^^it's funny, i didn't see at all the first two times i watched the video.

i really think he's just scratching his face. in the messageboard you link they're using the reaction of the audience as proof that it was indeed intentional. . . do they think that he conspired with random audience members ahead of time or something?

4/18/2008 5:41:13 PM

Quote :

"like you could write down what he says and almost not have to spellcheck/grammar check"

14 filler words in the video posted here. not terrible, but when you add in the stuttering, his extemporaneous speaking is just kinda average. Its true his prepared speeches are pretty flawless though.

4/18/2008 5:56:45 PM

I wonder if Obama is a real Jay Z fan. I always pegged him for R&B/Light Jazz, Nigga.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWLHQ3S-Oq8

Quote :

"Turn the Music On and Brush Your Shoulders Off, Nigga!"

[Edited on April 18, 2008 at 6:04 PM. Reason : ``]

4/18/2008 6:02:45 PM

Quote :

"Like I said, that strongest correlation is between revenue and how well the stock market is performing. When the market is going up, revenues go up. When the market goes down, revenues go down. It makes pretty good sense. The only argument after that point is whether cutting the tax rate stimulates the stock market as a whole which would be pretty inconclusive no matter what data you look at and would mostly depend on the strength of the economy as a whole. "

It's inconclusive whether tax cuts, particularly cuts on stock profits, stimulate the stock market? Are you serious? That is just economics 101 right there.

You said it yourself. Revenues go up when the stock market goes up. Those revenues were lowest when capital gains taxes were very high, and have peaked at times when rates were low. Is it really that much of a leap to acknowledge that cuts on capital gains taxes would spur more people to invest, and thusly increase revenues? Or that increases in the capital gains tax would discourage investment?

The concept seems pretty straightforward to me, and it's supported by the data. But then again, it doesn't clash with my ideology. I don't know how you can look at that graph and tell me that a higher tax rate on capital gains will lead to more revenue.

Quote :

"But that graph only goes to 2000. If you include data after that it basically destroys that theory."

Really? How do you figure? It appears to me that the 2 cuts on capital gains taxes have had a positive effect.



[Edited on April 18, 2008 at 6:19 PM. Reason : 2]

4/18/2008 6:17:16 PM

^I couldnt agree more.

Its common sense that the lower the tax rate, the more liquid assets become. The more liquid assets are, the greater the chances of return. I know that 95% of you dont have 401K's or many investments, but what you are saying is absolutely wrong...

The first thing any Financial Advisor tells a client is AVOID GAINS TAXES AT ALL COSTS

[Edited on April 18, 2008 at 7:06 PM. Reason : ...]

4/18/2008 6:51:09 PM

^^that plot seems far less conclusive than others i have seen. 1997, the rate was cut, stocks went up (as they already seemed to be doing). then tax receipts went down below where they before the cut. the rate was cut again, and stocks went up.

other graphs made me think there might be some causation there. this plot on the other hand just looks like rate cuts were incidental to fluctuations in tax receipts.

4/18/2008 9:02:08 PM

Quote :

" it's funny, i didn't see at all the first two times i watched the video. i really think he's just scratching his face. in the messageboard you link they're using the reaction of the audience as proof that it was indeed intentional. . . do they think that he conspired with random audience members ahead of time or something? "

I know many, many people who scratch their face and stuff with the middle finger. As to whether Obama was flipping her off, I don't know, but it's awesome if he was.

Quote :

"Really? How do you figure? It appears to me that the 2 cuts on capital gains taxes have had a positive effect. "

I don't think this is a correct analysis. First, it's poor practice to determine a law from just 2 data points. Secondly, the first cut there was already made on a pretty strong upward cycle, and the second cut there likely spurred some growth, but revenues were so low at this point, it would have been hard for them to drop much longer, on their own.

And as I already noted and 420 noted, the past rate cuts don't have a decisive effect either way. So to assert flatly that a rate cut will lead to an increase in revenue, then also claim that an increase will lead to a loss in revenue is a pretty ignorant stance. There are lots of things that could happen, and lots of things that factor in. A moderate rate increase will definitely cause a revenue in the long term, based on past data, but there's nothing else you can really say.

4/18/2008 11:54:01 PM

Quote :

"So to assert flatly that a rate cut will lead to an increase in revenue, then also claim that an increase will lead to a loss in revenue is a pretty ignorant stance."

It's a stance you disagree with. That doesn't necessarily make it ignorant just because you cannot see the correlation between rate hikes and decreased revenues in one set of data.

Quote :

"And as I already noted and 420 noted, the past rate cuts don't have a decisive effect either way. "

OK, although I and others in this thread disagree, I'll go along with this for now.

Quote :

"There are lots of things that could happen, and lots of things that factor in."

Of course.

Quote :

"A moderate rate increase will definitely cause a revenue [increase] in the long term, based on past data, but there's nothing else you can really say."

No, no, and no. By your own statement, cuts in the capital gains tax rate didn't have a decisive effect on revenues "either way". So how can you possibly say 2 sentences later that a rate increase will "definitely" increase revenue?

[Edited on April 19, 2008 at 12:30 AM. Reason : 2]

4/19/2008 12:28:32 AM

Quote :

"No, no, and no. By your own statement, cuts in the capital gains tax rate didn't have a decisive effect on revenues "either way". So how can you possibly say 2 sentences later that a rate increase will "definitely" increase revenue? "

I said in the LONG term. That's based on the fact that revenues have increased steadily over time, because our economy is going to grow over time as our population and our businesses grow. Barring catastrophic failure of the country, you can bank on our economy growing.

4/19/2008 12:35:02 AM

Of course you can bank on our economy growing. The rate of growth is in question. Just assuming that increased taxes = increased revenues ignores a long line of economic theory, and oversimplifies the issue.

Also, there is nothing steady about our revenues from capital gains taxes. Contrary to your statements on page 1, in the short term a rate increase would almost definitely cause a decrease in capital gains revenues. Here's why:

Quote :

"Because taxes are paid on realized rather than accrued capital gains, taxpayers have a great deal of control over when they pay their capital gains taxes. By choosing to hold on to an asset, a taxpayer defers the tax. The incentive to do that--even when it might otherwise be financially desirable to sell an asset--is known as the lock-in effect. As a consequence of that incentive, the level of the tax rate can substantially influence when asset holders realize their gains."

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3856&type=0

The problem with the lock-in effect is that it reduces liquidity in the allocation of capital. Our financial system is already pretty close to a meltdown due to tight money and losses from the subprime mess. Any further loss in liquidity would be disasterous to the economy.

4/19/2008 12:48:53 AM