Is there anything that he has done...Follow

Ok. Just figured I'd discuss the "Dem plan" a bit. Why not, right?




Ah. Ok... How exactly are they planning on doing this?

Big problem. They are mixing their rhetoric with their economics. There is no "capital gains rate for people who make over 200k a year" anywhere in the tax code folks. What the Dems do is look at the statistics of who makes the most money from capital gains and then calculates some percentages of "taxes paid based on income ranges". This is totally bogus. That's not how the taxes actually work. They may end up being that way, but that's not how the tax code is written.

The only way to increase taxes on those making more then 200k a year (or 240k) is to either simply raise income taxes on those higher brackets (which I don't think is what they are doing), or to raise the lowest capital gains rate (lowest being "longest term". Sure. Most people utilizing that rate make over 200k, but that's the cart leading the horse folks. They make over 200k *because* they invest and make use of capital gains. They don't get capital gains rates because they make that much money.

Anyone who says they are targeting capital gains tax increases at "the rich" is lying. Pure and simple. Capital gains tax rates are exactly the same whether you make 20k a year or 20 million a year. You pay a percentage rate on the gain based on the duration that the capital investment was maintained. It's really that simple. The only effect on capital gains based on income is that the "highest" rate you pay for capital gains is equal to your income tax rate. This means that people who have less real income start out at a lower capital gains rate (it'll never be taxed higher then income and their income tax rate is lower). But the longer term rates are identical, no matter what your actual income is.

Kerry and Edwards are using a popular misconception about capital gains (it's only for the rich) to push a political agenda. It's pure bull people.



More of the same. You can't set capital gains based on real income (not without completely changing the entire tax structure). What he means is that he'll adjust the rate for everyone so that based on the statistics *today* it'll most effect those making over 350k a year. Again though. It's the cart leading the horse. But then it's easy to make bogus promises to a gullible audience that doesn't know better when you're trying to get a nomination. Give them what they want to hear I guess...

And the "death tax". Ok. This at least can be based on the size of the inheritance without completely changing huge sections of law, but what exactly are "very large estates"? What's the dividing line?

And I'm still confused why we feel we must punish people for being successful? That just seems backwards to me.

This is also yet another example of the Dems not understanding the issues. They rail about jobs and wealth leaving the country, yet try desperately to pass laws that will only encourage more of it. Ok. So I'll just move my estate and my holdings to Zurick or something. Anywhere where they wont take it from me when I die.

When you tax a particular group to death (heh literally in this case), you only encourage them to move their money to someplace where it wont be taxed as high. When that group happens to also be those who own the businesses and investment capital in the country, you are literally killing yourself by pushing this kind of agenda. You want to make people want to put money in our country. You want them to own their estates here. You want them to keep their money here. Thue *only* way to do that is to reduce the costs they have to pay to do business in the US. Increasing taxes kinda doesn't do that.




More cart pushing the horse logic. Again. People become wealthy because they invest. They invest because there are benefitial tax rates to investing. It's called an incentive. We want people to put their money into business and industry instead of buying up island nations in the pacific where no one will bother them.

It doesn't work in the reverse. Edwards is a financial disaster waiting to happen. The only reason there appears to be a "two tax system" is because the Dems have sucessfully convinced their constituents that they only people who can invest are those who are already wealthy, and that those who aren't wealthy have no chance of every becoming wealthy.

Two huge lies. But it makes this kind of rhetoric possible.

Um... I'd also like to point out that your 401k is catagorized as a long term capital investment. When you retire, do you want to be taxed at 15% (or whatever the low rate is), or do you want your government to take out 50%.

We are literally stealing from our own future with economic ideas like this. It's the kind of thing that appeals to those who've already given up and just want the biggest piece of the pie they can get, no matter what the cost to everyone else.



Eh? What is this supposed to do? That's what most escrow companies charge for their "earnest money" up front cost. When buying a home, $5k here or there really isn't that significant.

