What's new
By:

Donald Trump

Joe Bagadonuts said:
Well, the people paying the tax probably won't love it too much because for them it obviously means less money.
Click to expand...

Hmm... True enough Joe, true enough.

But really I was just wondering why Alt13 thought a capital gains tax on top of a 30% fair tax would be better than just having a 35% fair tax rate or some such thing.
 
Eminence said:
Hmm... True enough Joe, true enough.

But really I was just wondering why Alt13 thought a capital gains tax on top of a 30% fair tax would be better than just having a 35% fair tax rate or some such thing.
Click to expand...
Oh. That's not really what your question said. One thing that comes to mind, though, is that a pure sales tax makes it an advantage to travel and spend money in other countries, and a disadvantage for people from other countries to visit America. Companies like Disney, ski resorts, etc, who pull in a lot of revenue from overseas probably wouldn't be very crazy about your proposal. Resorts in Mexico and the Caribbean would probably love it.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Well, the people paying the tax probably won't love it too much because for them it obviously means less money.
Click to expand...

More taxes doesn't necessarily mean less money on the final bottom line, after all summations, in all cases. Collective ownership can be powerful.
 
Eminence said:
Hmm... True enough Joe, true enough.

But really I was just wondering why Alt13 thought a capital gains tax on top of a 30% fair tax would be better than just having a 35% fair tax rate or some such thing.
Click to expand...

Because beyond a certain level of wealth people stop spending on stuff that would be covered by a sales tax and start investing it. Without some sort of capital gains tax the middle class would have to pay a larger portion and the rich a smaller one. I guess you could apply the sales tax there but I think that would get complicated and probably be at too high of a rate to encourage investment.
 
♪alt13 said:
Because beyond a certain level of wealth people stop spending on stuff that would be covered by a sales tax and start investing it. Without some sort of capital gains tax the middle class would have to pay a larger portion and the rich a smaller one. I guess you could apply the sales tax there but I think that would get complicated and probably be at too high of a rate to encourage investment.
Click to expand...

Very true.

I think we could see an increase in capital gains tax and be ok. I also think if we're going to have a sales tax on high item necessities, and I'm going to reference farm equipment bc that's what I deal with, then we still need to allow deductions and even promotions so that people will spend more of that money. Otherwise you're going to see people with money just start to sit on it, which won't help anybody. We need to encourage the wealthy to spend. In regards to a capital gain tax, I do think a speculation tax like #bern is suggesting would be rather terrible.
 
Howard said:
Very true.

I think we could see an increase in capital gains tax and be ok. I also think if we're going to have a sales tax on high item necessities, and I'm going to reference farm equipment bc that's what I deal with, then we still need to allow deductions and even promotions so that people will spend more of that money. Otherwise you're going to see people with money just start to sit on it, which won't help anybody. We need to encourage the wealthy to spend. In regards to a capital gain tax, I do think a speculation tax like #bern is suggesting would be rather terrible.
Click to expand...


Why is taxing Wall Street speculation a terrible idea? Other nations already do it.
 
dalamon said:
Why is taxing Wall Street speculation a terrible idea? Other nations already do it.
Click to expand...

With a tax rate of 0.1% the model shows drops in GDP (-1.76%) in the long-run. It should be noted that these strong
results are related to the fact that the tax is cumulative and cascading which leads to rather strong economic reactions in
the model.’ (Vol. 1 (Summary), p. 50)
Click to expand...

‘[A] stylised transaction tax on securities (STT), where it is assumed that all investment in the economy are financed with
the help of securities (shares and bonds) at 0.1% is simulated to cause output losses (i.e. deviation of GDP from its longrun
baseline level) of up to 1.76% in the long run, while yielding annual revenues of less than 0.1% of GDP.’ (Vol. 1 (Summary),
p. 33)
Click to expand...

A reasonable estimate of the marginal rate of taxation for EU countries is 40-50% of any increase in GDP. That is, that
from all of the various taxes levied, 40-50% of any increase in GDP ends up as tax revenues to the respective governments.
Thus if we have a fall of 1.76% in GDP we have a fall in tax revenues of 0.7-0.9% of GDP. The proposed FTT is
a tax which collects 0.1% of GDP while other tax collections fall by 0.7-0.9% of GDP. It is very difficult indeed to describe
this as an increase in tax revenue.
Click to expand...

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...actions-tax-it-would-lose-money/#547852545974

So decrease in GDP, decrease in revenue, and decrease in tax revenue. Sounds great. Let's also mention that it probably won't hurt the big guys, but the people that just dabble in investments? They're going to stop. Their brokers? Out of a job. There are better ways to raise money than this tax.
 
Howard said:
He refuses to drop out.

If Carson, Rubio, and Cruz would drop, Kasich could beat Trump.
Click to expand...

Yeah I like Kasich the most out of that group if I'm perfectly honest with you. Not sure he's savvy enough to make it very far, but he seems like a straight shooter and the most real and trustworthy guy there. His policies also seem very sensible.
 
This is by no means a political statement or endorsement of any kind, whatsoever! Just passing on an observation from a New York professor who also correctly predicted that the Jets would win Super Bowl III, and the Giants would upset the 18-0 Patriots!

The probability of a Trump win is “almost ‘take it to the bank,’ ” he said.....using his formula going back to 1912, it worked for every one — with the exception of 1960, when John F. Kennedy narrowly defeated Richard Nixon.

He's also predicts the following:
Trump vs. the Pope? Trump wins!
Trump vs. China? Trump wins!
Trump vs. Russia? Trump wins!
Trump vs. Golden State? Trump wins!
Trump vs. Ditka? .....Ditka wins!


https://nypost.com/2016/02/25/get-ready-for-president-trump-says-election-whiz-whos-scary-accurate/
 
carolinajazz said:
This is by no means a political statement or endorsement of any kind, whatsoever! Just passing on an observation from a New York professor who also correctly predicted that the Jets would win Super Bowl III, and the Giants would upset the 18-0 Patriots!

The probability of a Trump win is “almost ‘take it to the bank,’ ” he said.....using his formula going back to 1912, it worked for every one — with the exception of 1960, when John F. Kennedy narrowly defeated Richard Nixon.

He's also predicts the following:
Trump vs. the Pope? Trump wins!
Trump vs. China? Trump wins!
Trump vs. Russia? Trump wins!
Trump vs. Golden State? Trump wins!
Trump vs. Ditka? .....Ditka wins!


https://nypost.com/2016/02/25/get-ready-for-president-trump-says-election-whiz-whos-scary-accurate/
Click to expand...

Trump vs My Dicka

My Dicka wins...every time.
 
My concern was very poorly worded. It's not a question of Americans not being intelligent enough to avoid electing Trump. It's a question of not understanding history well enough to avoid it. Not enough people recognize a demagogue when they see one, or recognize how such individuals take advantage of people's fears and anxieties to get elected. It's the old adage about repeating history if you don't understand history. But it does seem to be a perfect storm favoring Trump in any event. And nobody seems to play people and play the media better then he does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top