Allene Wynn, 105 Year Old Laker Fan

[SoonerBounce13]

Originally Posted by stoops4pres

Yeah, I'm aware of landthieves... I don't frequent there much though, because it's content is seemingly full of nothing but hot half-naked women, which isn't exactly the ideal site to frequent while being at work/school all day.

i would say that is a pretty accurate assessment lol

There are some good political back and forth discussions though

[bocabull]

Unless you work for the secret service. Ha. Cue rim shot.

[playmakr]

Originally Posted by bocabull

But no links or demonstrated models based on tax rates, reported incomes?

Nobody is saying raising taxes only on millionaires will eliminate the deficit, but it will created hundreds of billions in revenues without even slightly damaging the economy. You see the deficit is a simple issue. We just had a balanced budget 10 years ago and Bush and the GOP congress pissed it away on terrible economic policies. They blame their failed policies on Obama and Democrats who have always been the more fiscally responsible party and people who don't understand finance or economics which is 98% of the GOP lap it up because as Santorum said "sometimes you gotta take one for the team". GOP is about their side winning and decent citizens are about proven economic science winning.

Just the facts for me. Unfiltered and I understand it all. The stimulus was economics 101 and worked to perfection. All of the data backs it up. Look at any graph and you will see the economy turned on a dime in May 2009 when the stimulus went into effect and has been advancing ever since. Even last year when we hit a soft patch it was due to the spending part of the stimulus to state and local governments expiring. The tax portion of the stimulus, which is 40% of the total, still remains.

But the rubes don't want to hear that the FED made a $70bil profit last year for taxpayers. They don't want to hear that all the financial rescue programs will end up generating profits for the government. Nope, their mommy and daddy taught them the federal government is horribly inefficient and a burden on the USA and they think it'e true without any further examination. In fact the general public is horribly inefficient and and the federal government is what makes the USA work.

Having a discussion about overall taxes on millionaires is different, I'm only talking about the Buffett rule alone. The only information I see, particularly of note the CBO estimates, is $50 billion over 10 years at the most. As much as I want to see the deficit reduced, upwards of $50 billion just doesn't seem worth the potenial loss in investments. And to fuss over a tiny, tiny fraction of the deficit just seems like a political ploy. No, it doesn't seem like one, it is one.

Unless you work for the secret service.

[bocabull]

Due to CBO scoring rules the $47 Billion number is based on capital gains estimates from the past decade's stock market performance which was the worst in US history. If you ran the same analysis on the 1980s and 1990s stock market performance and capital gains the numbers would skyrocket.

Anyway, Warren Buffet started this because he knows how absurd the loophole is and that it does nothing pertaining to "investment in the economy".

Serious question. Does anybody think it's fair for me to be out on the golf course drinking beer and trading AAPL options on my iPhone, but somehow owing a lower tax % on my profits than the guy working in the pro shop? I doubt it but that's the truth right now.

They should really call it the Reagan/Buffet rule. Ronald Reagan treated ordinary income and capital gains the same at a 28% rate. Bush totally changed the rules by crushing capital gains taxes down to 42% of ordinary income rates and did it grow the economy? Worst 10 years since the great depression is what followed.

[playmakr]

Anyway, Warren Buffet started this because he knows how absurd the loophole is and that it does nothing pertaining to "investment in the economy".

Buffett only intended it to be for "multi" millionaires not anything over 1 million. But anyways, explain how it does nothing pertaining to investing? Nothing as in "little" or literally nothing? I'm genuinly asking, not arguing.

Due to CBO scoring rules the $47 Billion number is based on capital gains estimates from the past decade's stock market performance which was the worst in US history. If you ran the same analysis on the 1980s and 1990s stock market performance and capital gains the numbers would skyrocket.

Seems practical to run it on recent data and recent activity. I don't think anyone can assume a stock boom like the 80's or 90's. Certainly I wouldn't argue the 2010's will be like the 2000's, but it still seems as practical to run that data as the other.

[bocabull]

Nothing to do with it as in zilch. If I get to keep 85% of my profits or 70% of my profits I'm still going to try and make them. It's just an absurd argument that people will forego profits because they only get to keep 70% of them.

Absurd as the "job creator" tax cut argument. Show me a small businessman who hires based on his tax rate and I'll show you somebody headed to the courthouse to file bankruptcy. People hire based on demand. Tax cuts to their customers will cause them to hire.

I agree the CBO rules make sense. But you do have to take the results in context of the market period covered by their analysis being dramatically below average. Bush took over at DOW 10,588 and left at DOW 7,949. Worst in history.

[playmakr]

Originally Posted by bocabull

Due to CBO scoring rules the $47 Billion number is based on capital gains estimates from the past decade's stock market performance which was the worst in US history. If you ran the same analysis on the 1980s and 1990s stock market performance and capital gains the numbers would skyrocket.

Anyway, Warren Buffet started this because he knows how absurd the loophole is and that it does nothing pertaining to "investment in the economy".

Serious question. Does anybody think it's fair for me to be out on the golf course drinking beer and trading AAPL options on my iPhone, but somehow owing a lower tax % on my profits than the guy working in the pro shop? I doubt it but that's the truth right now.
They should really call it the Reagan/Buffet rule. Ronald Reagan treated ordinary income and capital gains the same at a 28% rate. Bush totally changed the rules by crushing capital gains taxes down to 42% of ordinary income rates and did it grow the economy? Worst 10 years since the great depression is what followed.

Actually Boca it is unfair, you can go to this website http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r.../gift/gift.htm and give whatever Taxes you would like. Keep us informed on how much you donate, and I would actually like that receipt emailed to me.

[bocabull]

Play, it's sad that since you don't understand the system you are a muppet just repeating meaningless talking points. Where are your proven ideas that are backed up with financial models that use actual tax codes & economic data?

How does it feel being a muppet with no original idea?

Here is what I know and Warren Buffett knows. That the difference between keeping 70% of capital gains and 85% of capital gains will be more than made up by a stronger economy that generates increased capital gains. I only need to generate 20% more capital gains over time to come out ahead after tax. Did the Clinton/Reagan tax policies generate more than a 20% increase in GDP growth than the Bush policies? Way more.

And guess what else? For every $ I pay extra in capital gains taxes is a $ that is not used to buy newly issues treasury notes to pay the deficit. That $ is then instead pumped into the private economy pushing more growth.

Again, I find it funny how all the GOP rubes question the most successful capitalist of their generation because he does not agree with their failed economic policies.

[playmakr]

Have you gone to the site and sent in your extra tax money yet?

[playmakr]

Maybe you needed a link to the site again? If you and the President don't think it's fair, go donate. Here it is: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r.../gift/gift.htm

Boca, why did Clinton lower the capital gains rate? Did he not consult with you on this? Good thing he didn't, as it INCREASED revenues from the tax.

Clinton, and the Republican congress, cutting the gains rate was one of if not the best fiscal move made in decades. The Child tax credit was also very good policy. Curiously, Clinton did great work in his 2nd term with Republican controlled congress. Divided government worked. It's a shame both parties are so stuck in their ways right now that we have to have a President go around lying about this sham Buffett rule. He wants fairness, not revenues. He even said so, in a debate with Hillary, who should have been the one elected.