THE EXALTED MIDDLE CLASS

Another Hillary ad telling us about how she is dedicated to "keeping the tax burden off the middle class."

Aren't you wondering why Hillary just wants to get the tax burden off the middle class and not the poor? Well, Einstein, that would be because the left has already succeeded in getting the tax burden off the poor. You'll be pleased to know that the bottom 50 percent of income earners in this country – and that would be one-half of all people with income – pay a bit less than four percent of all income taxes. When you get to the bottom 40 percent of income earners that figures goes to zip. Nothing. But, you say, what about their payroll taxes? Fair enough. Various tax credits, including the hideous Earned Income Tax Credit, is pretty much taking care of that situation.

So ... with the poor already exempted from income taxes, who would be next? Why the middle class, of course! And once Hillary and the MoveOn Democrats succeeded in, as she says, "keeping the tax burden off the middle class," who's left? The evil, putrid, filthy rich ... that's who! Once the MoveOn Democrats manage to shift the entire federal tax burden off to the evil rich, how in the world are they ever going to lose another election? All they have to do is just tell the voters "If you vote for my opponent, he's going to make you pay taxes." Now if that message wouldn't sell, I don't know what would.

Why do you think there is so much left wing opposition to the FairTax? When every single household in this country is protected from paying federal taxes right up to the poverty level, and when the tax code treats each and every person in this country exactly alike ... how do you play the demagogue game during an election?

You're seeing one of the principal reasons some politicians and tax policy wonks are fighting the FairTax. They view a tax code as not simply a way to raise revenue for the necessary functions of government. They also look at the tax code as a tool for social engineering and a way to manipulate voters. These are tools many politicians don't want to loose. It's really up to you to take them away.

Now ... about that magic middle class. You've certainly heard these Democrats talking about the "disappearing middle class," haven't you? Well ... truth is these politicians have a point. Pay attention, this is important. Stephen Rose is an economist. Rose isn't just any economist; he's a labor economist working for a "progressive" (that means liberal) think tank. Rose defines middle class as households earning between $30,000 and $100,000 a year. He admits that there are fewer people in the middle class today than there were 30 years ago. Reason? That would be because the percentage of Americans who earn more than $100,000 a year has doubled .. from 12 percent in 1979 to 24 percent now. And how about those ranked below the middle class? The percentage of people earning less than $30,000 a year has remained unchanged. So .. .the Democrats are right. The middle class is shrinking. What they're not telling you is that the people who are disappearing from the middle class are headed where? To upper and high income categories, that's where. Isn't it rather odd that you never hear this interesting little factoid in the media?

Damn. The truth can be painful, can't it?



By: Boortz

A minor point - $100,000 isn't what it used to be... My parents, together, earn around $115,000 a year. However, I'd call us squarely in the middle class. We don't live lavishly, in fact my step-mother is quite thrifty, but we're still in debt.

Anyways, Ron Paul says that we can eliminate the income tax all together and replace it with NOTHING, and the government's revenues would still be at the level that they were 10 years ago. It shouldn't be too hard to get spending down to those levels, right? (Not that it matters, since the government is already in debt). I'd like to see spending cut A LOT. Then we wouldn't need to replace the income tax with the Fair Tax.

is Boortz aware that $30k doesn't buy what it did in 1979?

Boortz of all people should be aware of it. That man is rolling in cash.

Hell, I make more than thirty grand a year, or I would if I was more diligent about working forty hours every week. I've also got health insurance, which I don't pay for.

Boortz of all people should be aware of it. That man is rolling in cash.

Hell, I make more than thirty grand a year, or I would if I was more diligent about working forty hours every week. I've also got health insurance, which I don't pay for.
you still pay for it, just not directly.

Sure, but with money that would have gone to raises. I'd be making even more if I didn't have it.

Sure, but with money that would have gone to raises. I'd be making even more if I didn't have it.
you (and i) pay for everyone else's thru higher prices too.

Which is why I'd rather have socialized health care so that even if you or my burden doesn't go away, it's at least lessened, and paid for with regular tax dollars, and not our health insurance premiums.

Which is why I'd rather have socialized health care so that even if you or my burden doesn't go away, it's at least lessened, and paid for with regular tax dollars, and not our health insurance premiums.
Certainly an interesting way to think about it. However, I hope that we can find another way to fix the system and lessen our burden even more. I'm at a loss as to how though.

Which is why I'd rather have socialized health care so that even if you or my burden doesn't go away, it's at least lessened, and paid for with regular tax dollars, and not our health insurance premiums.
i'd be happy to see health care costs to go down, but i don't see that happening without a massive reduction in quality of care.:(

I barely ever go to the doc as it is, but yeah, it'd be nice if my mom didn't have to see a reduction. I don't think it'll happen though. I think the quality will actually increase.

i can't remember the last time i saw a doctor when it wasn't work related.

Me neither, except for the dentist.

Certainly an interesting way to think about it. However, I hope that we can find another way to fix the system and lessen our burden even more. I'm at a loss as to how though.
<Yaaaawwwwnnnn>......it's been done (http://www.cbpp.org/HITX85.HTM). :rolleyes:

What they're not telling you is that the people who are disappearing from the middle class are headed where? To upper and high income categories, that's where.Boortz is a moron and anyone who believes this tripe should finish high school first. He forgot the adjust the numbers for inflation. The poverty rate has been increasing since Georgie Junior took office. The middle class has treaded water or slipped. The top tenth of one percent has done magnificently, due in large part to the tax cuts which were directed towards them.

