• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

haymarket said:
Do you have any rational arguments why the proposals of President Obama would be bad for the entire nation - as opposed to a personal inconvenience for yourself? I think that would be a topic that everyone can participate in and we can all then steer clear of personal attacks and remarks about the individual.
Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:
we all understand that you work for a democrat politician and before that a democrat organ known as a teachers' union and you want policies that allow the dem party more power.

you think more union power, more income redistribution and more welfare socialism is better for the USA when its better for you

your policies make this country weak, causes increased dependency and sloth and bloated government
Click to expand...

Well, I guess that is a "no"...
 
TurtleDude said:
we all understand that you work for a democrat politician and before that a democrat organ known as a teachers' union and you want policies that allow the dem party more power.

you think more union power, more income redistribution and more welfare socialism is better for the USA when its better for you

your policies make this country weak, causes increased dependency and sloth and bloated government
Click to expand...

Again, let us discuss the policies and issues here rather than the persons and personalities who make the posts. My occupation - or yours - or any other poster - is irrelevant to the merits of a national tax policy.
 
TurtleDude said:
that is probably due to your hearing rather than a lack of answers

Buffett is a dem. he thinks helping obama's tax schemes helps the dems. the uber rich often prefer a big centralized government that concentrates wealth in the hands of the government. It creates a financial environment that benefits the uber wealthy
Click to expand...

So your theory is that Buffett supports higher taxes on the wealthy because it benefits the wealthy.... But you oppose higher taxes on the wealthy because it would harm the wealthy. That makes a lot of sense....
 
TurtleDude said:
to save you the embarrassment



the stupid clown says it right here
Click to expand...


LOL Gibson doesn't understand what happens when you lower the capital gains tax. Sure the revenues will increase the following year. That's because those people will hold on to their capital assets until the lower tax rate is in effect. Overall though, the tax revenues are less than they would have been if the rates were not changed.
 
Thunder said:
Buffett isn't whining about having his tax-rate increased by 3%. (God forbid!!)

Why? Because as a patriotic American who is filthy rich, he knows that he can totally afford to pay more in taxes and it won't affect his spending habits one bit.
Click to expand...

All he has to do is give himself a $3,000,000 salary (not out of line with the industry) as opposed to a $100K salary.
 
teamosil said:
Kiddo, he clearly said he would look at it, not that he'd raise them out of fairness.... That kind of misrepresentation might fly on the Glenn Beck show or at your tea parties or whatever, but not among normal people.
Click to expand...

If you listen and watch what was said, right at the beginning of the debate, the moderator says to Barrack Obama that he said on CNBC that he would raise the capital gains tax. BHO did not deny this. He only later gave reasons for increasing the capital gains tax. One of these reasons was "fairness".

Are you denying Barrack Obama said he would not raise capital gains taxes when Barrack Obama did not deny the charge? It seems you are in deeper denial than BHO himself!
 
Grant said:
If you listen and watch what was said, right at the beginning of the debate, the moderator says to Barrack Obama that he said on CNBC that he would raise the capital gains tax. BHO did not deny this.
Click to expand...

Yeah he does. He corrects the moderator and says "What I said was that I would look at raising the capital gains tax". He even emphasizes the words "look at" so there isn't any confusion... It's at 0:48...

Grant said:
Are you denying Barrack Obama said he would not raise capital gains taxes when Barrack Obama did not deny the charge? It seems you are in deeper denial than BHO himself!
Click to expand...

Denying that Obama said he would not raise capital gains? What? He said he would look at raising them and walked through the situations in which he would raise them. It isn't confusing... Just watch it again maybe?
 
1Perry said:
All he has to do is give himself a $3,000,000 salary (not out of line with the industry) as opposed to a $100K salary.
Click to expand...

Based on his recent investment in BAC perhaps he should be paid zero. As a matter of fact it would not surprise me to see stockholder lawsuits. He said he came up with the idea while taking a bath, not exactly what the due diligence his stockholders derserve before making a $5 billion investment.
 
teamosil said:
Yeah he does. He corrects the moderator and says "What I said was that I would look at raising the capital gains tax". He even emphasizes the words "look at" so there isn't any confusion... It's at 0:48...



Denying that Obama said he would not raise capital gains? What? He said he would look at raising them and walked through the situations in which he would raise them. It isn't confusing... Just watch it again maybe?
Click to expand...

Here's the CNBC interview. You can read it for yourself. News Headlines
 
Grant said:
Here's the CNBC interview. You can read it for yourself. News Headlines
Click to expand...

Quote the part where you think he says that he would raise capital gains taxes even if it meant less revenue... What he actually says is:

The broader principle that I'm interested in is just making sure that we've got a tax code that is fair for all Americans. And I think it is not unreasonable to say--you know, I know that we'll get some arguments from some folks on this, but it's not unreasonable to say that those of us in the upper brackets have benefited disproportionately from a globalized economy; that those benefits have been compounded by the Bush tax cuts and that for us to roll back some of those tax cuts and to put this economy on a more stable fiscal footing and to make investments in the American people so that they can afford a decent life, that that is actually good long term for our economy and also good for investors and Wall Street.
 
Last edited:
teamosil said:
Quote the part where you think he says that he would raise capital gains taxes even if it meant less revenue... What he actually says is:

The broader principle that I'm interested in is just making sure that we've got a tax code that is fair for all Americans. And I think it is not unreasonable to say--you know, I know that we'll get some arguments from some folks on this, but it's not unreasonable to say that those of us in the upper brackets have benefited disproportionately from a globalized economy; that those benefits have been compounded by the Bush tax cuts and that for us to roll back some of those tax cuts and to put this economy on a more stable fiscal footing and to make investments in the American people so that they can afford a decent life, that that is actually good long term for our economy and also good for investors and Wall Street.
Click to expand...

Why not refer to the part which relates to capital gains directly?
BARTIROMO: How do you plan to change the tax code when it comes to capital gains? How high will that 15 percent rate go?

Sen. OBAMA: Well, you know, I haven't given a firm number. Here's my belief, that we can't go back to some of the, you know, confiscatory rates that existed in the past that distorted sound economics. And I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was the 28 percent. I would--and my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that. I think that we can have a capital gains rate that is higher than 15 percent. If it--and if it, you know--when I talk to people like Warren Buffet or others and I ask them, you know, what's--how much of a difference is it going to be if it's 20 or 25 percent, they say, look, if it's within that range then it's not going to distort, I think, economic decision making. On the other hand, what it will also do is first of all help out the federal treasury, which is running a credit card up with the bank of China and other countries. What it will also do, I think, is allow us to make investments in basic scientific research, in infrastructure, in broadband lines, in green energy and will allow us to give us--give some relief to middle class and working class families who have been driving this economy as consumers but have been doing it through credit cards and home equity loans. They're not going to be able to do that. And if we want the economy to continue to go strong, then we've got to make sure that they're getting a little relief as well.
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
Why not refer to the part which relates to capital gains directly?
Click to expand...

So you're just admitting you were wrong? He is explicitly saying he would NOT raise it to a point where it would hurt the economy... That's the OPPOSITE of what you guys are claiming... Maybe you were not following the discussion before you jumped in. Yeah, definitely he wants to raise capital gains. Somebody would have to a fool not to. But TurtleDude made the absurd claim that he said he would raise them even if it meant less revenue, which of course he never said. In fact, as the quote you just provided shows, he is saying exactly the opposite- that he would NOT raise them to a point where it would hurt the economy. And in the part I quoted he explained exactly why it would actually help the economy.
 
teamosil said:
So you're just admitting you were wrong? He is explicitly saying he would NOT raise it to a point where it would hurt the economy... That's the OPPOSITE of what you guys are claiming... Maybe you were not following the discussion before you jumped in. Yeah, definitely he wants to raise capital gains. Somebody would have to a fool not to. But TurtleDude made the absurd claim that he said he would raise them even if it meant less revenue, which of course he never said. In fact, as the quote you just provided shows, he is saying exactly the opposite- that he would NOT raise them to a point where it would hurt the economy. And in the part I quoted he explained exactly why it would actually help the economy.
Click to expand...

How the hell does Obama know how high is too high? :lamo
 
apdst said:
How the hell does Obama know how high is too high? :lamo
Click to expand...

Are you talking about him inhaling?

To tell you the truth I would not trust a President that wasn't at least aware of pot much less smoking it in college the military trade school whatever.
 
teamosil said:
If you don't have any arguments to make you should try to sit quietly.
Click to expand...

I asked a question. If you don't have an answer, perhaps you should follow your own advice.
 
apdst said:
I asked a question. If you don't have an answer, perhaps you should follow your own advice.
Click to expand...

You were serious? Oh wow... Ok, lets start from the basics. Presidents don't just make up policy off the top of their heads. Policies are crafted by policy makers. President Obama, and every US president in modern times, has the largest collection of economists there has ever been anywhere in the world working for him. They make recommendations, do studies, etc...
 
teamosil said:
You were serious? Oh wow... Ok, lets start from the basics. Presidents don't just make up policy off the top of their heads.
Click to expand...

