What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[RightField]

After WW2, the rich paid insanely high taxes to pay for it. They didn't leave.

Yeah, they had lots of tax avoidence strategies. When I was a kid, tax avoidence was the biggest topic of discussion at my parent's gatherings (I listened). The reason that we as a nation simplified the tax codes so many years ago was to get away from the ridiculous inefficiencies caused by all the tax avoidence strategies. Look at what it's done to the democrats....look at George Kaiser and his efforts to influence Obama and the rest of the democrats around Solyndra to avoid losing investment money. It becomes a terrible game of influence peddling.

The reason the tax structure looks like it does now was to make the taxes simple and clean so that it minimized the need for avoidence strategies and got money to be invested in our future rather than hidden in bogus tax shelters where it was sidelined and unavailable for growing our economy.

It was decided that 15-20% was low enough that money would get invested rather than sheltered...and it worked. Double it and money would retreat. You can't "direct" people to invest rather than shelter, you have to make it economically smart so they choose. If you get to the point where you start "directing" investment, you'd start calling yourself the CCCP.

 

[coastal-boy]

The reason the tax structure looks like it does now was to make the taxes simple and clean so that it minimized the need for avoidence strategies and got money to be invested in our future rather than hidden in bogus tax shelters where it was sidelined and unavailable for growing our economy.

.

I didn't know you were a comedian...Our tax code is simple. Fucking christ. Good one. Anything positive you've had to say just went out the window.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Simple is not by definition good anyway. I love how that has become an argument in and of itself that simple is good. Like tricycles are better than bikes and bikes are better than cars and cars are better than jets.

 

[patrick1]

Yeah, they had lots of tax avoidence strategies. When I was a kid, tax avoidence was the biggest topic of discussion at my parent's gatherings (I listened). The reason that we as a nation simplified the tax codes so many years ago was to get away from the ridiculous inefficiencies caused by all the tax avoidence strategies. Look at what it's done to the democrats....look at George Kaiser and his efforts to influence Obama and the rest of the democrats around Solyndra to avoid losing investment money. It becomes a terrible game of influence peddling.

The reason the tax structure looks like it does now was to make the taxes simple and clean so that it minimized the need for avoidence strategies and got money to be invested in our future rather than hidden in bogus tax shelters where it was sidelined and unavailable for growing our economy.

It was decided that 15-20% was low enough that money would get invested rather than sheltered...and it worked. Double it and money would retreat. You can't "direct" people to invest rather than shelter, you have to make it economically smart so they choose. If you get to the point where you start "directing" investment, you'd start calling yourself the CCCP.

The reason your tax structure looks the way it does now is that the rich keep persuading the poor and the squeezed middle to vote against their own best interests, and in the interests of the rich, with elaborate rationalisations like this.

Patrick

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Yeah, they had lots of tax avoidence strategies. When I was a kid, tax avoidence was the biggest topic of discussion at my parent's gatherings (I listened). The reason that we as a nation simplified the tax codes so many years ago was to get away from the ridiculous inefficiencies caused by all the tax avoidence strategies. Look at what it's done to the democrats....look at George Kaiser and his efforts to influence Obama and the rest of the democrats around Solyndra to avoid losing investment money. It becomes a terrible game of influence peddling.

The reason the tax structure looks like it does now was to make the taxes simple and clean so that it minimized the need for avoidence strategies and got money to be invested in our future rather than hidden in bogus tax shelters where it was sidelined and unavailable for growing our economy.

It was decided that 15-20% was low enough that money would get invested rather than sheltered...and it worked. Double it and money would retreat. You can't "direct" people to invest rather than shelter, you have to make it economically smart so they choose. If you get to the point where you start "directing" investment, you'd start calling yourself the CCCP.

Now maybe it's just me, but actively looking for ways to avoid paying what you owe in taxes doesn't sound very patriotic or particularly Christian (I don't know if you profess to be or not, but a majority of the "right" does). "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's", Matthew 22:21.

As far as your misinformed opinion on what would happen if capital gains taxes were increased, history proves that you're not only incorrect, but woefully so. Economic growth was at all time highs when the highest marginal tax rates were MUCH higher (At times close to 80%) than they are today. Not a single person with an ounce of sense would refuse to invest money because they're going to have to pay tax on the money they make from that investment. They will refuse to invest if they aren't going to see a return on that investment. Your argument just doesn't hold water.

