EVERYONE who believes people should pay taxes believe people should "share the wealth"

Even the FAIR TAX is "sharing the wealth"

This is such a stupid argument some of you are making.

10/23/2008 11:22:06 AM

He was using the term "share" the wealth to mean redistribution of wealth, something that fiscal conservatives unequivocally do NOT believe in.

10/23/2008 11:23:49 AM

Quote :

"Barack Obama, though, is an unashamed socialist who honestly believes in this "share the wealth" entitlement mentality"

If you watch the full Joe the Plumber coversation on YouTube (he spent about 6 minutes talking to this guy and answering his questions) it's pretty clear that that's a mischaracterization. He's left of McCain for sure, but right of Europe by about 19,000 miles.

[Edited on October 23, 2008 at 11:25 AM. Reason : ]

10/23/2008 11:24:59 AM

Quote :

"How often? And how often, compared to instances when the CGT was raised?"

Capital gains revenues almost always drop precipitously when the tax rate is increased. This is because capital gains can be deferred for years at a time, allowing investors to wait until rates are cut before realizing those gains and paying taxes on them.

Judge for yourself, from the graph:



No doubt you will blame this on market cycles, as you have done in the past when confronted with evidence that does not support your populist leanings.

This is a good read from the Congressional Budget Office:

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3856&type=0

[Edited on October 23, 2008 at 11:33 AM. Reason : 2]

10/23/2008 11:30:37 AM

^ That looks like an argument for raising taxes to help get out of recessions. You can see that the declines in d/dt(GDP) consistently come BEFORE the increases in tax rate on the highest earners in each case and the increases in d/dt(GDP) start DURING the higher tax periods.

While that is of course a week argument, it's better than claiming that somehow shows what you suggest it does. How are you making that claim exactly?

I mean the data seems to show that what has been done in the past is that taxes were raised after the economy began to slow, and then lowered after it began to take off. Perhaps you could argue that lowering taxes while your economy is beginning to heat up is a good way to keep it heating up- but at the same time the data does not seem to suggest that capital gains taxes (what most of the data deals with) have anything to do with the commencement of decrease in GDP growth.

[Edited on October 23, 2008 at 11:42 AM. Reason : ]

10/23/2008 11:39:14 AM

It's pretty obvious that the sharp declines in capital gains realizations came in anticipation of the tax rate increases.

Read the link.

I don't know why you are talking about GDP growth because that's not what the graph pertains to.

Gains/GDP refers to capital gains realizations as a percentage of overall GDP.

[Edited on October 23, 2008 at 11:46 AM. Reason : 2]

10/23/2008 11:44:04 AM

its just common sense. If you are penalized less for investing, people will invest more. If you penalize them more.. people will invest less, which leads to bear markets and cash strapped companies.

10/23/2008 11:47:19 AM

^eh, it's not quite that simple, although that plays a part.

From my link:

Quote :

"Because taxes are paid on realized rather than accrued capital gains, taxpayers have a great deal of control over when they pay their capital gains taxes. By choosing to hold on to an asset, a taxpayer defers the tax. The incentive to do that--even when it might otherwise be financially desirable to sell an asset--is known as the lock-in effect. As a consequence of that incentive, the level of the tax rate can substantially influence when asset holders realize their gains, as can be seen particularly clearly when tax rates change. "

[Edited on October 23, 2008 at 11:52 AM. Reason : 2]

10/23/2008 11:50:45 AM

Oh ok, yeah I misread that as gains in GDP. I was trying to see something that actually meant something- as opposed to the ratio of capital gains realizations to GDP. That's not a metric of the health of the economy that has real meaning. If real GDP increases and that ratio goes up, then it means that while GDP increased, capital gains increased at a higher rate. That is expected, but represents more of the economic growth going into a particular form of wealth generation than others- not anything good excatly. Just a shift in the type of investment that is earning more money.

If GDP shrinks and capital gains taxes drop, you can still see this ratio go up since those methods of wealth generation become more desireable. At the same, the economy would be shrinking and people would be feeling a pinch overall.

