conference Board
“A bill will be presented to the Congress for action next year. It will include an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in both corporate and personal income taxes. It will include long-needed tax reform that logic and equity demand … The billions of dollars this bill will place in the hands of the consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and permanent benefits to our economy. Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy.”
? John F. Kennedy, Aug. 13, 1962, radio and television report on the state of the national economy
“In those countries where income taxes are lower than in the United States, the ability to defer the payment of U.S. tax by retaining income in the subsidiary companies provides a tax advantage for companies operating through overseas subsidiaries that is not available to companies operating solely in the United States. Many American investors properly made use of this deferral in the conduct of their foreign investment.”
? John F. Kennedy, April 20, 1961, message to Congress on taxation
“Our present tax system … exerts too heavy a drag on growth … It reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking … The present tax load … distorts economic judgments and channels an undue amount of energy into efforts to avoid tax liabilities.”
? John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, press conference
“The present tax codes … inhibit the mobility and formation of capital, add complexities and inequities which undermine the morale of the taxpayer, and make tax avoidance rather than market factors a prime consideration in too many economic decisions.”
? John F. Kennedy, Jan. 23, 1963, special message to Congress on tax reduction and reform
“In today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit ? why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.”
? John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”
“It is no contradiction ? the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today’s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.”
? John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”
“Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort ? thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate.”
? John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.
“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”
? John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill
“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”
? John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference
“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased ? not a reduced ? flow of revenues to the federal government.”
? John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 19644
In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the Federal Government’s most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.
JFK, Dec. 14 1962
Oh, snap.
Wait, you want the whole thing?
"…I am not talking about a “quickie” or a temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm, to ease some temporary complaint. I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the last 5 years that our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking.
In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the Federal Government’s most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures."
double snap.
Not only does he advocate tax cuts, he basically says the most useful thing the gov’t can do in a recession is cut taxes, even if only temporarily…
"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other…In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country’s own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.
I repeat: our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and a budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits: a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy; or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and achieve–and I believe this can be done–a budget surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and weakness; the second reflects an investment in the future."
JFK, same day.
Fuck. The democrat hero that Obama is supposed to mirror (the other non-dem hero being Lincoln) is extolling the virtues of tax breaks AND less gov’t spending. Shit. Obama may want to rethink this stimulus clusterfuck.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
?Ultimately, what you get out of investing in stocks is the cash flow from dividends,? said Laurence Booth, finance professor at University of Toronto?s Rotman School of Management and a colleague of Myron J. Gordon, who developed the constant growth version of the so-called dividend discount model in 1959.
The measure, which values a stock as the sum of all its future dividends, shows equities are still overpriced. With S&P 500 companies projected to pay a combined $25.27 in dividends this year, the index would need to fall to 526.46 before investors are compensated for owning shares."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601213&sid=a0lVup_0DDwI&refer=home
The S&P 500 is currently at about 743. It must therefore drop at least 220 pts (about 30%) just to make buying those stocks worthwhile, compared to US Long Bonds. Increasing tax rates probably means the index needs to go to at least 450.
The depression has just begun.
Link doesn’t work for me. can’t see the article detail, but I think I understand the premis.
I guess I don’t get why stocks are a poor investment compared to long bonds. Are we assuming a pure ROI model? I don’t think that is the only value stocks have. Like any other hard asset, they should provide some protection against inflation. How would long bonds look with double digit inflation? 30 years is a lot of time for stocks to provide value. Especially in a few months when stocks are REALLY cheap.
Finance is not my expertise, so maybe someone can dumb this down for me.
Since the year 1900, most of the return from stocks has been the dividends. If dividends go down, there is less reason to take the risk with stocks and more reason for the absolute safety of Treasury debt.
This will cause less capital inflows (stocks). Taxing capital gains combined with reduced dividends lessens the value of stocks. These two factors are a big reason that stocks have tanked since the prospect of Obama, and then the Obama administration.
got it. I think i’ll take my chances with stocks when they hit the shitter. Just trying not to spend my investment money before it happens.
I have noticed all the buy gold adds drying up. Maybe it’s a good time to finally buy some gold. I need to do something with my emergency stash that will provide liquidity and inflation protection.[/quote]
The mining shares haven’t participated as much as the metal. But with the metal, you have the danger of confiscation, when the government becomes desperate. It’ll be called ‘unpatriotic’ to hoard your gold. Buy it through a discreet Swiss bank, if possible and if you want the metal.
Otherwise, put a few chips in a mining mutual fund (there are several good ones).
Note: Gold might slide somewhat for the next month or two. It recently had a pretty decent rally, from $681 to $1002. A slight pullback is in order. However, 5 years from now, I think $2500/oz is quite possible.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other…In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country’s own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.
I repeat: our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and a budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits: a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy; or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and achieve–and I believe this can be done–a budget surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and weakness; the second reflects an investment in the future."
JFK, same day.
Fuck. The democrat hero that Obama is supposed to mirror (the other non-dem hero being Lincoln) is extolling the virtues of tax breaks AND less gov’t spending. Shit. Obama may want to rethink this stimulus clusterfuck.[/quote]
The top rate under Kennedy was 91%? And under that rate he bests every republican president. Mind you in reality under kennedy tax receipts per individual as a percent of income were actually increased. (two way to raise taxes, the actual rate, and enforcement)
The good news is that we aren’t going back to that rate, but something much, much, much, much, much lower.
Aragorn, really good stuff - do you have a link? Thanks.
[quote]100meters wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
This is typical. There is all sorts of argument and redirection of the conversation. “You bastard you made fun of the poor and food stamps!” God DAMN you! But no one has even attempted to answer the original mother fucking question: How is raising the cap-gains tax good? To recap, again!
