The 69% increase in capital-gains taxes

posted at 2:30 pm on November 12, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The House plan for ObamaCare that passed on Saturday contained a plethora of new and increased taxes, which the Americans for Tax Reform listed in an effort to make Americans aware of the burdensome cost of the bill.  The Wall Street Journal reports today on one aspect of the new taxes that ATR missed.  The Pelosi Plan, if passed by the Senate, would increase capital-gains taxes 69% from their present level, making them higher than any time since the first Clinton term:

House Democrats are funding their new entitlement with a 5.4% surtax on incomes above $500,000 for individuals and above $1 million for joint filers. The surcharge is intended to snag the greatest number of taxpayers to raise some $460.5 billion, and so the House has written it to apply to modified adjusted gross income. That means it includes both capital gains and dividends.

That surtax takes effect on January 1, 2011, or the day the Bush tax rates of 2001 and 2003 expire. Today’s capital gains tax rate of 15% would bounce back to 20% because of the Bush repeal and then to 25.4% with the surtax. That’s a 69% increase, overnight. The last time investors were hit with anything comparable was 1986, when the capital gains rate jumped to 28% from 20%, a 40% increase, as part of the Reagan tax reform that lowered income tax rates.

How did that increase work out in 1986?  Not so well, as it turns out:

The 1986 experience was not a happy one. Tax revenues from capital gains surged before the increase took effect in 1987, as investors moved to cash in at the lower rate. Revenues then plummeted. Total realized capital gains didn’t again reach their 1985 level of $172 billion until 1996. By 1992, the federal government was barely getting more in revenue ($29 billion) at the 28% rate than it did in 1985 ($26.5 billion) at the 20% rate.

Rate reductions, as in 2003 when Republicans cut the rate to 15% from 20%, have typically had the opposite effect. Treasury receipts from capital gains climbed to an estimated $117.8 billion in 2006 from $49 billion in 2002.

Once again, this is an example of the folly in using static tax analysis for public policy, perhaps especially on capital-gains tax rates.  Democrats in 1986 — and now — assume that hiking the CGT rate by 69% will produce 69% more revenue that what was received at the old rates.  That doesn’t take into account market behavior after tax conditions change.  A capital-gains tax hike will push investors to cash out before it hits, and then shelter their assets rather than putting them to work.  After all, at a CGT rate of 25.4%, they would probably pay less tax by getting interest off of their cash than by assuming the risk of losses and paying higher tax rates on the gains.

During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama stumbled when he first proposed at CGT rate of 28%.  His big-money backers reeled from the idea, and later Obama reduced it to 20%, still a significant increase.  Nancy Pelosi has jacked it back up again, and one has to wonder whether all of those Wall Street wizards who supported Obama in 2008 are having buyer’s remorse yet.

If they don’t, voters certainly will.  Obama needs investors to return to the market in order to start getting new jobs created in significant enough numbers to lower unemployment — and fast.  Hiking the CGT rate will have the opposite effect.  In fact, the rate of escalation may push capital overseas entirely, which would make the economic stagnation a long-term proposition, and double-digit unemployment a fixture of the Obama administration.

The Pelosi Plan would strangle the economy.  If Obama expects to minimize his mid-term losses, he has to get the Senate to strip out the enormous escalation in CGT rates.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Rate reductions, as in 2003 when Republicans cut the rate to 15% from 20%, have typically had the opposite effect. Treasury receipts from capital gains climbed to an estimated $117.8 billion in 2006 from $49 billion in 2002.

Laffer leans back in his chair and smokes another cigar.

lorien1973 on November 12, 2009 at 2:32 PM

Should I just hand my check over and hold a gun to my head?

upinak on November 12, 2009 at 2:33 PM

Dead cows don’t produce milk, Nancy.

jimmy2shoes on November 12, 2009 at 2:33 PM

69% increase?! dude. Say good bye to capitaliasm.

Trov on November 12, 2009 at 2:34 PM

Change you can believe in… because you can’t believe you don’t even have any change!

Enoxo on November 12, 2009 at 2:34 PM

But the Soviet system worked so well. I just don’t understand.

BobMbx on November 12, 2009 at 2:35 PM

and double-digit unemployment a fixture of the Obama administration.

the new normal….

ugh!

cmsinaz on November 12, 2009 at 2:36 PM

What a brilliant manuever. Lets pass cap and trade to raise the baseline costs of doing business to varying extents across the country. That should limit profits. But just in case some companies slip through and remain profitable, lets raise cap gains so that nobody will have an incentive to invest anyway.

