Obama and Capital Gains Tax

cawacko

cawacko

Well-known member
Here is part of an exchange from Wednesday's debate between Barack and Charlie Gibson regarding the capital gains tax.


MR. GIBSON: ...you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent."
It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.


After that he discusses about how 29 hedge fund managers make a bunch of billions of dollars and that's not fair.

And I believe Gibson asked him the question again that even though it has been shown lowering the capital gains tax increases revenue and raising it decreases revenue he was for the lowering of revenue based on fairness.

I like Obama and have nothing against him. I like that he preaches about hope and being positive. This is a straight policy issue and I do not like the mindset of raising taxes (with evidence showing that it lowers revenue) in the name of "fairness". I don't like this policy at all.
 
Who the heck is This Gibson ? Mel ?

Yeah we owe these hedge fund guys a lot for their contribution to the meltdown.
I would like to show my gratitude to them, anyone have tar and feathers ?
 
uscitizen said:
Who the heck is This Gibson ? Mel ?

Yeah we owe these hedge fund guys a lot for their contribution to the meltdown.
I would like to show my gratitude to them, anyone have tar and feathers ?
Click to expand...

Why do you support increasing the capital gains tax?

Edit: Do you support increasing the capital gains tax and if so why?
 
Last edited:
Topspin said:
he was very weak on the issue, but mcfossil actualy admits being weak on the economy.
Click to expand...

HaHa, you are in good campaign mode Top. On this issue McFossil said he would not raise captial gains taxes. Obama said he would not raise taxes on the middle class but the middle class clearly owns stock. And as an investor this hits right at your heart.

I think Obama needs to have a little chat with you about economics.
 
The problem with capital gains taxes on investment income is it requires a larger gain to make the same net gain. That means a company desiring people to invest in their company need to increase profits to increase gains. The very people complaining about major corporations having too high profit margins are the same ones driving up the need for high profit margins by taxing investment income too much.
 
cawacko said:
Why do you support increasing the capital gains tax?

Edit: Do you support increasing the capital gains tax and if so why?
Click to expand...

Because an artificially low capital gains tax promotes the finiancial situation we are in now. Keep the cut but stretch the time you have to keep the investment to perhaps 3 - 5 years to promote longer term investments. Tax the short term gains at a much higher rate.

We gave a huge tax cut to a few thousand people that make lots of money anyway.
 
cawacko said:
Here is part of an exchange from Wednesday's debate between Barack and Charlie Gibson regarding the capital gains tax.


MR. GIBSON: ...you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent."
It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.


After that he discusses about how 29 hedge fund managers make a bunch of billions of dollars and that's not fair.

And I believe Gibson asked him the question again that even though it has been shown lowering the capital gains tax increases revenue and raising it decreases revenue he was for the lowering of revenue based on fairness.

I like Obama and have nothing against him. I like that he preaches about hope and being positive. This is a straight policy issue and I do not like the mindset of raising taxes (with evidence showing that it lowers revenue) in the name of "fairness". I don't like this policy at all.
Click to expand...

An unrealistically low capital gains tax is bad because it artifically inflates the market and causes crashes. All income should be taxed equally.
 
uscitizen said:
Because an artificially low capital gains tax promotes the finiancial situation we are in now. Keep the cut but stretch the time you have to keep the investment to perhaps 3 - 5 years to promote longer term investments. Tax the short term gains at a much higher rate.

We gave a huge tax cut to a few thousand people that make lots of money anyway.
Click to expand...
First, how is any tax "artificially low"? Is there a "natural" rate for taxation?

Second: how did the low rates affect the situation we are in now? The economic situation we are in now is a result of overextension of credit, both personal and business. Investments profits have little to do with overextension of credit.

Third: How would taxing them at a greater rate done anything? The guys would have still made their money on hedging, and the government would have collected a bit more of it, suppressing additional investing by the very people democrats keep promising NOT to raise taxes on.

The problem with your idea of high taxes on short term gains is many retired are using short term gains to extend their retirement savings. Long term gains are all and good when saving for retirement, but once retired, short term gains can significantly extend and/or enhance those savings. Taxing them at a heavy rate would negatively affect a huge number of middle income retirees who have managed to build their own retirement plan instead of relying on the government.

But it is a habit of the democratic party. They always promise to only increase taxes on the wealthy, yet somehow the only people whose taxes don't go up are those too poor to pay at all.
 
I fully support a flat tax on personal income regardless of the amount or source.
With absolutely zero deductions.

But since we do not have that.
 
uscitizen said:
I fully support a flat tax on personal income regardless of the amount or source.
With absolutely zero deductions.

But since we do not have that.
Click to expand...
A flat tax with absolutely zero deductions would hit those below poverty level.

I would suggest a standard deduction set so income up to about 150% of poverty level is not affected. Put it at, say, $9,000 per adult and $6,000 per child. A family of three would not pay taxes on the first $24,000 of their income.

But then ALL income above that deduction, regardless of source, would be taxed at a flat rate.

By doing away with all the tax shelters available to high income levels, it would easily offset doing away with the current progressive system.
 
Good Luck said:
A flat tax with absolutely zero deductions would hit those below poverty level.

I would suggest a standard deduction set so income up to about 150% of poverty level is not affected. Put it at, say, $9,000 per adult and $6,000 per child. A family of three would not pay taxes on the first $24,000 of their income.

But then ALL income above that deduction, regardless of source, would be taxed at a flat rate.

By doing away with all the tax shelters available to high income levels, it would easily offset doing away with the current progressive system.
Click to expand...

I could live with that, but as we know once thededuction door is opened for one thing.....I think with no deductions the rate would be low enough to not be a problem for the lower income ones. Of course it would mean they could not get back more than they paid in either. would put most tax prep services out of business (supported by our taxes anyway) and reduce the iRS budget by probably 80%.

But all changes have some pain in the short run even good ones.
for example eliminate cancer and the death industry would suffer.
 
I support a flat tax after a certain rate of income. The very poor should be given huge tax breaks. Losing 20 percent of $20,000 hurts a lot more than 20 percent of $200,000.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top