Next Time, Let's Elect Adults!

[Bigfatbillsfan]

 

 

Paul Ryan vs Barack Obama in the Octagon

 

Ryan is ripped as hell. He'd break Obama in half and squash his balls between his bicepts (sp).

 

Now Paul Ryan vs Michelle Obama in the Octagon? That would be worth a fee for pay per view.

 

 

 

In this particular case, though, "both sides do it" is entirely accurate and reasonable. Each side of the aisle refuses to be flexible on their own dogma, and is putting the good of their party over the good of the country.

 

News flash: there IS no solution to this that falls along any dogmatic lines. Both sides are going to have to give something up. Republicans are going to have to agree to raise taxes. Democrats are going to have to agree to cut spending. That's called "compromise". Otherwise, their party dogma is going to get run over by fiscal karma.

 

A rare reasonable post from Tom. Here here!!

 

[3rdnlng]

 

 

I don't think you can draw a straight correlation because capital gains are realized when the economy is booming. The logic for keeping these rates low (and for other investment income) is not to trap that discretionary income. You want the investment income back into circulation to keep the capital flowing.

 

Yes, I agree with you but also believe that once the economy is moving along fairly decent then capital gains realization can lead to further improving the economy. Therefore capital gains not only bring the government revenue from them being taxed but spur other revenue for the government when that money is reinvested, much of it in payroll taxes and personal income tax.

Edited December 7, 2012 by 3rdnlng

[TPS]

Yes, it is in the definition of is.

 

Without the extraordinary rise in cap gains receipts (while the rate went DOWN for the progressives with a limited attention span) there would have been no surpluses.

Well, duh! though, going off 1996 as a base, take away the extra $50 bil in 1999, there's no surplus; take away an the extra $60 bil, there's still a surplus.

There is no comparison on which factor is more important for the total additional revenues generated--growth and lower unemployment generated 80% of the ADDITIONAL revenues from 1997-2000; capital gains 20%.

[B-Man]

“Aid is just a stop-gap. Commerce [and] entrepreneurial capitalism takes more people out of poverty than aid.” - Bono

 

 

 

.

[GG]

Well, duh! though, going off 1996 as a base, take away the extra $50 bil in 1999, there's no surplus; take away an the extra $60 bil, there's still a surplus.

There is no comparison on which factor is more important for the total additional revenues generated--growth and lower unemployment generated 80% of the ADDITIONAL revenues from 1997-2000; capital gains 20%.

 

Not sure I understand what you're talking about the '96 base. But you still skirt around the topic of why did revenues increase much more rapidly after '96, when the unemployment rate was declining at roughly the same pace from '92 - '00. Do you think it was a mere coincidence that the timing matches Clinton's embrace of the private sector and a move to the center to get reelected?

[TPS]

Not sure I understand what you're talking about the '96 base. But you still skirt around the topic of why did revenues increase much more rapidly after '96, when the unemployment rate was declining at roughly the same pace from '92 - '00. Do you think it was a mere coincidence that the timing matches Clinton's embrace of the private sector and a move to the center to get reelected?

If you assume no change in the cap gains tax and revenues are ='96 value, how much more revenue was generated in each year from 97-00 by cap gains? $13; $23; $46; $61 (add $66 to each of these to get the actual cap gains revenue each year).

So you think those values are more important than the additional revenues generated by increased income?

 

The unemployment rate dropped a bit faster in the latter period because real growth was faster. From 93-96 growth averaged 3.5%, and from 97-00 it was 4.4%. Y2K and the internet bubble were the big pushers of real investment expenditures. Cap gains increased, but it was NOT the main driver of the revenue increase--it helped, but real GDP growth generates more income taxes because it spreads income gains across a wider base.

 

And, No, a cap gains tax rate cut did not stimulate higher growth. It generated a higher after-tax return for wealthholders, and that doesn't impact the investment decision of corporations.

[3rdnlng]

If you assume no change in the cap gains tax and revenues are ='96 value, how much more revenue was generated in each year from 97-00 by cap gains? $13; $23; $46; $61 (add $66 to each of these to get the actual cap gains revenue each year).

So you think those values are more important than the additional revenues generated by increased income?

 

The unemployment rate dropped a bit faster in the latter period because real growth was faster. From 93-96 growth averaged 3.5%, and from 97-00 it was 4.4%. Y2K and the internet bubble were the big pushers of real investment expenditures. Cap gains increased, but it was NOT the main driver of the revenue increase--it helped, but real GDP growth generates more income taxes because it spreads income gains across a wider base.