What I'm saying is that other an interesting depiction of market dynamics, this really says nothing. Nothing that matters to 90-95% of Americans in terms of comfort and economic security. Sure it effects stock prices to some extent, but even then there is more driving those numbers than is presented there. That is, it's not a purely x(y) function- the value of those methods of wealth generation are also driven by the health of the economy and not just how much they're taxed. Also, the health of the economy is not driven by the tax rates or value of those assets.

[Edited on October 23, 2008 at 11:58 AM. Reason : ]

10/23/2008 11:52:57 AM

Quote :

"What I'm saying is that other an interesting depiction of market dynamics, this really says nothing."

It says exactly what I said on the previous page and was challenged on:

Quote :

"The problem with raising taxes on capital gains is that historically, they have often resulted in LESS revenue"

Nothing more, nothing less.

[Edited on October 23, 2008 at 11:57 AM. Reason : 2]

10/23/2008 11:55:25 AM

Quote :

"its just common sense. If you are penalized less for investing, people will invest more. If you penalize them more.. people will invest less, which leads to bear markets and cash strapped companies. "

eyedrb

I agree 100% with you here

But I think we differ in what each of us believe is a "penalty," you only take the capital gains tax into account. But what if McCain continues the Bush economics that causes you to LOSE money when you invest!?? That's why I consider a penalty.

Under Clinton, people didn't feel much penalized, so they invested.

I believe people need to take much more than the capital gains tax alone into account when determining what the real "penalty" for investment is.

10/23/2008 11:55:26 AM

What are these "Bush economics" that you refer to?

10/23/2008 11:57:07 AM

Jesus Christ

10/23/2008 11:59:16 AM

Quote :

"they have often resulted in LESS revenue"

Oh, less capital gains tax revenue. I think I should get some sleep.

10/23/2008 12:03:15 PM

its basic risks vs. rewards. If you risk your money on the market, which is what it is, and then the govt wants to take away a portion of that rewards, it gets to a point where each person, as individuals, determines that its just not worth the risk to invest. That point differs with each person, but you do affect greater and greater numbers of people who will opt out as the penalities increase. imo ESP in a down market. (although I stick with dollar cost averaging over the long term)

10/23/2008 12:09:13 PM

Quote :

""How often? And how often, compared to instances when the CGT was raised?" Capital gains revenues almost always drop precipitously when the tax rate is increased. This is because capital gains can be deferred for years at a time, allowing investors to wait until rates are cut before realizing those gains and paying taxes on them. Judge for yourself, from the graph: "

The graph doesn't depict what you're describing. CGT didn't drop precipitously at any point merely because of tax rate increases, they only restored to their natural levels. The realizations spiked from low-high transitions, which is to be expected, but in periods of stabilization, people will do with their capital what they need to do, regardless of the tax rate. If you look for the 20 or so years between 1952 and 1970, the rate didn't change much, and realizations increased regularly. The graph is not big enough to infer other trends in the stable periods. All that's needed is stabilization. It doesn't make sense to have a capital gains tax below the average tax rate for top 20% or so anyway.

Quote :

"No doubt you will blame this on market cycles, as you have done in the past when confronted with evidence that does not support your populist leanings."

Umm... when did I ever do this?

10/23/2008 12:34:22 PM

Man...this is crazy. Someone uncovered a video of Michelle Obama making racist remarks.


http://wonkette.com/400294/michelle-obama-shock-tape-god-damn-you-american-whitey

10/23/2008 12:50:40 PM

Quote :

"CGT didn't drop precipitously at any point merely because of tax rate increases, they only restored to their natural levels. "

Damn, you're thick-headed and hate to concede a point. Take off the blinders for a minute. Of course gains trended upwards from 1952-1970, it was a period of relatively low capital gains tax rates and increasing investment. Since that time, every tax increase has corresponded with a decrease in gains realizations. It's incredibly obvious from that graph. Ignore the spikes if you want, the biggest decreases in realizations came about during periods of relatively high (30%+) capital gains taxes, and the biggest increases came when taxes were lower. Do I have to plot the regressive correlation coefficients for you?

Quote :

"Umm... when did I ever do this?"

