• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Carbon tax that aids both renewables and fracking

laska

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
402
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Policy thought:

Tax carbon closer to real cost. Goal of $4 a gallon retail at the pump. Also get rid of carbon subsidies

Lessen sales taxes on domestic oil just enough to give it an advantage in the market over foreign oil with goal of as quickly as possible domrestic production gaining 100% of U.S. market.

High corporate rate(possibly up to 90%) on domestic oil production

The goal behind this policy is to quicken the pace of transforming the economy to 100% renewable by raising the cost of carbon at real cost( hidden cost of subsidies, environmental, and health costs) while using domestic instead of foreign oil in the transition as even in a fast transition oil will be needed for years. By using domestic instead of foreign oil, it creates U.S. jobs and adds much needed revenue to government coffers to pay off debt and needed infrastructure.


I could be convinced against this policy as I am not knowledgeable on the environmental impact of fracking. I know a lot of people are against it, and there are all kind of things out there I have no idea are true or not like poisoning water supplies and causing earthquakes. If true, obviously I'd be against it. If in reality fracking can be done safely, and it is controlled to areas that are not like really beautiful, why wouldn't this be good public policy? Left/Right synergy.
 

laska

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
402
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Given Trump gave his updated tax plan today, I'll post mine Would love to have one of the tax foundations to analyze it. I think it would be a high growth, high government revenue plan but I just took an accounting 101 course once.


No deductions on net income.


10%-first $100,000 of net income
20%-any additional net income between $100,000-1 mil
30%-any additional net income above 1 mil

15% corporate rate
eliminate as best as possible outdated and poorly designed regulations that add unneeded costs to business
eliminate health insurance costs for business by going to single payer catastrophic/cash for minor health issues
eliminate payroll taxes




tax capital gains at above 10/20/30% rates except when companies offer stock to raise money and then at a 15% rate for net capital gains income above $100,000

Tax negative externailities at real cost:

*My carbon tax policy given above

*high tax on luxury goods and services

*tax unhealthy food, beverages, and any other harmful products at real cost.


Match tariffs and other anti-free trade laws for nations not willing to have complete and open access to their markets. But shoot for complete free trade and elimination of tariffs on all sides.So if China wants to have 30% tariffs on U.S products and a law that 50% of foreign factories located on Chinese soil must have 50% Chinese ownership, then match it.

$15 minimum wage



State/Local:
Fund state/local government solely through sales and property taxes. No value added taxes as it raises costs of exports, no property taxes on business. No sales taxes on nutritious whole foods or low income rent.
 

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No new taxes please...there are too many as it is.


My tax plan?

0% under whatever the poverty line is in the lower 48 (roughly $12K for one person in 2015).
15% - poverty line amount to $40,000.
20% - $40,000-$100,000.
25% - over $100,000.
Capital gains and income treated identically.
No corporate/business taxes.
No deductions except for previous capital losses and charitable contributions.

If that is not enough money to fund the present budget...GOOD...then reduce spending until the budget is balanced.
 
Last edited:

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No new taxes please...there are too many as it is.


My tax plan?

0% under whatever the poverty line is in the lower 48 (roughly $12K for one person in 2015).
15% - poverty line amount to $40,000.
20% - $40,000-$100,000.
25% - over $100,000.
Capital gains and income treated identically.
No corporate/business taxes.
No deductions except for previous capital losses and charitable contributions.

If that is not enough money to fund the present budget...GOOD...then reduce spending until the budget is balanced.

Additional...all principle residences purchased after new tax law comes in treated as regular capital gain.
 

laska

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
402
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
No new taxes please...there are too many as it is.


My tax plan?

0% under whatever the poverty line is in the lower 48 (roughly $12K for one person in 2015).
15% - poverty line amount to $40,000.
20% - $40,000-$100,000.
25% - over $100,000.
Capital gains and income treated identically.
No corporate/business taxes.
No deductions except for previous capital losses and charitable contributions.

