The latest class warfare rhetoric from our intrepid "reporter."MY EYES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Grooooooan!
I was expecting to see pessimistic financial charts. But not Helen Thomas!
Most capital gains realized from sales of securities have little stimulative effect on the economy. Most of these capital gains result from sales in the secondary market. The companies get none of this money except in initial public offerings (IPOs) or secondary offerings. What works better for stimulating economic growth are incentives for real economic growth such as bonus depreciation and the Section 179 deduction.
In addition, Congress needs to repeal the limitation on the deductibility of net capital losses. Under Section 1211, and individual or married couple may deduct no more than $3,000 of a net capital loss per year. And a corporation may not deduct any net capital loss. These limitations have a very bad effect on forming new companies or for investor(s) to buy an existing company and expand it. There is a limited exception under Section 1244 for the first $1 million of corporate capital if the investor got the stock directly from the corporation in exchange for property.
We need new ideas to stimulate the economy and to implement real fairness in the tax law. Repealing the limitation on the deductibility of net capital losses is a good place to begin.
The principle that in a free society, lower taxes leads to more savings and investment which promotes increased productivity of labor and increased production, which raises the standard of living of the average worker in the long run, is a truth established by deductive reasoning from elementary true principles, and thus is certain.
In a free society, with freedom of inequality,an increased standard of living means increased wealth for the economy as a whole. In this context, when the rich get richer, the poor get richer too, but just not as fast. But they still benefit also.
Her reasoning is an example of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy bexause it assumes that because lowering taxes existed at the same time as the middle class was being harmed,that the lower taxes was the cause of harm to the middle class. But, in actuality, this harm was actually caused by destructive government interventionist policies.
More so than the tax argument, this business about the rich making their money by flipping houses and shuffling derivatives is what stands to gain them political traction.
Because you twit they are paying taxes on Capital Gains not on Income.
The very, very, very wealthy pay way more in total taxes than any others.
I'm not in the very, very, very wealthy class..but I pay 40% to the state and feds when I have short term Cap Gains. I think that's way too much!! The risk was all mine. The Feds did NOTHING for that money.
I pay property taxes...because I have some property. I pay sales tax because I buy stuff.
I'd gather the very, very, very wealthy have way more property, and buy way more stuff than me. And pay way more than me.
