Tired of winning yet?

[Pete F.]

Trump is doing anything he can to make the economy appear to grow so that he can win the midterms.
While it may stand up for his term, just like Obama legislating by executive order the next president can wipe this out also.

The Treasury Department is considering a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans through a change that would not need approval from congress, officials said, in a move that would follow a package of tax cuts last year that also benefited the super-rich.

The agency is studying whether to allow investment income, known as capital gains, to be adjusted for inflation in a way that shields more of it from taxation. Most capital gains are paid by wealthier Americans, who disproportionately hold large portfolios of investments.

But the use of executive power on such a significant change to the tax law would be highly unusual and could be vulnerable to a legal challenge. Senior administration officials have discussed whether to proceed but have not concluded they have legal authority to do so. The move was rejected during the George W Bush administration because it was seen as outside the scope of treasury’s authority and only attainable via an act of congress.


The idea has long been advocated by White House National Economic Council director Larry Kudlow, but tax changes this drastic are typically made by congress, not the treasury and Internal Revenue Service. Still, treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin told the New York Times in an interview that he was reviewing whether to move ahead if congress doesn’t act on its own.

“If it can’t get done through a legislation process, we will look at what tools at treasury we have to do it on our own and we’ll consider that,” Mr Mnuchin told the New York Times. “We are studying that internally, and we are also studying the economic costs and the impact on growth.”

Mr Mnuchin made clear that he had not decided whether he would approve such a change. And he has not determined whether he believes the change would be legal, two senior administration officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the internal deliberations.


Republicans passed a massive package of tax cuts last year that lowered the tax rate for all income groups, with big benefits going to wealthy Americans and businesses. Despite mounting worries from lawmakers about the growing federal deficit, Trump said earlier this year that congress was going to try to pass another package of tax cuts this year that would be largely targeted at helping the middle class. Senate republicans have not signalled how they plan to proceed.

“Once again, republicans have exposed the true priorities of their tax scam: billions in tax breaks for the wealthiest at the expense of everyone else,” House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi, said in a statement. “American families are drowning under the weight of stagnant wages, higher health costs and soaring prescription drug costs, but the GOP continues to pick their pockets to give more handouts to the wealthiest 1 per cent.”


Capital gains represents the income someone receives from an investment over time. If an investor buys a stock for $100,000 (£76,100) and sells it later for $110,000 (£83,700), they have a capital gain of $10,000 (£7,600) and typically must pay a tax on that difference. The $100,000 initial purchase price is considered the “cost” of the investment, and the capital gain is determined based on the cost.

Mr Kudlow and others have said the cost should be indexed to inflation. So once an investor sells an investment, if that “cost basis” is considered higher because of inflation, the capital gain would be less, requiring an investor to pay less in taxes.


But any unilateral change could be subject to a court challenge from other groups that want their own tax-related concerns indexed to inflation. And other groups could sue and say it is outside the scope of Treasury’s authority to make a legal ruling that needs congressional authorization.

In September 1992, the Justice Department during the end of the Bush administration found that Treasury did not have the legal authority to make the change unilaterally. It predicted that adopting the inflation change without input from congress would be challenged in court, and that the government would lose the case.

Conservatives have long sought to cut capitals gains taxes, arguing that it would encourage investors to sell stock and move their money towards new investments, helping more companies grow. But these proposals have often faltered in congress because of how the changes would disproportionately aid the wealthiest households.

Researchers have estimated that the top 5 per cent of households in terms of income hold about two thirds of all stock and mutual fund investments, putting wealthier Americans in the position of benefiting much more than others from any changes to capital gains rules.

Several congressional republicans have introduced plans that would legislatively index capital gains to inflation, including senator Ted Cruz of Texas and representative Devin Nunes of California. The idea has also been promoted widely by Grover Norquist, founder of Americans for Tax Reform and a leading conservative voice on tax cuts.