With these kind of economic visionaries in office, things should turn around in no time.

stldave on November 12, 2009 at 2:36 PM

Those Rep’s aren’t guilty if they didn’t read it, so give them a break!

leftnomore on November 12, 2009 at 2:37 PM

Don’t look for Barry to get anything stripped out. It’s just more of his “income redistribution”. Only thing is, Barry thinks that people will just stand still to be raped.

Meet Mr One-Term President.

GarandFan on November 12, 2009 at 2:37 PM

When is the revolution starting?

upinak on November 12, 2009 at 2:37 PM

The Pelosi Plan would strangle the economy.

Psssst! Ed? Don’t tell anyone, but I think that’s actually The Plan!

JamesLee on November 12, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Government needs more money to take care of us. Since we can’t take care of ourselves, because, uh, government takes most of it.

lorien1973 on November 12, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Dead cows don’t produce milk, Nancy.

jimmy2shoes on November 12, 2009 at 2:33 PM

Obviously the ol cow Nancy still produces a drop, or 2. Although it’s rancid.

capejasmine on November 12, 2009 at 2:39 PM

We keep forgetting the Health Care bills are not about health care, they are about government control of our lives. When we pass health care all our troubles will go away.

d1carter on November 12, 2009 at 2:40 PM

You cannot whip the golden goose into laying more eggs.

rbj on November 12, 2009 at 2:40 PM

Ja, and so?

Skandia Recluse on November 12, 2009 at 2:40 PM

The Pelosi Plan would strangle the economy.

SouthernGent’s plan would strangle Pelosi and the other 219 traitors who voted for it.

SouthernGent on November 12, 2009 at 2:40 PM

Hey, let’s have a jobs summit every week, why not…

“My fellow Americans, let me be clear, the non-profits and unions just can’t figure out why so many of you are out of work. It is obviously an inherent failure of capitalism.”

Hawkins1701 on November 12, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Psssst! Ed? Don’t tell anyone, but I think that’s actually The Plan!

JamesLee on November 12, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Agreed! Remember Obama talking about how he doesn’t look like the white dudes on the money? I think that was his foretelling of who will be on our new money…and it won’t be Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Jackson or anyone else.

capejasmine on November 12, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Let’s not forget Obama’s demonstrated profound ignorance on this topic.

DaveS on November 12, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Good plan for the Dems. If they raise the taxes at the right time, the bubble of investment might help them with re-election. And once the economy crashes, they’ll have some really fun emergency plans for us.

hawksruleva on November 12, 2009 at 2:42 PM

Time to get cash our of my stock market MM accounts before this might happen. I have a feeling they will retroactive this to the first of the year if this is voted in.
L

letget on November 12, 2009 at 2:42 PM

Wow. I stand stupefied.
Someone tell me, why am I in business at ALL?
I need to sell out & get on welfare.
It really would be much easier on me & my family that way.

Badger40 on November 12, 2009 at 2:42 PM

upinak on November 12, 2009 at 2:37 PM

My thoughts exactly!! Sign me up!!

stacy on November 12, 2009 at 2:42 PM

The liberal mindset is that hey, if people don’t like paying capital gains taxes, that just proves capitalism doesn’t work.

pedestrian on November 12, 2009 at 2:42 PM

And she considers this a Christmas present

stldave on November 12, 2009 at 2:43 PM

These radical idealogues are on a mission, man. They could not care LESS about the economy. They WANT a poorer less employed America. They’ll enslave them for votes, just like they do the blacks.

marklmail on November 12, 2009 at 2:44 PM

As I recall that interview with Barry, he didn’t appear to understand the relationship between increased CG rates and decreased tax revenue, then when given past historical evidence, he said it didn’t matter. I still think he doesn’t have a clue about market forces.

a capella on November 12, 2009 at 2:44 PM

First, they tie up all the capital that would otherwise go to private investment in government bonds. Then they increase taxes on capital gains.

Why, it’s almost as if they’re not big fans of capitalism or something.

Hollowpoint on November 12, 2009 at 2:45 PM

You Know…

If this happens I will be giving back my truck to the bank… turning off cable/internet and stocking up on freaking spagetti noodles and ramen (yuck).