If that is not enough money to fund the present budget...GOOD...then reduce spending until the budget is balanced.

My plan raises real taxes on the wealthy and on negative externalities, and lowers real taxes/costs on business and the middle class, and give the minimum wage worker a Bernie type raise. I'm all for low taxes but I also want to have balanced budgets, and for the code to be at least revenue neutral. I really like the idea of paying as much of government as possible by taxing negative externalities. Noticed Bill Gates recently stated the same. You have to pay the bills from somewhere, might as well first be from behavior that negatively effects society and could change negative behavior. I'm also all for efficiency in government and welfare reform. Once surpluses come then lower taxes. The lower the better, as long as you pay bills first.


I like your 0% corporate rate but think 15% would have a more realistic chance of passing with Democratic support. At least they couldn't say companies are paying less rate than a secretary. 15% is low enough, especially with regulation reform and taking the burden of health insurance off of business, to be very pro growth.
 
Last edited:

laska

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
402
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
On my tax plan, I forgot to add $2500 deductible/no copay on the catastrophic single payer health insurance. Also, when i state getting rid of bad regulation on business, that doesn't mean eliminate good or not add needed regulation.
 

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
My plan raises real taxes on the wealthy and on negative externalities, and lowers real taxes/costs on business and the middle class, and give the minimum wage worker a Bernie type raise. I'm all for low taxes but I also want to have balanced budgets, and for the code to be at least revenue neutral. I really like the idea of paying as much of government as possible by taxing negative externalities. Noticed Bill Gates recently stated the same. You have to pay the bills from somewhere, might as well first be from behavior that negatively effects society and could change negative behavior. I'm also all for efficiency in government and welfare reform. Once surpluses come then lower taxes. The lower the better, as long as you pay bills first.


I like your 0% corporate rate but think 15% would have a more realistic chance of passing with Democratic support. At least they couldn't say companies are paying less rate than a secretary. 15% is low enough, especially with regulation reform and taking the burden of health insurance off of business, to be very pro growth.

Your ideas probably have a much better chance of becoming law then mine do. And I like many of your ideas.

But I like taxes to be extremely simple...something almost anyone can do in 5 minutes. And I do not like taxation on businesses/corporations - it is just passed on to consumers anyway and just makes things that much more complicated and hurts the economy, imo. Plus, capital gains have to be taxed the same as income as right now they are often far lower than income despite the fact that the rich make almost all of their monies from capital gains...this is why the super rich are calling for raising of income taxes...because it will barely affect them and makes them seem like they care.
Ask them what they think about raising capital gains tax rates and they will probably freak out.

As well, under my plan, a single mother of 2 who makes $20,000 OR a two working parent, family of 5 making under $28,000 would pay no federal income tax at all...which is the way it should be, imo. People living on/under the poverty line should never pay any income taxes.

https://aspe.hhs.gov/2015-poverty-guidelines
 
Last edited:

Lafayette

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
7,574
Reaction score
1,465
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
THE MONEY-HONEY POT

Tax carbon closer to real cost. Goal of $4 a gallon retail at the pump. Also get rid of carbon subsidies.

BigOil will have a conniption. Which will mean, "We are doing something right!".

For as long as political donations are left to the discretion of the public, then electoral campaigns will cost an arm-and-a-leg. No company or rich person gives thousands upon thousands of dollars without some expectation of "compensation". (Meaning a favorable hearing of their principle concerns - and maybe a night with wifey in the Lincoln Bedroom?)

Meaning "DO NOT TOUCH THE UPPER-INCOME TAX CODE!" Which is a totally unfair flat-tax rate of less than 30% for incomes roughly above $100K per annum, that results in this sort of taxation:
Taxation - Total Effective Tax Rates (US) 2014.jpg

Meaning what? You, the Income Earner below $100K and an ordinary taxpayer are paying a rate that is more or less correct and which should have continued progressively up to and including the highest levels of Income. Why?

