Senator Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under $250k

Search

New member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,227
Tokens
And why do it at all...its already been proven when you raise the capital gains tax you end up with less revenues.

Has it?

http://www.cbpp.org/policy-points4-18-08.htm

Cutting capital gains rates reduces revenues over the long run. That’s the conclusion of the federal government’s official revenue-estimating agencies, as well as outside experts and the Bush Administration’s own Treasury Department.

  • The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation have estimated that extending the capital gains tax cut enacted in 2003 would cost $100 billion over the next decade. The Administration’s Office of Management and Budget included a similar estimate in the President’s budget.
  • After reviewing numerous studies of how investors respond to capital gains tax cuts, CBO commented that “the best estimates of taxpayers’ response to changes in the capital gains rate do not suggest a large revenue increase from additional realizations of capital gains — and certainly not an increase large enough to offset the losses from a lower rate.”
  • The Bush Administration Treasury Department examined the economic effects of extending the capital gains and dividend tax cuts. Even under the Treasury’s most optimistic scenario about the economic effects of these tax cuts, the tax cuts would not generate anywhere close to enough added economic growth to pay for themselves — and would thus lose money.
[...]

http://www.cbpp.org/policy-points4-18-08.htm
 

New member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,227
Tokens
Yes it does. And as usual, I will leave it up to you to use Google or Stupidpedia to figure out your mistake.

'I am right, and I don't even bother to prove it'. Great way of arguing, bilbal! :)
 

New member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
9,282
Tokens
Under McCain, they stay rich.

Under Obama, they stay rich.

Looks like the best strategy in the coming eight years is to be Rich and you'll not have much about which to worry.


:pope:
 

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
2,337
Tokens
'I am right, and I don't even bother to prove it'. Great way of arguing, bilbal! :)

That's because I encourage people to learn for themselves instead of just doing all of their homework for them. You, of all people, should know this.
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,891
Tokens
Has it?

http://www.cbpp.org/policy-points4-18-08.htm

Cutting capital gains rates reduces revenues over the long run. That’s the conclusion of the federal government’s official revenue-estimating agencies, as well as outside experts and the Bush Administration’s own Treasury Department.

  • The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation have estimated that extending the capital gains tax cut enacted in 2003 would cost $100 billion over the next decade. The Administration’s Office of Management and Budget included a similar estimate in the President’s budget.
  • After reviewing numerous studies of how investors respond to capital gains tax cuts, CBO commented that “the best estimates of taxpayers’ response to changes in the capital gains rate do not suggest a large revenue increase from additional realizations of capital gains — and certainly not an increase large enough to offset the losses from a lower rate.”
  • The Bush Administration Treasury Department examined the economic effects of extending the capital gains and dividend tax cuts. Even under the Treasury’s most optimistic scenario about the economic effects of these tax cuts, the tax cuts would not generate anywhere close to enough added economic growth to pay for themselves — and would thus lose money.
[...]

Tax rate cuts end recessions sooner and they help to boost growth...which greatly increases tax revenues in the long run.

Just what our grandchildren will need ..they need economic growth...growth is the solution.

Class war, higher taxation, anti-trade policies are all very very short sighted political gimmicks that decrease opportunity and economic growth in the long run.

Why would anyone do that?
 

New member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,227
Tokens
That's because I encourage people to learn for themselves instead of just doing all of their homework for them. You, of all people, should know this.

This is nonsense. You don't have to reply to my (or anyone else's) posts, but if you do you should try to answer questions that were posed or at least write something substantial, otherwise your post is entirely useless. This way you are certainly not encouraging someone to learn.
 

New member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,227
Tokens
Tax rate cuts end recessions sooner and they help to boost growth...which greatly increases tax revenues in the long run.

Just what our grandchildren will need ..they need economic growth...growth is the solution.

Class war, higher taxation, anti-trade policies are all very very short sighted political gimmicks that decrease opportunity and economic growth in the long run.

Why would anyone do that?

Making general comments that have, at most only a passing relevance for the points discussed while completely ignoring the article replied to doesn't make much sense.

Why would anyone do that?
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,891
Tokens
Making general comments that have, at most only a passing relevance for the points discussed while completely ignoring the article replied to doesn't make much sense.

Why would anyone do that?

Your article doesn't have any data or points to be made.