In the case of Obama, they don't do it at all.

Policies are crafted by policy makers. President Obama, and every US president in modern times, has the largest collection of economists there has ever been anywhere in the world working for him. They make recommendations, do studies, etc...
Click to expand...

And then get it wrong.
 
1Perry said:
In the case of Obama, they don't do it at all.
Click to expand...

That would be a good thing. Presidents shouldn't just make things up... They are in an important position. They should take that seriously...

1Perry said:
And then get it wrong.
Click to expand...

You're just anti-economist across the board? How should we craft economic policy?
 
teamosil said:
So you're just admitting you were wrong? He is explicitly saying he would NOT raise it to a point where it would hurt the economy... That's the OPPOSITE of what you guys are claiming... Maybe you were not following the discussion before you jumped in. Yeah, definitely he wants to raise capital gains. Somebody would have to a fool not to. But TurtleDude made the absurd claim that he said he would raise them even if it meant less revenue, which of course he never said. In fact, as the quote you just provided shows, he is saying exactly the opposite- that he would NOT raise them to a point where it would hurt the economy. And in the part I quoted he explained exactly why it would actually help the economy.
Click to expand...

It's clear, once you get through the mess of words in the print interview, that he wants to raise capital gains to the 20%-25% neighbourhood and in the televised interview which followed he says he would raise capital gains "out of fairness". He then refers to the 50 stockbrokers. He repeatedly says he wants it "fair".

At no time did he say in that debate that he would not do it if it hurt the economy and in fact appears confused when told that revenues went up when capital gains were lowered. He responded to these facts with "that might happen or it might not". He really doesn't have a clue.

Of course it is also clear Barrack Obama has hurt the economy, and the future of the country, a great deal, no matter what the capital gains might be. I don't believe for a moment that he was ever fearful of hurting the economy.
 
Gibson's capital-gains tax assertion during debate disputed by economists | Media Matters for America


From the CBO brief:



Because taxes are paid on realized rather than accrued capital gains, taxpayers have a great deal of control over when they pay their capital gains taxes. By choosing to hold on to an asset, a taxpayer defers the tax. The incentive to do that -- even when it might otherwise be financially desirable to sell an asset -- is known as the lock-in effect. As a consequence of that incentive, the level of the tax rate can substantially influence when asset holders realize their gains, as can be seen particularly clearly when tax rates change. ... For instance, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 boosted capital gains tax rates effective at the beginning of 1987. Anticipating that increase, investors realized a huge amount of gains in 1986. Then, in 1987, realizations fell by almost as much, returning to a level comparable to that before the tax increase.
[...]
The sensitivity of realizations to gains tax rates raises the possibility that a cut in the rate could so increase realizations that revenue from capital gains taxes might rise as a consequence. Rising gains receipts in response to a rate cut are most likely to occur in the short run. Postponing or advancing realizations by a year is relatively easy compared with doing so over much longer periods. In addition, a stock of accumulated gains may be realized shortly after the rate is cut, but once that accumulation is "unlocked," the stock of accrued gains is smaller and realizations cannot continue at as fast a rate as they did initially. Thus, even though the responsiveness of realizations to a tax cut may not be enough to produce additional receipts over a long period, it may do so over a few years. The potentially large difference between the long- and short-term sensitivity of realizations to tax rates can mislead observers into assuming a greater permanent responsiveness than actually exists.
​
 
Grant said:
Of course it is also clear Barrack Obama has hurt the economy, and the future of the country, a great deal, no matter what the capital gains might be. I don't believe for a moment that he was ever fearful of hurting the economy.
Click to expand...

He's just following orders from the Kenyan Government.:roll:
 
teamosil said:
You're just anti-economist across the board? How should we craft economic policy?
Click to expand...

I'd allow those who have actually done something create it as opposed to simply learned about it in school.
 
Grant said:
It's clear, once you get through the mess of words in the print interview, that he wants to raise capital gains to the 20%-25% neighbourhood and in the televised interview which followed he says he would raise capital gains "out of fairness". He then refers to the 50 stockbrokers. He repeatedly says he wants it "fair".
Click to expand...

Right. He wants to raise capital gains to the 20-25% range because it would be more fair. Of course. Nobody ever said otherwise.

What was claimed earlier is that he said he would do that even if it meant reduced revenues. He certainly never said that, and in fact he has said many times that he would not raise them to the point that it hurt the economy. You just quoted one of those places to me a minute ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom