I can think of a couple of reasons offhand.
1. the money is already taxed at a nominal 35% rate.
2. we want capital to flow into America as opposed to out of it.
3. capital is incredibly fungible and
4. the rest of the modernized world has been undercutting us because they want capital to flow in from us.
it's not a matter of wanting to favor one set of people over another. it's a matter of wishing to favor America over other nations, and wishing for America to grow.
Actually the money from long term capital gains is not taxed at 35%. It is taxed at 15%.
The rest of your points are theoretical in nature and you have shown no real world evidence that any of your assertions are actually being helped by capital gains taxes at the current level or that the current level somehow someway achieves what you claim they do.
i was thinking of dividends there specifically, but the theory remains the same. as the shares are ownership of the business, which in turn pays a nominal 35% rate, that wealth is already being taxed
theoretical? :lol: are you actually arguing that people do not respond to incentives, and that investors are not trying to make money?
YOu are talking about two different sets of taxpayers, each paying on their own money.
As to people responding to incentives - I will be glad to look at the evidence if you think it demonstrates this.
The company paying taxes on its money is one thing. The company is a legal entity and they pay their obligations.
An individual paying taxes on their money is a different thing. They are a complete different entity and they pay their own personal obligations
As to capital gains and your positions, I have stated several times that I am more than willing to examine your actual evidence.
actually, they own shares in the company. Tell me what would happen if a stockholder walked into the General Motors building and picked up an expensive piece of equipment and attempted to walk out with it claiming that the OWN THE DAMN COMPANY.
Before, or after Obama devalued their stock and gave it to the Unions?
j-mac
What a weird and completely bizarre thing to say when the companies themselves wanted to preserve the unions.
What a weird and completely bizarre thing to say when the companies themselves wanted to preserve the unions.
Right, Obama devalued their stock, which was worth about $0.01 per share. :lol:
True, the original stock for shareholders was worthless as of July '09 in the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. However, Obama then bailed out the company with billions, and then proceeded to grant the Union 51% ownership of the 'new' GM.
j-mac
WTF are you talkinga about? The UAW got about 17% of the shares, and in return took over the retiree health care plan which was a GM liability to the tune of almost $50 billion. Great deal for the UAW. :roll:
Easy to find my friend, even with your obvious attempted rewrite of history.
Obama’s union payback to cost taxpayers $14 billion
Obama’s union payback to cost taxpayers $14 billion : USACTION NEWS
j-mac
Uh, that doesn't confirm your false assertion that the UAW got 51% of GM. It says that they got $14 billion in stock, but it doens't mention that they also got $50 billion in health care liabilities, for a net loss of around $36 billion. Quite a deal.
As I said, the UAW got 17.5% of GM stock: UAW Trust To Get 17.5% Of GM Shares - CBS News
And the UAW took on GM's $51 billion health care liability: Is GM's Health Plan Contagious?
GM said that it will ask the government to take more than 50 percent of its common stock in exchange for canceling half the government loans to the company as of June 1. The swap would cancel about $10 billion in government debt.
In addition, GM is offering the UAW stock for at least 50 percent of the $20 billion the company must pay into a union run trust that will take over retiree health care expenses starting next year.
If both are successful, the government and UAW health care trust would own 89 percent of GM stock, with the government holding more than a 50 percent stake, CEO Fritz Henderson said in a news conference at GM's Detroit headquarters.
Deal would give ownership of GM to gov't, UAW | Business | KATU.com - Portland News, Sports, Traffic Weather and Breaking News - Portland, Oregon
There you go....You're welcome.
j-mac
Um, hello? That's not what actually happened. Any more lies you would like to spread?
An earlier IBD Editorial pointed out the sweetheart deal Obama gave the UAW:
“Given that the wasteful work rules that UAW bosses — wielding government-granted monopoly-bargaining power over employees — insisted on for decades were largely what drove GM into bankruptcy, they certainly didn’t deserve kid-gloves treatment. Yet that’s what they got.
A UAW-controlled auto retiree health care fund was owed $20 billion by GM before the bailout.
Under the White House-dictated terms, UAW-appointed fund managers got back half of what they were owed in cash, whereas taxpayers who were owed $19.4 billion didn’t get a dime back in cash.
Instead, the Obama administration “forgave” this entire loan on taxpayers’ behalf and earmarked an additional $23.5 billion for the company’s trip through bankruptcy. In exchange for the nearly $43 billion funneled to GM, taxpayers acquired a “60.8% equity stake” in GM.”
It should be noted that the UAW is one of the most politically active of all unions. The union gave $2,119.937 to the 2008 campaigns 99% of which went to Obama and the Democrats. They gave another $1,106,500 in this past 2010 election cycle 100% of which went to Democrats. That is a total of $3,226,437 in just the last two election cycles. That does not include the phone banks, neighborhood canvassing and get out the vote efforts. Since 1990 the UAW has donated $26,510,252 of which 99% went to Democrats.
Not a bad return on investment when you consider they received billions back in ownership and benefit funding.
The government is subsidizing purchases of the GM Volt to the tune of $7,500 each. By the way that $7,500 is being supplied by you the taxpayer and is not being considered in the overall loss figures on the GM union payoff scam.
The UAW also spends about a million and a half a year lobbying for important issues like card check, pension bailouts and the Buy America Act. So in reality taxpayer money was used to pay off unions so that they could then campaign for Democrats and lobby for special favors from those same Democrats. This is change alright. An increase in arrogant corruption that is off the Richter scale.
The Obama campaign is claiming the union bailout saved the auto industry but neglects to mention that Ford took no money and has recovered even better than GM or Chrysler and that US plants owned by Toyota, Nissan and others continued to employ Americans without taxpayer assistance even competing against government subsidized GM and Chrysler.
The real bailout was the union money laundering scheme that keeps union dollars flowing into Democrat campaign coffers. That is the Chicago way of redistributing the wealth. Taking from the unsuspecting taxpayer to give to the union campaign supporters.
Obama’s union payback to cost taxpayers $14 billion : USACTION NEWS
Yeah, the news is a lie....heh, heh....I see...
You are looking foolish Adam.
j-mac
As General Motors emerged from bankruptcy in July 2009, the U.S. Treasury took a 60.8% stake in the company in return for a $50 billion bailout. A trust established to fund health care benefits for UAW retirees -- not the UAW itself -- took a 17.5% stake. The Canadian government took a 12.5% stake, and unsecured bondholders were given a 10% share.
The trust fund came about as part of GM's restructuring. The UAW essentially agreed to shift responsibility for retiree health care costs away from GM to the union-controlled trust fund, consisting of company stock rather than cash.
You REALLY need to cite to something other than a wingnut blather source if you ever want to be taken seriously.
Truth Squad: Did government give automakers to UAW, Fiat? - CNN
I have tried to tell him. :coffeepap
How do you attempt to neutralize the effects of those lakes of kool-aid? :roll:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?