However, I hope that we can find another way to fix the system and lessen our burden even more. I'm at a loss as to how though.No problem. Just pick one of 3 options below: 1. Slash the military by at least 60%. 2. Eliminate Social Security and Medicaid. 2. Renege on our debt and stop paying interest on the $9 trillion we have borrowed so far.

No problem. Just pick one of 3 options below: 1. Slash the military by at least 60%. 2. Eliminate Social Security and Medicaid. 2. Renege on our debt and stop paying interest on the $9 trillion we have borrowed so far.
How about the second one plus half of the first one? :)

No problem. Just pick one of 3 options below: 1. Slash the military by at least 60%. 2. Eliminate Social Security and Medicaid. 2. Renege on our debt and stop paying interest on the $9 trillion we have borrowed so far.

I would like to add a 4th
#4 STOP DISHING OUT BILLIONS IN AID EACH YEAR TO OTHER COUNTRIES THAT IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM,SERVE US ANYTHING POSITIVE.



i mean get a grip there fluffer.... if your going to paint a picture,at least use all the colors....

<Yaaaawwwwnnnn>......it's been done (http://www.cbpp.org/HITX85.HTM). :rolleyes:
Can it, Sham man.

That one too, LF. It's fine to give aid to countries that give us something in return (I believe I've mentioned Costa Rica before, a U.S.-protected country that has become a bastion of democracy in Latin America, as well as having the highest standard of living there, providing the U.S. with SO many goods/services, and giving us help in dealing with problems involving other Latin American countries, like the drug trade.) We should greatly reduce the amount of foreign aid we give, especially to countries that give us nothing in return.

#1 :Is just plain dumb!! Lets just hand over the keys to our Nation to China or Alqaeda.

#2 :I can live with

#3: The best ideal I have heard in a long time!






No problem. Just pick one of 3 options below: 1. Slash the military by at least 60%. 2. Eliminate Social Security and Medicaid. 2. Renege on our debt and stop paying interest on the $9 trillion we have borrowed so far.

#3: The best ideal I have heard in a long time!
Are you kidding? I can't believe you'd suggest that we don't pay our debts. We ran them up, we have to pay them. Talk about handing the keys to our nation to China... what do you think they'll do when we say that we won't pay back the money we owe them? Bad idea.

Can it, Sham man.
Hate to be challenged with any facts, huh? :rolleyes:

"The vast majority of taxpayers saw no change in their income taxes as a result of the 1993 law. CBO estimates that most households paid only $38 more per year, as a result of the 4.3 cent per gallon increase in the gas tax."

A minor point - $100,000 isn't what it used to be... My parents, together, earn around $115,000 a year. However, I'd call us squarely in the middle class. We don't live lavishly, in fact my step-mother is quite thrifty, but we're still in debt.

You'll be shocked to learn that 115k puts you in the top 5%.


http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2007/02/01/the-rich-o-meter/

I would like to add a 4th
#4 STOP DISHING OUT BILLIONS IN AID EACH YEAR TO OTHER COUNTRIES THAT IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM,SERVE US ANYTHING POSITIVE.
Unfortunately that will not generate enough savings. How much do you think we are giving away in foreign aid anayway? Per capita, the US of A is not particularly generous. Military aid is our specialty, and you would upset a lot of lobbyists if you messed with that. Besides, the number one object of our generosity is Israel. Would you pull the plug on them as well? I think not - I wouldn't (but I would attach more strings). Iraq gets a ton, Afghanistan gets some. Cut them off too, LF?

Anyway cutting all foreign aid is like throwing a couple of deck chairs off the Titanic. Give me more cuts.

what do you think they'll do when we say that we won't pay back the money we owe them? Bad ideaAgreed, DF. Anyone who considers defaulting on our debt hasn't really thought it through. Makes us the same as Castro. When other countries do that we send in the World Bank and the IMF to clean house.

$30,000 to $100,000 is middle class, huh. That means I know no poor people at all and almost everyone I know is considered rich. Using set dollar amounts to classify people as poor, middle class or wealthy is silly. Someone making $100,000 in Mississippi or Alabama is pretty well off. Move that person to downstate New York or parts of California or to Connecticut and $100,000 is just barely middle class. Hell, my property tax bills are more than half of what defines the lower end of middle class and that doesn't count the electric and heating bills.

If my house on Long Island was moved to Tennessee m propert tax bill would be in the low thousands. On Long Island it is over $13,000 a year. Same house different location. My son in Deleware owns a house that is worth a lot more than mine and his property tax bill is about 1/4 of what mine is.

You're absolutely right, Frogger... We had to move SO far out away from the city to find a house for less than half a million that wasn't in a terrible neighborhood and had more than 2 bedrooms and a yard. The property values around here are INSANE. The house we lived in a few years ago, which we sold for $350,000, is now so desirable that houses across the street (on smaller lots) are selling for $800,000. And this is not a good neighborhood we're talking about - people get shot in the shopping centers a block away, drug deals on the playground, etc. The only good thing about the neighborhood is that it's close to a subway station.

Our house, which is pretty big but not HUGE (about 2,000 sq. ft.), is WAY out in the country. My step-mom works in the suburbs of DC, about half an hour out when there's no traffic, and we are an hour from there. Our house cost $420,000, and let me tell you - it was a STEAL compared to others we looked at in the area. We sold our 1200 sq. ft. townhouse, only 10 miles closer in then we are now, for over $300,000. Closer to DC, half a million will buy you a two bedroom with a tiny yard in a bad neighborhood.