Pretty much every time you talk about economics and are pointed to evidence that refutes your argument. The thread that I believe you started about higher taxes leading to economic booms is a good example. It was a ridiculous premise, but when refuted with evidence and graphs you decided to misinterpret them to support your original argument.

Quote :

"Like all true ideologues, they find a way to interpret mounting evidence of error as proof that they were right all along."

This describes you very well.

[Edited on October 23, 2008 at 12:55 PM. Reason : 2]

10/23/2008 12:53:28 PM

fine, no one liked my rickroll


I will contribute for real.


In 2004, the federal estate and gift taxes combined raised about $24.8 billion, up from $20.4 billion in 1997, a rather significant growth rate considering the enlargement of the exemption and the reduction in maximum rates wrought by the Economic Growth and Tax Reconciliation Act of 2001.


Another example of tax revenues increasing as tax rates decrease, significantly in this example. At the very least, this should serve as an example of taking away rich peoples motivation to use tax attorneys to lower their estate tax burden and thereby increasing tax revenues.

10/23/2008 1:06:03 PM

Quote :

" 1. Barack Obama must be an anarcho-syndicalist because he believes in the power of unions. 2. Barack Obama must be a Whig because he believes in the government's role in building infrastructure and education. 3. Barack Obama must be a Gaullist because he believes in regulating banks. 4. Barack Obama must be a neo-Aristotelianist because he was a community organizer. 5. Barack Obama must be a Dadaist because cow. "

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/in-brief-other-political-ideologies.html

10/23/2008 1:57:37 PM

Quote :

"its just common sense. If you are penalized less for investing, people will invest more."

Is not this true for any tax.....

substitute 'investing'/'invest' for...

working/work

buying cars

owning property

getting cigarettes

etc

10/23/2008 2:17:37 PM

you relate those absurd charges on obama and undermind the real issue

10/23/2008 2:18:11 PM

the tax code of this country is geared towards encouraging investing. That's why retirement investments are taken out pre-tax and you aren't taxed on them.

10/23/2008 2:25:37 PM

Quote :

"Barack Obama must be an anarcho-syndicalist"

Ah, if only.

10/23/2008 2:29:21 PM

Quote :

"substitute 'investing'/'invest' for... working/work buying cars owning property getting cigarettes etc "

Ok hoss, I see a lot less lambos on the streets than I see civics. And smoking is actually down, which most attribute to the taxes increased. Now what happened to mortgage loans and car loans when the interests rates were low? Did more or less people seek these items?

Good example though, way to think it through.

10/23/2008 2:30:12 PM

i actually think he was agreeing with you, fwiw.

10/23/2008 2:34:44 PM

LOL

10/23/2008 2:42:48 PM

really? Then I totally missed his point. My apologies if true HUR.

10/23/2008 2:43:44 PM

Quote :

"Take off the blinders for a minute. Of course gains trended upwards from 1952-1970, it was a period of relatively low capital gains tax rates and increasing investment. Since that time, every tax increase has corresponded with a decrease in gains realizations. It's incredibly obvious from that graph. Ignore the spikes if you want, the biggest decreases in realizations came about during periods of relatively high (30%+) capital gains taxes. "

Between 1976 and 1981, CGT dropped significantly, with a DROP in tax revenue. From 1984 to 1995, when you ignore the spike of people anticipating a rate increase, tax revenue went UP despite a raise in the capital gains tax, and from 1996 to 2006, overall tax revenue DROPPED even though CGT dropped too.

What this indicates, as I stated previously, is that you only get significant, temporary, fluctuations when things are about to change. All you have to do if you wanted to make tax revenues spike temporarily is merely PRETEND you're going to raise the tax, people will freak, sell stuff, and then you just could not raise taxes, and you'll make money. But as far as material effect on the way people actually use their money, the tax doesn't make that big of a difference. If I want to sell a house, i'll sell it regardless, if I need to liquidate some stock to buy a boat, i'll do it, if i'm in a position where i need to save my money, i'll do it, and the numbers bare this out. This effect really is obvious once you compare it to average tax rates. http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/cgtax05.html

Quote :

"The thread that I believe you started about higher taxes leading to economic booms is a good example. It was a ridiculous premise, but when refuted with evidence and graphs you decided to misinterpret them to support your original argument."

I think you're thinking of another poster.

[Edited on October 23, 2008 at 3:34 PM. Reason : ]

10/23/2008 3:33:35 PM

What ever happened to Capitalism???

The issues come down to if you support Socialism type policies or Corporatism type policies. There is nothing capatilistic about the current bailout.

10/23/2008 3:57:11 PM

Quote :

"If I want to sell a house, i'll sell it regardless, if I need to liquidate some stock to buy a boat, i'll do it, if i'm in a position where i need to save my money, i'll do it, and the numbers bare this out. "

Actually, they bear out the opposite, that capital gains may easily be deferred or accelerated in anticipation of a rate change. It's obvious that the 2 major drivers of capital gains revenues are the stock market and changes in the capital gains tax rate. I maintain that a hike in the CG tax rate would result in a momentary spike and then a precipitous drop in revenues.

It's funny how we can look at the same graph and come up with very different conclusions.

Quote :

"I think you're thinking of another poster."

Maybe so. If so, I apologize.

10/23/2008 6:02:35 PM

Quote :

". I maintain that a hike in the CG "

Not the hike itself, but the anticipation of the hike.

If people waited until after the hike, that'd be kind of dumb, especially if they knew before they hike they wanted to sell.

10/23/2008 6:38:35 PM

Of course. I thought that went without saying.

10/23/2008 6:39:45 PM

I accept that, but doesn't that mean then that a higher capital gains tax isn't necessarily bad (by "bad" i mean consistently lower revenues)? Or at least, you can't clearly say a lower tax will perpetually lead to higher revenues?

10/23/2008 6:42:16 PM

Quote :

"There is nothing capatilistic about the current bailout. "

I agree.

I think this country is like an alcoholic with our spending/credit and going through some DTs now. All while our "leaders" are inventing news ways for us to get another drink. Its insane. imo

10/23/2008 8:09:57 PM

You know what is funny to me regarding this crisis and the election and you being a right wing kool aid drinker (because I'm dieing to see what sort of reply you drum up to this little bit of news)

Let's take 3 of McCain's and Obama's economic advisors and see what we find

McCain

1) Carly Fiorina - Nearly destroyed HP and was ultimately booted from the company
2) Kevin Hassett - Claimed in 1999 that the dow would be at 36,000 within 5 years. Ooops.
3) Nancy Pfotenhauer - Former VP for a company heavily involved in all sorts of commodities, married a mortgate industry lobbyist.
(honorary) Phil Gramm - Nuff said

Obama

1) Paul Volker - Fed Chair under Carter and Regan
2) Robert Rubin and Larry Summers - Both Clinton era Treasury Secretaries
3) Robert Reich - Clinton Secretary of Labor

And you wonder why your candidate is so clueless when it comes to the economy?



It's reasons like this why McCain is getting destroyed. And here is the thing about "executive experience" that annoys me. It's a boring argument to claim Palin has more than Obama, what does that even mean in relation to the Presidency? It's pretty clear how well run the Obama campaign is that any executive deficiency he might have had to MacPalin has been erased and then some when you look at how rock solid of a job they have done with this election.

[Edited on October 23, 2008 at 8:43 PM. Reason : more]

10/23/2008 8:34:56 PM

Quote :

"It's a boring argument to claim Palin has more than Obama, what does that even mean in relation to the Presidency"

It means she has more experience reading speeches from a teleprompter, using tax payer money to wine and dine, and she knows how to listen to advisers who create the decisions that run policy.

10/23/2008 9:01:35 PM

looks like Obama really is a socialist

http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng47.html#anchor781435

http://www.chicagodsa.org/page2.html

yes, that is directly from their website

10/24/2008 4:39:40 AM

Do you even know what you are talking about? I'm curious, which right wing nut job website did you get that bit of info from? I'd like to take a gander.




[Edited on October 24, 2008 at 11:44 AM. Reason : Lemme guess, freerepublic.com?]

10/24/2008 11:40:52 AM

^^ He asked them to pass out his flyers and new-voter pamphlets in 1996. So.... what?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27062761/

OMFG it looks like John McCain really IS a terrorist! Oh no wait, that is ALSO an idiotic statement.

10/24/2008 12:06:53 PM

Quote :

"It's pretty clear how well run the Obama campaign is that any executive deficiency he might have had to MacPalin has been erased and then some when you look at how rock solid of a job they have done with this election."

Never really cared for this line of thought.

It's one thing to run an organization created specifically to accomplish a singular, short-term goal.

It's quite another to head up multiple bureaucracies with competing, diverging, and often conflicting goals, while still balancing the overall interests of the whole.

No doubt that Obama's campaign management reflects favorably upon him. I just don't think it's the end-all, be-all of executive experience some have made it out to be.

10/24/2008 12:29:05 PM

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10132008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/an_obama_panic__133374.htm

Quote :

"AN OBAMA PANIC? MARKETS FEAR HIS POLICIES Barack Obama has re mained cool and confident amid the financial melt down, even as John McCain at times has been embarrassing, lurching from one proposal to the next. But while the polls are reflecting Obama's steady hand, the markets haven't. In fact, they're getting worse by the day as Obama's lead widens. See Gasparino Talk About Obama's Economics on CNBC. Most investors know the devil is in the details - and the details of Obama's economic plans are anything but reassuring. Of course, the market turmoil is first a reflection of grim reality - the bursting of the housing bubble and the billions upon billions in writedowns and losses that have forced upon the hugely leveraged financial firms companies that had cranked big profits during the bubble years. The resulting credit crunch is hitting Main Street harder than ever before. The country is headed for recession; the only question is: Just how low can the markets and economy go? It could be a lot lower - it all depends on the policies of the next president. And, as it looks increasingly likely that Obama will be that man, the markets are casting a vote of "no confidence." To be fair, McCain hardly instills confidence among the Wall Streeters I speak to. Why has his campaign spent the last week focusing on Obama's friendship with former terrorist William Ayers - when it should be hitting Obama's blind loyalty to policies that bring together the worst elements of Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter? Recently, Obama said he wants to expedite loans to small businesses, so he seems to have a clue that they produce much of the country's job growth. Yet his income-tax hike on upper brackets will hit vast numbers of small businesses - they'd face the highest rates they've seen in decades. Overall, his plan includes some of the most lethal tax increases imaginable, including a jump in the capital-gains rate. He'd expand government spending massively, with everything from new public-works projects to increases in foreign aid to a surge in Afghanistan - plus hand out a token $500 welfare check that he calls a tax cut to everyone else. CONTINUED This is clearly the wrong way to go in the wake of an economic meltdown - yet Obama, for all his talk of how willing he is to compromise, of how he'd bring people together, is sticking to his tax guns. I know at least one top Wall Street executive, an Obama supporter from the start of his campaign, who has recently urged Obama to rethink his tax plan - and that was before last week's record losses on the Dow. But if Obama is rethinking, he's not saying. As his running mate, Joe Biden tells us that it's patriotic to pay higher taxes, Obama remains committed to squeezing businesses even if the recession grows. The closest evidence I could find of compromise from Obama on taxes came in a June interview with CNBC, when he said: "Some of those [tax hikes] you could possibly defer. But I think the basic principle of restoring fairness to our economy and encouraging bottom-up economic growth is important." It's easy to understand why so many of my colleagues in the media have fallen head over heels for Obama. He's smart, ambitious and cool under pressure. But what is he really like under the surface? Some reckon that a President Obama won't go through with his plans. They look at his (thin) record and see a wimp who's never taken a firm stand on much of anything, much less enacting tax hikes during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. I look at Obama's record differently. From his days as a community activist, to his years in the Illinois Senate and now his brief time in the US Senate, he has shown little inclination to deviate from his party's tax-and-spend orthodoxy. And if he governs like a liberal ideologue - with a belief that the government that works best is the one that's biggest and raises taxes the most - he won't even have to work hard to get his way. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won't stop him - the Democratic majorities in Congress are only likely to grow. And the markets know this - even if pundits (even many of the financial ones) refuse to face it. No one can blame the faltering stock market solely on Obama's tax plans or McCain's own inanity on economic issues. But stock prices reflect current market conditions plus best guesses of what's coming down the road. And I keep hearing nervous traders and investors talk about "a lack of leadership from Washington." "

10/24/2008 12:31:14 PM

N
Y
P
O
S
T

where their readers post comments like this

Quote :

"What we are witnessing here is the transition from one system to another. From Capitalism to Marxism. Wall Street senses Obama will destroy capitalism and close Wall Street as soon as Obama takes power. Obama has said he will redistribute wealth. So that means that violence might be just around the corner, the poor might be ready to rise and take properties,jewels and money from the rich. Obama probably will fuel this movement to "spread the wealth" Investors are selling and fleeing Wall Street, Obama will destroy and shut down Wall Street whom Obama considers Corrupt thieves. I for one sold all my stocks and are 100% cash, euros and gold and I'm looking for a safe heaven in Europe."

Can you spot all of the ridiculous mistakes and pure craziness?

10/24/2008 12:33:27 PM

Quote :

"Never really cared for this line of thought. It's one thing to run an organization created specifically to accomplish a singular, short-term goal. It's quite another to head up multiple bureaucracies with competing, diverging, and often conflicting goals, while still balancing the overall interests of the whole. No doubt that Obama's campaign management reflects favorably upon him. I just don't think it's the end-all, be-all of executive experience some have made it out to be."

I'm not implying that running a successful well organized campaign is going to translate into being able to run the Presidency. But I also don't think you can discount the experience of a year(s) long campaign. When you look at what they have done and when you look at people they are surrounding themselves with, it's a helluva lot more encouraging than what the McPalin camp is doing. If they are fumbling their campaign, if they are surrounding themselves with bobbleheads and friends that aren't cutting it now, I can't imagine they'll do anything different once they have the whitehouse.

10/24/2008 12:47:34 PM

Quote :

"Can you spot all of the ridiculous mistakes and pure craziness?"

i think my favorite and most subtle of the things in that response was the fact that he wants to shut down shop and move to europe... a place where the policies of those who are considered their "conservatives" are further left than a lot of obama's

10/10

10/24/2008 1:56:30 PM

Quote :

"Do you even know what you are talking about? I'm curious, which right wing nut job website did you get that bit of info from? I'd like to take a gander."

http://www.google.com

10/24/2008 2:21:50 PM

When someone has been given much, much will be required in return.

10/25/2008 12:15:10 PM

obama being a socialist isn't really even a bad thing. Rich people just make up ghost stories about how it will ruin the economy when it will actually boost it because a lot of their extra money is going back into the economy instead of sitting somewhere.

You look at Northern Europe and they are light years ahead of us. They have continued to progress forward with 21st century ways of thinking while America has been left in the 20th century. Its really sad when you thinki about it.

Also there needs to be laws implemented to stop people from moving money overseas and evading taxes. It can be done so don't say it can't.

10/25/2008 12:23:59 PM

Quote :

"They have continued to progress forward with 21st century ways of thinking while America has been left in the 20th century."

Don't be silly. Social structures don't determine progress. Crazy tech does. In that area, we're evenly matched. Europe has the LHC, while we've got NASA and DARPA.

More seriously, Europe isn't so different. They do a bit better in measures such as overall health and economic equality. They ain't light-years ahead of us.

10/25/2008 1:11:20 PM

wethebest, as I have told you many times, in many ways Europe is more capitalistic than America is, especially Northern Europe. On thursday we had a guest lecturer here on campus that, as an asside, explained how in much of Europe's rivers are private property and operated by a corporation. If you want to drink from the river, you must pay market prices. It is because Europeans learned long ago that anything not privately owned is not taken care of, and as a result of government miss-management over the centuries lots of people died.

Try suggesting such a market system here in America and the farmers will cry bloody murder.

[Edited on October 26, 2008 at 12:36 AM. Reason : .,.]

10/26/2008 12:35:56 AM