Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film
View Poll Results: Regarding the capital gains tax, which Democrat do you most agree with?
Bill Clinton, who cut the capital gains tax.
13
86.67%
Barack Obama, who wants to increase the capital gains tax.
2
13.33%
Voters: 15. You may not vote on this poll

Captial gains tax: Bill Clinton vs Barack Obama

Old 04-18-08, 09:09 AM
  #1  
Political Exile
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,988
Captial gains tax: Bill Clinton vs Barack Obama

When Bill Clinton cut the capital gains tax in 1997, it created incentives which caused tax revenues to go up.

The chart in this article shows how people respond to incentives.

Barack Obama wants to increase the capital gains tax, even though he was told about how people respond to inventives.

I agree with Bill Clinton's policy.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1208...w_and_outlooks

Obama's Tax Evasion

April 18, 2008; Page A16

The parsons of the press corps are furious with Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, which means the pair must have done a pretty good job moderating Wednesday's Democratic debate in Philadelphia. Barack Obama had an off-night, so his media choir wants to shoot the questioners.

We thought the debate was one of the best yet, precisely because it probed the evasive rhetoric we've heard from both Democratic candidates throughout the campaign. Nowhere was this more apparent than during the exchanges between Mr. Gibson and Mr. Obama over taxes.

Time and again, the rookie Senator has said he would not raise taxes on middle-class earners, whom he describes as people with annual income lower than between $200,000 and $250,000. On Wednesday night, he repeated the vow. "I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes," said the Senator, "I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes."

But Mr. Obama has also said he's open to raising Ė indeed, nearly doubling to 28% Ė the current top capital gains tax rate of 15%, which would in fact be a tax hike on some 100 million Americans who own stock, including millions of people who fit Mr. Obama's definition of middle class.

Mr. Gibson dared to point out this inconsistency, which regularly goes unmentioned in Mr. Obama's fawning press coverage. But Mr. Gibson also probed a little deeper, asking the candidate why he wants to increase the capital gains tax when history shows that a higher rate brings in less revenue.

"Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20%," said Mr. Gibson. "And George Bush has taken it down to 15%. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?"

Mr. Obama answered by citing rich hedge fund managers. Raising the capital gains tax is necessary, he said, "to make sure . . . that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it and that we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools. And you can't do that for free."

But Mr. Gibson had noted that higher rates yield less revenue. So the news anchor tried again: "But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up?" Mr. Obama responded that this "might happen or it might not. It depends on what's happening on Wall Street and how business is going."
And then he went on a riff about John McCain and the housing market.



This is instructive. The facts about capital gains rates and revenues are well known to our readers, but we'll repeat them as a public service to the Obama campaign. As the nearby chart shows, when the tax rate has risen over the past half century, capital gains realizations have fallen and along with them tax revenue. The most recent such episode was in the early 1990s, when Mr. Obama was old enough to be paying attention. That's one reason Jack Kennedy proposed cutting the capital gains rate. And it's one reason Bill Clinton went along with a rate cut to 20% from 28% in 1997.

Either the young Illinois Senator is ignorant of this revenue data, or he doesn't really care because he's a true income redistributionist who prefers high tax rates as a matter of ideological dogma regardless of the revenue consequences.
Neither one is a recommendation for President.

For her part, Hillary Clinton said that she, too, was open to hiking the capital gains tax rate, just not by as much as her rival. "I wouldn't raise it above the 20% if I raised it at all," she said. Of course, she too promised during Wednesday's debate not to raise "a single tax on middle-class Americans, people making less than $250,000 a year."

Both candidates would have voters believe that taxes on investment income only affect the rich. But that's not what Internal Revenue Service returns show. The reality is that the Clinton and Obama rate increases would hit millions of Americans who make well under $200,000. In 2005, 47% of all tax returns reporting capital gains were from households with incomes below $50,000, and 79% came from households with incomes below $100,000.
* * *

By the way, a higher capital gains tax rate isn't the only middle-class tax increase that Mr. Obama is proposing. He also wants to lift the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax. That cap was $97,500 in 2007 and is $102,000 this year. "Those are a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $200[,000] and $250,000," said Mr. Gibson. "If you raise the payroll taxes, that's going to raise taxes on them." Ignoring the no-tax pledge he had made five minutes earlier, Mr. Obama explained that such a tax increase was nevertheless necessary.