Also, I can't believe we're in the top 10%, when we can barely care for the family. My father has four kids - the one who doesn't live with us at the moment gets $12,000 a year of my dad's income for child support. My school tuition, at a community college, is about $3,000 - $5,000 per year, not including books and supplies. And I will soon be in a more expensive college, $25,000 a year, and we will need financial aid and scholarships to even come close to paying for it. My brother, who is 16, probably just eats $500 a month at least. We have two vehicles that we pay insurance for (my brother's car doesn't have insurance yet, and my dad's work truck is paid for by his company). Our bills (mortgage and utilities) alone cost us at least $30,000 per year. Doesn't leave a lot for extras.

Alright, rant over. Point is, living in certain places costs a LOT more than living in others.

Hate to be challenged with any facts, huh? :rolleyes:

"The vast majority of taxpayers saw no change in their income taxes as a result of the 1993 law. CBO estimates that most households paid only $38 more per year, as a result of the 4.3 cent per gallon increase in the gas tax."
Putting it in header five isn't going to make people listen to you either. Why don't you try being a real person, instead of a speak-and-spell?

How about the second one plus half of the first one?

Would you seriously want to eliminate social security and medicaid?
How would that work exactly? What would happen to the people who need those programs? Who would benefit from that?

Would you seriously want to eliminate social security and medicaid?
How would that work exactly? What would happen to the people who need those programs?

They'd be more likely to die from various things like undernourisment, diseases, being homeless, etc. Nothing that would cause people of Grover Norquist's ilk (or millions of other rightwing bastards like him) the slightest concern.


Who would benefit from that?

The rich. The fatcats. The people who own the military/Industrial complex, who want that money to go to bombs and tanks and missiles instead of aid to poor and hungry people.

No problem. Just pick one of 3 options below: 1. Slash the military by at least 60%. 2. Eliminate Social Security and Medicaid. 2. Renege on our debt and stop paying interest on the $9 trillion we have borrowed so far.

Why do we have to get all the savings from one area, ie. slash the military, eliminate social security and medicaid, not pay or debt?

Why can't we economize in many different areas?

lessen our subsidies to farmers who don't grow anything.
Partially privatize social security.
trim the military budget slightly
stop the pork barrel programs

Why do we have to get all the savings from one area, ie. slash the military, eliminate social security and medicaid, not pay or debt?

Why can't we economize in many different areas?
there's hope for the future.
lessen our subsidies to farmers who don't grow anything.
crop prices are high enough thanks to ethanol hype that it could happen without finishing the job that Carter started-destroying the farm industry.
Partially privatize social security.
removing the cap would do enough without sinking the Treasury. if you remove the SS trust fund from the bond market, rates will explode.
trim the military budget slightly
let Europe defend itself...it only has other Europeons to worry about.
stop the pork barrel programs
i still say an authorization to spend isn't a requirement to.:rant:

Putting it in header five isn't going to make people listen to you either. Why don't you try being a real person, instead of a speak-and-spell?
.....In-other-words....you want socialized health-care.....but, only if we can do so without increasing taxes (and, risk upsetting) the 1%ers.

How conveniently you avoid the issue-at-hand. :rolleyes:

...crop prices are high enough thanks to ethanol hype that it could happen without finishing the job that Carter started-destroying the farm industry.
Yeah.....right.....it's all Jimmy Carter's fault (http://www.oligopolywatch.com/2004/02/01.html).....and, what can't be blamed on him can be blamed on Bill Clinton. :rolleyes:

I'm sure corporate-America appreciates your support.

lessen our subsidies to farmers who don't grow anything.
Partially privatize social security.
trim the military budget slightly
stop the pork barrel programsFrogger, I like all of these suggestions, especially #1. Big corporate farmers are over-subsidized as it is. They should rely on the free market like everyone else. Privatized SS will not produce any real savings. SS is a time bomb which has been ignored by everyone, especially GOP. They have deliberately underfunded it in hopes that it will eventually be discarded as "broken." Probably right when I'm getting ready to retire. Marginal cuts in pork-barrel programs and military may help, but not enough. We are rapidly moving towards a recession here (seen the Dow lately?). The GOP has only one tool - cut taxes. We have already cut taxes to the tune of 9 TRILLION dollars in deficits. The only solution the GOP candidates are talking about is cutting more (Rudy is the latest). Soon we will be looking a trillion dollar deficits as long as the eye can see. It cannot end up well for the middle class. They are the ones who are going to be the losers in this debacle.

It was one thing to subsidize small family farms back in the day but the multinational corporate juggernauts do not need it anymore.

It was one thing to subsidize small family farms back in the day but the multinational corporate juggernauts do not need it anymore.
You're absolutely right. I have no problem with subsidies for small farmers even now, but it's never OK for the government to subsidize corporations! If they can't make a profit without it, that's their problem.

You're absolutely right. I have no problem with subsidies for small farmers even now, but it's never OK for the government to subsidize corporations! If they can't make a profit without it, that's their problem.
You really think BUSHCO is gonna expect oil-companies to pay mega-bonuses outta their own pockets (http://www.ctj.org/html/layoffs.htm)??!!! :eek:

Yeah.....right.....it's all Jimmy Carter's fault (http://www.oligopolywatch.com/2004/02/01.html).....and, what can't be blamed on him can be blamed on Bill Clinton. :rolleyes:

I'm sure corporate-America appreciates your support.
who do you think owns corporations? it's share holders. who are the share holders? anyone with a pension plan...oh yeah, i forgot you're depending on social security:rolleyes:

You're absolutely right. I have no problem with subsidies for small farmers even now, but it's never OK for the government to subsidize corporations! If they can't make a profit without it, that's their problem.
any profitable size family farm that isn't incorporated is run by a fool. between property taxes, income taxes, estate taxes and excise taxes, the pitiful couple of points they save is the difference between the kids having shoes or not.

Yes,

I was joking.

Are you kidding? I can't believe you'd suggest that we don't pay our debts. We ran them up, we have to pay them. Talk about handing the keys to our nation to China... what do you think they'll do when we say that we won't pay back the money we owe them? Bad idea.

who do you think owns corporations? it's share holders. who are the share holders? anyone with a pension plan...oh yeah, i forgot you're depending on social security

Individual "pension" holders own a minuscule fraction of the total amount of shares.

The real stakeholders in corporations are the people with preferred stock.

any profitable size family farm that isn't incorporated is run by a fool. between property taxes, income taxes, estate taxes and excise taxes, the pitiful couple of points they save is the difference between the kids having shoes or not.

If they are profitable then they should not be getting subsidies.

Individual "pension" holders own a minuscule fraction of the total amount of shares.

The real stakeholders in corporations are the people with preferred stock.

Pension funds and mutual funds own nearly all of the common shares of most large NYSE listed companies. They are the people most at risk, they are the ones who will profit. They are the stakeholders. Preferred shareholders merely get a dividend and rank below bondholders.

As somebody who had significant shares of Worldcom I can tell you, common shares are worthless when a company declares bankruptcy. That "stake" isn't worth much when things go bad and it doesn't take much at all for them to tell us "stakeholders" to go fuck ourselves, while the executives walk with billions because they held preferred stock and got seats on the board of creditors.

Which is all nice and good but doesn't tell one anything.

The ones who take the greatest risk, common SpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpam, get the greatest rewards.

In a bankruptcy the order goes banks, bondholders, sub-ordinated debt, preferred shares, common shares. As you can see preferred shareholders are well down the list in who gets paid. Being a preferred shareholder is rather a silly position for a common investor to put himself in unless it's a regulated industry. All downside and no upside. You have a locked in dividend, no chance for appreciation unless rates fall substantially, and are next to last in line in a bankruptcy. Their 'stake' is insignificant, they are virtually powerless, they are irrelvant to everyone except the CFO because they account for part of the firms capital.

What I object to is the preferential treatment of capital gains for individual investors. 401k plans are tax-friendly to the middle class. But the capital gains cut to 15% in 2003 is almost entirely for the Donald Trumps of this country. What is the most that anyone on this board has pocketed from that? It's a free lunch hand-out to the top 1% and especially the top .1%. No free lunch should apply to all, not just the middle and lower class.

What I object to is the preferential treatment of capital gains for individual investors. 401k plans are tax-friendly to the middle class. But the capital gains cut to 15% in 2003 is almost entirely for the Donald Trumps of this country. What is the most that anyone on this board has pocketed from that? It's a free lunch hand-out to the top 1% and especially the top .1%. No free lunch should apply to all, not just the middle and lower class.
You're absolutely right, fluffer.

Guess who rakes in farm subsidies..........Sam Donaldson, Scotty Pippen, Marion Barry, and Ted Turner. These are the struggling farmers we are protecting.

What I object to is the preferential treatment of capital gains for individual investors. 401k plans are tax-friendly to the middle class. But the capital gains cut to 15% in 2003 is almost entirely for the Donald Trumps of this country. What is the most that anyone on this board has pocketed from that? It's a free lunch hand-out to the top 1% and especially the top .1%. No free lunch should apply to all, not just the middle and lower class.

Dropping that rate to 15% is what enabled clinton to balance the budget in the late '90's.
It's more a sop to private SpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpam investors than the top 1%. It encourages them to cash their chips without significant penalty and re-invest in the next venture - which in turn will create more jobs and tax revenue.

Dropping that rate to 15% is what enabled clinton to balance the budget in the late '90'sCheck your timeline. The handouts of 2003 did nothing to help Clinton. But they DID help to create a flurry of new (unnecessary) building (espcially FL and CA) and a real-estate bubble - which just popped. On election day 2008 we will entering a pretty nasty recession. The second one in the last 8 years. Despite 3 TRILLION in deficit spending.

No free lunch should apply to all, not just the middle and lower class.
You think they got what they have for "free"?

It's a free lunch hand-out to the top 1% and especially the top .1%. No free lunch should apply to all, not just the middle and lower class.

Is this meant as sarcasim or is this guy for real?

Guess who rakes in farm subsidies..........Sam Donaldson, Scotty Pippen, Marion Barry, and Ted Turner. These are the struggling farmers we are protecting.

I'd say mainly because ya gotta watch out for certain Rich Folk.
They kinda get a kick out of exploiting and manipulating their
already Fat Kat status.
For a True jerkwad like Turner,he probably brags about how he
profits at the expense of the little Family Farmer.
But he won't talk that nicely.
He'd just say ... ' Well AH ...awe I don't even waste what AH ..ah awe
most little Farmers awe...awe waste.I don't AWE... AH Like waste.Not awe
even ah...awe Jane's old AWE Bras.I ...ah keep em...awe awe around for
the ah...awe farm animals,when in awe heat.'

You think they got what they have for "free"?
Of course not. But why should they pay a lower rate on DIVIDENDS than you and I pay on SALARY? How is that fair?

Of course not. But why should they pay a lower rate on DIVIDENDS than you and I pay on SALARY? How is that fair?
because it's already been taxed @35%

Is this meant as sarcasim or is this guy for real?
For real. Hand-outs don't only go to poorest. They can also go to the wealthy, corporations, foreign governments, fellow politicians, etc. Why is that so hard for you figure out?

because it's already been taxed @35%
That's a separate transaction. And where do other capital gains (in say, real estate and stock appreciation) get taxed at 35%?