Oh. And for first time buyers. Well, I suppose it's nice, but this is still typical Dem thinking. Give a straight dollar amount. After all, don't want to confuse the people with complicated math. Hmmm.... No thanks Edwards. I much prefer those first time buyer benefits that have something to do with lower interest rates instead. That'll amount to tens of thousands of dollars over the long run and will mean a lot more in terms of how much a house payment is per month.




What does this mean? He'll give 1000 dollars to everyone who opens a savings acount? I really have no idea what he's talking about here.




Ok. This is kind of a neat idea, and I could even maybe get behind it (it's at least encouraging investment by the "common" man).

But what exactly is "the first" thousand in capital gains, 500 in dividends? The first in your life? I'm almost positive that the increased cost of implementing this change would far outweigh the benefits given. So, instead of paying say 300 dollars of taxes on that first 1000 I make in capital gains, I fill out a special form (anyone have any idea how much it costs for the IRS to add yet another schedule? Huge) and I get to pay zero. This just sounds like a huge amount of more administration (big government) to regulate a relatively tiny amount of money.

And it's yet again kinda pointless. The whole point of investment is to build "wealth". $1000 isn't wealth. If I'm going to get into investment, I'd much rather that they reduce capital gains tax rates across the board then give a free "trial 1000 dollars" when I start. No one retires on a thousand dollars. This one really is just window dressing IMO. Cute window dressing, but clearly a very bizaare attempt to come up with a way to encourage investment while not appearing to help the "rich folks".

Um... I thought the whole point of investing was to try to become the "rich folks". Why would anyone take this seriously. It's like pulling out an umbrella when you're already floating in the middle of the ocean. So Edwards wants to encourage people to invest, but "not enough so that they become wealthy". Eh? That's just dumb...



Overall, I rate the ideas as ranging from moronic to cutting someone in half with a chainsaw but then putting a bandaide on the wound and calling it "better".

Madness.

Edited, Mon Mar 1 06:42:17 2004 by gbaji

Fixed that for ya.

I'm sorry Meadros, I guess I wasn't specific enough. I should rephrase my question.

What are the Dems going to do, should they win the presidency, to replace the jobs that Bush is "responsible" for losing?

That was a great insight into the Dems tax plan, which by the way doesn't make any sense as gbaji neatly pointed out. But changing capital gains taxes isn't going to make American businesses up and say "We have to go out and hire more Americans!".

Give me something that directly addresses the job situation, then we'll talk.

I say there are three camps of people:

1. Those who believe Bush's taxcut and spend policy is insane.
2. Those who believe that to bankrupt the government is a good thing so Social Security can be dismantled. They have created this myth of supply side economics to fool people who wouldn't support that agenda into supporting them.
3. Those who have taken the bait.

Which camp is Gbaji in? I don't know, he is ignoring the whole argument. I have supported my argument, easily I might add. All you would have to do is open your favorite search engine and look up "Starve the Beast". It is all there, clearly supported by people on all sides of the political spectrum.

Please. I am willing to entertain a whole lot of unlikely ideas. I believe it is possible, however unlikely, that our little Iraq adventure may lead to sunnier days in the middle east. I am willing to concede that it might be worth it to open up Alaska for drilling. Hell, maybe there were really elves in Europe that migrated to Valinor. Whatever.

But this is too much. How can anyone with any education argue that 10+ years of deficit spending is heathy, that it will not have an adverse effect on Social Security or our other safety nets? Short answer: you can't. That is why Gbaji must be in camp 2. He is too smart to believe this nonsense. Therefore HE IS LYING WHEN HE TOUTS THE BENEFITS OF SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS. The benefit is that there is none! It is sabotage of the Federal Government by those who run it.

Real fiscal conservatives understand this and are rallying against Bush:

http://www.thehill.com/news/021204/gop.aspx

This is exactly the point. The reason wealthy people are wealthy is because they are very smart with their income and capital. As Gbaji has pointed out, if you make it prohibitively expensive to be wealthy in a country, wealth will simply be moved to countries more appreciative of the investment.