In other words he dodged the question, as he so often does with impunity. But thanks to Mr. Gibson's persistence, for 90 minutes Wednesday night Mr. Obama didn't get away with it. The voters learned a lot about Mr. Obama, who needs to learn a lot more about taxes and revenue.
grundle is offline  
Old 04-18-08, 09:14 AM
  #2  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di SalÚ
Posts: 32,279
I really don't care.
wendersfan is offline  
Old 04-18-08, 09:16 AM
  #3  
Moderator
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 70,538
Originally Posted by wendersfan
I really don't care.
But the OP included a graph and everything!
Groucho is online now  
Old 04-18-08, 09:19 AM
  #4  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Is the reason that you don't care because you don't have capital gains; or, is it more of a political reason - you know, Obamaism?
classicman2 is offline  
Old 04-18-08, 09:21 AM
  #5  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,980
I don't pay much in capital gains taxes. But I still like paying as little as possible
Venusian is offline  
Old 04-18-08, 09:28 AM
  #6  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di SalÚ
Posts: 32,279
Originally Posted by classicman2
Is the reason that you don't care because you don't have capital gains; or, is it more of a political reason - you know, Obamaism?
I don't care because I don't think changes in capital gains taxes have much effect on the macroeconomy. I think it's more of a "litmus test" issue for people to decide who they're for and who they're against, or, in the WSJ's case, to convince people who they should be against.

Obamaism?: Maybe you missed it the several other times I've posted it here, but I guess it bears repeating - I'm not an Obama supporter.
wendersfan is offline  
Old 04-18-08, 09:31 AM
  #7  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 122,487
C-man is far more likely to vote for Obama in November than wendersfan is.
Red Dog is offline  
Old 04-18-08, 09:34 AM
  #8  
Moderator
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 70,538
Originally Posted by wendersfan
Obamaism?: Maybe you missed it the several other times I've posted it here, but I guess it bears repeating - I'm not an Obama supporter.
In c-man's terms, anybody who isn't blasting Obama at every turn and/or spreading love to Clinton and McCain must be blindly following Obama.
Groucho is online now  
Old 04-18-08, 09:35 AM
  #9  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di SalÚ
Posts: 32,279
Originally Posted by Red Dog
C-man is far more likely to vote for Obama in November than wendersfan is.
It's funny 'cause it's true.

Oh, the irony.
wendersfan is offline  
Old 04-18-08, 09:38 AM
  #10  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally Posted by Groucho
In c-man's terms, anybody who isn't blasting Obama at every turn and/or spreading love to Clinton and McCain must be blindly following Obama.
That's nonsense and you know it.

It's typical of your posts, however.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 04-18-08, 09:39 AM
  #11  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 122,487
I remember when c-man used to routinely blast McCain. Now that he's the GOP candidate for President, virtual silence on that front. Weird. It's funny how things change.
Red Dog is offline  
Old 04-18-08, 09:40 AM
  #12  
Moderator
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 70,538
But unless I blast c-man at every turn and/or spread love to wendersfan and Red Dog I must blindly following c-man!
Groucho is online now  
Old 04-18-08, 09:41 AM
  #13  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
I've repeated over and over that I'll vote for the Democrat in November.

wendersfan will only vote for the Democrat if it's Obama.

Does that make him an Obamacrat?
classicman2 is offline  
Old 04-18-08, 09:42 AM
  #14  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di SalÚ
Posts: 32,279
Originally Posted by classicman2
wendersfan will only vote for the Democrat if it's Obama.


Seriously, where are you getting this?
wendersfan is offline  
Old 04-18-08, 09:42 AM
  #15  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di SalÚ
Posts: 32,279
Originally Posted by Groucho
But unless I blast c-man at every turn and/or spread love to wendersfan and Red Dog I must blindly following c-man!
I prefer my love to be shining, if you don't mind.
wendersfan is offline  
Old 04-18-08, 09:42 AM
  #16  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 122,487
Originally Posted by classicman2
I've repeated over and over that I'll vote for the Democrat in November.

wendersfan will only vote for the Democrat if it's Obama.

Does that make him an Obamacrat?

So we can expect a change in your posts once Obama is definitely the nominee? That will be fun.

How about O-man instead of C-man?
Red Dog is offline  
Old 04-18-08, 09:43 AM
  #17  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di SalÚ
Posts: 32,279
Another winner of a thread from <b>grundle</b>!
wendersfan is offline  
Old 04-18-08, 09:47 AM
  #18  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally Posted by Red Dog
I remember when c-man used to routinely blast McCain. Now that he's the GOP candidate for President, virtual silence on that front. Weird. It's funny how things change.
The critical words 'he is the GOP candidate.' It's been decided.

The Democratic opponent hasn't been decided.

