• 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!

State of the Union Address

What you fail to recognize is that we have a growing economy based upon a growing investment and if you stop investing you stop growth. you think raising taxes provides the incentive to invest? I will always support individual risk taking and individual wealth creation, why won't you? What is it about liberalism that has people living in a vacuum.

So now that you have admitted you are wrong abouit this double taxation, now the question is why did you keep insisting on something that you knew to be false?
 
Why must capital gains be treated differently than other income?

Because from a NASDAQ Stock Market survey suggests that the notion that all investors are affluent gentlemen coupon-clippers is no longer true. The survey found that:

Þ stock ownership doubled over the past seven years to 43 percent of the adult population;
Þ 47 percent of all investors are women;
Þ 55 percent are under the age of 50; and
Þ 50 percent are not college graduates.

The survey results suggest that a capital gains tax reduction would directly benefit many Americans across the income spectrum. More importantly, a tax cut would benefit all Americans by promoting economic growth, thus boosting workers’ wages and living standards.
 
So now that you have admitted you are wrong abouit this double taxation, now the question is why did you keep insisting on something that you knew to be false?

I made the correction why do you ignore the value of investment capital and where that money comes from
 
Why must capital gains be treated differently than other income? Are you aware of what the Capital gains tax rates have been through our history?

That is a good question, and also one that I addressed a bit already. See the video link of an hour or two ago with Charlie Gibson asking Obama during the Democrat nominating debate with Hillary.

Capital Gains, aka Investment, reacts differently when taxed than does wages. They are motivated by completely different dynamics. Study it all you want, but the net result is that if you increase taxes on Capital Gains, the first presumption would be that it is to produce more revenue. But it invariably produces less revenue, as the investments will migrate away from higher taxation to lower taxations. The historical precedent for this is overwhelming. See the link I noted. See also what happened in NJ, MD, and Oregon in the last five years when they went after wealth. It is frankly not debatable.

So, if we do as Obama proposed, we get less revenue. History is also frought with taxation that is not in balance, ie "fair". Cigarette tax. Import Tariffs that encouraged the Civil War. Our own already "Progressive" Income Tax rate, which apparently is not enough for the libs as is. "Fairness" in taxation is a myth by most analyses.

What you are espousing is to empower government to better keep you on the gubmit teat so as to redistribute wealth. Obama and the Dems love it because it keeps them empowered in an expanding nanny state.

If you were truly concerned about "fairness", you would drop this envy crap and move to a consumption tax, which the politicians such as Obama fear, as it transfers power from them to you in more ways than one.

However, higher tax rates just do not work in producing much in added revenues. The high marginal rates of the past were accompanied with enormous loopholes and deductions. Without them, such high rates would not have been on the books.

It is a giant mess, but Obama's own Simpson Bowles Commission recommended a slew of reform. Obama has ignored all, opting instead for envy, and an expanding gubmit teat. He is not doing what is best for the country.
 
Are you aware of what the Capital gains tax rates have been through our history?

And are you aware of the varying levels of the exclusion of capital gains from taxation? And which party set these exclusion up? And which party increased these exclusions?
 
Why is it important to say if it is or is not in the Constitution? That would be irrelevant. The issue of fairness certainly is right and proper in a discussion of public tax policy.

You state that the government must treat wages differently than capital gains. I see no proof of your statement of belief that there would be less investment and less revenue. Can you provide that please?

How can one show evidence otherwise from somthing you have not supplied evidence for yourself?

Why should anyone here be for a consupmption tax in the first place?

I did post commentary and evidence earlier. You did not read it. It is clearly explained in the video that I posted as well. Refute Charlie Gibson.

I also just put up a post full of examples.

It is time for liberals to stop with all the shallow crap and start to debate the merits of investment, of taxation on investment, of historical precedent on taxation, and of solutions to other than your constant whine about "fairness". Otherwise, you are like crybabies whining for more teat.
 
The State of the Union speech was fruitless.

Our fellow friends, neighbors, family members will let our nation decay into a state of chaos before they'll admit that they've been had by these Yahoos in Washington. Yep, sucked, scammed, conned into believing there is more than one America.

Which America do you live in? The Conservative America? The Liberal America? The Centralist America? Have you started hating each other enough yet?

Meanwhile...while you've been duped into hating each other...the assholes in Washington and their cronies are stealing all three Americas right out from under your noses.

A lot of folks are pitting us against one another. Ever watch Fox political entertainers?

That said, we can and should look at polices that favor one over another, like favoring business over working people. And this does not have to be done in any hateful way. We do have a shrinking middle class. We do have problems that may require less favors to business. We should seek to remove money form politics.
 
Because from a NASDAQ Stock Market survey suggests that the notion that all investors are affluent gentlemen coupon-clippers is no longer true. The survey found that:

Þ stock ownership doubled over the past seven years to 43 percent of the adult population;
Þ 47 percent of all investors are women;
Þ 55 percent are under the age of 50; and
Þ 50 percent are not college graduates.

The survey results suggest that a capital gains tax reduction would directly benefit many Americans across the income spectrum. More importantly, a tax cut would benefit all Americans by promoting economic growth, thus boosting workers’ wages and living standards.

None of that says anything about why capital gains need to be treated differently. Why are you giving us survey results that fail to answer the question you were asked?
 
I understand.

The Democrat Party today is vastly different from that of Truman and JFK.