It's "estimates" and speculation.

And when an organization presents itself as non-partisan....that is always a dead give away they are....or just dishonest.

How can an organization say they are non-partisan...any more than a person can.

Ridiculous.
 

New member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,227
Tokens
Your article doesn't have any data or points to be made.

It's "estimates" and speculation.

I'm certainly not claiming that the article has scientific value. But it obviously has vastly more substance (especially when you bother to read the whole article) than your totally unsubstantiated assertion that "its already been proven when you raise the capital gains tax you end up with less revenues."
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,891
Tokens
I'm certainly not claiming that the article has scientific value. But it obviously has vastly more substance (especially when you bother to read the whole article) than your totally unsubstantiated assertion that "its already been proven when you raise the capital gains tax you end up with less revenues."

It doesn't have obviously vastly more substance than anything...and you certainly haven't done anything to prove that it does.

The fact that is starts out with a lie..."nonpartisan" group is evidence enough.

Again...how could a group be "non-partisan" if it is made up of humans?

And how did they come to this grand conclusion?

You need to be a lot more intellectually curious my friend.

Part of your problem is you take words at face value too much...it leads to being duped.

Now...please answer my above questions or this conversation is dead.
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,891
Tokens
Wayne Huizenga wants to sell Dolphins before Barack Obama raises tax

<DL class=byline>By Sarah Talalay | South Florida Sun-Sentinel <DD>3:26 PM EDT, October 27, 2008 </DD></DL>Dolphins owner H. Wayne Huizenga said Sunday no date has been set for selling up to 45 percent more of the team to Stephen Ross, but the presidential election is among the issues weighing on his decision.

That's because a Barack Obama administration is expected to mean higher capital-gains taxes.

"He wants to double the capital gains tax, or almost double it," Huizenga said. "I'd rather give it to charity than to him."


:lol: :103631605


 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,103
Tokens
Allowing Bush's Tax cuts to expire will result in significant tax increases to the middle class.

I'm the source, and I'll take any and all action on this issue.

Any takers?
 

New member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,227
Tokens
It doesn't have obviously vastly more substance than anything...and you certainly haven't done anything to prove that it does.

The fact that is starts out with a lie..."nonpartisan" group is evidence enough.

Again...how could a group be "non-partisan" if it is made up of humans?

And how did they come to this grand conclusion?

You need to be a lot more intellectually curious my friend.

Part of your problem is you take words at face value too much...it leads to being duped.

Now...please answer my above questions or this conversation is dead.

MJ, it seems you got confused. Again. :)
You made the assertion that raising the capital gains tax would lead to less revenue. I chose to doubt this. So it is you who has to back up his position.

As to the rest - I find it very amusing that you deny any credibility of the article I linked to because it might be biased, seeing that you post extremely biased rants from obscure neocon Blogs all the time and actually expect those to be taken seriously. Also, if you had bothered to read the whole article (which you probably haven't, as you usually seem to not even completely read the articles you post), you'd have seen that the article claims even Bush's Treasury Department came to similar conclusions. Now I'm the first to say that without actual sources this cannot automatically be taken at face value, but if it were true then this would mean something, don't you think?
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,891
Tokens
MJ, it seems you got confused. Again. :)
You made the assertion that raising the capital gains tax would lead to less revenue. I chose to doubt this. So it is you who has to back up his position.

As to the rest - I find it very amusing that you deny any credibility of the article I linked to because it might be biased, seeing that you post extremely biased rants from obscure neocon Blogs all the time and actually expect those to be taken seriously. Also, if you had bothered to read the whole article (which you probably haven't, as you usually seem to not even completely read the articles you post), you'd have seen that the article claims even Bush's Treasury Department came to similar conclusions. Now I'm the first to say that without actual sources this cannot automatically be taken at face value, but if it were true then this would mean something, don't you think?

