Janis Lane is the Tea Party leader in Mississippi and she appears to long for the days when women were happy chattel. Lane had made headlines in complaining that women are inherently poorly suited to not just serve as bosses but to vote.
Lane explained that “Probably the biggest turn we ever made was when the women got the right to vote. Our country might have been better off if it was still just men voting.” A former marketing director who now leads the party in Central Mississippi, Lane further observed that “There is nothing worse than a bunch of mean, hateful women. They are diabolical in how than can skewer a person . . . I do not see that in men. The whole time I worked, I’d much rather have a male boss than a female boss. Double-minded, you never can trust them.”
Once again, it is remarkable how some of our radicalized citizens share striking similarity with our enemies like the Taliban who would agree wholeheartedly with Lane on her view of women.
Source: Daily Mail
Gyges:
sorry.
“The tax cuts of the 1920s
Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.”
“The Kennedy tax cuts
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).”
Now this part is interesting and something I have said before:
“The tax cuts of the 1920s
The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.
The Kennedy tax cuts
Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.
The Reagan tax cuts
The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.”
If you want to stick it to the rich lower the tax rates, just as if you want to stick it to corporations make them compete in a free market.
You guys just keep bumping your head against a wall and the only people you hurt are the ones you want to help.
I find it fascinating.
This breaking news is sure to make Janis Lane’s head explode. The 2nd Circuit has just struck down DOMA. There is supposed to be a link to their web site, but the traffic has broken it. It will be up and running eventually.
Here is the link. It may or may not work.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/1afe4f62-fbf9-4e0d-a409-26ab7396971e/1/doc/12-2335_complete_opn.pdf
It is generally necessary from an economic standpoint to tax capital gains at a lower rate than ordinary income. Nearly all countries that have a capital gains tax tax it at a lower rate than ordinary income. Many countries have no capital gains tax.
I know there is a certain resentment some feel in that “only the rich pay capital gains tax” or that people who realize capital gains did nothing (meaning labored) to earn the gain and “deserve” to pay higher, but there is no economic basis to this and it seems to be based upon idealism or opinions rather than tax policy or economic growth.
One reason is that if capital gains were taxed at or higher than ordinary income it would foster disincentive in the economy to invest in equities such as stock, company formation, real estate, or even bonds to some degree. For stocks, investors believing there to be higher cost in taxation due to capital gains could demand higher dividend payments which would force the company to pay out more money to shareholders which could cause companies to cut costs or delay expansion or hire more workers.
Another reason is that much of the gain in a company or investment’s value was the result of incomes the business acquired and had already paid corporate income tax on and this gain is factored into the value of the capital gain of the company.
Risk is also another factor. Consider this. For those who might argue the investor “did nothing to earn” the gain, the investor Risked his / her money to buy the investment facing the possible loss of principal. Those with wage income do not generally face any loss of principal in order to labor at an employment. If the tax disincentive with capital gains was too high, it would magnifiy the risk to invest and might shunt investors into income investments, and out of equities.
Lastly, a lower capital gains tax fosters liquidity in the market. If an investor holds an equity investment such as a real property or a stock, they have the choice of either holding the investment and earning dividends or rent or selling the investment and having gains. If the gains tax is too high the investor will not sell the investment which locks that investment out of the market. If this is too frequent the market stagnates with lack of inventory to sell and money does not flow to create more investing opportunities, durable goods purchases, or commerce in general. When an investor realizes a gain from the sale of an equity usually within time, the investor then purchases other investments or buys goods or services which offers others the benefit of the money resulting from the capital gain. Since gains tend to be in much higher amounts than income, it does inject substantial money into the economy.
Mitt Romney’s Bailout Bonanza
Greg Palast
October 17, 2012
http://www.thenation.com/article/170644/mitt-romneys-bailout-bonanza
Excerpt:
This investigation was supported by the Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute and by the Puffin Foundation. Elements of it appear in Palast’s new book, Billionaires & Ballot Bandits: How to Steal an Election in 9 Easy Steps (Seven Stories). Research assistance by Zach D. Roberts, Ari Paul, Nader Atassi and Eric Wuestewald.
Mitt Romney’s opposition to the auto bailout has haunted him on the campaign trail, especially in Rust Belt states like Ohio. There, in September, the Obama campaign launched television ads blasting Romney’s November 2008 New York Times op-ed, “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.” But Romney has done a good job of concealing, until now, the fact that he and his wife, Ann, personally gained at least $15.3 million from the bailout—and a few of Romney’s most important Wall Street donors made more than $4 billion. Their gains, and the Romneys’, were astronomical—more than 3,000 percent on their investment.