And the Republican party is not the party of Reagan. Both parties need to go.
 
Because from a NASDAQ Stock Market survey suggests that the notion that all investors are affluent gentlemen coupon-clippers is no longer true. The survey found that:

Þ stock ownership doubled over the past seven years to 43 percent of the adult population;
Þ 47 percent of all investors are women;
Þ 55 percent are under the age of 50; and
Þ 50 percent are not college graduates.

The survey results suggest that a capital gains tax reduction would directly benefit many Americans across the income spectrum. More importantly, a tax cut would benefit all Americans by promoting economic growth, thus boosting workers’ wages and living standards.

Yes, I have heard the case for trickle down economics before. Present the evidence of how the Bush tax cuts for the rich over the last ten years have benefited the middle class?
 
Last edited:
"Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal."

Thats from the UCLA study in 2005. Those stations have only gotten more obviously biased since then.

Remember the 2008 election where the Rasmussen poll showed 51% felt the media want Obama to win versus 9% felt they wanted McCain to win?
 
What you fail to recognize is that we have a growing economy based upon a growing investment and if you stop investing you stop growth. you think raising taxes provides the incentive to invest? I will always support individual risk taking and individual wealth creation, why won't you? What is it about liberalism that has people living in a vacuum.

it's idiotic to believe that people will stop buying stocks simply becasue they pay a little more tax. when the tax rates for investments were higher, people still invested.
 
"Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal."

Thats from the UCLA study in 2005. Those stations have only gotten more obviously biased since then.

Remember the 2008 election where the Rasmussen poll showed 51% felt the media want Obama to win versus 9% felt they wanted McCain to win?

There's a lot of issues with how they scored them. You should search rebuttals to that study. . . . . Just saying. ;)
 
it's idiotic to believe that people will stop buying stocks simply becasue they pay a little more tax. when the tax rates for investments were higher, people still invested.

It is idiotic to believe that taxes on risk takers will encourage more risk takers. Why does the Federal govt. deserve income from someone else's risk taking?
 

yeah I saw a youtubve video on just this.. LOL I mean he says things that are conservative but his actions are liberal. Also notice no mention of Keystone. He says we need to be independant with our energy but he works as hard as the good liberal he is in making as difficult as hell for us to actually be "independant. :0 he's a joke, and ya gotta believe that reasonable democrast this year aren't buying it?

Tim-
 
Then why would anyone support raising taxes on the risk takers?

Are they not rewarded for the risk when they succeed? And are not their taxes lower if not non-existent if they fail? And don't we tax workers, who risk losing a job if that business fails?

So, stop the class warfare stuff.
 
None of that says anything about why capital gains need to be treated differently. Why are you giving us survey results that fail to answer the question you were asked?

OH, I understand the question now! They don't need to be treated differently but rather INCOME TAXES do. Income taxes need to be reduced to cap gain rates.
 
Then why would anyone support raising taxes on the risk takers?

Risk takers? We tax tight rope walkers? We tax fire eaters? We tax people who drive too fast for road conditions?
 
OH, I understand the question now! They don't need to be treated differently but rather INCOME TAXES do. Income taxes need to be reduced to cap gain rates.

How much would that cost in the first year in lost revenue based on current income tax levels?
 
That is a good question, and also one that I addressed a bit already. See the video link of an hour or two ago with Charlie Gibson asking Obama during the Democrat nominating debate with Hillary. Capital Gains, aka Investment, reacts differently when taxed than does wages. They are motivated by completely different dynamics. Study it all you want, but the net result is that if you increase taxes on Capital Gains, the first presumption would be that it is to produce more revenue. But it invariably produces less revenue, as the investments will migrate away from higher taxation to lower taxations. The historical precedent for this is overwhelming. See the link I noted. See also what happened in NJ, MD, and Oregon in the last five years when they went after wealth. It is frankly not debatable.

So, if we do as Obama proposed, we get less revenue. History is also frought with taxation that is not in balance, ie "fair". Cigarette tax. Import Tariffs that encouraged the Civil War. Our own already "Progressive" Income Tax rate, which apparently is not enough for the libs as is. "Fairness" in taxation is a myth by most analyses.

What you are espousing is to empower government to better keep you on the gubmit teat so as to redistribute wealth. Obama and the Dems love it because it keeps them empowered in an expanding nanny state.

If you were truly concerned about "fairness", you would drop this envy crap and move to a consumption tax, which the politicians such as Obama fear, as it transfers power from them to you in more ways than one.

However, higher tax rates just do not work in producing much in added revenues. The high marginal rates of the past were accompanied with enormous loopholes and deductions. Without them, such high rates would not have been on the books.

It is a giant mess, but Obama's own Simpson Bowles Commission recommended a slew of reform. Obama has ignored all, opting instead for envy, and an expanding gubmit teat. He is not doing what is best for the country.

And the GOP ignore them because the recommendations included tax increases.

Anyway, I am familiar with the trickle down theory, but in reality how have the Bush tax cuts to the rich of the last 10 years benefited the middle class, our economy, and our budget deficit.
 
And are you aware of the varying levels of the exclusion of capital gains from taxation? And which party set these exclusion up? And which party increased these exclusions?

You did not answer the question.
 
And the Republican party is not the party of Reagan. Both parties need to go.


Both parties are basicly the same. the agenda is only they can weild power.
 
Back
Top Bottom