Check your timeline. The handouts of 2003 did nothing to help Clinton. But they DID help to create a flurry of new (unnecessary) building (espcially FL and CA) and a real-estate bubble - which just popped. On election day 2008 we will entering a pretty nasty recession. The second one in the last 8 years. Despite 3 TRILLION in deficit spending.

Sorry charlie but you haven't established the link between a cut in the capital gains tax and a building boom. Like the last challenge presented i'm sure you'll hook us up with some wonderful insight on the subject.:rolleyes:

As to recession, if it isn't already here it most likely will arrive in the first quarter, well before election day. And if wall street economists are right we'll be out of the recession by election day.

That's a separate transaction.
dividends come from profits, profits are taxed @35% before being paid out.
And where do other capital gains (in say, real estate and stock appreciation) get taxed at 35%?
that wasn't the question, was it?

dividends come from profits, profits are taxed @35% before being paid out

Corporations pay closer to 25% in taxes (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=390260), if they pay taxes at all due to the abundance of tax loopholes they currently enjoy.
It is you and I who pay 35% of our wages in taxes.
Before WW2, corporations paid half the tax burden in the country, now they only pay about 8%.

The corporation's profits are totally separate from the investor's dividends. The corporation is a separate entity from the investor and therefore should pay its own taxes.

Check your timeline. The handouts of 2003 did nothing to help Clinton. But they DID help to create a flurry of new (unnecessary) building (espcially FL and CA) and a real-estate bubble - which just popped. On election day 2008 we will entering a pretty nasty recession. The second one in the last 8 years. Despite 3 TRILLION in deficit spending.


You are right. The 'handouts' of '03 didn't help Clinton. It was the handouts in '94. When Clinton lowered the tax rate on capital gains from 28% to 20%. The result, the treasury received some $180 billion in additional tax revenue which enabled Clinton to achieve his fabled reduction in the debt and deficit.

So explain to me how the handouts (a 29% reduction) in '94 under a democrat are any different or worse than the handouts in '03 (a 25% reduction.)

If you could get back to us before the end of the decade it would be appreciated.

If you could get back to us before the end of the decade it would be appreciated.
You don't have to be so rude, you know.

You don't have to be so rude, you know.

What's rude about asking for a response to a question?

So far he's made a number of dubious assertions, cheered on by several including you, and when confronted about the basis of the assertions has declined to respond.
People like nutter are long on opinion, short on facts. And yet you cheer him on. Do you have anything you'd like to say in his defence, or your own?

What's rude about asking for a response to a question?
You didn't just innocently "ask for a response", and you know it.

And I hardly think I've been "cheering him on". I certainly think he's been making a good argument, although I'm not sure if he's right about everything. You're the one I haven't seen making any argument at all. If you think he's wrong, you could do some convincing of your own instead of just demanding that he provide more proof over and over.

If you could get back to us before the end of the decade it would be appreciated.
If that's not asking for a response then what is it?

You're absolutely right, fluffer.
Not cheering him on eh? You go grrrl.

He hasn't made an arguement, he's made a bunch of claims. Do blindly accept everything that's been written? He's made assertions. It's incumbent upon him to substantiate them, no one else. (You can assist him if you'd like.) If he can't substantiate them, and i'll lay $100 he can't, then his opinions should be exposed for what they are.

Of course not. But why should they pay a lower rate on DIVIDENDS than you and I pay on SALARY? How is that fair?
If you want dividends then purchase stocks. As for the argument on how salary is taxed - they pay considerably more (in amount and (most likely) percent) than you do.

If that's not asking for a response then what is it?
It's asking for a response, but it's implying that Fluffer won't answer you, which is impolite and quite unnecessary.

And yes, I responded to one of Fluffer's posts by saying that I thought he was right. Notice that I didn't respond to any of the other posts, implying that I may not have thought they were all correct. Therefore I obviously don't "blindly accept" everything written. I think I can agree with someone's opinion without becoming their "cheerleader". You are seriously condescending, and I really find it unpleasant.

BTW, I think everyone is taxed too much... I don't even like the income tax at all; our whole tax system needs a total overhaul. However, I think that if we are going to have our current tax system then capital gains should be taxed a little more than they are.

So explain to me how the handouts (a 29% reduction) in '94 under a democrat are any different or worse than the handouts in '03 (a 25% reduction.)If you could get back to us before the end of the decade it would be appreciated.Clinton did not cut taxes in 1994. You still have problems with time, dates, facts and other such stuff. Please name the tax cut bill you believe he signed into law in 1994. Any time. I'll be here. Waiting. Wake me up when you get back with that. ZZZZZZZ.

dividends come from profits, profits are taxed @35% before being paid out.

I get paid every week. That paycheck is taxed (too much). But if I use what's left in my paycheck to hire someone to mow my yard, does that mean the gardiner doesn't have to pay taxes on that income????

Me: And where do other capital gains (in say, real estate and stock appreciation) get taxed at 35%? Mikezilla: You didn't ask that. Me: I just did, Mikezilla. You're dodging the issue.

they pay considerably more (in amount and (most likely) percent) than you do.
In amount, not percent.
Bloomberg News: (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=alFl027VXRIQ&refer=home) Warren Buffett said that in the last 20 years, tax laws have allowed the "super-rich'' to get richer. "Tax-law changes have benefited this group, including me, in a huge way,'' he said. "During that time the average American went exactly nowhere on the economic scale: He's been on a treadmill while the super rich have been on a spaceship.''

