Does it make sense to end the Bush tax cuts, but replace them with Capital Gains cuts to stimuate

[Perky]

private investment?

[w4rma]

1. Hell no. (nt)

[bowens43]

2. no nt

[gravity]

3. That makes sense for the most part

There are some areas where supply side tax cuts make sense because it provides incentives to invest more.

The problem with the Republicans tax cuts is that the majority of the money is wasted on those who don't need it, while they use small businesses as the defense for keeping the structure. They should target the cuts to small and growing businesses, while raising it some for the big mature businesses.

[Blue Meany]

7. I'm not convinced

Right now, nobody is getting any capital gains anyway, but when they are lower the capital gains taxes provides an additional incentive to sell investments and take the profit. If they were raised, there would be additional motivation to keep the money invested.

As for encouraging new investment in the market, I doubt the capital gains tax will have much affect one way or the other right now,
because those who are hoarding money are putting it into the safest vehicles they can find, which are not subject to capital gains anyway. Until the market is stabilized, you are not going to see investors rushing back into the market regardless of the capital gains tax.

[DBoon]

4. How about cuts in the lowest tax brackets to stimulate consumption?

And maybe help those folks who are hurting the most and who are the least responsible for the crises?

[Perky]

10. They just pay down debt rather than puchase

and ecen if they did purchase....it is not going to create jobs.

[ellacott]

5. Many people won't have any Capital Gains to cut

[Perky]

8. First one to catch that....lol

[justinaforjustice]

6. No!

The rich only pay capital gains when they sell their stocks and other investments, thus taking money out of the market, not necessarily putting it back into the market where it could be used to create more jobs. (Lately, these jobs have not been created within the U.S. anyway.)

Today the wealthy are selling their stocks and bonds and buying gold with their funds. Gold (and other luxury collectibles) just sits around in vaults creating no new jobs. Why make selling assets more inviting?

Tax rates in the 1950's were much higher than they are today, and the economy boomed anyway. But, in those days American workers were producing real, useful goods. Today much of our economy is based on inherently valueless pieces of paper, credit default swaps and the like.

Stock prices were, at their height, totally unrelated to the actual market value of the companies' assets. (For example, the inflated prices of dot.com companies that had no earnings at all.) The housing bubble was similar, the prices of houses went ridiculously beyond their real replacement costs, fueled by low interest rates and corrupt mortgage practices. Now all that paper is going up in smoke. We have to return to a real, productive economy. Hopefully, the latest meltdown will assist that process.

[EFerrari]

9. "Stimulating private investment" is code for letting the middle class

shoulder all the burden of funding our needs.

:shrug:

[Perky]

11. How do yoiu think jobs get created in a tight credit market?

[EFerrari]

12. Tell me what taxes people pay who create wealth via Wall Street.