Tiberius Posted October 21, 2014 Author Share Posted October 21, 2014 No, you threw out some stupid. Act stupid, and you get treated like you're stupid. Oh, I'm sorry. You are right, the government is real precise with it's tax policies and crafts them according scientific metrics and I was wrong, lobbying has nothing to do with it. Ha ha ha. He's not acting... /irony Alaska Darin! You are a funny guy. Not very bright. Not even really intelligent at all. But you are funny. Not that you mean to be but it's funny to read your idiocy. Oh no, I might get banned now for insulting the dumbest guy in the room! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 I guess I'll put this (somewhat related) article here................from Thomas Sowell Predatory Journalism :The New York Times exploits other peoples ignorance of economics to score ideological points. By Thomas Sowell The New York Times is again on the warpath against what it calls “predatory lending.” Just what is predatory lending? It is lending that charges a higher interest rate than people like those at the New York Times approve of. According to such thinking — or lack of thinking — the answer is to have the government set an interest-rate ceiling at a level that will be acceptable to third parties like the New York Times. People who believe in government-set price controls — whether on interest rates charged for loans, rents charged for housing, or wages paid under minimum-wage laws — seem to think that this is the end of the story. Yet there is a vast literature on the economic repercussions of price controls. Whole books have been written just on the repercussions of rent-control laws in countries around the world. These repercussions include the housing shortages that almost invariably follow, the deterioration of existing housing, and the shift of economic resources — both construction materials and construction labor — from building ordinary housing for the general public to building luxury housing that only the affluent and the rich can afford, because that kind of housing is usually exempted from rent control. There is at least an equally vast literature on the repercussions of minimum-wage laws. Unemployment rates over 20 percent for younger, less-skilled, and less-experienced workers have been common, even in normal times — with much higher unemployment rates than that during recessions. Against this background of negative repercussions from various forms of price control, in countries around the world, why would anybody imagine that price controls on interest rates would not have repercussions that need to be considered? Yet there is remarkably little concern on the political left as to the actual consequences of the laws and policies they advocate. Once they have taken a stance on the side of the angels against the forces of evil, that is the end of the story, as far as they are concerned. more at the link: . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Oh no, I might get banned now for insulting the dumbest guy in the room! You'd get awfully lonely if the mods started banning folks or insulting the dumbest guy in the room Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Oh, I'm sorry. You are right, the government is real precise with it's tax policies and crafts them according scientific metrics and I was wrong, lobbying has nothing to do with it. Ha ha ha. ... If I wasn't at all familiar with your posting history, I'd be stunned that you feel there has been no accuarial work, or economic study, behind US tax policy. And though much of that work has been done by various lobby groups, it's because those groups represent the industry experts, where as Congress is comprised of lawyers. He's a bit from the Tax Foundation: ... </snip> a capital gains tax, like nearly all of the federal tax code, is a tax on future consumption. Future personal consumption, in the form of savings, is taxed, while present consumption is not. By favoring present over future consumption, savings are discouraged, which decreases future available capital and lowers long term growth. Not only has a low capital gains tax rate worked to encourage savings and increase economic growth, a low capital gains rate has historically raised more in tax revenue </snip>... Attempting to use the tax code to address income inequality will likely disappoint those who seek to attack the lower tax rate on high net worth individuals caused by a lower capital gains and dividends rate. Inequalities caused by globalization and differing education levels will not be remedied by destroying future investment; to the contrary those most likely to be hurt the most by lower economic growth are those with lower incomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 21, 2014 Author Share Posted October 21, 2014 ... If I wasn't at all familiar with your posting history, I'd be stunned that you feel there has been no accuarial work, or economic study, behind US tax policy. And though much of that work has been done by various lobby groups, it's because those groups represent the industry experts, where as Congress is comprised of lawyers. He's a bit from the Tax Foundation: The gift that just keeps on giving. So you think the lobbying groups are just there to show lawmakers good old fashioned economic conclusions reached fairly and in a non-biased manner? That's your argument? And you snip there compares the capital gains tax FAVORABLY to the rest of the federal tax code? "a capital gains tax, like nearly all of the federal tax code, is a tax on future consumption." So I guess they are arguing against what, a national sales tax, which isn't part of the tax code? Anyway, says nothing about the differences in rates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 I guess we shouldn't buy Microsoft products either: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/controversial-microsoft-ceo-84m-pay-package-article-1.1981596 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) The gift that just keeps on giving. So you think the lobbying groups are just there to show lawmakers good old fashioned economic conclusions reached fairly and in a non-biased manner? That's your argument? The beauty is, that multiple groups with competeing interersts all get to present their ideas, and then, with the help of data provided, lawmakers can put forth whatever they feel to be the most sound arguments as bills proposed to to become law. Whatever flaws there may be in this system, it's certainly a better idea than blind legislation proposed by those who have little to no expertise in the areas they are attempting to regulate. And