Should investment income be taxed at the same rate as work income (Buffet Rule)?

Posted by incubus on June 28, 2012 (05:53PM)

treeHamster said:Incy, we've already established that LTCG doesn't actually create that many jobs. You are beating a dead horse we have all agreed is true. At this point we are speculating on alternative ways to eliminate tax code preference (since we already know pushing taxes on one group or another won't fix the system).

P.S. While I didn't like the entire proposal of the Simpson-Bowles committee, I would have taken it as it was a start to fixing the problems.

"We", Either you have multiple personalities, or someone else agree's with you, that someone isn't me.

Bush's tax cuts account for over $300 billion in lost revenues per year.

That's an awful lot of lost revenues for tax cuts that "We've established doesn't create that many jobs".

Reagan did not condone taxing cap gains as anything but income, so no one can cite the Reagan name here either.

Again, "job creating" tax cuts should be in DIRECT reciprocation to jobs created, period, without question, this means tax cuts would, for the first time in decades, benefit SMALL businesses instead of high paying corporate political bribers...many whom pay no taxes while shipping jobs to China & India.

Posted by treeHamster on June 28, 2012 (06:47PM)

Ok even if it DID get $300B back (which I doubt it will get THAT much given that corporate bonuses are starting to fall) well you're still $1,000,000,000,000 in the red this year alone. I'm sure most of Americans would happily be able to cut their debt by 25% but they are STILL IN DEBT over their heads. Last time I checked, taxes can't keep up with ballooning social programs even if our economy wasn't in a recession (look at the 90's and they still saw the debt as coming to the point where it would kill us and at that time there wasn't any massive recession in the models).

So in other words....you're still beating a dead horse and the boat is still sinking.

Posted by incubus on June 28, 2012 (07:01PM)

Hint, much of the entitlement spending right now is a direct result o high unemployment & lower wages. - U/E bennies, Food stamps, homeowner assistance, welfare...etc.

Once employed, these liabilities become assets, the change of trend from deficit to surplus is dramatic.

Clinton proved this, hands down.

Reverse that trend by altering current tax breaks to ONLY be in DIRECT proportion for Actual jobs created, the rest falls in place as higher employment leads to greater consumption, home ownership and economic activity.

Get rid of 15% cap gains, as Reagan wanted it, use the money to pay for infrastructure, which also saves money and boosts the economy, subsidize entitlements until those entitlements are no longer necessary, again, this is a DEMAND crisis, not a supply crisis.

Even Greenspan now criticizes the continuance of Bush's tax cuts, citing he only intended them to be in place until the Clinton surplus was gone.

The current GOP plan is tantamount to refusing to pay for a tow when your car breaks down in the middle of nowhere.

Without a tow, you go absolutely nowhere, the longer you wait, the worse it gets.



You must Log In to post to this forum.

Not a member? Register Now to …

  • See what other traders are doing
  • Make your own trades public
  • Share your thoughts on a trade
  • Join or start a group
  • Connect with like-minded traders