Who knows? I don't remember a whole lot of excess spending during the Clinton years, except for in the Special Prosecutor's office. He managed to balance the budget though.

Again you ignore the main point.

I dunno.. Gbaji just claimed that five thousand dollars was a trivial amount to a first time home buyer

Edited, Mon Mar 1 13:33:24 2004 by Jophiel

I guess it depends where you are buying. In London, it would be a trivial amount in terms of whether it will make or break my decision to buy a property. Sure free money is nice, but when you are looking at a mortgage of $300,000 - $400,000, $5k really is a drop in the ocean.

Regardless of home costs in San Deigo, it'd be myoptic to pretend that was the case nationwide. For instance, I know Katie's home was obscenely low (in my opinion) though she said it was the norm for a decent home in the area. Assuming you're not buying new construction, I'd say the "average" starter home around here is $150k-$200k. New, that amount would probably get you a townhouse.

Which is my point. There's a lot of places and circumstances throughout our great land where $5k would be very handy, even if not essential, to people buying their first house. But it's casually dismissed as trivial, even as you complain that people see the wealthy as uncaring about the giant bags of coins they sit on. I just found it ironic and amusing, is all

Edited, Mon Mar 1 13:56:44 2004 by Jophiel

'Zactly. The people it's most inclined to matter to are the people it's most designed to help -- marginal people who are probably on the cusp of home ownership. Not that $5k is still likely to push them over, but it can definately be felt and lend itself to more people owning homes which is generally a good thing for the nation at large.

No, $5k doesn't matter so much if you're spending $500,000+ and buying a place in Napa Valley or San Deigo or the Chicago Gold Coast or whatever but I doubt those are the people it's really designed to help.

I'm all for cutting Federal dollars to Welfare provided that you're willing to pick up the slack at the state level (where programs like welfare, education, and even health care should be handled, in my opinion). I'd love to pay 7% of my paycheck to the Federal government for the military and national security, and 35% of my check to Minnesota. I'd love to live in a state where every citizen could get health insurance if they needed it or where we could educate our kids without Bush looking over our shoulder to make sure we're doing this his way.

I really wish it were that way, but it simply isn't, and it's not going back.

Grady

Yeah, yeah.. yadda yadda yackity-smackity. I'm aware of how buying a home works, having been through the joy of it not six months ago. Point being, you didn't say anything about applied credits or when the $5k is 'awarded' originally. Really, neither you nor I know, given the single vague line. Hell, I'm not even defending the Dem's plan on it so much because, from that one line, I know very little about it. What you did say was "When buying a home, $5k here or there really isn't that significant", a sentiment I rather disagree with.

Now, I'm sure you can come up with fifteen paragraphs using "heh" a lot, describing in minute detail how that wasn't what you meant and if only I was as asute as you, I'd have known that but, regardless, what you said was "When buying a home, $5k here or there really isn't that significant."

Personally, between using my tax dollars to either pay for $5k toward first time home owners (regardless of how its applied) or paying for fluffed up Halliburton bills with an extra $100 million in questionable charges (hey, that's 20,000 new home owners), I know where I'd put my tax dollars

It's a joke... spare me your Halliburton manifesto

Look Gbaji, I can't do it. I am not running some failing grand political experiment on the nation either.

It seems to me that things were running smoothly during the Clinton years, that those tax codes were working pretty good.
I am not talking about raising taxes on the rich or business, I am talking about letting Bush's tax cuts expire in order to balance the budget. That is not a tax hike. Obviously, to me anyway, they were a mistake that need to be rectified.


We have been in deficit spending for three solid years, and it is not going to get any better any time soon. We have three choices to make in order to balance the budget. We could either cut spending, repeal Bush's tax cuts, or a mix of the two. Any economic plan that doesn't address balancing the budget pronto is folly.