Because the rich have discovered the Money-Honey Pot of grossly unfair flat-rate taxation. And the less they are taxed, the more Income moves up to become Wealth; which, less Debt, becomes Net Worth. And since it is far, far too much for them to ever spend in a life time, with America's very generous Inheritance Taxation, the Net Worth becomes the sort of Wealth that spawns the Donald Trumps of our existence.

People who don't know what to do with their lives, so they become PotUS wannabees. Is that what we need in our democracy? People so out of touch with Our Reality, they haven't the foggiest notion of how the other "other half lives". (The the Income history of the Other Half here.)

MY POINT?

In 1776 we had a revolution against a Royal Monarchy. And now we have allowed to exist a Capitalist Hierarchy*, which is the same nasty-animal, but without the sovereignty bit. Meaning what?

That as a nation we have regressed in time to a period existing in Europe before our Revolution ... !

*Those who accumulate Capital because their is Net After Tax Income far, far, far beyond their needs.
______________________
 

laska

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
402
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Your ideas probably have a much better chance of becoming law then mine do. And I like many of your ideas.

But I like taxes to be extremely simple...something almost anyone can do in 5 minutes. And I do not like taxation on businesses/corporations - it is just passed on to consumers anyway and just makes things that much more complicated and hurts the economy, imo. Plus, capital gains have to be taxed the same as income as right now they are often far lower than income despite the fact that the rich make almost all of their monies from capital gains...this is why the super rich are calling for raising of income taxes...because it will barely affect them and makes them seem like they care.
Ask them what they think about raising capital gains tax rates and they will probably freak out.

As well, under my plan, a single mother of 2 who makes $20,000 OR a two working parent, family of 5 making under $28,000 would pay no federal income tax at all...which is the way it should be, imo. People living on/under the poverty line should never pay any income taxes.

https://aspe.hhs.gov/2015-poverty-guidelines

I hate deductions as I too like extreme simplicity in code, but you make a good point on low income with kids, so add deduction to 0% if there is a child at $31,500 net income or below. I believe that is the salary at minimum wage $15/hr full time. I originally had 0% for everyone at $31,500 but changed it to 10% thinking more of making sure code was revenue neutral as I add subsidized catastrophic health insurance as a benefit, and thinking more of college age students making $15/hr should pay into system. I recommended 0% state/local sales taxes on whole foods and low income rent so someone making Bernie style minimum wage with kids, besides higher $4 gas and $2 twinkies and cokes, can avoid pretty much all taxes if they eat healthy and ride a booster board.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Policy thought:

Tax carbon closer to real cost. Goal of $4 a gallon retail at the pump. Also get rid of carbon subsidies

Lessen sales taxes on domestic oil just enough to give it an advantage in the market over foreign oil with goal of as quickly as possible domrestic production gaining 100% of U.S. market.

High corporate rate(possibly up to 90%) on domestic oil production

The goal behind this policy is to quicken the pace of transforming the economy to 100% renewable by raising the cost of carbon at real cost( hidden cost of subsidies, environmental, and health costs) while using domestic instead of foreign oil in the transition as even in a fast transition oil will be needed for years. By using domestic instead of foreign oil, it creates U.S. jobs and adds much needed revenue to government coffers to pay off debt and needed infrastructure.


I could be convinced against this policy as I am not knowledgeable on the environmental impact of fracking. I know a lot of people are against it, and there are all kind of things out there I have no idea are true or not like poisoning water supplies and causing earthquakes. If true, obviously I'd be against it. If in reality fracking can be done safely, and it is controlled to areas that are not like really beautiful, why wouldn't this be good public policy? Left/Right synergy.

so you basically want to drive the economy into a tale spin and smash working middle class and poor people in the mouth with high energy and travel costs?
why? what good does that do anyone?

sure you can raise that evil corporate tax to 90% and they will just charge your 100% more to recover it.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Given Trump gave his updated tax plan today, I'll post mine Would love to have one of the tax foundations to analyze it. I think it would be a high growth, high government revenue plan but I just took an accounting 101 course once.


