The Case for Progressive Taxation

No one is imposing a heavy penalty on unrealized capital gains, at least not if Clinton gets elected. The wealthiest top 1 percent will see the most change. Trump's plan will help the wealthiest out much more than ever before; however, Trump's plan will do nothing for the deficit but allow it to increase to unmanageable amounts over the decades, whereas Clinton's plan will decrease it. Here they are for comparison:

I certainly agree that the proposed Trump tax plan would blow a huge hole in the deficit. Although we would obviously love to have a large tax cut, it simply isn't in the cards, for obvious reasons.

However, if you think Hillary's economic proposals would reduce the deficit, you're living in a fantasy world.

The tax increases she proposes would collect very little additional revenue, while the spending increases she champions -- free college tuition, expanded government health care subsidies, infrastructure programs, etc. -- would be very expensive.

The Trump plan offers tax savings at all income levels, with huge savings at the highest income levels resulting from the reduction in the top rate from 39.6% to 25%. And while all those negative numbers in the Trump column sure look appealing, try to keep in mind that in order for them to become a reality, we’re either going to have to cut spending (Fun Fact: We wont!), put another $12 trillion on the country credit card, or go deeper in debt to China.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonyn.../#1035b4bb1c23

I don't think capital gains should be penalized, just taxed when they are sold and/or realized. Then, I think they should be taxed as regular income, the same as wages. I guess what I am trying to say is that any type of disposable income should be taxed, including interest from savings and investment accounts, dividends received from stock, and things like that.

Are you aware that there's a powerful inverse correlation between the capital gains tax rate and capital gains tax realizations? (See post #94 above.)

Also note what happened when liberals pushed the cap gains tax rate to almost 40% in the 1970s. That worked out so poorly that Congress, even with a large Democratic majority, prevailed upon the president to agree to a reduction to 28%. (Which didn't go far enough, but that's a damned sight better than 40%!) And the president who signed the bill was Carter, not Reagan. Bad policy is bad policy regardless of the party in power, and even Democrats could see at that time that high capital gains tax rates weren't cutting it.

Mostly, what really bothers me is how the multinational corporations are not paying taxes on their profits by using corporate inversions. Hillary has a plan for cracking down on those. No, she doesn't. Just hot air. The US loses enormous amounts of tax revenue because of this. It's really unjust and unfair in my opinion. See this article:

The Biggest Tax Scam Ever


These tax turncoats have drawn the ire of President Obama. "I don't care if it's legal," he declared this summer. "It's wrong." These inverted companies, he said, "don't want to give up . . . all the advantages of operating in the United States. They just don't want to pay for it."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...-ever-20140827

This is one thing Sanders is very emphatic about also.

Although he may claim to be "very emphatic" about it, nothing that he (or Hillary) has said shows that he has any understanding of the issue. This isn't something that should be addressed via executive fiat. The whole corporate tax code needs to be completely revamped, including the non-territoriality, as well as the complexity and the rate structure. (In fact, especially the non-territoriality!)

Yet all that Obama does about the issue is whine and demagogue. Do you seriously expect Hillary to do anything differently? As I said earlier, these people couldn't care less about properly addressing the problem. They just want to keep it alive and available for continual use as a political football. Originally Posted by SassySue

.

Investors and entrepreneurs put money to work far better than the federal government, which doesn't exactly have a stellar record with respect to picking winners and losers. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Amen, brother!

And even when private investors pick an occasional loser, they are much quicker to recognize it and cut their losses, unlike the government which continues to pour good money after bad - under the perverse theory that if a program isn't working, it means it's under-funded!

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that seizing private sector assets for diversion to the public purse would do wonderful things for the economy.

But then, you're an unabashed supporter of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, aren't you?

In other words, you view a prosperous business or individual the way the Huns viewed a city around seventeen centuries ago; that is, something to be sacked and plundered. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Perfect metaphor!

Sassy Poo and Chung Tran both cling to the myth that private pools of capital represent "dead money" that isn't being channeled to any productive use. Nothing could be further from the truth. Banks, institutional investors and other financial intermediaries take these funds and re-channel them into the fastest-growing areas of the economy, whereas government more often uses our tax dollars to prop up failures.

Are you aware that there's a powerful inverse correlation between the capital gains tax rate and capital gains tax realizations?

Also note what happened when liberals pushed the cap gains tax rate to almost 40% in the 1970s. That worked out so poorly that Congress, even with a large Democratic majority, prevailed upon the president to agree to a reduction to 28%. (Which didn't go far enough, but that's a damned sight better than 40%!) And the president who signed the bill was Carter, not Reagan. Bad policy is bad policy regardless of the party in power, and even Democrats could see at that time that high capital gains tax rates weren't cutting it.

Yep, yep, yep.....

All these Bernie Sanders dupes are too young to remember those painful historical lessons. They will have to learn the hard way, I guess.


"Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it."

- George Santayana