<TABLE cellSpacing=10 cellPadding=0 width="99%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=headline>Study: Bush's Capital Gains Tax Cuts Provided Stimulus; More Revenue <!-- InstanceEndEditable --></TD></TR><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=stats><!-- InstanceBeginEditable name="Sub Tilte " -->Reversal Would Hurt Weakening Economy <!-- InstanceEndEditable -->
1pix.gif

<!-- InstanceBeginEditable name="Publish Date" -->January 23, 2008<!-- InstanceEndEditable --></TD><TD class=sansb vAlign=bottom align=right></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
1pix.gif

<!-- InstanceBeginEditable name="authors name(s)" -->Media Contacts:
Sean Tuffnell
(972) 308-6481
sean.tuffnell@ncpa.org
Elysa Nelson
(972) 308-6477
elysa.nelson@ncpa.org
<!-- InstanceEndEditable -->
</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#b3b3b3>
1pix.gif
</TD></TR><TR><TD class=pp></TD></TR><TR><TD class=pp><!-- Sample javascript link for pop up figures See Figure.URL -::- absolute url of imageWWW -::- width of imageHHH -::- height of image!!! make sure width and height are exact!!! !!! figures can become unreadable if resized by the browser!!!--><!--****************Start Text Body*********************--><!-- InstanceBeginEditable name="ba body content" -->DALLAS (January 23, 2008) –President Bush's investment tax cuts helped stimulate the economy and increase government revenue, and raising the capital gains tax rate, as some are now proposing, would be harmful to the economy at a time when it is once again in need of stimulus, according to a new study from the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA).
"Some policy makers want to nearly double the tax on capital gains," warned Stephen Moore, member of the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal and author of the study. "That is the exact opposite of what our economy needs. If anything, the rate should be cut further."
Faced with a fragile economy early in his presidency, President Bush responded with a series of tax cuts, including reduced taxes on capital gains and dividend income. These measures were designed to stimulate capital investment and produce more jobs. The study notes that the stimulus package had positive effects on the economy and government finances. The economy grew, the government gained revenue and the rich now pay a larger share of taxes than ever. For example:
  • The rate of business capital investment underwent a U-turn – from negative business investment spending in the two years before the tax cut to an average annual increase of more than 10 percent in the three succeeding years.
  • In the four years since the cut, federal revenues increased $740 billion and revenues from the capital gains tax nearly doubled to $110 billion.
  • There was a sizable “unlocking effect” from the lower tax rate, meaning that investors voluntarily sold stock and other assets at a much higher volume once the tax rate was reduced, nearly doubling the amount of capital gains realized.
The study notes that the cuts are scheduled to expire after 2010, increasing the capital gains tax from 15 percent to 20 percent, which is higher than most developed countries. Some have suggested raising the rate to 28 percent, higher than the rate when Bill Clinton left office and placing the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage
"Increasing the capital gains tax rate would have a negative effect on the economy in both the short and long term," said Moore . "It is critical that Congress extend the life of these cuts by making them permanent. And they need to do it sooner, rather than later to help boost the economy and reduce the growth-dampening effects of uncertainty."
<!-- InstanceEndEditable --></TD></TR><TR><TD class=credit><!-- InstanceBeginEditable name="authors credit" -->The NCPA is an internationally known nonprofit, nonpartisan research institute with offices in Dallas and Washington, D. C. that advocates private solutions to public policy problems. We depend on the contributions of individuals, corporations and foundations that share our mission. The NCPA accepts no government grants.

http://www.ncpa.org/prs/rel/2008/20080123.html
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,103
Tokens
Define the 'middle class' income level, and also 'significant'

Or do levels at 35-95K in 10 K increments

MFJ, 70k taxable, two kids

Bush's tax cuts save $ 3,500, for starters

plus $ 400 for each child under the age of 17

plus additional savings for college costs

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

2009 RX Death Pool Champion
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Messages
13,603
Tokens
Wayne Huizenga wants to sell Dolphins before Barack Obama raises tax

<dl class="byline">By Sarah Talalay | South Florida Sun-Sentinel <dd>3:26 PM EDT, October 27, 2008 </dd></dl>Dolphins owner H. Wayne Huizenga said Sunday no date has been set for selling up to 45 percent more of the team to Stephen Ross, but the presidential election is among the issues weighing on his decision.

That's because a Barack Obama administration is expected to mean higher capital-gains taxes.

"He wants to double the capital gains tax, or almost double it," Huizenga said. "I'd rather give it to charity than to him."


:lol: :103631605




man worked 19 years and poured countless dollars into his business and now the fruits of his labor may simply be taken away...