“Bron,
So, I can’t help but feeling a little left out. Maybe you missed my earlier…”
… question. Do you have any actual numbers to support your claim that tax cuts always increase revenue?
Bron,
That’s the amount someone would get if he/she retired early.
You make a lot of assumptions about how much interest one would accrue on an investment in a mutual fund. Can you provide proof that the amount you state the person would receive at retirement is guaranteed?
Elaine:
that chart proves my point, if you retire at 62 with $35 in annual income you get the princely sum of $813.00/month.
that is 3300 vs. 813 dollars per month.
According to Eeyore above, the stock market is doing just fabulous.
Bron,
So, I can’t help but feeling a little left out. Maybe you missed my earlier
Mmmm…no, Bron, I was referring to Romney, if that’s actually his name.
I think you’re already suffering enough, and I needn’t have been so sarcastic.
Bron 1, October 18, 2012 at 7:53 am
bettykath:
capital gains are from money someone earned at some point in time.
——-
You’re talking about what you earned before you invested? That’s after tax money that you invested. Now you’re into something else and the income from the something else should be taxed. Now you really didn’t expend any labor for that income so why should it be taxed at a lower rate than the money you got for expending your labor?
If you’re talking about the tax being paid by the corporation for its profits, well, that’s fair. They pay on their profits, you pay on yours.
=============
I dont know about you but when I invest I dont speculate. If you want to gamble/speculate go to the race track.
———-
No stock guarantees you a profit. Stock value goes up and down. It sure isn’t a savings account. Dividend amounts can vary depending on the profitability of the company. If you lose money on one stock you even get to deduct it from whatever profit you make from other stock, or even the same stock depending on the price when you bought/sold. What a deal! Bonds guarantee you a certain income through interest. You’re guaranteed the face value if you hold the bond to maturity, but there are no guarantees if you decide to sell early.
==============
Furthermore investment/savings help grow the economy. It seems to me there should be some incentive to keep people investing.
———————–
The incentive is the opportunity to return a good profit (not guaranteed).
Interest and dividends should also be treated at least as ordinary income, not special, cut-rate-on-the-taxes income. Since you don’t do anything for the capital gains except speculate that the market will go up, you should pay a higher rate on that than for the money you earned by going to work every day moving all that paperwork or whatever you do. (I was going to go snarky by using a ditch digger b/c of the physical labor involved but they don’t earn enough to speculate. Besides, they’re more likely to be successful at the race track and be entertained to boot.)
Bron,
I had money taken out of my paycheck and put in a retirement fund for many years. Unfortunately, I lost a ton of money–twice–the last time in 2008. I don’t invest anything these days.
*****
I suggest you check out Social Security benefits. The amount of SS benefits one receives depends upon one’s age at retirement and one’s recent annual income.
http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/economics/ssa-monthly-payments.htm
*****
Basics of investing in mutual funds
Better understand and learn how to invest in mutual funds with these informative tips.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/money101/lesson6/index.htm
Elaine,
lol … I love your sense of humor.
gives a whole new dimension to blowing through one’s embrasure.
Elaine:
that was pretty good.
Elaine:
how so? If you work for 30 or 40 years the SS you receive is a pittance of what you could have if the 12 to 15% you pay for SS, etc. were put into a mutual fund, a conservative mutual fund. If you only made 30,000/year your entire work life for 40 years and you started working and saving at 18, by the time you were 58 you would have $557,000 by putting away $3,600 per year at 6%.
Using that same number and 6% this is what you could have for the next 30 years – $3323/month. More than your working salary I might point out.
What does SS give you? $800-1,500 maybe?
I am not really clear on why you think SS is a benefit? You want hardworking people to be deprived of $1,800/month? Why? Most people who make $30,000 per year could never put aside $3,600/year along with SS taxes.
The wealth that could be transferred intergenerationaly is staggering when you think about it. How wealthy could our people/country be without government taking the kings portion?
doh!
Blouise,
People misunderstood what Clinton said about Monica Lewinsky years ago. He really didn’t lie. What he actually said: “I did not have saxual relations with that woman.”
The grandkids are wondering if Clinton will play sax.
I haven’t heard from any of them yet but will later tonight at dinner.
Clinton and Springsteen are in town this morning at the Tri-C soccer fields (in the field house if it rains). I got two tickets but gave them to the grandkids who are there right now.
I wonder if Clinton will go to Sokolowski’s for lunch as it’s one of his favorite places to eat in Cleveland.
Bron,
The policies of the last administration benefited the majority of people? Reagan’s trickle down economics benefited the majority of people?
I’d say that programs like Medicare and Social Security benefit the majority of people.