StrangeSox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 08:29 AM) Like I said, it doesn't look at effect it has on individuals who utilize the cut. It looks at the bracket as a whole, which skews the data. It shows that almost no one in those brackets benefits from it. If your concern is the plight of the rare low-income person who has substantial (to them) capital gains income, would you support what Y2HH is suggesting, and leaving the lower cap gains brackets as-is but raising the top ones back to 30%?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 08:29 AM) It's impossible to definitively show if its beneficial to society as a whole. It's very beneficial to investors that land in the middle class, such as myself. It is good to encourage long term investments in this day of online trading, but I'm not sure if it changes anything the rich would do. It does, however, change what some middle class people would do, I amongst them...and can only offer my own anecdotal evidence to back this. I'm not arguing that it's disproportionately helping the ultra rich, of couse it is...I'm sure they designed it that way in their infinite wisdom. Just like the ultra rich don't need the tax breaks...they really don't need this, either. But I see no reason to cancel these sorts of incentives to invest for the middle class. It is one of the main reasons why buy and hold/long term investing is more attractive to me. If cap gains suddenly went up to 30% on, say, January 1st, 2013, what other investments would you start making? On the aggregate, lumping you and all other middle-class investors together, would this amount to even a drop in the ocean of high-frequency trading?

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 08:26 AM) yeah you're wrong about that actually. poor folk work at jobs in their neighborhoods. they walk. The working households ($20k-50k) spend more of their income on transportation than other groups: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/...ion_puentes.pdf

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 08:11 AM) Not to mention the data presentation is skewed to make a political point. It is presented by income brackets instead of by what individuals receive as a percentage of income. Tax breaks in the lower group at a lesser percentage are more important to those income groups than larger income breaks at higher percentages because of the nature of their limited income. Even though a lower percentage in those brackets are able to utilize these benefits, they are vastly more important to the ones that do. One of the charts I posted showed the impact on after-tax income by income bracket: As we can see, it doesn't even amount to 1/2% of a difference until you clear $100k/year. As I posted before, 40% of Americans have negative financial net worth. The people in the lower groups do not own financial assets and thus capital gains and dividends cuts are meaningless. Tax cuts for investment income simply cannot be dressed up as a benefit for the poor and only show a marginal benefit for the upper-middle class. They primarily and overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy, and it comes at the expense of calls for cuts in social programs for the poor in order to eliminate deficits.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 07:57 AM) Again, that's not what it's designed to do. This is the key point you keep erroneously leaning on, and I've already pointed out why it doesn't apply, which you've now ignored multiple times. NSS made the statement that lower rates are good because it encourages the rich to invest in corporations. There is no evidence to support that. Do we have any evidence at all that this is what has happened? That the policy has been effective at doing this is and in some way beneficial to society as a whole? We certainly haven't seen much stability in markets from 2003-2012.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 10, 2012 -> 06:17 PM) Also, it's not meant to spur "investment", which you keep repeating. It's meant to incentivize *long term* investment. And believe me, there is a HUGE difference in a long term outlook versus day trading, or short term trading in general. There is no argument that the same people would probably be investing either way, but of those people, there ARE those of us who moved to a longer term buy/hold type of strategy because of it...it removes some of the added risk of holding a stock long term. The data do not support the claim that it increases investment.

Unless the financial wealth gap begins closing, then time is irrelevant. Who benefits is based on who owns investments. As i said in the post above that one, there is scant evidence that it actually spurs investment.

Guys please read the link it explains how it is bulls*** but is propagating through the right-wing media with blazing speed. It's based on a "survey" by a tea party group.

New right-wing meme: 83% OF DOCTORS WILL QUIT BECAUSE OF OBAMACARE!

Coincidentally, CBPP just came out with their Capital Gains Tax Chart Book last week. To illustrate my claim that it primarily benefits the wealthy: And to your point about 401(k)'s and retirement income: No matter which way you look at it, preferential rates for capital gains primarily benefits the wealthy and there's scant evidence that it boosts the economy.

The top 10% own something like 75% of financial assets in this country. The bottom 40% own nearly none at all and have negative net financial assets. It primarily benefits the wealthy, though not completely. Do we have any data that supports the idea that lowering the cap gains from 30% to 15% spurred investment and the economy? It was only in 2001 that we did so, the the intervening decade does not really speak well to its overall beneficial effects, and the data shows a straight-line trajectory for investment, pre- and post-cuts:

Balta's point was broader than just MF Global. edit: crosspost

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 10, 2012 -> 11:12 AM) "When you steal $600 million dollars you can just walk away, when you steal $600 they will find you unless they think you're already dead". Hans Gruber, if he lived to 2012. e.g.: Arrests from Barclays stealing millions: Sentence for stealing bottled water during the London riots? 6 months.

good job getting me to participate in a conversation I started! A dirty, devious trick. (or perhaps it was I who have made you post)

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 10, 2012 -> 09:33 AM) See, that post was designed to make you respond...it worked. ...congratulations?

But I'm not offended. That's why your comment is confusing to me.

Who are the "opportunistically offended" in this case?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 10, 2012 -> 09:12 AM) It's stupid because it has nothing to do with today. He absolutely had a point with his tweet...200 years ago. It was also a comment designed to do exactly what it did...get both sides of the stupid fest to emerge and go to verbal war with each other on the Internets. So, in that regard, it was a successful comment. As B&B would say, what you have here are the opportunistically offended, and the stupid racists going head to head. The stupid racists are the ones that are offended and melting down, though. I just sorta chuckled when I first saw it, then laughed when I saw the OUTRAGE!!! reaction.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 10, 2012 -> 09:12 AM) It's stupid because it has nothing to do with today. He absolutely had a point with his tweet...200 years ago. We need to stop living in the past when we celebrate the day the Declaration of Independence was signed.

We didn't really see much benefit economically from reducing the cap gains (and dividends) rates to 15%. It benefits a handful of the really wealthy, primarily, and does nothing for the majority of Americans who have little or no investments.

The first six months of this year were the hottest on record in the US: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/09/...E86811Q20120709 The last 12 months have also been the hottest on record since 1895, beating out the previous 12 months for hottest-ever. In related news, 50% of the corn in Illinois is in "poor or very poor" condition. Indiana is doing no better, and many other states are hurting as well.

QUOTE (Joxer_Daly @ Jul 10, 2012 -> 08:27 AM) He also portrayed our city rivals as yuppies with delusions of grandeur, so that edged my allegiance ever-closer to the Southsider

Welcome!

Black lung is returning in force among coal miners, and it's hitting them younger and quicker than ever before. http://www.npr.org/2012/07/09/155978300/as...ung-cases-surge http://www.npr.org/2012/07/10/155981916/bl...ners-vulnerable Increased work hours (600 hours/year on average) and increased drilling speeds have caused exposure to silica to soar.

Just admit that your post made no sense and we can all move on.