patrick.net

tatupu70 says

It seemed to work pretty well between 1940 and 1970... Don't you think?

Funny how history always seems to disprove your theories, isn't it?

Many things changed after 1975 due to growing dominance of both Japanese and European economies. It wasnt 1950s or 60s any longer and the high taxes to rebuild the world didnt apply anymore..

Yes we had higher taxes decades past.. we were the ones paying for rebuilding nations.

bob2356 says

Capital gains is a tax on the profit not the principle. You are aware that the capital gains tax is on the GAIN in value of capital investment aren't you? The only the gain is taxed, not the investment money.

Yes I do understand gains, but you havent talked about the potential losses from Capital Investments...

Therefore you ignore the risks investor makes with after tax disposable incomes.

There is a difference between income earned and capital gain/losses!

This was NEVER an issue until Obama and his cronies were elected.
Its just another Chicago style shake down!

thomas.wong1986 says

Many things changed after 1975 due to growing dominance of both Japanese and European economies. It wasnt 1950s or 60s any longer and the high taxes to rebuild the world didnt apply anymore..
Yes we had higher taxes decades past.. we were the ones paying for rebuilding nations.

So, the competition from Japan and Europe caused the divergence in income among US workers? It caused the 1% to continue to get large raises while the bottom 95% pay stagnated? It caused income inequality to reach current record levels?

thomas.wong1986 says

Yes I do understand gains, but you havent talked about the potential losses from Capital Investments...

Therefore you ignore the risks investor makes with after tax disposable incomes.

There is a difference between income earned and capital gain/losses!

Risk? What risk? You don't pay capital gains taxes if there is no capital gain. If you lose money you take a loss against your taxes.

Are you talking about risk of loss of principle? So you are saying that capital gains taxes should be low and earned income taxes should be high as a subsidy against possible bad investments? People working for a living should subsidize investors to make more risky choices than they should have because investors can make it up in low cap gains taxes on profitable investments?

That's a perfect example of the problem, not the solution.

In the US history, two presidents will be remembered for cutting cherry trees.

President Washington, as a boy of 6, cut a cherry tree at his father’s farm to test his new hatchet. He later told his father: "I cannot tell a lie, father, you know I cannot tell a lie! I did cut it with my little hatchet.''

President Obama, as a man of 46, telling us the best way to get cherry is to cut cheery trees, 1% each time so 99% will be happy to get the cherry. He told us: "I cannot tell a lie, people, you know I cannot tell a lie! I don’t know how to plant cherry trees, but I know how to cut them to get cherries for you. Please give me four more years. I will cut more cherries for you.”

Let me take a wild guess.... If a Republican gets elected then even though the exact same things would happen, everyone on the right would instantly go silent and suddenly everything would be all peachy-keen...

Ruki says

Then Warren Buffet is lying.

So, give examples of people running from investments because the taxes were so high.

Ruki, Corporate Taxes are the lowest they've been since WW2. Income and Capital Gains taxes are the lowest, too.

Explain the 50s and 60s when this country saw the greatest boom in history, when the upper bracket paid 90% of income to the IRS.

bob2356 says

Risk? What risk? You don't pay capital gains taxes if there is no capital gain. If you lose money you take a loss against your taxes.

Are you talking about risk of loss of principle? So you are saying that capital gains taxes should be low and earned income taxes should be high as a subsidy against possible bad investments? People working for a living should subsidize investors to make more risky choices than they should have because investors can make it up in low cap gains taxes on profitable investments?

That's a perfect example of the problem, not the solution

You have be to be kidding! The losses on investments are capped per year, so any significant loss will take an eternity to write off, so that's already totally skewed and unfair as they tax all of your potential profits.

What right does that idiot and his crony government have to take capital gains taxes (and go to war with them) on invested money that they have already taxed you with, which, if they are sound investments, help create and secure a lot of jobs while they subsidize home-owning and flipping to the hilt so that every dipshit can brag about their great home/asset/investment and living the American dream. None of the capital investments made by the simple taxpayer (not talking about too-big-to-fail crony corporations here) is subsidized in any form whatsoever. Please come back with that senseless reasoning once capital investors get "interest adjustments" and taxpayer bailouts when they are deep in the shitters, or fight against bailouts for big banks and other corporations close to the POTUS, then you might actually be onto something.