Steve Moore, a close friend of Mr Kudlow’s, said there is an active debate within the Treasury Department over whether to try to unilaterally make the changes to capital gains. Some political appointees support the idea, while career staffers are more cautious, knowing it has been rejected before.

“The thing is, Trump is so gutsy, he’s doing so many of these things administratively, and he’s the kind of person I could see who would instruct the Treasury to do it,” Mr Moore said. “That would be gigantic with the economy ... there’s a big robust debate going on within the Treasury Department about whether or not to do this. It’s definitely in the mix.”

Mark Mazur, a longtime IRS official who served in a senior role in the Obama administration’s Treasury Department, said the policy change was studied many years ago and was deemed to be outside the bounds of executive authority. Changes of this magnitude are supposed to be written by lawmakers, Mr Mazur said, not decided by administration officials.

It’s unclear whether Treasury could make the decision without any additional input or whether the Justice Department would have to write a legal opinion redefining cost basis.

Mr Mazur is the director of the Tax Policy Centre, which studies fiscal proposals. It recently published an analysis of what indexing capital gains to inflation might mean, and it found that the tax savings could be substantial.

Leonard Burman, an institute fellow at the centre, found that such a change, depending on how it was designed, could cut taxes by up to $20bn (approximately £15bn) for the wealthiest Americans and make it easier for sophisticated investors to create tax shelters.

The Washington Post

[zimmy]

I love the idea that income from investments deserves a lower tax rate than income from employment.
Bogus.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I love the idea that income from investments deserves a lower tax rate than income from employment.
Bogus.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

why do you think investments should be taxed at all?...just curious

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

why do you think investments should be taxed at all?...just curious

Because you're benefiting from the system everybody contributes to. It takes a village Scott.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Because you're benefiting from the system everybody contributes to. It takes a village Scott.

I was hoping for an intelligent answer

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

I was hoping for an intelligent answer

Maybe find someone intelligent to help you with it then

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Maybe find someone intelligent to help you with it then

yeah,,,probably asking in the wrong place

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Because you're benefiting from the system everybody contributes to. It takes a village Scott.

All benefits from the system are not taxed. There are benefits given to those who don't even contribute to the system whose benefits are not taxed. Taxing some benefits would be considered by many to be onerous. Taxing some contributions to the system, such as investing, would be considered by some as creating a disincentive to contributing and therefor a possible subtraction from the value of the system. Even more so as the taxes rise.

[PaulS]

Hey, I'm willing to let president Trump do whatever he wants for a little while. After all he did denuclearize the Korean peninsula.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I love the idea that income from investments deserves a lower tax rate than income from employment.
Bogus.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it’s not the least bit bogus. investing involves significant risk, and it’s good to incentivize people to invest. bill clinton slashed capital gains taxes, and it was stimulative.

capital gains ind dividends should be taxed less than ordinary income, absolutely.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by scottw

why do you think investments should be taxed at all?...just curious

I think investments should be taxed for the same reason any income is taxed. Why should money made from investments be considered more precious than hard earned money from repairing a car or working in a mine or nursing in the e.r.? I understand tax rates and shelters for retirement and that sort of thing, but if I make 100k off investments in stocks and mutual funds because I can afford to invest, why should that income be taxed at a lower rate than the income of the paraprofessional helping a special needs kid in a school for 20k a year? I have yet to hear a valid argument (the incentive to save/invest doesn't evaluate as valid to me).
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

it’s not the least bit bogus. investing involves significant risk, and it’s good to incentivize people to invest. bill clinton slashed capital gains taxes, and it was stimulative.

capital gains ind dividends should be taxed less than ordinary income, absolutely.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

People don't invest because they are philanthropists. They invest because it builds wealth. Investment has risk, but generally the greater risk you take, the greater the chance of reward. That is a personal choice. The incentive to invest comes from the potential to get wealth. It is gambling. The people who benefit most are the people who have the most wealth and can handle the greatest risk. I can afford to put some money in to higher risk investments. I think it is bogus that money I make from that gamble is somehow considered more important than a person's employment so it is taxed less.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I think it is bogus that money I make from that gamble is somehow considered more important than a person's employment so it is taxed less.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's a point of view....interesting

I guess some people look at things and say "why are we taxing this?"

and others look at things and ask "why aren't we taxing this?"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Trump is doing anything he can to make the economy appear to grow

Would it kill you, would it literally kill you, to admit that despite the fact that Trump is a scumbag, that the economy is actually growing?