you snip there compares the capital gains tax FAVORABLY to the rest of the federal tax code? "a capital gains tax, like nearly all of the federal tax code, is a tax on future consumption." So I guess they are arguing against what, a national sales tax, which isn't part of the tax code? Anyway, says nothing about the differences in rates Perhaps you might wish to read the information directly at the link I've provided? And you're attacking the Tax Foundation as a poor or biased source? Edited October 21, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 21, 2014 Author Share Posted October 21, 2014 The beauty is, that multiple groups with competeing interersts all get to present their ideas, and then, with the help of data provided, lawmakers can put forth whatever they feel to be the most sound arguments as bills proposed to to become law. OR! They can decide based on who will contribute most to their reelection campaign? You are the anti-government guy, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 The gift that just keeps on giving. So you think the lobbying groups are just there to show lawmakers good old fashioned economic conclusions reached fairly and in a non-biased manner? That's your argument? And you snip there compares the capital gains tax FAVORABLY to the rest of the federal tax code? "a capital gains tax, like nearly all of the federal tax code, is a tax on future consumption." So I guess they are arguing against what, a national sales tax, which isn't part of the tax code? Anyway, says nothing about the differences in rates Comparing income tax rates to cap gains tax rates is ludicrous. Tell us what would a fair cap gains tax rate look like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 21, 2014 Author Share Posted October 21, 2014 Comparing income tax rates to cap gains tax rates is ludicrous. T Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Why? the easy answer is that nobody would invest in anything that isn't tax-free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 OR! They can decide based on who will contribute most to their reelection campaign? You are the anti-government guy, right? Carve outs work this way, which is why the tax code is thousands of pages long. Concise policy is not, or atleast is not to the degree you are stating that it is. Also, your continued disingenuous statements about my positions don't gain you any credibility; you, however, seem more comfortable telling obvious lies than dealing with truth or facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 21, 2014 Author Share Posted October 21, 2014 Carve outs work this way, which is why the tax code is thousands of pages long. Concise policy is not, or atleast is not to the degree you are stating that it is. Also, your continued disingenuous statements about my positions don't gain you any credibility; you, however, seem more comfortable telling obvious lies than dealing with truth or facts. Oh bull, if the wealthy paid income taxes and the middle class paid mostly capital gains the rates would be reversed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 the easy answer is that nobody would invest in anything that isn't tax-free. at this point it isn't about seed money to enlarge or start businesses except in the case of actual start ups. much of the recent rise in stocks is due to buy backs from companies buying their own stock. that's not helping the economy. it's just further concentrating wealth and earning in the hands of the few. and it's enabled and encouraged by the continued QE. one doesn't even need to invoke capital gains taxes to make this argument. it's really not that complicated: the deck is stacked for thems that haves to win and thems that don't to lose. it's by design. i judst can't understand why thems that don't aren't more enraged on the whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Oh bull, if the wealthy paid income taxes and the middle class paid mostly capital gains the rates would be reversed And you continue to demonstrate that you are absolutely bereft of any working knowledge of cause and effect. Enjoy your class war, you retard. /golfclap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 at this point it isn't about seed money to enlarge or start businesses except in the case of actual start ups. much of the recent rise in stocks is due to buy backs from companies buying their own stock. that's not helping the economy. it's just further concentrating wealth and earning in the hands of the few. and it's enabled and encouraged by the continued QE. one doesn't even need to invoke capital gains taxes to make this argument. it's really not that complicated: the deck is stacked for thems that haves to win and thems that don't to lose. it's by design. i judst can't understand why thems that don't aren't more enraged on the whole. Please stop talking about things you are ill equipped to talk about. Unless you enjoy being the second idiot banana in the bunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 21, 2014 Author Share Posted October 21, 2014 Ok, I'm wrong, so what? There, that was not too hard, now was it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Please stop talking about things you are ill equipped to talk about. Unless you enjoy being the second idiot banana in the bunch. how bout you defend your obsession with the distinction between wealth and income inequality when the fed chair states that both are currently present. makes the distinction moot, non? unless you disagree with the fed chair. if so, then you should explain your disagreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Please stop talking about things you are ill equipped to talk about. That'll leave him with...what, exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 21, 2014 Author Share Posted October 21, 2014 at this point it isn't about seed money to enlarge or start businesses except in the case of actual start ups. much of the recent rise in stocks is due to buy backs from companies buying their own stock. that's not helping the economy. it's just further concentrating wealth and earning in the hands of the few. and it's enabled and encouraged by the continued QE. one doesn't even need to invoke capital gains taxes to make this argument. it's really not that complicated: the deck is stacked for thems that haves to win and thems that don't to lose. it's by design. i judst can't understand why thems that don't aren't more enraged on the whole. I'm surprised none of these Conservatives have argued the wealth will trickle down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts