APP - Isn't the solution higher taxes on the rich?

PostmodernProphet said:
I run a business escrowing funds for 1031 tax exchanges to defer capital gains taxes, how do you feel about those?.......
Click to expand...

are you talking about swapping investment property on a tax-deferred basis?

i am not talking small business,but For the very richest Americans, low tax rates on capital gains are better than any Christmas gift.
 
chink said:
are you talking about swapping investment property on a tax-deferred basis?

i am not talking small business,but For the very richest Americans, low tax rates on capital gains are better than any Christmas gift.
Click to expand...

Who is suggesting lowering the capital gains tax rates or removing them altogether? The richest Americans also create most of the jobs in this country; why are they bad?
 
chink said:
are you talking about swapping investment property on a tax-deferred basis?

i am not talking small business,but For the very richest Americans, low tax rates on capital gains are better than any Christmas gift.
Click to expand...

higher capital gains taxes are good for my business......go for it.......

tax gains as ordinary income......tax dividends as ordinary income......tax all interest as ordinary income.......tax pensions as ordinary income........now, reduce taxes on ordinary income......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
higher capital gains taxes are good for my business......go for it.......

tax gains as ordinary income......tax dividends as ordinary income......tax all interest as ordinary income.......tax pensions as ordinary income........now, reduce taxes on ordinary income......
Click to expand...
reduce taxes on ordinary income..yes
 
Truth Detector said:
Who is suggesting lowering the capital gains tax rates or removing them altogether? The richest Americans also create most of the jobs in this country; why are they bad?
Click to expand...

while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.
 
chink said:
while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.
Click to expand...

Importance of Small Business
1. Represent 99.7% of all employer firms.
2. Employ about half of all private sector employees
3. Pay 43% of total U.S. private payroll
4. Generated 64% of net new jobs over the past 18 years
5. Create more than half of the nonfarm private GDP
6. Hire 43% of high-tech workers (scientists, engineers, computer programmer, and others)
7. Are 52% home-based and 2% franchise
8. Made up 97.5 percent of all identified exporters and produced 31% of export value
9. Produced 16.5 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms.
 
Bill Fishlore said:
Professor Williams makes a clear case for the way that new technologies in the 1790s and 1950s made jobs in various sectors obsolete. He's right about that and nobody disputes it. Then he comes to the second part of his thesis, that the new technologies which abolished those jobs creates others. Here, unfortunately, his argument fades off into a rhetorical speculation that begs the question:

If there hadn't been the kind of labor-saving technical innovation we've had since the 1950s — in the auto, construction, telephone industries and many others — where in the world would we have gotten workers to produce things that weren't heard of in the '50s, such as desktop computers, cellphones, HDTVs, digital cameras, MRI machines, pharmaceuticals and myriad other goods and services?

His assumption workers laid off in older sectors supply the labor for the production of innovative products needs proof. He doesn't offer any because there isn't any. It takes far fewer worker hour to produce a computer than an automobile and laid off construction workers don't get jobs in MRI factories.

But there is an even bigger loss due to technology than changes on the product assembly line. The new technologies have far greater impact on the labor market outside the manufacturing sector, The computer replaces tellers and accountants because one accountant with a computer does the work of fifty paper and pencil accountants. Those unneeded accountants don't get jobs in computer factories. And banks are small beans compared to on-line retail giants like Amazon which don't have a store and whose warehousing and shipping are heavily automated. The best all those obsolete clerks can hope for is a delivery truck job -- and those are about to be automated as well.

In the earlier stages of our on-going Industrial Revolution, jobs lost in agriculture and blacksmith shops were more than replaced by factory work. In the current information revolution, a similar shift isn't happening because the huge impact of the new technologies is limited to production, it is happening in white collar and even suit jobs as well.
Click to expand...

His proof is in history. You offer no proof of your theory.
 
Right said:
His proof is in history. You offer no proof of your theory.
Click to expand...
His proof depends on the assumption that the same pattern of new job creation that we saw a century ago with the automobile is happening today with the computer. For that assumption to be correct, we would have to see vast increases in computer-based jobs more than off-setting the lost pencil-and-paper jobs. We aren't seeing that. Job growth has been in the service and healthcare sectors. Hell, even computers are now designed by software programs and built by robots.

