Biden on capital gains tax: “We should raise the tax back to 39.6 percent”

Why when they are entirely different forms of income and it would be a tax increase for most? What's your goal in doing so?

 

One reason for some of this is many of these rate cuts happened before stock market bubbles which generated a lot of revenue before bursting. The tech bubble and the housing bubble are examples. Another reason is that the trend is that tax rates have been going down. But historically the stock market tends to go up, a lot. So we are going to see increasing revenues even with tax cuts, they just won't increase as much as they could if we kept the tax rates the same.

Remember, correlation doesn't mean causation and a lack of correlation doesn't mean a lack of causation. We shouldn't draw our conclusions only from lines from a graph but also study the causes behind them.

 

They are different currency?

Btw, I said decrease top rates to the cap gains rate, not raise cap gains rate

 

What does the type of currency matter, if I get paid in peso's I still have to claim it just as dollars.

Not that I saw

The vast majority pay a smaller effective rate than the current capgains rate.

 

Wait a minute you have been arguing correlation is not causation now it becomes your argument. And there is little capital gains in residential housing which is around 3% - 4% of GDP. I draw my conclusions from the two studies I cited to you which you continue to ignore. And those rates effect stock market activity as in realizations and as already noted to you at high rates there is the lock-in effect which you also ignored.

That's not etched in stone by any means at all in fact we could see lower revenue due to lower activity.

 

So how is it a different type of income?

They're not me

 

How it is earned not what currency in which it is paid.

Then you must be a 1%'er, congrats.

 

What difference does it make how one earns a dollar?

 

I never argued correlation means causation you must have misread. The housing bubble resulted in a surging stock market, because it resulted in great economic growth of over 3%, which resulted in the stock market shooting up from the great economic news. Unfortunately it was just a bubble and quickly burst. The increased revenues from the housing and tech bubbles can't in good faith be credited to the capital gains tax cuts when we know what really caused them and they caused so much economic damage. Your studies incorrectly credit revenue increases during periods of a surging stock market to the tax cut rather than the good state of the economy.

 

Residential housing did not cause a surge in the stockmart I already demonstrated the corrolation between rates and activity and revenues.

So again why set the rate to 39% what is the goal what is the purpose it's not revenue.

 

In which can you lose that dollar? In which does it require you put up your wealth/property? In which might you not see that income for years or even decades?

 

If Biden goes in a lot of stock will be sold off between Nov. 2020 and Jan. 2021 in fleeing the market.

 

So?
One can risk their body or life earning a wage, and might not be able to earn for years or even decades.

 

OK? So? Different sources of income, one for your labor, one for risking your capital. If setting the capital gains rate at the same rate as earned income and produces less tax revenue then what good does that do?

 

Yeh. Why would anyone ever want to start paying down our massive deficit? We enjoy diminishing our nation into a pauper's state. Who gives a heck about America's well being? Just look at how wealthy so many of its citizens are!

 

So lower tax rates produce lower revenues?
Is that the point you want to make?

I thought the conservative position was that lower tax rates produce economic activity which in turn produces more revenues?

Which is it?

 

Yes many are more concerned in satisfying their envy of people who have more money than they do than lowering the deficits and even producing surpluses as happened after the Gingrich/Kaisch and Bush43 tax rate cuts.

 

Clinton 29% rate peak realizations $260B peak revenue $66B
Gingrich/Kasich 21% rate peak realizations $644B peak revenue $127B
Bush 15% rate rate peak realizations $924B peak revenue $137B


Which is it?

 

I'm confused by your speech pattern Bluesguy. Are you saying the previous tax cuts lowered the deficits and produced surpluses, or that the previous tax cuts were more important than lowering the dficit and producing surpluses? History proves that the Bush tax cuts and the other Bush, "hands off," approach led to our 2008 financial disaster. A nation living on credit, not paying down its debt, will ultimately face grave consequences ~ just as a family living only off its credit cards, without paying them down, will ultimately fail. So who's paying for our awesome military and how will we begin paying for repairs to our: roads, bridges, airports (broken infrastructure), etc.? Gonna put all that on the credit card too?

 

We had the budget surpluses after the Gingrich/Kacish tax rate cuts and the heading back to surplus at $161B after the Bush43 tax rate cuts. The revenue increases were HUGE hitting 15% after the Bush tax rate cuts while Clinton's tax rate increase slowed tax revenue growth.

Year......Revenue..Inc/Dec
1990 1,032.0 4.1%
1991 1,055.0 2.2%
1992 1,091.2 3.4%
1993 1,154.3 5.8% <- Clinton tax increase signed AUGUST 1993 but addtional revenues differed
1994 1,258.6 9.0%
1995 1,351.8 7.4% <-"Taxpayers who owed additional 1993 taxes due to the
OBRA93 tax rate increases were given the option of
deferring payment of two-thirds of the tax that was in
excess of the tax that would have been owed at the 31
percent rate. Half of the deferral taxes were to be paid in
1995 and the remaining half in 1996 [2].
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/93inintrts.pdf
1996 1,453.1 7.5%
1997 1,579.2 8.7% -> Gingrich/Kasich tax rate cuts
1998 1,721.7 9.0%
1999 1,827.5 6.1%
2000 2,025.2 10.8%
1990 1,032.0 4.1%
1991 1,055.0 2.2%
1992 1,091.2 3.4%
1993 1,154.3 5.8% <- Clinton tax increase signed AUGUST 1993 but addtional revenues differed
1994 1,258.6 9.0%
1995 1,351.8 7.4% <-"Taxpayers who owed additional 1993 taxes due to the
OBRA93 tax rate increases were given the option of
deferring payment of two-thirds of the tax that was in
excess of the tax that would have been owed at the 31
percent rate. Half of the deferral taxes were to be paid in
1995 and the remaining half in 1996 [2].
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/93inintrts.pdf
1996 1,453.1 7.5%
1997 1,579.2 8.7% -> Gingrich/Kasich tax rate cuts
1998 1,721.7 9.0%
1999 1,827.5 6.1%
2000 2,025.2 10.8%
2001 1,991.1 -2% Bush tax rate cuts passed 8 months into the fiscal year, 3 months after the start of the recession, to be phased in over 6 years
2002 1,853.1 -7%
2003 1,782.3 -4% Bush tax rate cuts phase in accelerated, begin full implimentation
2004 1,880.1 5% Bush tax rate cuts fully implimented
2005 2,153.6 15%
2006 2,406.9 12%
2007 2,568.0 7%

Note that in 1995 and 1996 even with the differed revenues tax revenue growth slowed from the strong upward curve Clinton inherited.

How did the Bush tax rate cuts lead to a the 2008 recession? And BTW the 2008 recession started a year after the Democrats took back the Congress and their 10% and the 20% spending increases took the deficit to $1,400B in just two years and they kept it over $1,000B for the next 3 years.

And what is every Democrat candidate still in proposing? HUGE increases in spending.

 

Okay. Thanks for that. New here and didn't know where you stand. Nice stats. Didn't everything that happened in the mid-90's include Clinton's signature?

But when you talk about deficit spending mustn't you also include Bush's unethical Iraq invasion? The unjustified destruction of the number 1 stabilizing Mideast factor while ending the lives of thousands of good, young, American military personnel was also on the credit card.

And wasn't it the financial end of the housing industry, with both parties at fault, which led to the financial disaster under Bush's watch? Bush could have vetoed any/every thing the Dems wanted. He didn't lift an effective finger. Timing is everything. And is it safe to say that Bush's failure to act on the economy probably cost McCain the election?

Sadly the Dems today are as much about deficit spending as the Repubs are about giving it all away to the wealthy (by, of all things, letting them keep all the money they gain)...

After WWII wasn't the tax rate like 50% for the upper crust and we had a balanced budget??? Now there's a Great America we could become again!

 

But you just got done telling me it would reduce revenues?

 

So why do you support wage earners paying higher rates than cap gains?

 

Biden is the man with the plan.

VOTE DEMOCRAT FOR TAX HIKES, AND A RECESSION!

 

Our rates are much too high, with the bulk of the spending enriching government cronies