ACORN? Ayers?

Sarah? Is that you?

Anonymous wrote:Here is an essay on the dubious case for preferential capital gains tax treatment. I agree with about half of it, and that is enough to convince me.

BTW most of my income is through capital gains and dividends.

Essay??

Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
The funny thing about this is that Democrats wants to now raise the capital gains rate but they've shown that the government is incapable of allocating those resources in an efficient manner. ROmney was, but if you give all that money to the people living in squalor in Potomac Gardens I bet they'll end up in the same situation. You can try and try but you can't tax your way to some sense of equality. But hey you can try, and you can be envious of the wealthy and the successful. Stupid government workers.

Wow! So you are in favor of the government allocating resources. You are a socialist.


??
In the case of capital gains tax. The government through the use of tax rates(earned income by wages is taxed higher then cap gains income) causes the markets to shift resources to capital gains.(government influencing the allocation of resources) The people receiving the discounted tax rate on capital gains are receiving a distributions of money based on government policy. Therefore, you are in favor of "Stupid government workers""allocating those resources" through tax policy. You are taking money from one group and giving it to another. You, by today's standards, are a socialist.

The argument against lower capital gains has NOTHING to do with whether the government can allocate resources better or worse. If the tax rates were made uniform, the government would have NO greater role in allocating resources. In fact, one can lower the income tax rate and increase the capital gains rate. That is what ocurred during the Reagan Administration. who no doubt would be considered a socialist today.

One can legitimately debate whether the government (versus the private sector) is good at making investment decisions. But let's be real. There are multiple examples of the private sector making huge investment decisions that failed. VCs regularly lose money on their investments, but obviously the good ones make more than they lose. But even the best VCs lose money. Lets take the Internet Bubble or the real estate bubble, where the private sector drove up prices and then discovered that they paid too much. What caused, at least in part, the Great Recession? The Wall Street idiots (who claimed to be among our best and brightest) created financial instruments that were so complicated that they did NOT fully understand them. So, lets get real. The private sector has a long history of making dumb investment decisions. Someone no doubt will argue that, when the private sector makes a bad investment decision, only the applicable investors suffer. That is flatly wrong. Private sector bubbles create problems that extend well beyond the immediate investors, and that becomes the debatable rationale for bailing out the investors, which is exactly what Bush 2 and Congress did with TARP. That money was used to bail out wealthy investors. Look what is happening in Europe. The debate is over how to bail out NOT Greece, but the investors in Greek bonds. In my view, Greece should simply say we default! That is what tea partiers would have had the US do back in 2008.

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://money.cnn.com/pf/taxes/storysupplement/candidates-tax-returns/?iid=SF_PF_LN
Rich, Gingrich and crazy rich
Which presidential candidate paid the most in taxes? Who is the most charitable?
Here's an inside look at the top candidates' 2010 income tax returns.

I look at that $20k in alimony from Newt's return and I just shake my head. Those greedy exes.

It's sad that I gave more in charitable contributions than Newt Gingrich. What a loser, the dude made so much more than I did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The "Buffet Rule" is the idea that billionaires should not pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries. The "Romney Rule" apparently is that billionaires who pay a tax rate of 13.9% on $21.6 million in income should maintain Swiss and Cayman Island bank accounts and run for president on a platform that would lower taxes on people like himself while raising them on lower income earners.

Remember earlier discussions on DCUM when several posters assured us that the Buffet Rule was unnecessary because the wealthy actually do pay their fair share? Mitt Romney is a walking contradiction to that suggestion. An added bonus of Romney's tax release is that we have learned that this year he closed his Swiss and Cayman Island accounts because he is "running for President for Pete's sake".

Why d'you wanna start a class war? Job creators, etc...

The evidence that lower capital gains taxes create jobs is at best very very weak. A few examples. During most of the Clinton Admin, capital gains were NOT taxed at a lower rate. Over 20 million jobs were created during his time. During Bush II (with lower capital gains and lower income tax rates), only 1 million jobs were created. And, if you focus solely on the private sector jobs, Bush II resulted in a net DECREASE in private sector jobs of approximately 500,000 jobs.

ACORN? Ayers?

Wow! There is a discussion about tax policy and the effectiveness of lower capital gains taxes. And someone raises ACORN (the charges against whom were found to be not much) and Ayers (who is an idiot). One may have to explain the relevance here!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The "Buffet Rule" is the idea that billionaires should not pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries. The "Romney Rule" apparently is that billionaires who pay a tax rate of 13.9% on $21.6 million in income should maintain Swiss and Cayman Island bank accounts and run for president on a platform that would lower taxes on people like himself while raising them on lower income earners.

Remember earlier discussions on DCUM when several posters assured us that the Buffet Rule was unnecessary because the wealthy actually do pay their fair share? Mitt Romney is a walking contradiction to that suggestion. An added bonus of Romney's tax release is that we have learned that this year he closed his Swiss and Cayman Island accounts because he is "running for President for Pete's sake".

Why d'you wanna start a class war? Job creators, etc...