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/football/pro/dolphins/sfl-flspdolwayne27sboct27,0,1382404.story


<noscript> </noscript> <!-- content --> <script type="text/javascript"> generateDate('Oct 27, 2008 15:26 -0400', '3:26 PM'); </script>
Text size:
Wayne Huizenga wants to sell Dolphins before Barack Obama raises tax

<dl class="byline">By Sarah Talalay |South Florida Sun-Sentinel<dd>3:26 PM EDT, October 27, 2008</dd></dl> <iframe id="worldnowFrame526x375" src="http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/football/pro/dolphins/sfl-harvnhyde.bills1026,0,37106,iframe.worldnowvideo?size=526x389" border="0" allowtransparency="true" scrolling="no" width="526" frameborder="0" height="389"></iframe>


Dolphins owner H. Wayne Huizenga said Sunday no date has been set for selling up to 45 percent more of the team to Stephen Ross, but the presidential election is among the issues weighing on his decision.

That's because a Barack Obama administration is expected to mean higher capital-gains taxes.

"He wants to double the capital gains tax, or almost double it," Huizenga said. "I'd rather give it to charity than to him."

Ross purchased 50 percent of the team and Dolphin Stadium for $550 million earlier this year with the intention he would eventually become majority owner. NFL owners approved the eventual transfer this month, meaning it can take place anytime.

"If you do it this year or you do it next year, the difference is humongous because of the taxes," Huizenga said.

Huizenga vows to maintain a 5-percent stake in the team.

"It's been 19 years and after 19 years, it's kind of time," he said. "I don't want to be one of those owners who gets real old and hangs in there, we know some of those stories already, I don't want to be one of those guys."
 

Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
3,127
Tokens
I'm certainly not claiming that the article has scientific value. But it obviously has vastly more substance (especially when you bother to read the whole article) than your totally unsubstantiated assertion that "its already been proven when you raise the capital gains tax you end up with less revenues."

he is absolutely correct. Raising Capital Gains reduces revenue to the government. Look at the last 20 years to see this fact,thus all of the Obama double talk about not raising the cap gains "too much". The gov needs the money..

Great thread. I have cut and pasted many of your comments and emailed to about 50 people.
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,891
Tokens
he is absolutely correct. Raising Capital Gains reduces revenue to the government. Look at the last 20 years to see this fact,thus all of the Obama double talk about not raising the cap gains "too much". The gov needs the money..

Great thread. I have cut and pasted many of your comments and emailed to about 50 people.

:aktion033
 

New member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,227
Tokens
<TABLE cellSpacing=10 cellPadding=0 width="99%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=headline>Study: Bush's Capital Gains Tax Cuts Provided Stimulus; More Revenue<!-- InstanceEndEditable --></TD></TR><TR><TD>


</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#b3b3b3>
1pix.gif
</TD></TR><TR><TD class=pp></TD></TR><TR><TD class=pp><!-- Sample javascript link for pop up figures See Figure.URL -::- absolute url of imageWWW -::- width of imageHHH -::- height of image!!! make sure width and height are exact!!! !!! figures can become unreadable if resized by the browser!!!-->[...]<!--****************Start Text Body*********************--><!-- InstanceBeginEditable name="ba body content" --><!-- InstanceEndEditable --></TD></TR><TR><TD class=credit><!-- InstanceBeginEditable name="authors credit" -->The NCPA is an internationally known nonprofit, nonpartisan research institute with offices in Dallas and Washington, D. C. that advocates private solutions to public policy problems. We depend on the contributions of individuals, corporations and foundations that share our mission.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

MJ, I won't judge which of of the two studies is correct. I never said the article I posted is necessarily right, I just happened to stumble upon it.

But I have a question - when I posted this article from a non-partisan organisation which lacked proper citations you responded:

The fact that is starts out with a lie..."nonpartisan" group is evidence enough.

Again...how could a group be "non-partisan" if it is made up of humans?

And how did they come to this grand conclusion?

You need to be a lot more intellectually curious my friend.

Part of your problem is you take words at face value too much...it leads to being duped.

And then you post an article from a nonpartisan institute which also does not have a single citation. What am I supposed to think of that? :)
Why should anyone believe this article any more than the article I found? Just because your article happens to coincide with your beliefs?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,788
Messages
13,573,002
Members
100,865
Latest member
dinnnadna
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com