Here, I'll show you that it can be done...I promise you, that I disliked Obama, as much as anyone dislikes Trump. But here goes...Obama did some really good things with the economy, and he did some really good things with the war on terror.

There, you see? I'm still here, my head didn't explode, the world didn't stop spinning. Turns out, it's possible to give credit where credit is due, even to politicians you don't happen to like. It just requires a willingness to show a speck of honesty, and THAT is sorely lacking at the moment, and it's also a big reason why Trump got elected.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

People don't invest because they are philanthropists. They invest because it builds wealth. Investment has risk, but generally the greater risk you take, the greater the chance of reward. That is a personal choice. The incentive to invest comes from the potential to get wealth. It is gambling. The people who benefit most are the people who have the most wealth and can handle the greatest risk. I can afford to put some money in to higher risk investments. I think it is bogus that money I make from that gamble is somehow considered more important than a person's employment so it is taxed less.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"People don't invest because they are philanthropists."

Again, when liberals cannot respond to what was actually said, they respond to something not even close to what was said.

I never came close to saying that investors are philanthropists. I said that buying stocks or bonds involves a lot more risk than I took when I drove to work thins morning. I didn't put up one cent of my own money to work for Liberty Mutual, if it goes under I haven't lost any money that I put up.

Investors need incentive to take on the risk. I don't think capital gains should be tax free, but I think it should be taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income.

Try to respond to what I'm saying, please try to refrain from putting stupid words in my mouth.

Here in CT, teacher pensions are partially exempt from the state income tax. But my IRA is not. So if I'm retired and taking 65k a year out of my IRA, and my next door neighbor is a retired teacher with a pension paying him the same exact 65k a year, he pays lower tax rate than I do. THAT is bogus. This is not bogus.

Our economy cannot function if companies do not have sufficient access to the capital they need. Lower capital gains taxes, help stimulate the desire to invest. While that helps the rich more, it's not like it has no benefit to anyone else. And it SHOULD benefit the rich more, they are the ones taking risk by investing.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Would it kill you, would it literally kill you, to admit that despite the fact that Trump is a scumbag, that the economy is actually growing?

Here, I'll show you that it can be done...I promise you, that I disliked Obama, as much as anyone dislikes Trump. But here goes...Obama did some really good things with the economy, and he did some really good things with the war on terror.

There, you see? I'm still here, my head didn't explode, the world didn't stop spinning. Turns out, it's possible to give credit where credit is due, even to politicians you don't happen to like. It just requires a willingness to show a speck of honesty, and THAT is sorely lacking at the moment, and it's also a big reason why Trump got elected.

I'll fix that for you
But people screamed when Obama, that you liked so much, legislated by executive order and now it's OK
I don't think his policies are good for this country longterm.
Things are coming to a head with Trump anyways, first it was we had no contacts with russians, then it was no collusion, now it is collusion is not a crime, next it will be?
Trump is doing anything he can to make the economy grow so that he can win the midterms and avoid impeachment.
While it may stand up for his term, just like Obama legislating by executive order the next president can wipe this out also.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I'll fix that for you
But people screamed when Obama, that you liked so much, legislated by executive order and now it's OK
I don't think his policies are good for this country longterm.
Things are coming to a head with Trump anyways, first it was we had no contacts with russians, then it was no collusion, now it is collusion is not a crime, next it will be?
Trump is doing anything he can to make the economy grow so that he can win the midterms and avoid impeachment.
While it may stand up for his term, just like Obama legislating by executive order the next president can wipe this out also.