Why? Can’t I won’t be able to afford to do anything anyways and my heat and electric are going through the roof now as it is. Good thing I have studded tired for my mountain bike… the only way I can get to work in the winter.

upinak on November 12, 2009 at 2:45 PM

Capital gains tax should never be lower than income taxes. Lower the income tax or raise capital gains. We tax work more than investment, which is asinine.

The Calibur on November 12, 2009 at 2:46 PM

And she considers this a Christmas present

stldave on November 12, 2009 at 2:43 PM

And hopefully enough people use their gift receipts to vote these idoits out

ConservativePartyNow on November 12, 2009 at 2:46 PM

Now I know why our government never criticizes Mexico for abusing their citizens forcing them to flee to other countries (ours). They are doing the same thing.

To leave or not? Now, that’s a question! What will Pelosi do if enough taxpayers and corporations relocate? Stupid, stupid woman.

Cody1991 on November 12, 2009 at 2:46 PM

OT. This should go over very well:

ACORN Sues Over ‘Unconstitutional’ Funding Cuts By Congress

Just a brief look at it, but it appears they may have a good case.

Johnnyreb on November 12, 2009 at 2:46 PM

From Bloomberg.com:

Emerson Electric Co. Chief Executive Officer David Farr said the U.S. government is hurting manufacturers with regulation and taxes and his company will continue to focus on growth overseas.

“Washington is doing everything in their manpower, capability, to destroy U.S. manufacturing,” Farr said today in Chicago at a Baird Industrial Outlook conference. “Cap and trade, medical reform, labor rules.”

Companies will create jobs in India and China, “places where people want the products and where the governments welcome you to actually do something,” Farr said.

Just one of many companies with the same attitude.

Mark Boabaca on November 12, 2009 at 2:47 PM

The Pelosi Plan would strangle the economy.

Isn’t that the idea anyway?

No one in their right mind would actually think these draconian tax burdens would do anything but lower revenue and stagnate the economy.

A depressed economy means more people becoming dependent on the government for basics. That what the democrats are after … a subjugated population totally dependent on them for their existence, and one where the government has complete control and authority over, even in cases of life and death.

darwin on November 12, 2009 at 2:47 PM

I hate these people.

myrenovations on November 12, 2009 at 2:47 PM

The 2002 to 2006 comparisons are misleading in the extreme. The market had been in decline for three years and stock volume flat. By 2006, the Dow had been climbing robustly and volume was up sharply. I wonder what the Bush tax cuts did for revenues in 2008?

Another interesting thought — I can’t find anything — would be the percentage of shares held by buyers with sheltered income (401ks) which aren’t affected, and the percentage of trades that are the result of the kind of speculation that doesn’t really create capital.

Bleeds Blue on November 12, 2009 at 2:48 PM

Through all our history, to the last,
In the hour of darkness and peril and need,
The people will waken and listen to hear
The hurrying hoof-beat of that steed,
And the midnight-message of Ron Paul Revere.

Don’t tread on me, baby.

Trusser13 on November 12, 2009 at 2:48 PM

They are bound and determined to create a world depression…tenacious little rascals are those democrats.

right2bright on November 12, 2009 at 2:48 PM

Just a brief look at it, but it appears they may have a good case.

Johnnyreb on November 12, 2009 at 2:46 PM

If ACORN has a good case then I give up. I hate my government already, add a big dose of hopelessness to that and hey, I’ve had it.

I’m sick and tired of fighting the damn government.

darwin on November 12, 2009 at 2:49 PM

Jobs, jobs, jobs, and jobs! LET’S VOTE FOR JOBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hawkins1701 on November 12, 2009 at 2:50 PM

I cashed out positions to avoid the cap gains AND the dividend increases

ginaswo on November 12, 2009 at 2:51 PM

Obama’s knife is in the heart of this economy. Pelosi would just be strangling a corpse. Besides, it’s Bush’s fault (repeat through 2012).

SKYFOX on November 12, 2009 at 2:52 PM

BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

George Santayana

drjohn on November 12, 2009 at 2:52 PM

the phrase is a bit misleading

‘Clintons first term’ suggests he has something to do with the cap gains rate as it was set then
he did in the sense that he CUT IT

Who was POTUS in 86 when the rates went up again?

ginaswo on November 12, 2009 at 2:52 PM

That picture deserves a caption contest.

BottomLine5 on November 12, 2009 at 2:53 PM

Just when you think it can’t get any worse.

rjoco1 on November 12, 2009 at 2:53 PM

Every time I think it can’t get any worse, it does.

Exponentially.

Lock and Load.

fogw on November 12, 2009 at 2:55 PM

Capital gains tax should never be lower than income taxes. Lower the income tax or raise capital gains. We tax work more than investment, which is asinine.

The Calibur on November 12, 2009 at 2:46 PM

There are a lot of reasons that capital gains taxes should be lower. First, it is a tails you lose heads I win kind of a tax. Salaries are a steady income, whereas capital gains only occur in good years. Secondly, much of the returns to capital is actually just inflation. If capital gains taxes are as high as income taxes, then there should be a credit for inflation. Third, it is in the countries interest to promote risk taking. If it is just as easy to make the same money collecting a salary, then people won’t invest in new ventures and so technology will advance more slowly.

pedestrian on November 12, 2009 at 2:55 PM

Texas Governor Rick Perry was not being hyperbolic.

Mason on November 12, 2009 at 2:56 PM

I lost about 40% of my portfolio value last year. Since then, it’s come back about 20% but if they really want to pass this turd sandwich I will sell off before everyone else does. Ya hear that:
I SELL ALL MY STOCK THE DAY THIS IS SIGNED INTO LAW.

Not out of malice, but out of common sense. The same common sense that 95% of all investors have.

Meric1837 on November 12, 2009 at 2:56 PM

When do we throw these bums out? Pelosi is crazy and needs to be removed. Subject he to government health care. She is the perfect example of power corrupting. Death to tyrants.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on November 12, 2009 at 2:56 PM

Its as if these people want to ensure they are never voted into office again.

flyawaybird on November 12, 2009 at 2:56 PM

With all the negative numbers, 10% and moving towards 12% unemployment…under employed added to that, stagnating economy…and still we have a liberal thinking every thing is hunky dory.
These liberals cannot read, cannot analyse, cannot accept the fact that pumping in trillions to nowhere, and unlimited spending, leads to disaster.
I have not seen one proposal from liberals limiting spending…everything is increasing government, which produces nothing, it only absorbs money.
We even have a liberal troll on this post that cannot understand that the only way to help the economy is by limiting government spending, and increase production…about the most basic economic principle there is…cut overhead, increase efficiency and production.
Why is that so difficult to understand…can’t pay your mortgage, cut overhead, and work more hours…can’t pay for a new gov. program, raise taxes…
Liberals can’t see the difference…

right2bright on November 12, 2009 at 2:56 PM

This is an entirely academic issue (who has any gains to be taxed?).

I don’t mind seeing Obama lead the country down the road to serfdom.

He will be lose in historic proportions in 2012.

And Pelosi won’t be speaker when the House convenes in 2013 (after hemorhaging a large number of House seats to unknown Republicans, Conservatives and independents in the 2012 elections).

Obama, Hillary, Pelosi, Reid, Holder, et al. will destroy their party’s majority in less time than it took GWB, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove to do so to the GOP.

molonlabe28 on November 12, 2009 at 2:57 PM

Good thing I have studded tired for my mountain bike… the only way I can get to work in the winter.

upinak on November 12, 2009 at 2:45 PM

Isn’t there a studded bicycle tire tax embedded somewhere in the health care bill?

jimmy2shoes on November 12, 2009 at 2:57 PM

Its as if these people want to ensure they are never voted into office again.

flyawaybird on November 12, 2009 at 2:56 PM

That is not true…they actually think (look at bleeds blue posts) that they are doing the right thing. Really, they honestly think everything is working great…it is unbelievable…

right2bright on November 12, 2009 at 2:58 PM

The economics really don’t matter at this point- it’s fairly obvious that high regulations, taxes, out of control spending, etc. crush the private sector.
The people in power want to create a new country – so the old one has to be wrecked.
Believe me, I’ve seen this show before- the people in charge now are the exact same people that destroyed my small CA town 40 years ago. All they needed was a wedge- in our case it was a UC school, nationally it will try to be healthcare.

jjshaka on November 12, 2009 at 2:59 PM

Well, with the way Obama is creating a billion new jobs every day…who needs capital investment????

search4truth on November 12, 2009 at 2:59 PM

Democrats are economically illiterate and totally and willfully ignorant of the lessons of history.

backwoods conservative on November 12, 2009 at 3:01 PM

would be the percentage of shares held by buyers with sheltered income (401ks) which aren’t affected, and the percentage of trades that are the result of the kind of speculation that doesn’t really create capital.

Bleeds Blue on November 12, 2009 at 2:48 PM

Um, Junior, you might want to stick to topics you’re expert in, such as teabagging and Sarah Palin.

Assuming 401ks aren’t taxed, or that creating and maintaining a liquid market for securities “doesn’t really create capital” show you to be at the level of, well, an Obama voter.

MNHawk on November 12, 2009 at 3:01 PM

This is an entirely academic issue (who has any gains to be taxed?).
molonlabe28 on November 12, 2009 at 2:57 PM

Lots of people. Me. The tax isn’t assessed at the end of the year, but when you sell the stock at above the initial buy-in. If you bought stock in 1985 and it was worth more today than when you bought it, you pay the tax on the difference only on the date of sale. The point being, when the rate goes up, long-term investors dump their stocks because now you have to make more than the tax to make a profit. So it’s more profitable to sell now and avoid the future hike.

Meric1837 on November 12, 2009 at 3:01 PM

Nancy Pelosi comes from a wealthy family. There is no way she can be this stupid about capitalism.

Terrye on November 12, 2009 at 3:01 PM

Capital gains tax should never be lower than income taxes. Lower the income tax or raise capital gains. We tax work more than investment, which is asinine.

The Calibur on November 12, 2009 at 2:46 PM

We should tax neither work, nor investment.

jimmy2shoes on November 12, 2009 at 3:01 PM

So, apparently, the Pelosi-Obama-Reid “solution” for fixing the economy (if, in fact, that’s what they’re trying to do and it can be argued that it isn’t what they’re trying to do) is to handcuff it in addition to shackling it.

Then they want to attach lead weights to its handcuffed and shackled hands and feet. Then they want to push it into a lake and order it to swim (or else). When it fails to swim, as was the design, they will blame “capitalism” for “not being able to swim” and claim that MORE GOVERNMENT REGULATION is needed to “fix” the economy.

By that time, the economy will be replaced with the government, and there will be nothing left to “fix.” Freedom will be gone and we will be Europe.

Good Lt on November 12, 2009 at 3:01 PM

Isn’t there a studded bicycle tire tax embedded somewhere in the health care bill?

jimmy2shoes on November 12, 2009 at 2:57 PM

Well she is taking a chance of getting hurt, and producing those tires can’t be good for the environment so I am sure you are probably correct.

stldave on November 12, 2009 at 3:02 PM

Isn’t there a studded bicycle tire tax embedded somewhere in the health care bill?

jimmy2shoes on November 12, 2009 at 2:57 PM

that wouldn’t surprise me. They are going to be taxing condom’s next for more abortion clinics to stay open.

upinak on November 12, 2009 at 3:03 PM

That surtax takes effect on January 1, 2011, or the day the Bush tax rates of 2001 and 2003 expire.

That is not the only tax increase to hit on January 1, 2011.

Vashta.Nerada on November 12, 2009 at 3:04 PM

Another interesting thought — I can’t find anything — would be the percentage of shares held by buyers with sheltered income (401ks) which aren’t affected, and the percentage of trades that are the result of the kind of speculation that doesn’t really create capital.

Bleeds Blue on November 12, 2009 at 2:48 PM

What the hell does that comparison have to do with aything? The tax isn’t due until the gains are realized, so shelters are not at issue. The sell transaction volume is the relevant one and the use to which those gains are put drives the engine.

a capella on November 12, 2009 at 3:04 PM

Capital gains tax should never be lower than income taxes. Lower the income tax or raise capital gains. We tax work more than investment, which is asinine.

The Calibur on November 12, 2009 at 2:46 PM

Capital gains are not regular income. Dividends are, but selling stock or selling a house are not.

Vashta.Nerada on November 12, 2009 at 3:06 PM

Without these tax increases, Obama can’t claim the healthcare program is “paid for.” Remember the old Soviet joke, “Everybody’s working, but there’s nothing on the shelves.”?

Soon it will be, “Everybody’s got healthcare, but nobody can afford to drive to the doctor’s office.”

On top of that, your government now proposes making a crime out of not buying health insurance, a choice which has never remotely been considered criminal before. So much for increasing our choices.

“Step away from the Doritos or we will shoot!” can’t be far away.

Meremortal on November 12, 2009 at 3:06 PM

I saved our created 50 billion dollars in capital gains revenue.

jukin on November 12, 2009 at 3:06 PM

From Bloomberg.com:

Emerson Electric Co. Chief Executive Officer David Farr said the U.S. government is hurting manufacturers with regulation and taxes and his company will continue to focus on growth overseas.

