Posted on 07/18/2002 1:35:12 PM PDT by churchillbuff
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:50:45 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Maybe people thought he did, but he didn't give a sh!t about capital gains taxes one way or another. Every capital gains tax cut that landed un his desk ended up leaving his desk with his signature on it.
On the contrary, it makes tremendous sense. People can reconfigure their portfolios to invest in stocks with a future, without having to pay a massive tax to the government for the privilege of doing so. Home-sellers don't have to pay taxes if they use the proceeds to buy a new home; it makes even more sense to defer taxes on Americans who sell stocks, if they're doing so merely to reconfigure their portfolios so they'll have larger retirement nest egg in the long run. The result would be fewer people dependent on the government in their old age.
Wrong. Jack Kemp went into Clinton's office to plead for a cap gains tax cut. Kemp reported that Clinton turned to Rubin, who nodded in the negative, and Clinton said to Kemp: no.
If the combined state, local and federal tax bite doesn't give you pain you must be a government worker (who's living off our taxes) or a liberal who loves paying for big government. And if the tanking stock market doesn't give you pain, you must not be an investor.
You'd have to ask him that. But I will say that he is appealing to anyone (like me) who recognizes the damage that this large-scale fraud has caused to the balance sheets of corporate America.
And I am staying on message -- that's why I commented about a specific point that was raised in the original article.
Exactly. This is faux criticism. Wow with one article by the WP all things considered are changed now.
I wouldn't trust the WP until they ran pro cap gains tax cuts articles daily for a year and if you believe that one article changes anything Churchill, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.
Look how Cheney is getting chastised for selling his Haliburont stock due to a perceived conflict of interest, now he sold it due to insider trading.
Democrats who are cheering the current economy for political gains suck, plain and simple.
It makes a lot of sense. It moves us closer to a consumption tax system that doesn't penalize savings and investment. Why should you have to pay a tax tariff just to dump Acme Widget and buy Global Gadgets? The time to pay taxes is when you cash money out of the market, not when you reshuffle your portfolio.
Since Bush isn't pushing for it, Das---le never has to be put to the test. I'd prefer a Republican president who made cutting taxes a perpetual issue, and kept the Dems on the hot seat day in and day out. Instead, we've got a president who thinks tax cuts can wait - and that cap gains tax cuts can wait forever. I'm not impressed.
No, it's just business as usual for the rats and this DNC newsletter.
Criticize W for not doing enough now and then, if and when he does get a cap gains rate cut, criticize him for cutting taxes for his richest 1% friends and worsening the deficit.
It's their typical MO, just like their roasting of Cheney for divesting his Halliburton stock (which they had been previously roasting him for not selling).
1) It is utterly pointless to "eliminate taxes if invested in other stocks". The only effect that has is to increase commissions by brokerages. The idea is to free up capital to be invested, not in secondary markets, but directly into companies so they can use it. Stocks sold on the NASDAQ are owned by someone other than the company.
2) Without radical changes in the way the Federal Reserve is operating, a capital gains tax cut right now would be a disaster. Tax cuts create future demand for liquidity (i.e. money) and unless the Fed is able to supply enough of it, it will re-ignite the deflation that has caused the economic wreckage you see before you. I am whole-heartedly in favor of reducing/eliminating capital gains but ONLY if it is coupled with changes to the operations of the Federal reserve.
Hmm Daschle has been trying his hardest and Bush has a 75% approval rating.
Looks like daschle is the non-skilled one, IMHO.
Unless the money's in an IRA or 401-k or the like, you can't reshuffle your portfolio without selling stocks - - and paying taxes to the government.
Like all those people who bought Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, etc. a few years back? What's the point in cutting the capital gains tax if people don't even have confidence that they will ever see a gain?
If capital gains taxes were eliminated on stock rollovers, here's what I think would happen -- everyone who is a little uneasy about their stock holdings would sell them off, and every penny of those proceeds would be invested in the 10 or 20 largest companies in the world. Or in those companies that are "safe" investments because of their influence in government.
Is this Lawrence Kudlow's idea of a vibrant economy?
Why pay any taxes at all on already taxed money put at risk?
I believe he is...IF he puts his mind to it.
The president needs to wake up and recognize the gathering storm clouds...and the Republicans in Congress need to act like members of the same political party and circle the wagons.
I just spent the past 20 minutes scanning the cable news shows...and Bush and Cheney are taking a beating; an absolute and well orchestrated beating.
This situation can no longer be dismissed because it's "another dimmocrat attack that won't work"; or because of the president's 70% approval rating.
The dimms attack---fueled by an all too eager to help media---IS working. And both the president's approval ratings and Republican influence in the Congress are seriously threatened.
Someone in the Republican party needs to start earning his or her pay and come up with a strategy and talking points that are effective and powerful enough to stop this attack.
Not true. There are billions invested that have been held for the long term - - since the eighties and even earlier; with big built-in (taxable) gains. I really get a kick - and some heartburn, to tell the truth - - out of these thread where Bush-lovers are so zealous that they argue AGAINST tax cuts. That's one of the problems with having a liberal Republican in the White House. Cool-Aid Republicans will salute anything he does - which means they'll argue against the very same conservative positions they held when a Democrat was in the White House and was resisting cutting taxes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.