"people screamed when Obama, that you liked so much"

Again, I don't know what's wrong with your reading comprehension, but I despised Obama. He made me sick to my stomach. But the fact is, he did some good things.

"legislated by executive order and now it's OK"

There's plenty of hypocrisy on my side. Conservatives also went nuts over the debt that Obama racked up, but are less concerned with Trump adding to the debt. That's pure hypocrisy. I freely admit that. Liberals do not have a monopoly on hypocrisy. I'm not a thoughtless ideologue.

"I don't think his policies are good for this country longterm"

That's a fair, legitimate opinion to have. What's not legitimate, is to say that the economy "appears" to be growing, when in fact, it is growing, and you know that it is growing.

If he committed an impeachable offense, I will call for his impeachment just as loudly as you or Spence or Zimmy. Fair enough?

[Pete F.]

Income inequality is a big problem in this country and will lead to big civil issues if it continues in it's current trend. Trump has only exacerbated the problem.

The income-inequality trajectory observed in the United States is largely due to massive educational inequalities, combined with a tax system that grew less progressive despite a surge in top labor compensation since the 1980s, and in top capital incomes in the 2000s. Continental Europe meanwhile saw a lesser decline in its tax progressivity, while wage inequality was also moderated by educational and wage-setting policies that were relatively more favorable to low and middle-income groups. In both regions, income inequality between men and women has declined but remains particularly strong at the top of the distribution.
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/29/176271...equality-chart

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by scottw

that's a point of view....interesting

I guess some people look at things and say "why are we taxing this?"

and others look at things and ask "why aren't we taxing this?"

Or if we are taxing this thing one way, why are we taxing this a different way. When that analysis points to, it is because of the power of lobbyists, investment banks, and the rich guys who are in charge, it becomes more obvious why.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[zimmy]

Jim, I didn't put words in your mouth when I said people don't invest because they are philanthropists. You then take it that way and make some stupid comment about "liberals." Makes me wonder about you... I was responding to what you said, I just added in a relevant point. SAD!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Income inequality is a big problem in this country and will lead to big civil issues if it continues in it's current trend. Trump has only exacerbated the problem.

The income-inequality trajectory observed in the United States is largely due to massive educational inequalities, combined with a tax system that grew less progressive despite a surge in top labor compensation since the 1980s, and in top capital incomes in the 2000s. Continental Europe meanwhile saw a lesser decline in its tax progressivity, while wage inequality was also moderated by educational and wage-setting policies that were relatively more favorable to low and middle-income groups. In both regions, income inequality between men and women has declined but remains particularly strong at the top of the distribution.
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/29/176271...equality-chart

"Income inequality is a big problem in this country"

Why is it a problem. If Bill Gates or Oprah Winfrey earn another million dollars today, why is that bad? How would anyone be better off, if all wealthy people stopped accumulating wealth once they were middle class?

WEALTH IS NOT FINITE, IT' SNOT LIKE A PIZZA. If Oprah earns another million today, that does not mean there's a million less for the rest of us. Her wealth, does not cause, anyone else's poverty.

"Trump has only exacerbated the problem"

So did Obama. When the economy grows, the wealthy will always benefit more than regular folks, because they have more to invest. You cannot prevent that, and I can't imagine why you'd want to.

If Oprah earns another million today, she'll pay taxes on some, she'll spend some, she'll invest some, she'll save some in the bank, she'll give some to charity. ALL of those things, reduce the burden on the rest of us. So it's GOOD for you and I, if she gets richer.

I agree income inequality isn't fair, I completely agree. But one person's wealth, isn't the cause of anyone else's poverty (unless you're talking about Bernie Madoff). Liberals would do well to stop obsessing over the rich.

"The income-inequality trajectory observed in the United States is largely due to massive educational inequalities, combined with a tax system"

I disagree. It's largely due to luck (being born into money or marrying into money, two things I managed to completely avoid).