I've said nothing in favor of McCain - except I think it's likely that he'll be the next president. I do believe Hillary would have a better chance of defeating him than Obama - regardless of what the polls say in April, 2008. Therefore, I would rather see Hillary as the Democratic nominee. In reality - I hope for a deadlocked convention and someone else is chosen to be the nominee. It won't happen, but a real Democrat can still hope.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 04-18-08, 09:49 AM
  #19  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,032
From the debate on Wed...
<object classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" width="390" height="320" id="Redlasso"><param name="movie" value="http://media.redlasso.com/xdrive/WEB/vidplayer_1b/redlasso_player_b1b_deploy.swf" /><param name="flashvars" value="embedId=3834c9d2-482f-47f5-80a3-9136ed1591de" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed src="http://media.redlasso.com/xdrive/WEB/vidplayer_1b/redlasso_player_b1b_deploy.swf" flashvars="embedId=3834c9d2-482f-47f5-80a3-9136ed1591de" width="390" height="320" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowScriptAccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" name="Redlasso"></embed></object>

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what Iíve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year ó $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. Thatís not fair.

And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently donít have it and that weíre able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools.

And you canít do that for free, and you canít take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children and our grandchildren and then say that youíre cutting taxes, which is essentially what John McCain has been talking about. And that is irresponsible.

You know, I believe in the principle that you pay as you go, and you donít propose tax cuts unless you are closing other tax breaks for individuals. And you donít increase spending unless youíre eliminating some spending or youíre finding some new revenue. Thatís how we got an additional $4 trillion worth of debt under George Bush. That is helping to undermine our economy, and itís going to change when Iím president of the United States.

MR. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on whatís happening on Wall Street and how business is going. I think the biggest problem that weíve got on Wall Street right now is the fact that weíve got a housing crisis that this president has not been attentive to and that it took John McCain three tries before he got it right.

And if we can stabilize that market and we can get credit flowing again, then I think weíll see stocks do well, and once again I think we can generate the revenue that we need to run this government and hopefully to pay down some of this debt.
MartinBlank is offline  
Old 04-18-08, 09:52 AM
  #20  
DVD Talk Legend
 
wishbone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 20,514
From what I saw during the recent debate it sounded like Sen Obama would look into raising the capital gains tax as a possibility -- I did not hear anything firm with his stance. Charles Gibson did his best to inform Sen Obama of the statistics as displayed in the graph though...

Anyway...


"Thank you! Thank you very much, thank you! First of all, let me say how happy I am to be your nominee for the United States Senate!... I don't really understand your Congress... because, as I said during the campaign -- I'm just a caveman! I fell on some ice, and later got thawed out by scientists. But there is one thing I do know -- we must do everything in our power to lower the Capital Gains Tax. Thank you!"

wishbone is online now  
Old 04-18-08, 09:52 AM
  #21  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 122,487
So it's been decided. Big whoop. You still don't want him to be President, and he's out there making speeches, voting on things, etc, so why don't you criticize a few of those things in between your dozens of posts bashing supporters of Obama or those you erroneously believe are supporters of Obama.

It would seem to me that now that McCain is the nominee, one who has been anti-McCain for so long would be even more inclined to criticize him.
Red Dog is offline  
Old 04-18-08, 09:54 AM
  #22  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Working for Gizmonic Institute
Posts: 10,430
Originally Posted by wendersfan
I'm not an Obama supporter.
Your cover is safe with me, you Obamanchurian candidate.
crazyronin is offline  
Old 04-18-08, 09:55 AM
  #23  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,032
If you cut people's taxes then they'll have more of their hard earned money, and that's no good! The gov't should have all the money, they know what's best AND they know best how to spend it!!1! The gov't should take everybody's money then distribute it equally to everyone, the would be fair!!!111! Then we'd all be equal....Apple would stop advancing the technology of iPods, but atleast we'd all be equal. AND life would finally be FAIR!!11!
MartinBlank is offline  
Old 04-18-08, 09:56 AM
  #24  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di SalÚ
Posts: 32,279
Originally Posted by MartinBlank
If you cut people's taxes then they'll have more of their hard earned money, and that's no good! The gov't should have all the money, they know what's best AND they know best how to spend it!!1! The gov't should take everybody's money then distribute it equally to everyone, the would be fair!!!111! Then we'd all be equal....Apple would stop advancing the technology of iPods, but atleast we'd all be equal. AND life would finally be FAIR!!11!
What's your point exactly?
wendersfan is offline  
Old 04-18-08, 09:58 AM
  #25  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,032
Originally Posted by wendersfan
What's your point exactly?
The gov't should take all the money from the richies and give to the poor then we'd all be equal!! You know, there's enough money in the world for everyone to have $3million?!?!? That's not very fair!!! And it's a well known fact that all people with money either stole it or had it given to them by their parents! I just want everything to be fair, and what better way to execute fairness than to steal from some to give to others?!?
MartinBlank is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.