Originally posted by normbenign Again, the prescription is not going to save what is cut from the military budget, but just redirect it. That saves exactly zero. It is a matter of conjecture whether one or the other produces more jobs.
When you hear someone say we can spend the money better somewhere else, better hold onto your wallet, because you are usually looking at spending increases, above the budget cutbacks.
Whenever evidence is presented, you claim it is "speculation" because it conflicts with your preconceived ideas. Perhaps the problem is with your ideas and not with the evidence.
Originally posted by no1marauder You asked a question with an implied premise that taxing capital gains as ordinary income would depress stock prices. I'd prefer some actual evidence supporting that claim to a bland assertion that it would. As you properly say there are many variables involved, but my point is that the capital gains rate was raised just two years ago for the top 2% (who ...[text shortened]... w&id=3798
So taxes were raised on the majority of capital gains and stock prices rose anyway.
Worry about stock market prices is over rated. Like any other market it can rise and fall, and either is probably for the best if left alone.
The argument over taxing investment gains, or estates differently from regular income is largely class envy based, although there are some perverse incentives in investment tax advantages. Perhaps the answer is in some advantage to investment income but not as much as is presently the case.
Originally posted by no1marauder Whenever evidence is presented, you claim it is "speculation" because it conflicts with your preconceived ideas. Perhaps the problem is with your ideas and not with the evidence.
As is you habit, you deflect rather than argue what has been set forward.
Originally posted by normbenign Worry about stock market prices is over rated. Like any other market it can rise and fall, and either is probably for the best if left alone.
The argument over taxing investment gains, or estates differently from regular income is largely class envy based, although there are some perverse incentives in investment tax advantages. Perhaps the answer is in some advantage to investment income but not as much as is presently the case.
Naturally whenever it is asked that the wealthy not get tax advantages their sycophants insist this is mere "envy".
Originally posted by normbenign All investment is financial speculation, but without that speculation, a lot of ideas would never be tried, businesses would not be financed, and the stock market would not exist.
Perhaps you think paying taxes is more productive? How much beyond your liability do you voluntarily pay?
No all investment is not "financial speculation". In fact in Economics the buying of paper for paper is not Investment at all.
Originally posted by no1marauder Nothing was set forward but a refusal to accept evidence. That can't really be rationally debated.
I replied based on a just finished reading of Stiglitz' book "The Cost of Inequality". There it is his habit of prescribing the fixes you listed, and spending the money in several different ways. It doesn't work. Cut the military! I like the idea, but first it isn't all savings, as Deep Thought points out. Second, if you spend the money on programs, it doesn't get to be budget savings, just shuffling money in the plans.
Originally posted by no1marauder No all investment is not "financial speculation". In fact in Economics the buying of paper for paper is not Investment at all.
It appears we don't agree on speculation, or investment. Care to define?
Originally posted by no1marauder Naturally whenever it is asked that the wealthy not get tax advantages their sycophants insist this is mere "envy".
I would love to see level tax policy. Even if it meant I would pay more. With all the so called tax advantages of the rich, they still manage to finance most of the government, compared to the bottom half which doesn't pay income taxes, and in many cases pay negative taxes.
Originally posted by normbenign I replied based on a just finished reading of Stiglitz' book "The Cost of Inequality". There it is his habit of prescribing the fixes you listed, and spending the money in several different ways. It doesn't work. Cut the military! I like the idea, but first it isn't all savings, as Deep Thought points out. Second, if you spend the money on programs, it doesn't get to be budget savings, just shuffling money in the plans.
My post was replying to this which is in response to the studies showing that military spending creates many less jobs per dollar than other types of government spending:
norm: It is a matter of conjecture whether one or the other produces more jobs.
No it really isn't a "matter of conjecture". It is a matter of evidence which you refuse to accept based on ideological grounds.
Originally posted by normbenign I would love to see level tax policy. Even if it meant I would pay more. With all the so called tax advantages of the rich, they still manage to finance most of the government, compared to the bottom half which doesn't pay income taxes, and in many cases pay negative taxes.
You know this isn't true, so why keep saying it? In fact taking all taxes into account the best that can be said is that the overall tax system in the US is very mildly progressive. This is economically wasteful.
CBO claims Unsustainable Debt
01 Feb '15 01:511 edit
Back to Top