Jauronimo Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 The only thing more amusing than watching birdog get his face kicked in on a daily basis is seeing him show up the next day and claim the intellectual high ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 It would be helpful if the discussion is focused on which taxes we're talking about personal or corporate. Seems to be a lot of mixing up in the discussion. Still, there's no dispute that Mr Obama's and Ms Yellen's policies have exacerbated income and wealth inequality over the last 5 years. QE is Obama's economic policy. So you see them on TV. Congratulations. Correct me if I'm wrong, but corporations don't pay cap gains,right? Their gains are paid at ordinary income rates.That's the issue that "my friends" here are arguing, the capital gains differential is a subsidy to investors to invest in growth over income (dividend) stocks. If the purpose is to create an incentive for businesses to expand their productive investments, it's a very weak transmission mechanism. While it's a boon to investors, it doesn't really impact the investment decision (which is based on expected sales and profit growth) as I've argued. I would think that a better incentive would be to directly subsidize the investment spending by firms. In reality, the cap gains subsidy is a subsidy for those who invest...the rich... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Correct me if I'm wrong, but corporations don't pay cap gains,right? Their gains are paid at ordinary income rates. That's the issue that "my friends" here are arguing, the capital gains differential is a subsidy to investors to invest in growth over income (dividend) stocks. If the purpose is to create an incentive for businesses to expand their productive investments, it's a very weak transmission mechanism. While it's a boon to investors, it doesn't really impact the investment decision (which is based on expected sales and profit growth) as I've argued. I would think that a better incentive would be to directly subsidize the investment spending by firms. In reality, the cap gains subsidy is a subsidy for those who invest...the rich... Not quite. Because corporations pay the full tax bore, you rarely see transactions that would merit the full taxation on the capital gain. That "subsidy" is gained by corporations utilizing the numerous M&A techniques that avoid the tax altogether. Because a smart tax policy works towards maximizing revenue without introducing friction to creating capital that grows and economy. Smart tax policy recognizes that lowering tax rates is not a subsidy to the people who earned that income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Smart tax policy recognizes that lowering tax rates is not a subsidy to the people who earned that income. Further, using the term "subsidy" in this sense is a direct implication that all assets are justly the property of the Federal government, who are doling out resources to the fortunate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 i wouldn't bow to you if i had multible lumbar vertebral compression fx's. roubini was swimming upstream from his esteemed peers. you're barely treading water. So his swimming upstream from his peers is less impressive than my swimming upstream from those for whom I am not an esteemed peer? I mean, you could argue a blind squirrel/stopped clock moment...except that I'd posted the outline of my reasoning right here, based on my contemporary industry knowledge and experience, and had people take notice a couple years later when I was demonstrated correct. So how is it, again, that Roubini is more authoritative than I? Bow, little monkey, bow! The only thing more amusing than watching birdog get his face kicked in on a daily basis is seeing him show up the next day and claim the intellectual high ground. Claim it based on somebody else's intellect, no less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 23, 2014 Author Share Posted October 23, 2014 And now you're adding this to your argument as to why cap gains should be taxed as income? :doh: :doh: Your argument has gotten so convoluted you don't even remember what you were orginally arguing against. No, you are lost. I'm not arguing "should" I'm arguing why they are not. Those paying capital gains taxes have better lobbying organizations. People that work for a living don't. I stated that before but you and the other doped changed the subject to cocaine addicts or something. Further, using the term "subsidy" in this sense is a direct implication that all assets are justly the property of the Federal government, who are doling out resources to the fortunate. Doesn't the Federal government do just that when it creates more money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 No, you are lost. I'm not arguing "should" I'm arguing why they are not. Those paying capital gains taxes have better lobbying organizations. People that work for a living don't. I stated that before but you and the other doped changed the subject to cocaine addicts or something. Source with affirmative data? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 23, 2014 Author Share Posted October 23, 2014 Source with affirmative data? Only if you first state it's wrong, then I'll prove it right. Not till then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Doesn't the Federal government do just that when it creates more money? Doesn't it do what? And the Federal Reserve is a private institution. Only if you first state it's wrong, then I'll prove it right. Not till then Why do you insist on being the most useless and lazy poster here? There are no special rules just for you. You've made an assertion. Source it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 23, 2014 Author Share Posted October 23, 2014 Doesn't it do what? And the Federal Reserve is a private institution. The federal reserve is what??? You don't know anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 The federal reserve is what??? You don't know anything Well, technically there are 12 Federal Reserve Banks who's stakeholders are made up the member private banks. (according to factcheck.org, those member banks represent 38% of some 8000 or so banks). But yes, they are a private institution and not a government entity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Only if you first state it's wrong, then I'll prove it right. Not till then It's wrong. Ok........GO! No, you are lost. I'm not arguing "should" I'm arguing why they are not. Those paying capital gains taxes have better lobbying organizations. People that work for a living don't. I stated that before but you and the other doped changed the subject to cocaine addicts or something. So people that pay cap gains taxes don't work for a living? What the !@#$ is wrong with you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 23, 2014 Author Share Posted October 23, 2014 Well, technically there are 12 Federal Reserve Banks who's stakeholders are made up the member private banks. (according to factcheck.org, those member banks represent 38% of some 8000 or so banks). But yes, they are a private institution and not a government entity. Lol!!!! It's wrong. Ok........GO! Just to be clear, you are saying the middle class has greater lobbying power than the wealthy? That's stupid, but, ya, you probably think that So people that pay cap gains taxes don't work for a living? What the !@#$ is wrong with you? How in the world did you reach that conclusion? *I'm thinking alcohol was involved, but that's just a guess... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 How in the world did you reach that conclusion? By reading what you wrote. Only if you first state it's wrong, then I'll prove it right. Not till then It's wrong! Ok.....GO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 23, 2014 Author Share Posted October 23, 2014 By reading what you wrote. So you are drunk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 So you are drunk No, just reading what you wrote. Only if you first state it's wrong, then I'll prove it right. Not till then It's wrong! Ok........Go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Lol!!!! ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 23, 2014 Author Share Posted October 23, 2014 ... You are so ignorant. It is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Get a clue moron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 You are so ignorant. It is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Get a clue moron you might want to do a bit of fact-checking on that before you start naming anyone 'moron'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 You are so ignorant. It is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Get a clue moron You're both wrong. you might want to do a bit of fact-checking on that before you start naming anyone 'moron'. I got this one for you, gatorman. The Federal Reserve web site has a .gov domain, so it's a government entity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts