Gary, I didn't realize that we didn't have capitalism in this country until the Bush tax cut.....

Clearly, that is not what you meant to suggest, Again, tax revenues as a proportion of GDP are at historic lows -- at least over the past 70 years. Clearly we've had capitalism in that time frame.

We're not talking about expropriation level tax rates, simply a return the Clinton era rates. Remember, there was a pretty solid economic expansion from 1993 to 2001.

Might some of that be because large companies are doing things offshore.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/microsoft/9556255/Microsoft-used-offshore-units-to-avoid-paying-4.5bn-in-taxes-Senate-claims.html

skildude, still no answer. But if that's where you want to end it, then all I have to say is to cut government by 50% and I'll call that a start.

See, this is why our nation is divided. I have demonstrated in the past mathmatically how to fix our deficit/debt. I'm digging in my heals because what I have suggested in the past looks like it'll work and I have yet to see anything other than "gut" feelings out of the "let's raise taxes on the rich" crowd.

Like I said, if Obama wins, Harry Reid will do something to extend it a bit longer so we don't go over the fiscal cliff on Obama's watch. If Romney wins, we will go over the fiscal cliff.

Thanks a lot liberals. I'm ready. Let's do it.

your failure to read is not my failure to post. Increasing taxes to the wealthy has always created jobs and stimulated the economy regardless of neocon nay sayers. Wealthy people generally get more income from investments in stock bonds etc. rather than from actually working. Taxing these forms of investments at higher rates would enhance stability in the markets and again provide for more of a balance in the gov't budget.

You do understand that the Congressional budget whenever they complete it is thousands of pages long.
I for 1 do not have the time nor the space to itemize each cut in the gov'ts budget. I would however be quick to cut any and all funding for oil exploration to companies that have a assets and income exceeding $1 billion. This is an arbitrary number that I pulled out of my ass. the honest answer would be that I would only subsidize small oil exploration companies to the extent that they actually pay taxes every year.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Remember, there was a pretty solid economic expansion from 1993 to 2001.

Yes, it was called Y2K. Or have you forgotten how many people were temp hired to do Y2K compliance? Once we got past Y2K all these positions become useless and that was the beginning of the recession. However no one ever wants to hear the truth.

---

Gary, when I buy stock from you in Gary Corp. that is not the capital investment. Now if you were to take the money I paid you and built a factory that is when the capital investment is made and you made it not I. If you built a new house with that money no capital investment is made.

So if Gary Corp. buys inventory with it ...

So if Gary Corp. builds an office (home) but not a factory ...

So if Gary Corp. buys desks and chairs ...

So if Gary Corp. buys a 5 axis CNC machine ...

But under no circumstance can you ever make a capital investment. I guess you deny the nexus of a corporation, partnership or trust. I get that.

And speaking of a house, then what is the profit on the sale, presently called a capital gain, called under your system? Since it isn't a capital gain I guess we can repeal the $250,000.00 capital gain tax exemption on the sale of that house ...

---

Gary, I didn't realize that we didn't have capitalism in this country until the Bush tax cut.....

Clearly, that is not what you meant to suggest, Again, tax revenues as a proportion of GDP are at historic lows -- at least over the past 70 years. Clearly we've had capitalism in that time frame.

We're not talking about expropriation level tax rates, simply a return the Clinton era rates. Remember, there was a pretty solid economic expansion from 1993 to 2001.

Wikipaedia calls them a "movement".

The Tea Party movement is an American political movement that advocates strict adherence to the United States Constitution, reducing U.S. government spending and taxes, and reduction of the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit. The movement is generally considered to be partly conservative, partly libertarian, and partly populist. The movement has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009.

The theme of the Boston Tea Party, an iconic event in American history, has long been used by anti-tax protesters. It was part of Tax Day protests held throughout the 1990s and earlier. By 2001, a custom had developed among some conservative activists of sending tea bags to legislators and other officials via postal mail as an act of symbolism.

Is the above a fair comment? Sounds a bit like the BNP we have!


Tea party

"Tea Party" is a name, not an actual party, largely consisting of Libertarians and Republicans (both of which have many flavors, and a lot are not supporting the Tea (p)arty group), but the TP is definitely having an effect on policies and platforms of the Republicans.

Real Libertarians told the tea party to go to hell when the repugnants took it over.

Hence the words "many flavors".
Yet, I wonder why, in the last few weeks, one of your responses to Es(?) was "Now you're starting to think like a Republican ..." rather than "Now you're starting to think like a Libertarian ..."?

Gary, when I buy stock from you in Gary Corp. that is not the capital investment. Now if you were to take the money I paid you and built a factory that is when the capital investment is made and you made it not I. If you built a new house with that money no capital investment is made.

---

"Tea Party" is a name, not an actual party, largely consisting of Libertarians and Republicans (both of which have many flavors, and a lot are not supporting the Tea (p)arty group), but the TP is definitely having an effect on policies and platforms of the Republicans.

Real Libertarians told the tea party to go to hell when the repugnants took it over.

---

Sequestration is brilliant!

The only people who don't think so have a pet hate they want to cut out completely in favor of a pet project they want to double.

As to the Democrat erasure of the Republican tax stimulus, well, if you want to discourage capitalism, I can't think of a better way to do it, than increase the tax on capital creation.

So what does this boost on capital taxes do? The person who has cash to lend is much less likely to lend it. Interest rates get driven up. With higher interest rates comes more foreclosures. Why do you think the credit rating of the US will be cut?