You think higher taxes reduce income inequality? Well I live in CT, which has insanely high taxes, it's purely liberal for 40 years, has and some of the worst income inequality on the planet. You'd be hard-pressed to find a state with more severe income inequality than CT, liberalism ha shad 40 years to cure income inequality, and of course it's made it worse.

We can debate the merits of slightly more progressive taxation, that's fine.

Continental Europe does not share a massive, open border with Mexico. If we kick out all of the Mexicans from the US, I promise you that income inequality will decrease. Should we do that? Is that what you propose?

We are a country that allows a large number of penniless, unskilled immigrants to enter. That creates income inequality, but that's OK, because we also provide, by far, the greatest upward economic mobility.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Jim, I didn't put words in your mouth when I said people don't invest because they are philanthropists. You then take it that way and make some stupid comment about "liberals." Makes me wonder about you... I was responding to what you said, I just added in a relevant point. SAD!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, you responded to my post by saying that investors are not philanthropists. Since no one in the history of the world has ever claimed that they are philanthropists, I don't know what your point was.

Investors take risks that employees do not take. It's that simple.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Income inequality is a big problem in this country"

Why is it a problem. If Bill Gates or Oprah Winfrey earn another million dollars today, why is that bad? How would anyone be better off, if all wealthy people stopped accumulating wealth once they were middle class?

WEALTH IS NOT FINITE, IT' SNOT LIKE A PIZZA. If Oprah earns another million today, that does not mean there's a million less for the rest of us. Her wealth, does not cause, anyone else's poverty.

"Trump has only exacerbated the problem"

So did Obama. When the economy grows, the wealthy will always benefit more than regular folks, because they have more to invest. You cannot prevent that, and I can't imagine why you'd want to.

If Oprah earns another million today, she'll pay taxes on some, she'll spend some, she'll invest some, she'll save some in the bank, she'll give some to charity. ALL of those things, reduce the burden on the rest of us. So it's GOOD for you and I, if she gets richer.

I agree income inequality isn't fair, I completely agree. But one person's wealth, isn't the cause of anyone else's poverty (unless you're talking about Bernie Madoff). Liberals would do well to stop obsessing over the rich.

"The income-inequality trajectory observed in the United States is largely due to massive educational inequalities, combined with a tax system"

I disagree. It's largely due to luck (being born into money or marrying into money, two things I managed to completely avoid).

You think higher taxes reduce income inequality? Well I live in CT, which has insanely high taxes, it's purely liberal for 40 years, has and some of the worst income inequality on the planet. You'd be hard-pressed to find a state with more severe income inequality than CT, liberalism ha shad 40 years to cure income inequality, and of course it's made it worse.

We can debate the merits of slightly more progressive taxation, that's fine.

Continental Europe does not share a massive, open border with Mexico. If we kick out all of the Mexicans from the US, I promise you that income inequality will decrease. Should we do that? Is that what you propose?

We are a country that allows a large number of penniless, unskilled immigrants to enter. That creates income inequality, but that's OK, because we also provide, by far, the greatest upward economic mobility.

Here is an explanation of why you are incorrect and also why the stockmarket is so high
The new complexity science analysis describes the flows of money through the economy, not just the overall activity. It shows that there are two cycles of activity that have to be balanced against each other. The first is that workers earn salaries and consume goods and services. The second is that the wealthy invest in production and receive returns on their investments. The two loops have to be in the right balance in order for growth to happen. If there is more money in the worker loop, there aren't enough products for them to purchase. If there is more money in the investment loop, consumers don't have enough money to buy products so investment doesn't happen.

The paper shows that before 1980, there was too much money in the worker/consumer loop. That money was chasing too few products, giving rise to dangerously increasing inflation. After 1980, likely because of the Reaganomics tax changes, the balance tilted the other way. There was too much money in the investor loop and the result was a series of recessions. The Federal Reserve repeatedly intervened by lowering interest rates to compensate workers' low wages with increased borrowing, in order to increase consumption.