 

And, No, a cap gains tax rate cut did not stimulate higher growth. It generated a higher after-tax return for wealthholders, and that doesn't impact the investment decision of corporations.

 

 

What do the wealtholders do with their wealth?

[Cinga]

Ryan is ripped as hell. He'd break Obama in half and squash his balls between his bicepts (sp).

 

Now Paul Ryan vs Michelle Obama in the Octagon? That would be worth a fee for pay per view.

 

 

 

A rare reasonable post from Tom. Here here!!

 

You owe me a new keyboard!!!! I love the idea of a Ryan/Michelle knock down drag out!!!

[3rdnlng]

 

 

You owe me a new keyboard!!!! I love the idea of a Ryan/Michelle knock down drag out!!!

 

Ryan, the Great White Hope? He'd have no problem finding her butt in order to kick it.

Ryan.bmp

Edited December 7, 2012 by 3rdnlng

[B-Man]

Deck The Halls With Macro Follies.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7uKnd6IEiO0

[TPS]

What do the wealtholders do with their wealth?

Buy more paper assets and cause bubbles

[3rdnlng]

Buy more paper assets and cause bubbles

 

Phucking liberal academic, not willing to think outside the progressive's talking points.

[GG]

 

 

Phucking liberal academic, not willing to think outside the progressive's talking points.

 

He's got a bit of a point if you paid attention to the last two crashes.

[TPS]

He's got a bit of a point if you paid attention to the last two crashes.

Another sign of the coming apocalypse...

[3rdnlng]

Another sign of the coming apocalypse...

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/low-capital-gains-taxes-actually-help-growth-2012-10

 

 

 

 

"The left keeps banging away at the preferential tax treatment of capital gains income. And that may be good politics. But is it good economics? Here is Tino Sanandaji, explaining the meaning of the above chart from his must-read, must-follow blog:

 

Again we see a remarkably strong association between the capital gains tax and Venture Capital Investments. Following tax cuts in the late 1970s Venture Capital fund-raising explodes.

 

The tax increase a decade later is followed by a decline in committed fund. Investments again increased when Clinton cuts the capital gains tax in the late 1990s. The Bush-tax-cut – which the left claims had no effect – is also followed by an uptick in Venture Capital investments as a share of GDP." …

 

 

 

 

Edited December 8, 2012 by 3rdnlng

[GG]

If you assume no change in the cap gains tax and revenues are ='96 value, how much more revenue was generated in each year from 97-00 by cap gains? $13; $23; $46; $61 (add $66 to each of these to get the actual cap gains revenue each year).

So you think those values are more important than the additional revenues generated by increased income?

 

The unemployment rate dropped a bit faster in the latter period because real growth was faster. From 93-96 growth averaged 3.5%, and from 97-00 it was 4.4%. Y2K and the internet bubble were the big pushers of real investment expenditures. Cap gains increased, but it was NOT the main driver of the revenue increase--it helped, but real GDP growth generates more income taxes because it spreads income gains across a wider base.

 

Not so fast professor. The topic is tax rates. You can't just throw in GDP growth in there because we haven't come to the conclusion of what is the cause and what is the outcome. And it's particularly germane today because the President insists that he can jump start growth and reduce the deficit by simply taxing the wealthy and browbeat the private sector to get off its collective ass.

 

And economic growth, or lack thereof is the biggest thing that's wrong right now. So let's revisit Clinton's fiscal policy during his entire eight year term, and not a glossed over tagline that he balanced the budget (and I think we may have been through this before, but it will be refreshing to the newbies).

 

Thanks for pointing out that GDP growth was higher in Clinton's second term than in his first term, which in itself is extraordinary since he came in on the heels of a recession and should have basked in the glow of the recovery. And he had a fairly healthy first year, until he decided to roll the dice on Clintoncare and start raising taxes. The response was severe - growth came to a halt in '95 and he was facing a double dip. That was the only reason his first term growth averaged 3.5%, because by the end of '94 growth was up to 5.6% and then hit a brick wall. Real growth surged again when Clinton listened to Morris and private sector got convinced that he wouldn't stand in the way. Oh, and unemployment declines were fairly similar between first and second terms. But the main difference was the economy, stupid.

 

Now you can argue that the only reason Clinton changed tack was because he was facing a reelection, so his lurch to the right was self-preservation, while Obama doesn't have to worry about the election and keep plugging away to prove that Krugman is right. But judging the private sector's response to Clinton's different attitudes and actions between his first and second terms, Obama would be wise to pay attention.