Gary, when I buy a stock from you that is not a capital investment. When a new factory is built, that is a capital investment. The stock purchase is merely the transfer of ownership of the existing capital. Taxing the speculative gains made on a stock sale at at least the same rate as earned income would tend to reduce speculative bubbles and make producing and it's rewards relatively more attractive. Our society used to focus on production rather than get rich speculation.

+1

Sequestration is brilliant!

The only people who don't think so have a pet hate they want to cut out completely in favor of a pet project they want to double.

As to the Democrat erasure of the Republican tax stimulus, well, if you want to discourage capitalism, I can't think of a better way to do it, than increase the tax on capital creation.

So what does this boost on capital taxes do? The person who has cash to lend is much less likely to lend it. Interest rates get driven up. With higher interest rates comes more foreclosures. Why do you think the credit rating of the US will be cut?

Gary, when I buy a stock from you that is not a capital investment. When a new factory is built, that is a capital investment. The stock purchase is merely the transfer of ownership of the existing capital. Taxing the speculative gains made on a stock sale at at least the same rate as earned income would tend to reduce speculative bubbles and make producing and it's rewards relatively more attractive. Our society used to focus on production rather than get rich speculation.

Funny, I used the word lend and you ignored it.

As for speculation, that is already taxed at regular income tax rates. Perhaps you didn't know that. Or you forgot that short term capital gains were treated differently.

Now to your example, If you buy 1000 shares of Gary Corp. from me, yes, you will be making a capital investment.

---

Then we have another 5 years of dismantling.

Exactly. People may not like how the money is spent, but take the Affordable Healthcare Act for example. Apparently, money is already being spent in preparation. If Romney is elected, and does as he originally said, and the ACA gets repealed, that's money down the drain, wasted by government, rather than working to spend that money on something similar but "improved" before it's too late.

You have the same situation over the pond with the Democrats and Republicans, and now the emerging Tea party. Would a coalition work in the USA?

"Tea Party" is a name, not an actual party, largely consisting of Libertarians and Republicans (both of which have many flavors, and a lot are not supporting the Tea (p)arty group), but the TP is definitely having an effect on policies and platforms of the Republicans.

Sequestration is brilliant!

The only people who don't think so have a pet hate they want to cut out completely in favor of a pet project they want to double.

As to the Democrat erasure of the Republican tax stimulus, well, if you want to discourage capitalism, I can't think of a better way to do it, than increase the tax on capital creation.

So what does this boost on capital taxes do? The person who has cash to lend is much less likely to lend it. Interest rates get driven up. With higher interest rates comes more foreclosures. Why do you think the credit rating of the US will be cut?

Gary, when I buy a stock from you that is not a capital investment. When a new factory is built, that is a capital investment. The stock purchase is merely the transfer of ownership of the existing capital. Taxing the speculative gains made on a stock sale at at least the same rate as earned income would tend to reduce speculative bubbles and make producing and it's rewards relatively more attractive. Our society used to focus on production rather than get rich speculation.

---

45% is a starting point. THe idea is that there are so many loopholes and deductions that only Very wealthy people and corporations are able to take. Those holes need to be filled and get everyone back on the same playing field.

Would you list those loopholes that very wealthy people use. It will be interesting to see if they are all that bad, or if it is just envy.

I'll start it.

Far away the biggest one is the Charitable Deduction. You can give half your earnings away and get a deduction for it.

I'll list mine when Romney/Ryan lsit theirs

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

45% is a starting point. THe idea is that there are so many loopholes and deductions that only Very wealthy people and corporations are able to take. Those holes need to be filled and get everyone back on the same playing field.

Would you list those loopholes that very wealthy people use. It will be interesting to see if they are all that bad, or if it is just envy.

I'll start it.

Far away the biggest one is the Charitable Deduction. You can give half your earnings away and get a deduction for it.

---

Sequestration is brilliant!

The only people who don't think so have a pet hate they want to cut out completely in favor of a pet project they want to double.

As to the Democrat erasure of the Republican tax stimulus, well, if you want to discourage capitalism, I can't think of a better way to do it, than increase the tax on capital creation.

So what does this boost on capital taxes do? The person who has cash to lend is much less likely to lend it. Interest rates get driven up. With higher interest rates comes more foreclosures. Why do you think the credit rating of the US will be cut?

They have it now and aren't lending or have you forgotten the bailouts. Banks have $$$$ on hand and are reluctant to loan considering the low interest rates they'd get on their cash

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Sequestration is brilliant!

The only people who don't think so have a pet hate they want to cut out completely in favor of a pet project they want to double.

As to the Democrat erasure of the Republican tax stimulus, well, if you want to discourage capitalism, I can't think of a better way to do it, than increase the tax on capital creation.

So what does this boost on capital taxes do? The person who has cash to lend is much less likely to lend it. Interest rates get driven up. With higher interest rates comes more foreclosures. Why do you think the credit rating of the US will be cut?

---

45% is a starting point. THe idea is that there are so many loopholes and deductions that only Very wealthy people and corporations are able to take. Those holes need to be filled and get everyone back on the same playing field.

Telling everyone that its 45% then giving away so many deductions and exception that a wealthy person pays little more than the common worker is wrong. Now some might see this as a redistribution of wealth. This is not a redistribution of wealth. It is however an undistribution of wealth. Wealth has been accumulating at the top 5% and the average guy is paying for it. Heck, it is a redistribution back down to where it does the most good for everyone.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Sadly, not in this reality -- while it would REQUIRE bipartisan support of measures it doesn't compel bipartisanship.

As all spending would eventually run out it will compel it. It might take the present load of idiots in Washington DC a little while to get the message, but they would. Combined with a None of the Above we just might get some people with brains in office. If not, well, we get our choice.

---