Many on the right seem to think that Capital Gains Taxes are somehow double-taxing the wealthy. They are being deliberately misinformed by those who take advantage of long term Capital gains to pay a lower tax rate (some want it to be abolished entirely). They pay Capital GAINS tax on the profit made from investment capital (Long term stocks, bonds, real estate, etc.), not the entire amount (which has already been taxed when it was earned.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yeah, they had lots of tax avoidence strategies. When I was a kid, tax avoidence was the biggest topic of discussion at my parent's gatherings (I listened). The reason that we as a nation simplified the tax codes so many years ago was to get away from the ridiculous inefficiencies caused by all the tax avoidence strategies. Look at what it's done to the democrats....look at George Kaiser and his efforts to influence Obama and the rest of the democrats around Solyndra to avoid losing investment money. It becomes a terrible game of influence peddling.

The reason the tax structure looks like it does now was to make the taxes simple and clean so that it minimized the need for avoidence strategies and got money to be invested in our future rather than hidden in bogus tax shelters where it was sidelined and unavailable for growing our economy.

It was decided that 15-20% was low enough that money would get invested rather than sheltered...and it worked. Double it and money would retreat. You can't "direct" people to invest rather than shelter, you have to make it economically smart so they choose. If you get to the point where you start "directing" investment, you'd start calling yourself the CCCP.

I didn't know you were a comedian...Our tax code is simple. Fucking christ. Good one. Anything positive you've had to say just went out the window.

He's right on all counts.

It's simple if you don't make much or owe much. Have you not been a business owner?

 

[RightField]

Now maybe it's just me, but actively looking for ways to avoid paying what you owe in taxes doesn't sound very patriotic or particularly Christian (I don't know if you profess to be or not, but a majority of the "right" does). "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's", Matthew 22:21.

As far as your misinformed opinion on what would happen if capital gains taxes were increased, history proves that you're not only incorrect, but woefully so. Economic growth was at all time highs when the highest marginal tax rates were MUCH higher (At times close to 80%) than they are today. Not a single person with an ounce of sense would refuse to invest money because they're going to have to pay tax on the money they make from that investment. They will refuse to invest if they aren't going to see a return on that investment. Your argument just doesn't hold water.

Many on the right seem to think that Capital Gains Taxes are somehow double-taxing the wealthy. They are being deliberately misinformed by those who take advantage of long term Capital gains to pay a lower tax rate (some want it to be abolished entirely). They pay Capital GAINS tax on the profit made from investment capital (Long term stocks, bonds, real estate, etc.), not the entire amount (which has already been taxed when it was earned.

You might assert that taxes don't effect people's behavior, but I'll tell you that it does and further, that there aren't many people who would agree with you. Your position is really pretty silly.

Tax avoidence strategies are not "evasion". "Tax avoidence strategies" is the approach to pay the minimum that you owe through legal means. There's a long history of legal approaches to using strategies to pay the minimum owed. One story that I found amusing was the tax plan designers in Amsterdam decided that they'd assess property value by taxing the number of windows in a building, so of course, the Dutch started designing and building structures with one big picture window instead of the traditional number of smaller windows.

As far as cap gains, doubling the level of taxation on them will certainly effect people's behaviour. It will retard the flow of capital in our system making it more expensive to sell and reinvest (slowing the flow of capital to new ideas and ventures).

 

[RightField]

I didn't know you were a comedian...Our tax code is simple. Fucking christ. Good one. Anything positive you've had to say just went out the window.

The last tax overhaul that we had was designed to make it simple. It has been twisted around a lot since then. The idea was to make the legitimate (and needed) buying and selling of investments easier so that people with good new ideas could get funding more easily.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Now maybe it's just me, but actively looking for ways to avoid paying what you owe in taxes doesn't sound very patriotic or particularly Christian (I don't know if you profess to be or not, but a majority of the "right" does). "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's", Matthew 22:21.

As far as your misinformed opinion on what would happen if capital gains taxes were increased, history proves that you're not only incorrect, but woefully so. Economic growth was at all time highs when the highest marginal tax rates were MUCH higher (At times close to 80%) than they are today. Not a single person with an ounce of sense would refuse to invest money because they're going to have to pay tax on the money they make from that investment. They will refuse to invest if they aren't going to see a return on that investment. Your argument just doesn't hold water.

Many on the right seem to think that Capital Gains Taxes are somehow double-taxing the wealthy. They are being deliberately misinformed by those who take advantage of long term Capital gains to pay a lower tax rate (some want it to be abolished entirely). They pay Capital GAINS tax on the profit made from investment capital (Long term stocks, bonds, real estate, etc.), not the entire amount (which has already been taxed when it was earned.

I'm sorry, but everything in the tax code is there for a reason, until recently ya'll were calling it "stimulus" and "targeted tax cuts," although I will give you credit, once President Obama decided that the OWS movement was his ticket to reelection, again, ya'll feel right in line and called them loopholes.

I don't know how many times we need to revisit this meme, that where the corporate tax rates and capital gains rates were the highest, we were the richest, but as pointed out so many times before, the polls always make sure that the rich do not get hurt by taxation, witness President Obama's reticence in allowing the Bush tax rates to expire. If raising taxes was a good thing, he would have raised taxes.

And when you scream to have Capital Gains taxes increased, what you do is demand that investors pay for the non-investor's benefits and during all the rough spots in the Democratic economy you keep assuring us that because you weren't stupid, that because you didn't panic, unlike all the rest of us stupid-ass righties whom you imagined dumped all our stock holdings for gold, that your 401K is doing quite well.

That's the magic of CAPITAL GAINS.

That's the life savings and investment not of Mitt ROmney, but the Middle Class, the much ballyhooed disappearing act of the American economy...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Q: You favor an increase in the capital gains tax, saying, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28%.” It’s now 15%. That’s almost a doubling if you went to 28%. Bill Clinton dropped the capital gains tax to 20%, then George Bush has taken it down to 15%. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down.
A: What I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. The top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year--$29 billion for 50 individuals. Those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.
Q: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.
A: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what’s happening on Wall Street and how business is going.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008

Tell Newt Gingrich and the Republicans, "THANK YOU!"

 

[RightField]

The reason your tax structure looks the way it does now is that the rich keep persuading the poor and the squeezed middle to vote against their own best interests, and in the interests of the rich, with elaborate rationalisations like this.

Patrick

Yeah, power to the proletariat and all that.

The fact of the matter is that we need "the rich" to continue to fund our future. If you change the tax code so that they decide to hide and shield their money (preserve it) then we'll be a far less dynamic society and growth will stall and more jobs will be lost. The fact that Bill Gates made billions doesn't negatively effect your life and there are a lot of people who are very happy to have the jobs and efficiencies created by Microsoft.

The good thing is that for every one of those billionaires, there are millions of us who are benefiting from the low drag (tax) on investments and using it to build a nestegg.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You might assert that taxes don't effect people's behavior, but I'll tell you that it does and further, that there aren't many people who would agree with you. Your position is really pretty silly.

Tax avoidence strategies are not "evasion". "Tax avoidence strategies" is the approach to pay the minimum that you owe through legal means. There's a long history of legal approaches to using strategies to pay the minimum owed. One story that I found amusing was the tax plan designers in Amsterdam decided that they'd assess property value by taxing the number of windows in a building, so of course, the Dutch started designing and building structures with one big picture window instead of the traditional number of smaller windows.

As far as cap gains, doubling the level of taxation on them will certainly effect people's behaviour. It will retard the flow of capital in our system making it more expensive to sell and reinvest (slowing the flow of capital to new ideas and ventures).

What the hell does any of that have to do with "fairness"

We need to soak the rich and if it means the Middle Class has to pay more, well, they should be happy to do the Lord's good work, because as Clint says, we're at half time and we cannot have Madonna operating without a strong safety net in case Republicans ever get back into office and decide to start polluting, starving, and killing...

 

[Angellica1612]

You might assert that taxes don't effect people's behavior, but I'll tell you that it does and further, that there aren't many people who would agree with you. Your position is really pretty silly.

Tax avoidence strategies are not "evasion". "Tax avoidence strategies" is the approach to pay the minimum that you owe through legal means. There's a long history of legal approaches to using strategies to pay the minimum owed. One story that I found amusing was the tax plan designers in Amsterdam decided that they'd assess property value by taxing the number of windows in a building, so of course, the Dutch started designing and building structures with one big picture window instead of the traditional number of smaller windows.

As far as cap gains, doubling the level of taxation on them will certainly effect people's behaviour. It will retard the flow of capital in our system making it more expensive to sell and reinvest (slowing the flow of capital to new ideas and ventures).

It's still evasion, even if it's legal, to use strategies to pay the least possible amount in taxes. And it's done in spades by those who have the most. The average man who is living paycheck to paycheck needs to pay the least amount, because he simply doesn't have much to give - he doesn't have millions in investment accounts. The rich do, and could afford to pay more, but they aggressively search for ways to reduce their taxes. It's human nature, I guess, to try to hold onto as much as you can. It's just kind of backwards that those who have so much have more avenues to do so. (I'm neither Republican nor Democrat, but I lean more towards the conservative side in most things.)

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The reason your tax structure looks the way it does now is that the rich keep persuading the poor and the squeezed middle to vote against their own best interests, and in the interests of the rich, with elaborate rationalisations like this.

Patrick

No shit.

The government big enough to do something for you is big enough to do something to you. If you accept the former then you are saddled with the latter, for the two are inseperable; for is generally at the expense of to.
A_J, the Stupid

If you ask your government to treat someone "fairly," the only way it can ever accomplish that task is to treat someone "unfairly."
A_J, the Stupid

If you think it is acceptable to take a percentage of someone's income above your station in life, then everyone in that station, as well as everyone below your station in life will find it perfectly acceptable to take like amount from you.
A_J, the Stupid

When your philosophy of government is based on groups, you must remember that your group can be a favored or disfavored group with equal ease and that neither status is ever permanent any more than the favors government solemnly promised to purchase your group loyalty.
A_J, the Stupid

When the government gets powerful enough to fight over, the people will fight over it, and to the victors go the spoils, thus setting up the next fight.
A_J, the Stupid

The more government impedes upon the market with good intention and positive interference, the more expensive that market becomes and the maxim that you get what you pay for becomes outed as an out-and-out lie.
A_J, the Stupid

The more distant and powerful your government, the more likely it is to be dominated and controlled by just a very small group of people.
A_J, the Stupid

When Government gets so powerful that its purchase price is cost effective, even imperative, to business, then business will purchase government indulgences.
A_J, the Stupid

The more government does on your behalf, the less you can do on your own behalf.
A_J, the Stupid

The more government is asked to do on your behalf, the less it can actually get accomplished.
A_J, the Stupid

There will be no medieval magic when one turns to government to be their champion. Government is not a shining knight on a strong horse; it is a night mare.
A_J, the Stupid

The government big enough to give you something is big enough to take it away.
A_J, the Stupid

When you work for government, government works for you.
A_J, the Stupid

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It's still evasion, even if it's legal, to use strategies to pay the least possible amount in taxes. And it's done in spades by those who have the most. The average man who is living paycheck to paycheck needs to pay the least amount, because he simply doesn't have much to give - he doesn't have millions in investment accounts. The rich do, and could afford to pay more, but they aggressively search for ways to reduce their taxes. It's human nature, I guess, to try to hold onto as much as you can. It's just kind of backwards that those who have so much have more avenues to do so. (I'm neither Republican nor Democrat, but I lean more towards the conservative side in most things.)

Then tell the poor (the bottom 50%) to stop voting to have themselves pay the least amount of taxes. That's TAX EVASION.

It's a good thing people hold on to as much as they possibly can. That's Capital. Without Capital you have no real economy, but you are still saddled with rich and poor. What the real shame is is that so may people only look at wealth and think, man, that's somehow unfair, but they never see the fairness that is growth from Capital accumulation in our society. They stop comparing our poor to the world's poor and start comparing them to "What would I not want to do without and why are they doing without?" We also forget that in this nation, poor is not a permanent position in a caste society.

Define conservative please.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The very best way to avoid taxes is the white trash way.



Live off disability and food stamps.

 

[RightField]

It's still evasion, even if it's legal, to use strategies to pay the least possible amount in taxes. And it's done in spades by those who have the most. The average man who is living paycheck to paycheck needs to pay the least amount, because he simply doesn't have much to give - he doesn't have millions in investment accounts. The rich do, and could afford to pay more, but they aggressively search for ways to reduce their taxes. It's human nature, I guess, to try to hold onto as much as you can. It's just kind of backwards that those who have so much have more avenues to do so. (I'm neither Republican nor Democrat, but I lean more towards the conservative side in most things.)

Of course people do things legally to minimize the amount of tax that they owe. The guy in Amsterdam that I was refering to would think "I can have the traditional five windows across the upstairs front of my house or I can build one big one and pay only 1/5 the tax year in and year out." If the tax was $100 per window then I save $400 a year for as long as I own the house and I can save that money for my daughter's wedding instead of giving it to the tax authorities. That is a "calculation" that's been going on for as long as governments collected tax money.

If you increase property taxes significantly, all but the very richest will alter their behavior and buy smaller properties....and that leads to fewer construction jobs, and lumber, and faucet makers and tilers and ......

Taxes shape our behavior and Congress proves that almost every day.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Of course people do things legally to minimize the amount of tax that they owe. The guy in Amsterdam that I was refering to would think "I can have the traditional five windows across the upstairs front of my house or I can build one big one and pay only 1/5 the tax year in and year out. If the tax was $100 per window then I save $400 a year for as long as I own the house and I can save that money for my daughter's wedding instead of giving it to the tax authorities. That is a "calculation" that's been going on for as long as governments collected tax money.