No deductions on net income.

10%-first $100,000 of net income
20%-any additional net income between $100,000-1 mil
30%-any additional net income above 1 mil

Not bad mine is simpler. 10% up to 1m dollars 20% for anything over 1m dollars
you pay 0 taxes up to the poverty level for your family size.
so basically a family of 4 would pay 0 taxes up to 24k dollars or something of that nature.
with a cap of 35k dollars for anyone.

if your home value is < 750k dollars then you can get a housing credit on your mortgage.

15% corporate rate
eliminate as best as possible outdated and poorly designed regulations that add unneeded costs to business
eliminate health insurance costs for business by going to single payer catastrophic/cash for minor health issues
eliminate payroll taxes

Pay roll taxes are highly regressive however they temporarily feed the government money through out the year.
they are pretty much a forced own payment on your income taxes. although I say corporate rate at 10%
with deductions only for non-executive pay, healthcare, and expansion or job creation.


tax capital gains at above 10/20/30% rates except when companies offer stock to raise money and then at a 15% rate for net capital gains income above $100,000

There is no reason that long term capital gains should go higher than 15%. short term capital gains is already taxed as income.
Tax negative externailities at real cost:

*My carbon tax policy given above
*high tax on luxury goods and services
*tax unhealthy food, beverages, and any other harmful products at real cost.

there is no reason for any of these.

Match tariffs and other anti-free trade laws for nations not willing to have complete and open access to their markets. But shoot for complete free trade and elimination of tariffs on all sides.So if China wants to have 30% tariffs on U.S products and a law that 50% of foreign factories located on Chinese soil must have 50% Chinese ownership, then match it.

I agree we should have equal access to other nations markets as they do with ours.

$15 minimum wage

So why don't you want low skill/no skill workers to have jobs?

State/Local:
Fund state/local government solely through sales and property taxes. No value added taxes as it raises costs of exports, no property taxes on business. No sales taxes on nutritious whole foods or low income rent.

there are only a few states like this. FL, TX, WA I do believe.

which is why me moving to another state is well not smart unless I get a pay increase.
 

laska

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
402
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
so you basically want to drive the economy into a tale spin and smash working middle class and poor people in the mouth with high energy and travel costs?
why? what good does that do anyone?

sure you can raise that evil corporate tax to 90% and they will just charge your 100% more to recover it.

No they wouldn't as foreign oil would then be cheaper and no one would buy their gas. Competition would force them to not do what you say. What they are getting is the huge domestic market handed to them and they profit at 10%, which is WAY more than they would get if they were getting 90% from a tiny share of the market or out of business because cannot compete with cheap foreign oil.

And I obviously do not like high corporate rates as I lower it to 15% on everything else. I make an exception on oil as I think it is a natural resource that should more benefit society as a whole and not a few individuals, who are going to be as rich as can be anyway even at 10%.
 
Last edited:

laska

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
402
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Not bad mine is simpler. 10% up to 1m dollars 20% for anything over 1m dollars
you pay 0 taxes up to the poverty level for your family size.
so basically a family of 4 would pay 0 taxes up to 24k dollars or something of that nature.
with a cap of 35k dollars for anyone.

if your home value is < 750k dollars then you can get a housing credit on your mortgage.



Pay roll taxes are highly regressive however they temporarily feed the government money through out the year.
they are pretty much a forced own payment on your income taxes. although I say corporate rate at 10%
with deductions only for non-executive pay, healthcare, and expansion or job creation.




There is no reason that long term capital gains should go higher than 15%. short term capital gains is already taxed as income.
Tax negative externailities at real cost:



there is no reason for any of these.



I agree we should have equal access to other nations markets as they do with ours.



So why don't you want low skill/no skill workers to have jobs?



there are only a few states like this. FL, TX, WA I do believe.

which is why me moving to another state is well not smart unless I get a pay increase.