Our unemployment rate is now a whisker over 4%, that is pretty much "full employment." Our problem is wages, which have be stagnant for a generation. Why is that? IT services, programers and robotics engineers are making good money. There just aren't many of them despite the explosive growth in their sectors. The jobs that are expanding are low to mid-level, burger-flipping jobs. They don't pay well because a burger-flipper doesn't create much profit. Where profit is big -- pharmaceuticals for instance -- technology is dominant and wages are shrinking. There simply is no evidence that 21st century technology is having the impact on the labor market that 20th century technology did, and a lot of evidence that it is having the opposite effect.
 
Bill Fishlore said:
His proof depends on the assumption that the same pattern of new job creation that we saw a century ago with the automobile is happening today with the computer. For that assumption to be correct, we would have to see vast increases in computer-based jobs more than off-setting the lost pencil-and-paper jobs. We aren't seeing that. Job growth has been in the service and healthcare sectors. Hell, even computers are now designed by software programs and built by robots.

Our unemployment rate is now a whisker over 4%, that is pretty much "full employment." Our problem is wages, which have be stagnant for a generation. Why is that? IT services, programers and robotics engineers are making good money. There just aren't many of them despite the explosive growth in their sectors. The jobs that are expanding are low to mid-level, burger-flipping jobs. They don't pay well because a burger-flipper doesn't create much profit. Where profit is big -- pharmaceuticals for instance -- technology is dominant and wages are shrinking. There simply is no evidence that 21st century technology is having the impact on the labor market that 20th century technology did, and a lot of evidence that it is having the opposite effect.
Click to expand...
Again, you dismiss Dr. Williams' theory because it is based on the sound method of looking back at the historical record. Yet your theory, which is now going all the way back to post #10, you claim that without FedCo the system would concentrate capital in a few states, and you offer no mechanism for how this is supposed to work.

Obviously, you aren't applying the same standard to Dr. Williams as you do yourself.
 
Right said:
Again, you dismiss Dr. Williams' theory because it is based on the sound method of looking back at the historical record. Yet your theory, which is now going all the way back to post #10, you claim that without FedCo the system would concentrate capital in a few states, and you offer no mechanism for how this is supposed to work.

Obviously, you aren't applying the same standard to Dr. Williams as you do yourself.
Click to expand...
I consider my case to have been made and see no point in further elaboration in response to one-line posts saying the matter is undecided. How about making a statement of your own disputing the rebuttal I have made to Williams and addressing the specifics I have cited in my counter-argument?
 
Bill Fishlore said:
I consider my case to have been made and see no point in further elaboration in response to one-line posts saying the matter is undecided. How about making a statement of your own disputing the rebuttal I have made to Williams and addressing the specifics I have cited in my counter-argument?
Click to expand...

There's no reason for me to rebut a case that you have not adequately presented. That's not the way debate works.
 
Right said:
There's no reason for me to rebut a case that you have not adequately presented. That's not the way debate works.
Click to expand...
Thanks for teaching me how debate works. It will save me a lot of time now wasted on ignorant posts and second-hand thoughts Bye bye
 
Right said:
I accept your concession.
Click to expand...
You are welcome to my statement which you seem to have interpreted as a concession. Fine with me. My understanding of the discussion is that you cited a newspaper article repeating the old bromide that new technology inevitably creates more jobs than it destroys. I offered evidence to the contrary which you dismissed. That's OK. It happens some times that two folks on opposite sides don't engage. Thanks.
 
Bill Fishlore said:
You are welcome to my statement which you seem to have interpreted as a concession. Fine with me. My understanding of the discussion is that you cited a newspaper article repeating the old bromide that new technology inevitably creates more jobs than it destroys. I offered evidence to the contrary which you dismissed. That's OK. It happens some times that two folks on opposite sides don't engage. Thanks.
Click to expand...

You offered no such evidence, just your theory.
 
chink said:
while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.
Click to expand...

bla-bla-emoticon.gif
 
Right said:
Not so much. The author doesn't mention the creation of new industries that always occur when smart people have time on their hands.
Click to expand...
How about you list the top new industries created by the new technology with job numbers and I list the job losses created by that same technology in the industries most effected?
 
Bill Fishlore said:
How about you list the top new industries created by the new technology with job numbers and I list the job losses created by that same technology in the industries most effected?
Click to expand...

The transition is just starting, and I'm not inventing new industries. But two new ones that I can think off off the top of my head are craft breweries and cannabis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top