If you increase property taxes significantly, all but the very richest will alter their behavior and buy smaller properties....and that leads to fewer construction jobs, and lumber, and faucet makers and tilers and ......

Taxes shape our behavior and Congress proves that almost every day.

Bastiat's BIGGER Windows theory...

 

[Angellica1612]

Then tell the poor (the bottom 50%) to stop voting to have themselves pay the least amount of taxes. That's TAX EVASION.

It's a good thing people hold on to as much as they possibly can. That's Capital. Without Capital you have no real economy, but you are still saddled with rich and poor. What the real shame is is that so may people only look at wealth and think, man, that's somehow unfair, but they never see the fairness that is growth from Capital accumulation in our society. They stop comparing our poor to the world's poor and start comparing them to "What would I not want to do without and why are they doing without?" We also forget that in this nation, poor is not a permanent position in a caste society.

Define conservative please.

The poor have to vote to pay the least taxes - they don't have any money to spare, they're POOR. I understand that capital investments are a good and necessary part of a healthy economy. But the spread here is getting ridiculous. If someone already has millions, and owns businesses that are making healthy profits, they can afford both new investments and higher taxes. Not extreme amounts, mind you. I don't believe in socialism or communism. A small percentage increase will produce millions in tax income, and leave plenty for investments. There is nothing wrong with being rich, it's what we all strive for and it's our right to pursue it. But when the man making 30 million a year pays less taxes than his secretary, something's wrong.

www.thefreedictionary.com
con·ser·va·tive (kn-sûrv-tv)
adj.
1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
4.
a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.

Also meaning I mostly lean to the right in my beliefs, including being a Christian and fairly reserved in my speech, manner, and dress. You'll see, if you haven't already, that I don't cuss people out or call them names, though I'm not above a little sarcasm on occasion.

Actually, Lit is my first foray into actually debating. I don't like conflict or anger, and have tended to shy away from this kind of thing my whole life. I would only speak up when I was with others who shared my views. I haven't made any kind of study of finances or politics, I'm just expressing my opinion. If it turns out to be wrong, then I learned something.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The poor, like the "greedy" rich vote in their self interest. What happens is that as the poor gain more benefit, the marginally poor, say, wait a second, if we can vote them the largess of the Treasury, then we can vote ourselves the largess of the Treasury, then everyone begins fighting over Treasury Largess and we turn on each other; this division plays right into the hands of the ruling oligarchy who use it to increase their power and wealth. Why do you think insider trading is legal for a Federal legislator?



The spread is not historically "ridiculous."

Neither is the rhetoric; it is the traditional prelude to the trading of a false sense of security for liberty.

So when you say conservative, you don't mean anything by it in an economic sense.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The very best way to avoid taxes is the white trash way.
Live off disability and food stamps.

How's that workin' out for ya, chief?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

How's that workin' out for ya, chief?

Just cannot do without the daily Democratic ethnic slurs?

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=745068

 

[Angellica1612]

The poor, like the "greedy" rich vote in their self interest. What happens is that as the poor gain more benefit, the marginally poor, say, wait a second, if we can vote them the largess of the Treasury, then we can vote ourselves the largess of the Treasury, then everyone begins fighting over Treasury Largess and we turn on each other; this division plays right into the hands of the ruling oligarchy who use it to increase their power and wealth. Why do you think insider trading is legal for a Federal legislator?



The spread is not historically "ridiculous."

Neither is the rhetoric; it is the traditional prelude to the trading of a false sense of security for liberty.

So when you say conservative, you don't mean anything by it in an economic sense.

It is? I didn't know that. I told you I'm no serious student of financials stuff, especially on a national level. I've had my head in the sand, I guess. I don't understand your comment on the spread.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It is? I didn't know that. I told you I'm no serious student of financials stuff, especially on a national level. I've had my head in the sand, I guess. I don't understand your comment on the spread.

The gap between rich and poor is not that large in the United States.

Additionally our poor are incredibly, economically, mobile. You are being manipulated by the press and the Left with a constant barrage of propaganda against "the rich" and "wealth."

Just like all attempts at "equality" for the masses, from the French Revolution to the Soviet Union, what will happen from equitable and fair taxation is an actual gap where there is no middle-class, only the rich and the poor. Note how insistent the cries and wails are about the disappearance of the middle-class and how we need to take from the rich in order to return the middle-class to its former position. This, of course will not happen, the poor will not vote to come to their aid, for the poor fear they will lose benefit and the rich don't have to worry because they own the government and pass on all legislative "fairness" to the middle-class.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Just cannot do without the daily Democratic ethnic slurs?

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=745O68

That's right, chief. You're a victim. A VICTIM, DAMMIT!