The Biden Presidency

sturg33 said:
Insurrection

[Tw]1385202547183558667[/tw]
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Biden is apparently proposing a large capital gains tax hike. I gotta give it to him, at least he's trying to offset the candy he's handing out.
 
zitothebrave said:
How capitol Gains has remained untouched is baffling to me. Well not really. Because Wall Street controls both parties.
Click to expand...

Wall Street didn’t have the old party democrats. They have the new party democrats.

Wall Street owned the old party republicans. Wall Street has little to no hold over new party republicans.
 
thethe said:
Have any articles on this?
Click to expand...

Not only has a low capital gains tax rate worked to encourage savings and increase economic growth, a low capital gains rate has historically raised more in tax revenue. At a 2010 talk at the Cato Institute Dr. Daniel J. Mitchell and Dr. Richard W. Rahn argued that the government has actually raised more revenue with a lower long term capital gains tax rate than a higher rate. For example, in 2007 the IRS raised $122 billion with a 15% tax rate as opposed to $7.8 billion in 1977 ($26.7 billion in 2007 dollars) with a 40% tax rate. In fact, when President Bush signed into law a cut in the top rate from 20% to 15%, revenue increased from $51.3 billion in 2003 to $137.1 billion in 2007 (although it fell significantly after the 2008 financial crisis, understandably).
Click to expand...

https://taxfoundation.org/why-capital-gains-are-taxed-lower-rate/

And this was a classic answer from the big BO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJimLZRC9N8
 
sturg33 said:
https://taxfoundation.org/why-capital-gains-are-taxed-lower-rate/

And this was a classic answer from the big BO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJimLZRC9N8
Click to expand...

Wouldn’t it make sense that 2007 saw more gains as it was a historic run up of the market until the sub prime crash? People will naturally take gains. The specific period of 1977 was also as the market was almost at a low point on a cycle.

In my humble opinion I don’t think the comparison of those two periods holds relevancy to the argument as to whether we should or shouldn’t raise long term capital gains tax.
 
If the capital gains tax raised was raised in a multi-step process, we might be able to generate an ACCELERATION in realizations. People would have an incentive to realize the gains before the second step of the increase takes effect.

We could also see an acceleration of realizations this year if the the tax rate was raised in 2022. I'm pretty sure that would happen given the gains people are sitting on.

In 1986 investors sold twice as many securities as expected in anticipation of higher rates that took effect the following year.
 
Last edited:
thethe said:
Wouldn’t it make sense that 2007 saw more gains as it was a historic run up of the market until the sub prime crash? People will naturally take gains. The specific period of 1977 was also as the market was almost at a low point on a cycle.

In my humble opinion I don’t think the comparison of those two periods holds relevancy to the argument as to whether we should or shouldn’t raise long term capital gains tax.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that raising the gains tax will increase revenue. When it was raised twice, revenues fell.

I am much less likely to invest and certainly less likely to sell stock if my gains are cut in half. The risk reward becomes not worth it.
 
sturg33 said:
There is no evidence that raising the gains tax will increase revenue. When it was raised twice, revenues fell.

I am much less likely to invest and certainly less likely to sell stock if my gains are cut in half. The risk reward becomes not worth it.
Click to expand...

Yeah I won't make money because I'll have to play a little bit extra cash.
 
sturg33 said:
There is no evidence that raising the gains tax will increase revenue. When it was raised twice, revenues fell.

I am much less likely to invest and certainly less likely to sell stock if my gains are cut in half. The risk reward becomes not worth it.
Click to expand...

I understand the traditional position on this issue.

I am not interested in the argument which only looks at the maximazation of shareholder value at the expense of the health of the nation.

This is just where we differ.
 
thethe said:
I understand the traditional position on this issue.

I am not interested in the argument which only looks at the marination of shareholder value at the expense of the health of the nation.

This is just where we differ.
Click to expand...

If your goal is to raise tax revenue, why would you make a law that does the opposite.

Seems your goal here is just to punish people
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top