“Washington is doing everything in their manpower, capability, to destroy U.S. manufacturing,” Farr said today in Chicago at a Baird Industrial Outlook conference. “Cap and trade, medical reform, labor rules.”

Companies will create jobs in India and China, “places where people want the products and where the governments welcome you to actually do something,” Farr said.
Just one of many companies with the same attitude.

Mark Boabaca on November 12, 2009 at 2:47 PM

I used to work for Emerson in STL….the unions hated them because they had (still have, probably) many non-union factories, pay the workers well. A very well run company…..Farr is a good man, oh, and he’s right.

atlgal on November 12, 2009 at 3:08 PM

Go for it, Nancy. Keep squeezing. I’m sure there’s still a tiny bit of blood left in that turnip.

SKYFOX on November 12, 2009 at 3:08 PM

Folks ought to consider taking their post-tax money and putting it into Roth IRA’s. Then you can play with the money without worrying about capital-gains taxes.

Of course, the down side is that you can’t take the money until you retire; but, the way that things are going taxes will be a lot higher in the future and you can enjoy your Roth money tax free.

Then again, everything is contingent on our administration not screwing up the Roth system and future benefits.

Special Forces Grunt on November 12, 2009 at 3:08 PM

To me, this is an experiment gone terribly wrong. The country was mesmorized by a smooth talking black man and decided to give him a chance. They threw experience, ideaology, past associations to the wind. Now look where we are. We need to take back control of this country and never give it back!

rjoco1 on November 12, 2009 at 3:09 PM

pedestrian on November 12, 2009 at 2:55 PM

When did our country become more focused on risk than work? This is a dangerous path to tread. People with the money to invest are better off than those without enough money to invest, yet we tax them more for not having enough money to invest. Not to mention, the majority of these ventures to improve technology end up destroying jobs and raising profits, hardly a good thing for national interest.

I do agree an inflation tax credit is a good idea, although our government could just pursue policies that reduced inflation. That would be nice.

The Calibur on November 12, 2009 at 3:09 PM

Stupid is as stupid does – this woman is a nut job! Yes, she is really that stupid!

txstar on November 12, 2009 at 3:13 PM

If Obama expects to minimize his mid-term losses, he has to get the Senate to strip out the enormous escalation in CGT rates.

If Obama expects to minimize his mid-term losses, he has to get the Senate to strip out the enormous escalation in CGT rates to ditch the entire POS healthcare bill.

FIFY.

AZCoyote on November 12, 2009 at 3:14 PM

We recently sold a rental house in anticipation of increased capital gains tax under Obama. By 69% though? Whew.

icyhot on November 12, 2009 at 3:16 PM

These nuts are a clear and present danger to the Republic.

rplat on November 12, 2009 at 3:16 PM

People with the money to invest are better off than those without enough money to invest, yet we tax them more for not having enough money to invest.

The Calibur on November 12, 2009 at 3:09 PM

1. People with money to invest are the only job creators in society.

2. We need to incentivize people who are already paying the vast majority of taxes in this country to keep investing, not penalize them for doing so.

Vashta.Nerada on November 12, 2009 at 3:17 PM

How in the he!! did the CBO score this thing as deficit-neutral??? If it is even partially “paid for” by increased capital-gains taxes, then the entire scoring of it is a joke! Surely the CBO has the same numbers that the WSJ cited on previous CGT changes.

Republicans ought to be ALL OVER this!

rockmom on November 12, 2009 at 3:18 PM

SHhhhhhh…Bush is speaking!

royzer on November 12, 2009 at 3:18 PM

As I recall that interview with Barry, he didn’t appear to understand the relationship between increased CG rates and decreased tax revenue, then when given past historical evidence, he said it didn’t matter. I still think he doesn’t have a clue about market forces.

a capella on November 12, 2009 at 2:44 PM

I think that was actually a Democrat primary debate where he made that infamous statement. Charlie Gibson of all people was asking him why he’d raise the capital gains tax when historically that led to a decrease in revenue to the government. Obama’s response? He’s more interested in fairness.

That sums up his economic philosophy in a nutshell. He doesn’t care about the creation of wealth. He just wants to take from the rich(and middle class once the wealthy are tapped out) and give to the poor.