By lowering business costs by decreasing corporate rate, eliminating company health insurance costs, and lowering bad regulation costs, this gives business more money to pay higher minimum wage.

On capital gains, I have a low 15% rate when companies offer stock to raise money, the higher rates are just on people trading paper after the fact.

Me, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and John Doerr(One of those guys have a GED) disagree about taxing negative externalities.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No they wouldn't as foreign oil would then be cheaper and no one would buy their gas. Competition would force them to not do what you say. What they are getting is the huge domestic market handed to them and they profit at 10%, which is WAY more than they would get if they were getting 90% from a tiny share of the market or out of business because cannot compete with cheap foreign oil.

And I obviously do not like high corporate rates as I lower it to 15% on everything else. I make an exception on oil as I think it is a natural resource that should more benefit society as a whole and not a few individuals, who are going to be as rich as can be anyway even at 10%.

Do you know what supply and demand is? if you have low supply and high demand the price goes through the roof.
Foreign oil wouldn't be cheaper. Oil is a global traded commodity. it doesn't matter if you are in the US or if you are the middle east if the price is 40 dollars
a barrel then that is the price everywhere. Your tax would only hit US makers and do nothing for anyone else. They are not going to take a 90% tax on the chin.

they will recoop it elsewhere which would be the pump.

SO this is nothing more than class warfare. I don't like that they make so much.
well when working people are paying 10-15 dollars a gallon they will be up in arms.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
By lowering business costs by decreasing corporate rate, eliminating company health insurance costs, and lowering bad regulation costs, this gives business more money to pay higher minimum wage.

Businesses only pay what the job is worth. If the job isn't worth it then they won't pay it.

On capital gains, I have a low 15% rate when companies offer stock to raise money, the higher rates are just on people trading paper after the fact.

Which makes 0 sense.

Me, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and John Doerr(One of those guys have a GED) disagree about taxing negative externalities.

ad poplum fallacy is still a fallacy.
 

laska

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
402
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Businesses only pay what the job is worth. If the job isn't worth it then they won't pay it.



Which makes 0 sense.



ad poplum fallacy is still a fallacy.

It would be an ad poplum fallacy if I stated it was true because so and so supports it. I did not do that, I just stated some smart people(and me) disagree with you. So what kind of fallacy are you guilty of here?
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It would be an ad poplum fallacy if I stated it was true because so and so supports it. I did not do that, I just stated some smart people(and me) disagree with you. So what kind of fallacy are you guilty of here?

that is exactly what an ad poplum fallacy is. lol
if anything it could also be an appeal to authority fallacy.

The fallacy of attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feeling and enthusiasms of the multitude. There are several variations of this fallacy, but we will emphasize two forms.

A."Snob Appeal": the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion by appealing to what an elite or a select few (but not necessarily an authority) in a society thinks or believes.
 

laska

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
402
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Do you know what supply and demand is? if you have low supply and high demand the price goes through the roof.
Foreign oil wouldn't be cheaper. Oil is a global traded commodity. it doesn't matter if you are in the US or if you are the middle east if the price is 40 dollars
a barrel then that is the price everywhere. Your tax would only hit US makers and do nothing for anyone else. They are not going to take a 90% tax on the chin.

they will recoop it elsewhere which would be the pump.

SO this is nothing more than class warfare. I don't like that they make so much.
well when working people are paying 10-15 dollars a gallon they will be up in arms.

I made an A in my Econ 101 course, amazing being all clueless about supply and demand. The up to 90% is meant to be on net profits. It will not effect their costs. If they make 100 million in profits and want to invest 90 million in machinery, and ten million in dividends, the 90% tax is on the ten million. If they want to borrow the 90 million and try and pocket the 100 million they pay 90 million in taxes. If p[rices go real high because of supply and demand you obviously eliminate the oil taxes. But the prices are low today, and demand would be less with higher taxes making gas more expenisve, and opening up the fracking industry would increase supply, and with the transition to electric further decreasing demand, all the factors lean towards prices going down.
 

laska

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
402
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
that is exactly what an ad poplum fallacy is. lol
if anything it could also be an appeal to authority fallacy.