 

And, No, a cap gains tax rate cut did not stimulate higher growth. It generated a higher after-tax return for wealthholders, and that doesn't impact the investment decision of corporations.

 

While I smacked 3rd on this point, you're being too dismissive of the effect of lowering the rates. Of course it generates a higher after tax return for the holders, but it also creates another currency for the assets which is used for growth (M&A, compensation, etc) It's not a direct line, but that's the beauty of capitalism, free it to do its own thing and growth will follow (with inevitable downcycles that are endemic)

[3rdnlng]

 

 

Not so fast professor. The topic is tax rates. You can't just throw in GDP growth in there because we haven't come to the conclusion of what is the cause and what is the outcome. And it's particularly germane today because the President insists that he can jump start growth and reduce the deficit by simply taxing the wealthy and browbeat the private sector to get off its collective ass.

 

And economic growth, or lack thereof is the biggest thing that's wrong right now. So let's revisit Clinton's fiscal policy during his entire eight year term, and not a glossed over tagline that he balanced the budget (and I think we may have been through this before, but it will be refreshing to the newbies).

 

 

Thanks for pointing out that GDP growth was higher in Clinton's second term than in his first term, which in itself is extraordinary since he came in on the heels of a recession and should have basked in the glow of the recovery. And he had a fairly healthy first year, until he decided to roll the dice on Clintoncare and start raising taxes. The response was severe - growth came to a halt in '95 and he was facing a double dip. That was the only reason his first term growth averaged 3.5%, because by the end of '94 growth was up to 5.6% and then hit a brick wall. Real growth surged again when Clinton listened to Morris and private sector got convinced that he wouldn't stand in the way. Oh, and unemployment declines were fairly similar between first and second terms. But the main difference was the economy, stupid.

 

Now you can argue that the only reason Clinton changed tack was because he was facing a reelection, so his lurch to the right was self-preservation, while Obama doesn't have to worry about the election and keep plugging away to prove that Krugman is right. But judging the private sector's response to Clinton's different attitudes and actions between his first and second terms, Obama would be wise to pay attention.

 

 

 

While I smacked 3rd on this point, you're being too dismissive of the effect of lowering the rates. Of course it generates a higher after tax return for the holders, but it also creates another currency for the assets which is used for growth (M&A, compensation, etc) It's not a direct line, but that's the beauty of capitalism, free it to do its own thing and growth will follow (with inevitable downcycles that are endemic)

 

I woke up today without any bruises, so I guess it wasn't that bad. Anyway, I"m the kind of guy that wants to make the pie bigger, rather than assuming the pie is going to stay the same size and justifying that the government can continue to consume more. They want more, allow the pie to grow. I think the short side of one out of five pieces will work just fine for them. On top of that you don't screw with the pie makers---the Soviet Union took 60 years to figure that one out.

[Adam]

It's painfully obvious that the democrats don't want to cut a nickel and would actually prefer to increase spending. They control 2 of 3 bodies. This alone is the problem plain and simple.

The reason they control two of the three is yet another problem

[Adam]

http://www.businessi...-growth-2012-10

 

 

 

 

"The left keeps banging away at the preferential tax treatment of capital gains income. And that may be good politics. But is it good economics? Here is Tino Sanandaji, explaining the meaning of the above chart from his must-read, must-follow blog:

 

Again we see a remarkably strong association between the capital gains tax and Venture Capital Investments. Following tax cuts in the late 1970s Venture Capital fund-raising explodes.

 

The tax increase a decade later is followed by a decline in committed fund. Investments again increased when Clinton cuts the capital gains tax in the late 1990s. The Bush-tax-cut – which the left claims had no effect – is also followed by an uptick in Venture Capital investments as a share of GDP." …

For once I agree with you. INcreasing capital gains tax won't have a good effect on the economy. Some of it is talking points and other is just panic because we talk about the dang deficit so much. Fix the trade deficit and the deficit will pretty much pay itself off over time. What do you think about lowering the minimum wage, to make maufacturing jobs here, competitive with where they are now?

[3rdnlng]

 

For once I agree with you. INcreasing capital gains tax won't have a good effect on the economy. Some of it is talking points and other is just panic because we talk about the dang deficit so much. Fix the trade deficit and the deficit will pretty much pay itself off over time. What do you think about lowering the minimum wage, to make maufacturing jobs here, competitive with where they are now?

 

Instead of lowering the minimum wage and making the dems the permanent party in power, how about finding a way to make our vast stores of energy the cheapest in the world so that we can offer cheap and secure energy to domestic manufacturers?

Edited December 12, 2012 by 3rdnlng