Doughboy on November 12, 2009 at 3:18 PM

Then again, everything is contingent on our administration not screwing up the Roth system and future benefits.

Special Forces Grunt on November 12, 2009 at 3:08 PM

They’re coming after the IRAs and 401(k)s eventually. I have no doubt about it. I would never assume that they are always going to be safe havens from taxes.

rockmom on November 12, 2009 at 3:20 PM

There is no ignorance. We are to become third world with the elites in charge.
Obama hates America and all the Czars hate America.
Elections have consequences.
The communists won.

nondhimmie on November 12, 2009 at 3:21 PM

We tax work more than investment, which is asinine.

Not really, for most people invested money (non 401k) is post-tax money, so it’s essentially taxed twice.

You are investing what is left of your money in a business, if that business does well, you are rewarded. When people invest in companies, those companies can create the jobs. When the government gets it’s hands on the money, it’s gone.

This is not the time to do anything to slow investment.

reaganaut on November 12, 2009 at 3:21 PM

This increase applies only to those above $500,000? If I’m reading that right, I don’t think there will be a lot of talk about it.

AnninCA on November 12, 2009 at 3:21 PM

When did our country become more focused on risk than work? This is a dangerous path to tread. People with the money to invest are better off than those without enough money to invest, yet we tax them more for not having enough money to invest. Not to mention, the majority of these ventures to improve technology end up destroying jobs and raising profits, hardly a good thing for national interest.

The Calibur on November 12, 2009 at 3:09 PM

This company has always been about risk and work, until Obama, that is. What it was not historically not about was taxing people simply because they had saved up their money.

Corporate profits are taxed many times:

1. Corporate income tax
2. If the corporation retains earnings in order to invest, it causes a rise in stock price, which triggers a capital gains tax
3. When the company distributes the earnings, there is a personal tax on the income.
4. Inflation is hidden tax caused by the government printing excess money.

Technology replaces low income jobs with high income jobs. That’s why technologically advanced countries have a higher standard of living. Put down the Marx.

pedestrian on November 12, 2009 at 3:21 PM

Odumbo is too dedicated to government takeover and the destruction of the economy to clean Pelosi’s mess up. We will have to do it, starting in 2010.

ultracon on November 12, 2009 at 3:23 PM

People with the money to invest are better off than those without enough money to invest, yet we tax them more for not having enough money to invest.

An investor’s share of corporate profits is taxed at 35%, right off the top.

The remaining 65% is taxed again, at 15%, in the form of capital gains or dividends, at the individual level.

Corporate profits, between the two, are taxed at about 45%, before adding on any state taxes. Who’s getting taxed more, again?

MNHawk on November 12, 2009 at 3:24 PM

that wouldn’t surprise me. They are going to be taxing condom’s next for more abortion clinics to stay open.

upinak on November 12, 2009 at 3:03 PM

All joking aside, there has to be a special place in hell reserved for those who would profit from the murder of children.

jimmy2shoes on November 12, 2009 at 3:25 PM

yet we tax them more for not having enough money to invest.

Who gets taxed more?

Who are the people who have or have not, anyway?

I can make 500k a year and spend all my money and never invest it. I can make 100k a year and chose to be thrifty and invest a good chunk of it.

Someone making 500k a year pays a hell of a lot more taxes to start with. Do you realize how many people pay no taxes at all? I’m not talking about poverty level either. Single people or families can make a decent amount of money, and get every dime back in refunds with all the tax credits out there.

reaganaut on November 12, 2009 at 3:30 PM

“Hedge fund trading was limited to the very rich, for investment banks and other institutional investors. But it became one of the easiest ways to make money, loaning funds at interest for people to pay out of their computer-driven cross-trades. And almost as fast as it was made, this revenue was paid out in commissions, salaries and annual bonuses reminiscent of America’s Gilded Age in the years prior to World War I – years before the income tax was introduced in 1913. The remarkable thing about all this money was that its recipients didn’t even have to pay normal income tax on it. The government let them call it “capital gains,” which meant that the money was taxed at only a fraction of the rate that incomes were taxed.”

- Michael Hudson

The Calibur on November 12, 2009 at 3:30 PM

Pelosi channeling Marx: Tax Das Kapital.

Steve Z on November 12, 2009 at 3:35 PM

If Obama expects to minimize his mid-term losses

But-but-but he won.

Physics Geek on November 12, 2009 at 3:36 PM

Comment pages: 1 2