The evidence that lower capital gains taxes create jobs is at best very very weak. A few examples. During most of the Clinton Admin, capital gains were NOT taxed at a lower rate. Over 20 million jobs were created during his time. During Bush II (with lower capital gains and lower income tax rates), only 1 million jobs were created. And, if you focus solely on the private sector jobs, Bush II resulted in a net DECREASE in private sector jobs of approximately 500,000 jobs.

ACORN? Ayers?

That has to be the saddest response of the thread. Is that what a conservative Tourette's sounds like?

takoma wrote:I think Romney is what is called a wealthfare king.

You need to write that Wealthfare King (tm) and go print some T shirts.

I think Romney is what is called a wealthfare king.

Anonymous wrote:
The funny thing about this is that Democrats wants to now raise the capital gains rate but they've shown that the government is incapable of allocating those resources in an efficient manner. ROmney was, but if you give all that money to the people living in squalor in Potomac Gardens I bet they'll end up in the same situation. You can try and try but you can't tax your way to some sense of equality. But hey you can try, and you can be envious of the wealthy and the successful. Stupid government workers.

Wow! So you are in favor of the government allocating resources. You are a socialist.


??
In the case of capital gains tax. The government through the use of tax rates(earned income by wages is taxed higher then cap gains income) causes the markets to shift resources to capital gains.(government influencing the allocation of resources) The people receiving the discounted tax rate on capital gains are receiving a distributions of money based on government policy. Therefore, you are in favor of "Stupid government workers""allocating those resources" through tax policy. You are taking money from one group and giving it to another. You, by today's standards, are a socialist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The "Buffet Rule" is the idea that billionaires should not pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries. The "Romney Rule" apparently is that billionaires who pay a tax rate of 13.9% on $21.6 million in income should maintain Swiss and Cayman Island bank accounts and run for president on a platform that would lower taxes on people like himself while raising them on lower income earners.

Remember earlier discussions on DCUM when several posters assured us that the Buffet Rule was unnecessary because the wealthy actually do pay their fair share? Mitt Romney is a walking contradiction to that suggestion. An added bonus of Romney's tax release is that we have learned that this year he closed his Swiss and Cayman Island accounts because he is "running for President for Pete's sake".

Why d'you wanna start a class war? Job creators, etc...

The evidence that lower capital gains taxes create jobs is at best very very weak. A few examples. During most of the Clinton Admin, capital gains were NOT taxed at a lower rate. Over 20 million jobs were created during his time. During Bush II (with lower capital gains and lower income tax rates), only 1 million jobs were created. And, if you focus solely on the private sector jobs, Bush II resulted in a net DECREASE in private sector jobs of approximately 500,000 jobs.

ACORN? Ayers?

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://money.cnn.com/pf/taxes/storysupplement/candidates-tax-returns/?iid=SF_PF_LN
Rich, Gingrich and crazy rich
Which presidential candidate paid the most in taxes? Who is the most charitable?
Here's an inside look at the top candidates' 2010 income tax returns.

I look at that $20k in alimony from Newt's return and I just shake my head. Those greedy exes.

Well, he sure can pick 'em:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/callista-gingrich-spotted-at-tiffany/

Here is an essay on the dubious case for preferential capital gains tax treatment. I agree with about half of it, and that is enough to convince me.

BTW most of my income is through capital gains and dividends.

Anonymous wrote:http://money.cnn.com/pf/taxes/storysupplement/candidates-tax-returns/?iid=SF_PF_LN
Rich, Gingrich and crazy rich
Which presidential candidate paid the most in taxes? Who is the most charitable?
Here's an inside look at the top candidates' 2010 income tax returns.

I look at that $20k in alimony from Newt's return and I just shake my head. Those greedy exes.

The more significant issue for the primary, I think, and the reason he wanted to wait to release the returns until April (when he thought he'd have the nomination locked up) is the amount of his contribution, tithe, or whatever you want to call it to the Mormon church. I doubt the evangelicals, who are already suspicious of him, will view that favorably.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The "Buffet Rule" is the idea that billionaires should not pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries. The "Romney Rule" apparently is that billionaires who pay a tax rate of 13.9% on $21.6 million in income should maintain Swiss and Cayman Island bank accounts and run for president on a platform that would lower taxes on people like himself while raising them on lower income earners.

Remember earlier discussions on DCUM when several posters assured us that the Buffet Rule was unnecessary because the wealthy actually do pay their fair share? Mitt Romney is a walking contradiction to that suggestion. An added bonus of Romney's tax release is that we have learned that this year he closed his Swiss and Cayman Island accounts because he is "running for President for Pete's sake".

Why d'you wanna start a class war? Job creators, etc...

The evidence that lower capital gains taxes create jobs is at best very very weak. A few examples. During most of the Clinton Admin, capital gains were NOT taxed at a lower rate. Over 20 million jobs were created during his time. During Bush II (with lower capital gains and lower income tax rates), only 1 million jobs were created. And, if you focus solely on the private sector jobs, Bush II resulted in a net DECREASE in private sector jobs of approximately 500,000 jobs.