It generates LESS revenue for the fed, punishes and discourages investment…BUT! It DOES punish those fat-cats! Damn them!
Can anyone make an argument? Anyone at all? Last call!
Dude, it raises revenue. You’re confused. Short term it may lead to some increase due to tax timing,etc, but longer term you just lose revenue. The CBO estimated that extending the 2003 cap gains tax cut costs 20 billion dollars over 10 years.
Of course the losses from the income tax cuts really hurt, but still the point is you raise them for revenue.
[/quote]
Uh, dude. No it doens’t. It never has! No one - except you - is even pretending it will. For someone so well acquainted with ‘simple’ mathmatics, you seem to struggle with simple math:
Less investing = fewer investors = fewer tax (CG) taxpayers = less revenue to tax = less tax revenue. This is not income tax (that’s a whole other issue). This is a tax that people can choose NOT to pay by simply NOT investing. And that’s bad. You agree that’s not good, right?
[quote]ProwlCat wrote:
100meters wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
This is typical. There is all sorts of argument and redirection of the conversation. “You bastard you made fun of the poor and food stamps!” God DAMN you! But no one has even attempted to answer the original mother fucking question: How is raising the cap-gains tax good? To recap, again!
It generates LESS revenue for the fed, punishes and discourages investment…BUT! It DOES punish those fat-cats! Damn them!
Can anyone make an argument? Anyone at all? Last call!
Dude, it raises revenue. You’re confused. Short term it may lead to some increase due to tax timing,etc, but longer term you just lose revenue. The CBO estimated that extending the 2003 cap gains tax cut costs 20 billion dollars over 10 years.
Of course the losses from the income tax cuts really hurt, but still the point is you raise them for revenue.
Uh, dude. No it doens’t. It never has! No one - except you - is even pretending it will. For someone so well acquainted with ‘simple’ mathmatics, you seem to struggle with simple math:
Less investing = fewer investors = fewer tax (CG) taxpayers = less revenue to tax = less tax revenue. This is not income tax (that’s a whole other issue). This is a tax that people can choose NOT to pay by simply NOT investing. And that’s bad. You agree that’s not good, right?
[/quote]
It’s basic economics. He isn’t going to understand it.
Fanatics don’t let confusing things like facts change their mind, otherwise they wouldn’t be fanatics.
The market is tanking because Obama is president and Democrats are in control of congress. The markets are a predictor of the direction the economy is taking (more basic economics I know…)otherwise known as an indicator.
The market began to tank when it looked like he would get the nomination and his victory seemed likely. The market is now in a free fall because traders and investors don’t have any confidence in him or his policies.
It isn’t falling because Bush was president for the last two terms. Most money managers are fleeing to safety because it’s amateur hour in the White House and the special interests are driving the spending. Until that changes the market will continue to fall. No reason for it to turn.
A capital gains increase now will be another reason for the market to drop and wealth to decrease. Keep in mind that those who pay capital gains are not the people Obama owes and is beholden to.
Use this as your guide. Think about what Obama and his fellow traveller’s could do to fuck up the economy and that is the decision they will make. When it blows up on them, they blame Bush. Increase spending, raise tax’s, lower domestic energy production, waste money on special interests…sound familiar.
[quote]hedo wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
100meters wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
This is typical. There is all sorts of argument and redirection of the conversation. “You bastard you made fun of the poor and food stamps!” God DAMN you! But no one has even attempted to answer the original mother fucking question: How is raising the cap-gains tax good? To recap, again!
It generates LESS revenue for the fed, punishes and discourages investment…BUT! It DOES punish those fat-cats! Damn them!
Can anyone make an argument? Anyone at all? Last call!
Dude, it raises revenue. You’re confused. Short term it may lead to some increase due to tax timing,etc, but longer term you just lose revenue. The CBO estimated that extending the 2003 cap gains tax cut costs 20 billion dollars over 10 years.
Of course the losses from the income tax cuts really hurt, but still the point is you raise them for revenue.
Uh, dude. No it doens’t. It never has! No one - except you - is even pretending it will. For someone so well acquainted with ‘simple’ mathmatics, you seem to struggle with simple math:
Less investing = fewer investors = fewer tax (CG) taxpayers = less revenue to tax = less tax revenue. This is not income tax (that’s a whole other issue). This is a tax that people can choose NOT to pay by simply NOT investing. And that’s bad. You agree that’s not good, right?
It’s basic economics. He isn’t going to understand it.
Fanatics don’t let confusing things like facts change their mind, otherwise they wouldn’t be fanatics.
The market is tanking because Obama is president and Democrats are in control of congress. The markets are a predictor of the direction the economy is taking (more basic economics I know…)otherwise known as an indicator.
The market began to tank when it looked like he would get the nomination and his victory seemed likely. The market is now in a free fall because traders and investors don’t have any confidence in him or his policies. It isn’t falling because Bush was president for the last two terms.
Most money managers are fleeing to safety because it’s amateur hour in the White House and the special interests are driving the spending. Until that changes the market will continue to fall. No reason for it to turn.
A capital gains increase now will be another reason for the market to drop and wealth to decrease. Keep in mind that those who pay capital gains are not the people Obama owes and is beholden to.
Use this as your guide. Think about what Obama and his fellow traveller’s could do to fuck up the economy and that is the decision they will make. When it blows up on them, they blame Bush. Increase spending, raise tax’s, lower domestic energy production, waste money on special interests…sound familiar. [/quote]
Great explanation. I know await something from “100meters”. Something other than, “Higher taxes means more revenue, idiot!”