The research shows that the way the government is regulating the economy is like driving a car with only the accelerator and without using the steering wheel. Steering means keeping the balance between the two loops in the right proportion. While Federal Reserve interventions have helped overcome the recessions, today, we are up against the guardrail and need to rebalance the economy by shifting money back to the labor/consumer loop.

Since 1980, consumers have accumulated trillions of dollars of debt, and the wealthy have accumulated trillions of dollars of savings that is not invested because there is nothing to invest in that will give returns. This is the result of government policy reducing taxes for the wealthy in the name of increasing economic activity. No matter how much money investors have, these so-called "job creators" do not create jobs when consumers don't have money to buy products. Increased economic activity requires both investment and purchase power to pay for the things the investment will produce.



Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-10-wealth...nomic.html#jCp
https://phys.org/news/2017-10-wealth...-economic.html

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Well, you responded to my post by saying that investors are not philanthropists. Since no one in the history of the world has ever claimed that they are philanthropists, I don't know what your point was.

Investors take risks that employees do not take. It's that simple.

Right, they take risk employees don't. They take a risk they cant afford to take. They make money by being in the business of risk taking. It is income. There are lots of ways it could be more equitable through a similar progressive tax system that already exists on dividends so that typical Joe schmo can invest. Now what we have is a system where a portion of the truly wealthy can borrow at a low rate, invest it and earn , 3-4% on that money and pay less in taxes than the actuary just getting by with 2 1/2 kids and a recently purchased spaceballs Winnebago (good choice by the way, I bid on the dark helmet) pays in income tax.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Here is an explanation of why you are incorrect and also why the stockmarket is so high
The new complexity science analysis describes the flows of money through the economy, not just the overall activity. It shows that there are two cycles of activity that have to be balanced against each other. The first is that workers earn salaries and consume goods and services. The second is that the wealthy invest in production and receive returns on their investments. The two loops have to be in the right balance in order for growth to happen. If there is more money in the worker loop, there aren't enough products for them to purchase. If there is more money in the investment loop, consumers don't have enough money to buy products so investment doesn't happen.

The paper shows that before 1980, there was too much money in the worker/consumer loop. That money was chasing too few products, giving rise to dangerously increasing inflation. After 1980, likely because of the Reaganomics tax changes, the balance tilted the other way. There was too much money in the investor loop and the result was a series of recessions. The Federal Reserve repeatedly intervened by lowering interest rates to compensate workers' low wages with increased borrowing, in order to increase consumption.

The research shows that the way the government is regulating the economy is like driving a car with only the accelerator and without using the steering wheel. Steering means keeping the balance between the two loops in the right proportion. While Federal Reserve interventions have helped overcome the recessions, today, we are up against the guardrail and need to rebalance the economy by shifting money back to the labor/consumer loop.

Since 1980, consumers have accumulated trillions of dollars of debt, and the wealthy have accumulated trillions of dollars of savings that is not invested because there is nothing to invest in that will give returns. This is the result of government policy reducing taxes for the wealthy in the name of increasing economic activity. No matter how much money investors have, these so-called "job creators" do not create jobs when consumers don't have money to buy products. Increased economic activity requires both investment and purchase power to pay for the things the investment will produce.



Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-10-wealth...nomic.html#jCp
https://phys.org/news/2017-10-wealth...-economic.html

"Here is an explanation of why you are incorrect "

It's a different opinion. It doesn't "show" that I am incorrect.

"the wealthy have accumulated trillions of dollars of savings that is not invested "

Oh, I see. So the wealthy are all burying their money in their backyards? Or do they stuff it into their mattresses? Even if they put it in the bank, that's the money that banks use to loan money to people to buy houses and start small businesses. You can't make that wrong.