The fallacy of attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feeling and enthusiasms of the multitude. There are several variations of this fallacy, but we will emphasize two forms.

A."Snob Appeal": the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion by appealing to what an elite or a select few (but not necessarily an authority) in a society thinks or believes.

Well you are reading my intent wrong. I did not mean it to mean it was proof of truth. All it meant was there are smart people(and me) that disagree with you. No more, no less.
 
Last edited:

laska

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
402
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Businesses only pay what the job is worth. If the job isn't worth it then they won't pay it.



Which makes 0 sense.



ad poplum fallacy is still a fallacy.

In regards to capital gains, my policy takes into account that there is a difference in the value to an economy between an investor who gives money directly to a company in exchange for stock so that the company can use the money to grow, and an investor who later buys the stock from a fellow investor and the money instead of going to the company is just going to another individual investor. You want to keep the ipo investment at a low rate to encourage investing in a company's growth which has positive impacts to the economy. The later trades have far less impact on the economy and taxing them like regular income makes most hedge fund managers and day traders, etc, pay a fairer progressive rate like everyone else.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I made an A in my Econ 101 course, amazing being all clueless about supply and demand. The up to 90% is meant to be on net profits. It will not effect their costs. If they make 100 million in profits and want to invest 90 million in machinery, and ten million in dividends, the 90% tax is on the ten million. If they want to borrow the 90 million and try and pocket the 100 million they pay 90 million in taxes. If p[rices go real high because of supply and demand you obviously eliminate the oil taxes. But the prices are low today, and demand would be less with higher taxes making gas more expenisve, and opening up the fracking industry would increase supply, and with the transition to electric further decreasing demand, all the factors lean towards prices going down.

Or they just stop producing oil which then limits the supply which then shoots the price up. futures trading is weird business you would see oil prices skyrocket easily.
on this you punch working people in the mouth with high gas prices to get back and forth to work.

not only that but you affect every aspect of the economy. as all major shipping and transportation is tied to oil.
for that A you got you didn't follow the bell curves of everything.

You affect more than just 1 thing which is the price of oil. you affect the entire economy.

but socking it to big oil is more important.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well you are reading my intent wrong. I did not mean it to mean it was proof of truth. All it meant was there are smart people(and me) that disagree with you. No more, no less.

no I am reading your intent correctly and you just did it again.
now you are adding an ad hominem into it as well which shows well your argument
wasn't as strong as you think if you have to insult people.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In regards to capital gains, my policy takes into account that there is a difference in the value to an economy between an investor who gives money directly to a company in exchange for stock so that the company can use the money to grow, and an investor who later buys the stock from a fellow investor and the money instead of going to the company is just going to another individual investor. You want to keep the ipo investment at a low rate to encourage investing in a company's growth which has positive impacts to the economy. The later trades have far less impact on the economy and taxing them like regular income makes most hedge fund managers and day traders, etc, pay a fairer progressive rate like everyone else.

Do you know the difference between short term capital gains and long term capital gains and how they are taxed?
 

laska

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
402
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Do you know the difference between short term capital gains and long term capital gains and how they are taxed?

Yes I do. I don't give a preference to short or long term. If someone invests in an ipo type stock offering and whether they sell it the next day or 20 years later, they pay 15%. Either way the company got their money on the original offering.
 
Last edited:

laska

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
402
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
no I am reading your intent correctly and you just did it again.
now you are adding an ad hominem into it as well which shows well your argument
wasn't as strong as you think if you have to insult people.

Where did I insult someone? How is saying a truth that there are smart people that disagree with you insulting? I am not saying you are not smart or that smart people may disagree with me. The only one insulting someone is you by misrepresenting what I am saying by calling them fallacies and smart alec remarks like: "Do you know what supply and demand is" or "for that A you got you didn't follow the bell curves of everything"
 
Top Bottom