Obama: I might nearly double Capital Gains taxes

Little-Acorn

New member
How quickly they forget.

Apparently the liberals, Obama among them, have become so enamoured of their own rhetoric about their government spending "balancing" the budget in 1995, that they are starting to believe it themselves.

After the slowdown caused by Bush 41's breaking of his "No new taxes" promise, newly-seated Congressional Republican majorities finally got Clinton to sign their Capital Gains Tax Cut after he had vetoed it three times previously. He protested strenuously, saying he would "fix it later", but with the '96 elections looming he had to do what the people wanted, at last. And with the cut in Capital Gains tax rates, actual revenue taken in by the tax, soared, resulting an almost-balanced budgets for several years.

Now we have Barack Obama saying that a tax increase back up to 25% or more, wouldn't "distort sound economics".

Does the man even have a clue?

----------------------------------------------------------

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Obama_talks_capgains_rate_with_CNBC.html

Obama talks cap-gains rate with CNBC

by Ben Smith
March 27, 2008

In an interview in conjunction with his big economic speech in New York, Senator Obama tells CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo he favors increasing the capital-gains tax rate.

Bartiromo reported after her interview: “Right now, as you know, the cap gains tax is at 15 percent. He has yet to give us a specific number. How high he wants that number to go? He has said, and he told me today, that he won't go above 28 percent. So we are talking about the possibility of a doubling in the capital gains tax. He was averaging at about 25 percent.”

Here is her exchange with the senator:

BARTIROMO: "How do you plan to change the tax code when it comes to capital gains? How high will that 15 percent rate go?"

Sen. OBAMA: "Well, you know, I haven't given a firm number. Here's my belief, that we can't go back to some of the, you know, confiscatory rates that existed in the past that distorted sound economics. And I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was the 28 percent. I would--and my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that. I think that we can have a capital gains rate that is higher than 15 percent.

"If it--and if it, you know--when I talk to people like Warren Buffet or others and I ask them, you know, what's--how much of a difference is it going to be if it's 20 or 25 percent, they say, look, if it's within that range then it's not going to distort, I think, economic decision making. On the other hand, what it will also do is first of all help out the federal treasury, which is running a credit card up with the bank of China and other countries.

"What it will also do, I think, is allow us to make investments in basic scientific research, in infrastructure, in broadband lines, in green energy and will allow us to give us--give some relief to middle class and working class families who have been driving this economy as consumers but have been doing it through credit cards and home equity loans. They're not going to be able to do that. And if we want the economy to continue to go strong, then we've got to make sure that they're getting a little relief as well."
 
I have no problem with doubling capital gains tax. Didn't we recently reduce them anyway ?
That sure kept things from falling apart didn't it ?
 
BTW, cutting the capital gains tax was one of the primary things that contributed to the stock market bubble. The capital gains revenues went up for a while and then plopped down to pre-cut levels by 2000. Funny as it may sound, treating that kind of income as special compared to the rest had terrible effects. Maybe we should lower the labour tax rate to 10%, and raise the capital gains tax to 40%?
 
BTW, cutting the capital gains tax was one of the primary things that contributed to the stock market bubble. The capital gains revenues went up for a while and then plopped down to pre-cut levels by 2000. Funny as it may sound, treating that kind of income as special compared to the rest had terrible effects. Maybe we should lower the labour tax rate to 10%, and raise the capital gains tax to 40%?

I can't believe you said that. but in reality it might help even things back out.
We can readjust them later as needed.
 
Little Dick is a moron and he buys into the kool-aid that invested and inherited income is more important than productive income. Capital Gains should be taxed at the same rate as any income. The reduction in capital gains tax means that wealthy trust fund babies hardly pay any tax at all. He's probably one of these morons that buy into abolishing the inheritance tax.
 
BTW, cutting the capital gains tax was one of the primary things that contributed to the stock market bubble. The capital gains revenues went up for a while and then plopped down to pre-cut levels by 2000. Funny as it may sound, treating that kind of income as special compared to the rest had terrible effects. Maybe we should lower the labour tax rate to 10%, and raise the capital gains tax to 40%?

You hit the nail right on the head.
 
We got raped on Capital Gains at the state level. When you are paying very close to the same amount in State and Federal taxes somewhere somebody factored in reality using figures from fantasy. If the Federal Gains go back up... Dang. I'll be holding tight, there is no reason to be punished simply because I wanted to purchase something that would perform a bit better.
 
People will still invest money vs lock it in a box. Unless the market totally falls apart that is, and tha twill not be the results of capitol gains taxes, but on rampant speculation for sopecualtions sake. Instead of truely investing is a business or industry and helping it to grow. the business of investing money solely in the money business is always going to fail once pushed past a certain point.
 
People will still invest money vs lock it in a box. Unless the market totally falls apart that is, and tha twill not be the results of capitol gains taxes, but on rampant speculation for sopecualtions sake. Instead of truely investing is a business or industry and helping it to grow. the business of investing money solely in the money business is always going to fail once pushed past a certain point.

You are correct. Historically it usually marks the decline of an Empire when those empires derive more income from derivatives than from productivity. It was true of ancient Rome, the Spanish of the 16th century, the Dutch of the 17th century and the British of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
 
Why are so many so willing to take us this way then? Multinationals don't have to care about their homelands any more?
 
People will still invest money vs lock it in a box. Unless the market totally falls apart that is, and tha twill not be the results of capitol gains taxes, but on rampant speculation for sopecualtions sake. Instead of truely investing is a business or industry and helping it to grow. the business of investing money solely in the money business is always going to fail once pushed past a certain point.
They'll invest, but in far longer terms. Already I hesitate to sell/repurchase something that is slightly under-performing. Seriously, if you don't think that tax loss doesn't effect churn then you are insane.
 
Keep the capital gains tax cuts but only for gains on investments over a 5 year period. Tax all else at regular rates.
 
We got raped on Capital Gains at the state level. When you are paying very close to the same amount in State and Federal taxes somewhere somebody factored in reality using figures from fantasy. If the Federal Gains go back up... Dang. I'll be holding tight, there is no reason to be punished simply because I wanted to purchase something that would perform a bit better.

Wow, Damo has 10% capital gains. That's special. Mississippi doesn't have capital gains.
 
They'll invest, but in far longer terms. Already I hesitate to sell/repurchase something that is slightly under-performing. Seriously, if you don't think that tax loss doesn't effect churn then you are insane.

The unrealistically low capital gains taxed has pushed people into making worse decisions, because there's less fallout if they do.
 
I like Obama's no tax on retiree's under $50,000. By the time he gets it done I'll be retired and can easily squezz my investment income to just over than.
Obama is the shit.
 
The unrealistically low capital gains taxed has pushed people into making worse decisions, because there's less fallout if they do.
Dumb. Seriously, this is just plain dumb. People don't make more foolish decisions with their money because they have to pay less taxes, they often will not sell if the tax is too punitive.
 
Dumb. Seriously, this is just plain dumb. People don't make more foolish decisions with their money because they have to pay less taxes, they often will not sell if the tax is too punitive.

Which would promote longer term investments ?
And perhaps a more stable market ?
 
Which would promote longer term investments ?
And perhaps a more stable market ?
Neither. One keeps investments that will continue making them money, only selling if there is one that will likely give them a larger return. Forcing people into investments that make them less money does nothing to collect revenue, nor does it make the market more stable. It just makes the government and everybody else poorer.
 
Back
Top