"because there is nothing to invest in that will give returns. '

The stock market hasn't generated good returns for the last 10 years?

"so-called "job creators" "

I love these qualifiers you put on every fact that you don't happen to like. The economy is only "appearing" to grow, and people who start companies are only "so-called" job creators. Some facts are just facts, even the ones that go against your ideology.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Right, they take risk employees don't. They take a risk they cant afford to take. They make money by being in the business of risk taking. It is income. There are lots of ways it could be more equitable through a similar progressive tax system that already exists on dividends so that typical Joe schmo can invest. Now what we have is a system where a portion of the truly wealthy can borrow at a low rate, invest it and earn , 3-4% on that money and pay less in taxes than the actuary just getting by with 2 1/2 kids and a recently purchased spaceballs Winnebago (good choice by the way, I bid on the dark helmet) pays in income tax.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"they take risk employees don't."

Correct.

"They take a risk they cant afford to take."

No one said anything about whether or not they can easily afford it.

"They make money by being in the business of risk taking. It is income"

Correct. And capital gains taxes are the cost of being in that business. The principles of supply and demand say that the less something costs, the greater the demand will be, for that something. Our economy absolutely depends upon businesses having access to the capital they need, and providing that capital involves risk. I have no problem taxing that stuff at rates lower than ordinary income.

"and earn , 3-4% on that money and pay less in taxes than the actuary just getting by with 2 1/2 kids and a recently purchased spaceballs Winnebago "

That's true, and it doesn't bother me at all. I have 3.0 kids, by the way, and my RV is a Flagstaff, otherwise I agree with you.

[scottw]

who is "they"

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Here is an explanation of why you are incorrect "

It's a different opinion. It doesn't "show" that I am incorrect.

"the wealthy have accumulated trillions of dollars of savings that is not invested "

Oh, I see. So the wealthy are all burying their money in their backyards? Or do they stuff it into their mattresses? Even if they put it in the bank, that's the money that banks use to loan money to people to buy houses and start small businesses. You can't make that wrong.
It's in the stock market

"because there is nothing to invest in that will give returns. '

The stock market hasn't generated good returns for the last 10 years?
The Stock market does not create jobs, if it did and went up X% we would have that many more jobs. Show me when that has occurred.

"so-called "job creators" "

I love these qualifiers you put on every fact that you don't happen to like. The economy is only "appearing" to grow, and people who start companies are only "so-called" job creators. Some facts are just facts, even the ones that go against your ideology.

You think you can create a product and a resulting job if you have no market?
Where is consumer debt today? Is it at historic levels?
You could read this also but you have to click the link to do so.
Otherwise you cherrypick the things you disagree with and don't look further
http://necsi.edu/research/economics/econuniversal

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You think you can create a product and a resulting job if you have no market?
Where is consumer debt today? Is it at historic levels?
You could read this also but you have to click the link to do so.
Otherwise you cherrypick the things you disagree with and don't look further
http://necsi.edu/research/economics/econuniversal

"It's in the stock market"

First you said their wealth is "not invested", then you say it's "in the stock market". Can't be both.

"The Stock market does not create jobs"

That is idiotic, of course it helps create jobs. Many, many companies go public, specifically to raise money to grow. Growth usually adds jobs.

"if it did and went up X% we would have that many more jobs. Show me when that has occurred. "

Not every cent goes to hiring more employees. But it's where companies raise a lot of money to grow.

"You think you can create a product and a resulting job if you have no market?"

Do you hear voices in your head or something? When did I ever say you could sell a product with no market for it? But in addition to having demand for the product, you need money to start the business first.

"Where is consumer debt today? Is it at historic levels?"

probably. And much of that is voluntary (often stupid) choices made by people who insist of living beyond their means. That's not the economy's fault, that's the fault of our culture, where we feel the need to have as much stuff as everybody else has. We all have the ability to reject that notion.

[zimmy]

It was supposed to say a risk they can afford to take. They is the investors Jim was talking about.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device