boom my hairy ass..did you see the chart? here is the picture for ya- it did last for a while...until everyone who can-did leave the country..that's why everything is made in china,not in us anymore...sorry, but i don't get it, how more taxes can boost economy..damn day trading make me stupid i guess...
The economic health of the country does not show up on the NASDAQ chart. In 1993 under President Clinton, taxes on upper incomes were increased. Many Republican congressmen predicted this would lead to a recession, "kill jobs," and so increase the federal deficit. There are many influences on the economy. That said, this tax increase on the rich was followed by: - the US's longest peacetime economic expansion, - the creation of 23 million new jobs in eight years, - an increase in the median household income by $6000 over eight years, - high tax revenue, elimination of the federal deficit, and the first surpluses in 40 years and low inflation. In 1997 President Clinton agreed to giving investment income and gains favored tax treatment over income from work. Perhaps this economic distortion contributed to the "irrational exuberance" dot-com stock market bubble. That bubble burst 4 years later in 2001, triggering the recession that year. Two-thirds of President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts went to the top 5% incomes earners. They gave further favored tax treatment to the investing class. He said the cuts would stimulate the economy, create jobs, and so increase tax revenue. His tax cuts for the rich were followed by: - a choppy economy (average GDP growth a low 2.5%), - only 3 million new jobs (1/8th of Clinton & the lowest rate among last 11 presidents) - widening economic disparity between poor and rich, - a decrease in the median household income by $1000 over eight years, - a large drop in tax revenue with doubling of the national debt, - and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930's.
Wasn't this around the same time that Washington was pushing to everyone to be able to own a home? That worked out well too... Changes take time, and not everything is so one-dimensional. Blaming the crisis on bush is inaccurate.
Ideas like this are what causes economic trouble. I see where you are coming from though. Nothing to be ashamed of. Some just can't help it, like Hitler said that capital gains are "effortless income", hence his 100% tax on capital gains above a meager amount.
If this is to be the case. Such taxation will drive investors out of the stockmarket. They will seek other investments. One being private placements in oil and gas, with the 100% write offs against gross income, with 15% tax free revenue coming from a commercially successful well. The stockmarket will dry up and trend sideways if the Dems are successful, leaving the middle class with very little return on any money they invest. Obamanomics mission, destroy the middle class?
Fairest economic reform is a flat tax on all forms of economic gain - wage income, investment income, and realised capital gains. And also to remove systemic inflation by abolishing fractional reserve banking - inflation taxes the assetless i.e. the poor & working class, whereas the middle class and upper class own assets which are natural inflation hedges. This would also have the benefit of avoiding banking collapses and thus lowering the number and size of recessions, lowering national debt and taxation (no bailouts needed), and lowering the risk premium (cheaper cost of capital = more economic growth, jobs, and profits). Taxing unrealized capital gains is pretty silly, and grossly unjust...unless you think a working stiff on 40k whose house goes from 150k to 450k and back to 150k should pay 120k tax - 3 times his annual gross income - for breaking even. There's also the problem of how to pay tax on illiquid assets with unrealized gains - if someone builds a factory and it doubles in value, how are they supposed to pay the tax, sell it? The other communist propaganda is not worth of a response - you may have more luck on the Daily Kos forums.
You raise some valid points. We disagree on a philosophical level however. If you think the Rich family should be taxed at a higher rate, you think that the gov't can do a better job of investing/spending that money than the Rich family. It's that simple. Your attachment said that the Rich's had their money in mutual funds. I'm sure the mutual fund manager appreciates his job, as does her secretary, the janitor that cleans their office at night and so on. I'm sure the people who invested their money in building the condo that the Rich's live in are happy to have a renter so they can get a return on their investment. What do you think rich people do with their money? Keep it under their matress so no one else can get to it? No, they do two things with it: spend it, or invest it. Maybe they buy a luxury car. So what? They guy who works in the car factory is happy they did. Maybe they buy expensive imported wine. The guy who picks grapes is glad they did, as is the shop owner who sold the bottle to them, and everybody else in between. What the Rich's aren't spending, they have invested. They put their money in a bank, and the bank turns around and lends it to the Smith's so they can buy a house or a car. The Rich's can be original investors, directly lending their money to someone so they can start a business. Or the Rich's can put their money in a mutual fund, so the people who were original investors can get their money back out, and again lend it to a new group of people who want to start businesses. I have no problem with taxes, I understand we need some taxes to maintain our society. I have a problem with the gov't telling me they know better how to spend my money than I do. I don't like spending my money bailing out millionaire bankers. I don't like spending my money on wars in the middle east. I don't like spending my money on two frickin years of unemployment benefits. Explain how exactly wealth distortion ruins our economy.
Yep. The rich do more consumer spending than the poor. They have huge pools, huge mansions, and huge expenditures which all help grow the economy. The more rich, the more consumer spending, the more jobs. If everybody in USA was rich, we didn't need credit cards or loans to get consumer spending rolling.
To EMR Global: All household net worth over about $500,000 would be taxed at 1-2%. So moving money out of the stock market would do an investor no good. To Ghost: In the original post I say it id impractical to tax unrealized gains. For one thing the tax revenue would swing wildly form year to year. The 1-2% tax on net worth is essentially a 20% tax on presumed average 7% total returns, close to what workers pay. In compenstaion my proposal eliminates realized capital gains taxes, estate taxes, perhaps even qualified dividend taxes. Some young guy "If you think the Rich family should be taxed at a higher rate, you think that the gov't can do a better job of investing/spending that money than the Rich family. It's that simple." No its not that simple. The Riches should be taxed more so the Smiths can be taxed less, since the Smiths have much less ability to pay and have profited much less form the services governments provide (Where would businesses and investors be without roads, an educated work force, monetary policy, basic science research, elderly still able to spend rather than live in poverty..?) The Richs should also be taxed more because, even with all the spending cuts that can be gotten through any Congress, we are running huge deficits. I agree there is about 20% of government spending that could be cut, but its's not going to happen no matter who holds Congress) Thus, we are saddling our kids and their kids with debt instead of investing their future. The Richs add to economy, but so do the Smiths. Under my proposal the Smith's still pay 13K in annual total taxes (down form 21K). The Richs pay 19K, up from 5K. This seems proportional to their ability to pay. With the extra money the Smiths spending goes up more than the Rich's would go down. The Rich's would probably invest a little less. It's wrong to assume more investment is good - > which gets to your last question: Both favored tax treatment and great wealth disparity encourage more investments (fact) When investment is out of proportion to investment/spending, too much money chases too few worhty investments (fact) By supply and demand investment prices soar to levels that do not justify the returns they can produce (fact) This is a bubble. Bubble bursts and then we have a recession. Workers and investors suffer. (fact) We've had a decade of favored tax treatment for investment and huge wealth disparity: the result is that workers are out of work, wages have dropped, and the stock market is down about 20% over a decade! The supply-side tricke-down is not working out for anyone. All this is complex but important - Spend and hour looking over http://elitetrader.com and I'll spend and hour looking over something you suggest