Romney Inflated 2011 Taxes

The tax rate on long-term gains was reduced in 1997 via the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 from 28% to 20% and again in 2003, via the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, from 20% to 15%...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax#United_States


So if the JPP righties are correct, investment was curtailed in America prior to 1997?

Interesting.
It seems that Damo and Dixie may indeed be entirely wrong in their premise, at least according to this study; http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57430180-93/turns-out-investing-in-venture-capital-funds-isnt-a-great-idea/



I
t seems that investments made BEFORE the capital gains rate was slashed perform MUCH better. Hmm.
 
Romney said. "I'd think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires."

huh, when the lower income folks do that he calls the, victims and moochers.
 
What, argue with Dixie about how rich people would rather let their money be eroded by inflation than pay higher taxes on earnings? Try to explain to him that wealthy people do continue to want to earn money even after they are wealthy? That venture capital represents a very small percentage of income taxed as capital gains? Arguing with Dixie is a waste of time, since facts are meaningless to him, he operates based on his perceptions, not facts.

Misleading because virtually ALL venture capital is subject to capital gains taxation. But I like the tactic of presenting an opinion based on perception, then closing with the accusation that I operate on perceptions and not facts. That is almost clever, and almost shows signs of intelligence... things must be looking up for you, retard?
 
Misleading because virtually ALL venture capital is subject to capital gains taxation. But I like the tactic of presenting an opinion based on perception, then closing with the accusation that I operate on perceptions and not facts. That is almost clever, and almost shows signs of intelligence... things must be looking up for you, retard?

Yes, Shit for Brains, but not all income taxed as capital gains is derived from venture capital, in fact the amount is miniscule, which was my point that you completely misunderstood. Most income taxed as capital gains is:

1. Stocks or equity positions sold for a profit.
2. Real estate holdings.
3. Real compensation (earnings falsely reported as capital gains).

Your theory is, as usual, completely without merit.
 
Yes, Shit for Brains, but not all income taxed as capital gains is derived from venture capital, in fact the amount is miniscule, which was my point that you completely misunderstood. Most income taxed as capital gains is:

1. Stocks or equity positions sold for a profit.
2. Real estate holdings.
3. Real compensation (earnings falsely reported as capital gains).

Your theory is, as usual, completely without merit.

Well I didn't present a theory, that seems to be what you are trying to present, but failing. Let me see if I can help... You are trying to argue that since not much of what is taxed as capital gains is actual venture capital, we can raise cap gains taxes and things will be just fine and dandy. What you are failing to recognize is, ALL venture capital is subject to capital gains taxation, therefore, ALL venture capital would be effected by an increase in capital gains taxes. It doesn't matter how much venture capital represents, all of it is subject to cap gains.

What is taxed as capital gains, are "gains in income earnings" from stocks and real estate sales transactions. When a wealthy person doesn't receive money as an earning of income, there can be no kind of taxation, it's not earned income but earned wealth. Every year, the super-wealthy continue to gain wealth, just by the fact they have wealth invested and it returns profits, but unless they 'receive' these as income, they aren't taxed and this wealth simply snowballs, until the wealthy person decides to take some of it out of securities and it becomes 'income' subject to taxation. They old properties, but they aren't taxed on how much the property gained in value for the year, they are only taxed when they sell the property and receive a 'capital gain' from it. Again, each year, the super-wealthy increase their wealth by not selling property and allowing the gain in value to increase their wealth. Now, they do, in many cases, pay local property taxes and whatnot, but the increased values of some property is far greater than this amount.

This is why "TAX THE RICH" fails. You don't see it because you are completely ignorant of how the system works, and why we do the things we do. Capital gains taxes were lowered so that super-wealthy people who would otherwise leave their wealth where it is, would take the money out of securities and use it to fund venture capital projects, like building factories and industries, or opening new businesses. Curious thing about that is, it tends to create MANY MANY jobs! Even MORE interesting is, each of these jobs is a new potential source of tax revenue from income. BUT.... without the super-rich choosing to take their money out of security and make all of it happen, who is going to do it? When is the last time you saw a typical Occutard build a factory or hire someone? Poor folks don't build factories and industries, they don't have billions in wealth to do so.
 
BUT.... without the super-rich choosing to take their money out of security and make all of it happen, who is going to do it?...

Where are the factories and the jobs the super-rich are supposed to have created?
 
Where are the factories and the jobs the super-rich are supposed to have created?

Well there are a bunch of them that have been created since Reagan lowered cap gains taxes in the 80s. We're not talking about lowering them, we're talking about increasing them. IF we do, we will effectively kill most venture capitalism. Is that a good thing or bad thing? I maintain, it's a bad thing, because it essentially kills jobs. For a few years, you may gain a little extra tax revenue from it, but in the long run, you have stifled job growth and economic prosperity. When we are in a robust and thriving economy, perhaps you can get away with this for a few years, make a quick buck, and not really effect things much, but when we're already economically flat lining, with virtually no job growth, it's a particularly STUPID thing to do.
 
Back
Top