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: (http://www.cbpp.org/11-7-05tax.htm) Those with incomes above $200,000 represented 2.0 percent of all filers, but received 80.5 percent of the [2003] capital gains tax-cut benefits. (The remaining 16.3 percent of the tax-benefit went to filers with incomes between $50,000 and $200,000.)

Clinton did not cut taxes in 1994. You still have problems with time, dates, facts and other such stuff. Please name the tax cut bill you believe he signed into law in 1994. Any time. I'll be here. Waiting. Wake me up when you get back with that. ZZZZZZZ.
Wakey wakey.

A typo, it was '97

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E2DD103AF93AA15754C0A9619582 60

Those included the cut in the maximum capital gains tax rate, to 18 percent.......Republicans also got more in capital gains reductions than had been clear on Sunday. The maximum rate on profits from sales of investments held for five years or more will be taxed at only 18 percent, below the 20 percent they had sought. The 20 percent rate will apply to assets held for one to five years. For couples with incomes below $41,200, the rates would be 8 percent and 10 percent.

So, on to your explanation.

BTW, I think everyone is taxed too much... I don't even like the income tax at all; our whole tax system needs a total overhaul. However, I think that if we are going to have our current tax system then capital gains should be taxed a little more than they are.

Economists don't agree with you.

To quote JFK on the subject of capital gains.The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital . . . the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.

Every time they've cut the tax revenues have increased. Every time they've raised the tax, revenues have fallen.

Every time they've cut the tax revenues have increased. Every time they've raised the tax, revenues have fallen.
All the more reason to abolish it, duhhh... Well maybe not completely, but I'd like to see the income tax (for EVERYONE, not just the rich) cut quite a bit, maybe a very small national sales tax (like the Fair Tax, although I remain skeptical about completely replacing the income tax with it, unless some MAJOR cuts in spending in many areas were also implemented).

All the more reason to abolish it, duhhh... Well maybe not completely, but I'd like to see the income tax (for EVERYONE, not just the rich) cut quite a bit, maybe a very small national sales tax (like the Fair Tax, although I remain skeptical about completely replacing the income tax with it, unless some MAJOR cuts in spending in many areas were also implemented).

Are you serious? One minute your advocating that the cap gains tax should be raised, now you're saying it should be cut! I'm pleased to have so quickly convinced you. :hug:

Are you serious? One minute your advocating that the cap gains tax should be raised, now you're saying it should be cut! I'm pleased to have so quickly convinced you. :hug:
I said all income taxes should be cut (ONLY with an accompanying cut in spending), but if they're not going to do that then capital gains taxes should be a little higher. You can't JUST cut capital gains taxes, since the benefit of that goes only to the richest people.

i'm talking about the capital gains tax. You quoting me would logically imply that your talking about the capital gains tax as well.
Cutting the cap gains tax does benefit the rich. It also benefits the average joe and the gov't. it creates more jobs and more tax revenue for the gov't.

You can't JUST cut capital gains taxes, since the benefit of that goes only to the richest people.
First off, let me say I agree, but with that aside, your comment here isn't entirely true. It spurs industry, and that (more than anything else) bolsters the economy. Indirectly, it creates jobs and lowers interest rates. I'd say that goes to benefit everyone.

First off, let me say I agree, but with that aside, your comment here isn't entirely true. It spurs industry, and that (more than anything else) bolsters the economy. Indirectly, it creates jobs and lowers interest rates. I'd say that goes to benefit everyone.
It's an indirect benefit at best, though. We can directly benefit everyone if we want to.

Every time they've cut the tax revenues have increased. Every time they've raised the tax, revenues have fallen.

The ONLY reason revenues increased when JFK cut the tax is because he also closed a lot of loopholes at the same time that people were using to avoid paying taxes at all.

Cutting a revenue stream (tax) cannot, by itself, raise revenue

I'm also a little suspicious about that, Dharma...

It is just common sense.
Cutting a revenue stream cannot increase revenue. It is like trying to say 2-2=4.
Cutting the capital gains tax has never helped the middle class in the long run. Hoping for the trickle down from the wealthy to spur the economy is extremely unwise.

It is just common sense.
Cutting a revenue stream cannot increase revenue. It is like trying to say 2-2=4.
Cutting the capital gains tax has never helped the middle class in the long run. Hoping for the trickle down from the wealthy to spur the economy is extremely unwise.

Intuitioin is not the best source of knowledge.

http://dreier.house.gov/pdf/IPI%20-%20CapGainsKey.pdf

Over the past 30 years, every time the capital gains rates have been cut, capital gains revenues have risen.......

According to Treasury Department tax collection data, in
1996, the year before the capital gains tax rate cut from 28 to 20 percent, the total amount of net capital gains on assets sold was $260 billion. A year later capital gains had mysteriously jumped to $400 billion. (The capital gains tax cut was retroactive to May of 1997.)In 1998 they climbed to $450 billion. In 1999 total capital gains exceeded $500 billion....

The experience of the 1997 capital gains tax cut validates the economic case for another rate cut. The
1997 capital gains cut had the following impact:
• Capital gains tax revenues climbed from $62 billion to $110 billion from 1996–1999. The federal budget moved from deficit to surplus over this period.
• The stock market rose from 7,000 to 10,000 in the 3 years following the rate cut.
• Venture capital funding soared from $10 billion in 1996 to $53 billion in 1999. The number of firms receiving venture capital funding climbed from 2,004 to 5,450 over this period.
• The GDP growth rate following the 1997 capital gains cut rose to an average of 4% per year from 1997–2000.

Only telling part of a story is poor demonstration of "knowledge".

Your argument is akin to "the elephant repelling necklace" argument.
I know it works because I have not seen a single elephant in my area since I got mine.

:thumbs:

Only telling part of a story is poor demonstration of "knowledge".

Your argument is akin to "the elephant repelling necklace" argument.
I know it works because I have not seen a single elephant in my area since I got mine.

:thumbs:

:p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p And you, like nutter, will tell us the 'rest of the story' just as soon as hell freezes over, won't you?

A classic case of If the law is on your side, argue the law: if the facts are on your side argue the facts; if neither are on your side take off your shoe and bang it on the table.

And you, like nutter, will tell us the 'rest of the story' just as soon as hell freezes over, won't you?

I already did tell you.
Obviously you have not been paying attention.

For starters you left out the fact that the only reason revenues increased when Kennedy cut capital gains taxes is because he also closed a lot of loopholes that people were using to avoid paying any taxes.

:thumbs:

The only person talking about kennedy is you.

The example given, complete with numbers, is from the capital gains tax cut in '97. The increase in revenue on the capital gains tax, from cutting that tax, is huge - from $260 in '96 to $400 in '07 to $450 in '98 and $500 in '99.

Your claim is wrong.

The only person talking about Kennedy is you.

Yes, because it proves your ridiculous claims are bullshit.
You cannot cut a revenue stream and then expect revenue to go up. It is nonsense.


The example given, complete with numbers,

Oooooooo... it has "numbers"... so it must be true, riiiiiight? :rolleyes:


is from the capital gains tax cut in '97. The increase in revenue on the capital gains tax, from cutting that tax, is huge - from $260 in '96 to $400 in '07 to $450 in '98 and $500 in '99.

What you are doing is a logical fallacy called "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc" (after this therefore because of this).
You are attempting to infer a causal connection based solely on temporal order.

As I point out with the example of Kennedy, there are other reasons why revenue goes up (changes in the law, population increases {our population has almost doubled just since Kennedy's day}, wars, new federal departments, tax increases, etc.) and it has nothing to do with cutting a source of revenue, which is what you are trying to claim made revenue increase.


:thumbs:

Yes, because it proves your ridiculous claims are bullshit.
You cannot cut a revenue stream and then expect revenue to go up. It is nonsense.

The evidence says different.



Oooooooo... it has "numbers"... so it must be true, riiiiiight? :rolleyes:
You could disprove the numbers, but the fact that you don't begs the question.



What you are doing is a logical fallacy called "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc" (after this therefore because of this).
You are attempting to infer a causal connection based solely on temporal order.

that's the interesting thing about the capital gains tax. It's voluntary. Voluntary in the sense that people get to choose when they want to pay it. They don't sell, they don't pay. That they have chosen to pay, co-incident with a lowering of the tax rate is more than mere coincidence. If you have another explanation do present it.


As I point out with the example of Kennedy, there are other reasons why revenue goes up (changes in the law, population increases {our population has almost doubled just since Kennedy's day}, wars, new federal departments, tax increases, etc.) and it has nothing to do with cutting a source of revenue, which is what you are trying to claim made revenue increase.

It's not a question of general revenue going up. It's revenue received from this specific tax. You said evenue from capital gains would decrease, yet the actual numbers say revenue from capital gains increased.

Why you can't/won't you explain which of these or any other 'reason's provide an explanation for the increase in revenue of taxes from capital gains from '96 thru '99? Population certainly didn't double from '96 to '99. Other federal departments are irrelevant to capital gains as is tax increases (the tax releif act of '97 didn't provide for any tax increase, it actually decreased other taxes as well). There were no wars the US was involved in during the time frame. Wars don't generate capital gains. What other reasons would you like to provide and why?

Waldo - you are still having problems with facts, dates, and reality. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (http://www.doleta.gov/OMBCN/WOTC/PL_105_34.pdf) had phase in periods which began in 1998 and continued past 2000 and in some cases 2001. So any increase in tax revenues in 1996 were only due to the fact that under Clinton the economy was booming - due to other policies.

N. Gregory Mankiw, former chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors and a Harvard economics professor: there is “no credible evidence” that “tax revenues … rise in the face of lower tax rates.” An economist who says that tax cuts can pay for themselves to a “snake oil salesman trying to sell a miracle cure.”

Economist Magazine: “Even by the standards of political boosterism, this is extraordinary. No serious economist believes Mr. Bush’s tax cuts will pay for themselves.”

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: (http://www.cbpp.org/7-11-06bud.htm) "Studies by the Congressional Budget Office, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the Administration itself show that tax cuts do not come anywhere close to paying for themselves over the long term. CBO and Joint Tax Committee studies find that, if financed by government borrowing, tax cuts are more likely to harm than to help the economy over the long run, and consequently would cost more than conventional estimates indicate, rather than less."

But the source that sums it up best is here (http://www.ctj.org/hid_ent/part-2/part2-2.htm):
"Despite all the debate over how much reduced capital gains taxes might affect the level of asset sales, it's really a side issue. The heart of the case for a capital gains tax break is that it supposedly encourages savings, investment, jobs and economic growth. And that case is astonishingly weak. Just look at what happened when capital gains taxes were cut in the past.

The 1978 Revenue Act, enacted in November of 1978, cut the maximum capital gains tax rate from 39% to 28%. Over the 12 months prior to enactment of that change, the real GDP grew by 5.8%. But after the 1978 capital gains tax cut was approved, the economy faltered. In fact, the GDP dropped by 1% over the next year and a half. The annual growth rate for the two years following the 1978 capital gains tax cut was only 0.3%--5.5 percentage points lower than the growth rate prior to the cut.

In August of 1981, another capital gains tax cut was enacted, this time cutting the top rate to 20%. Over the 12 preceding months, the economy had grown by 3.5%, but in the 12 subsequent months the GDP fell by 2.8%. In the two years after the 1981 capital gains tax cut was enacted, the annual growth rate was only 1%--2.5 percentage points below the growth rate prior to the cut.

Contrary to the assertions of capital gains tax cut proponents, capital gains tax cuts have never led to improved economic performance. Tax laws that have increased the capital gains tax, however, typically have been followed by increased growth. After capital gains taxes were increased in the 1976 Tax Reform Act, for example, the economy's growth rate jumped from 3.9% in the preceding year to 5.2% over the next two years. Likewise, following enactment of the 1986 Tax Reform Act, the growth rate rose from 2.2% in the previous year to 3.8% over the next two years.

The record of capital gains tax cuts when it comes to jobs is equally dismal. In fact, the unemployment rate rose sharply after both the 1978 and 1981 capital gains tax cuts. Conversely, the jobless rate fell notably after the 1976 and 1986 capital gains tax hikes were enacted."


So it should come as no surprise that, following another cut in capital gains, the economy is faltering again. Especially because the tax cut had to be funded by increased debt. Always a dumb idea....

Waldo - you are still having problems with facts, dates, and reality. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (http://www.doleta.gov/OMBCN/WOTC/PL_105_34.pdf) had phase in periods which began in 1998 and continued past 2000 and in some cases 2001. So any increase in tax revenues in 1996 were only due to the fact that under Clinton the economy was booming - due to other policies.

1) We're not talking about general revenues, we're talking about revenues from capital gains. 2) We're talking about the period from the tax cut onward i.e '97 onward.

N. Gregory Mankiw, former chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors and a Harvard economics professor: there is “no credible evidence” that “tax revenues … rise in the face of lower tax rates.” An economist who says that tax cuts can pay for themselves to a “snake oil salesman trying to sell a miracle cure.”

Economist Magazine: “Even by the standards of political boosterism, this is extraordinary. No serious economist believes Mr. Bush’s tax cuts will pay for themselves.”

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: (http://www.cbpp.org/7-11-06bud.htm) "Studies by the Congressional Budget Office, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the Administration itself show that tax cuts do not come anywhere close to paying for themselves over the long term. CBO and Joint Tax Committee studies find that, if financed by government borrowing, tax cuts are more likely to harm than to help the economy over the long run, and consequently would cost more than conventional estimates indicate, rather than less." No one has made the claim that they do pay for themselves. Irrelevant. You might want to take a quote from the period as well as opposed to one that came from 2005.

But the source that sums it up best is here (http://www.ctj.org/hid_ent/part-2/part2-2.htm):
"Despite all the debate over how much reduced capital gains taxes might affect the level of asset sales, it's really a side issue. The heart of the case for a capital gains tax break is that it supposedly encourages savings, investment, jobs and economic growth. And that case is astonishingly weak. Just look at what happened when capital gains taxes were cut in the past.

The 1978 Revenue Act, enacted in November of 1978, cut the maximum capital gains tax rate from 39% to 28%. Over the 12 months prior to enactment of that change, the real GDP grew by 5.8%. But after the 1978 capital gains tax cut was approved, the economy faltered. In fact, the GDP dropped by 1% over the next year and a half. The annual growth rate for the two years following the 1978 capital gains tax cut was only 0.3%--5.5 percentage points lower than the growth rate prior to the cut.

In August of 1981, another capital gains tax cut was enacted, this time cutting the top rate to 20%. Over the 12 preceding months, the economy had grown by 3.5%, but in the 12 subsequent months the GDP fell by 2.8%. In the two years after the 1981 capital gains tax cut was enacted, the annual growth rate was only 1%--2.5 percentage points below the growth rate prior to the cut.

Contrary to the assertions of capital gains tax cut proponents, capital gains tax cuts have never led to improved economic performance. Tax laws that have increased the capital gains tax, however, typically have been followed by increased growth. After capital gains taxes were increased in the 1976 Tax Reform Act, for example, the economy's growth rate jumped from 3.9% in the preceding year to 5.2% over the next two years. Likewise, following enactment of the 1986 Tax Reform Act, the growth rate rose from 2.2% in the previous year to 3.8% over the next two years.

The record of capital gains tax cuts when it comes to jobs is equally dismal. In fact, the unemployment rate rose sharply after both the 1978 and 1981 capital gains tax cuts. Conversely, the jobless rate fell notably after the 1976 and 1986 capital gains tax hikes were enacted."

The expectation that the economy would instantly improve within the succeeding twelve months, based on a capital gains tax cut is ridiculous. Only the naive would suggest that. Funds realized on a capital gains cut would be reinvested and such an investment would take time to evolve. Growing an enterprise from start-up to profitability is a multi-year process, not a twelve month process. Companies simply don't go from start-up to macro-economic level of success that impacts the national economy in a 12 month period.

In addition, given the interest rates in the late 70's early '80's the hurdle rate for such investments is extremely high. Interest rates at that time were in the mid-teens. One could by a T-Bond yielding 13-14% guaranteed for the next 20-30 years. At that rate, compounded the investor would double his money, risk-free every 4.5 years. A rate of return rarely available to most investors. The alternative was risking capital on an enterprise that might return zero, an equal amount, or more. Most investors would choose the risk-free investment. Ergo most investors would choose to wait on investing in ventures that would ultimately create a benefit for the larger economy.

Using the analysis you've provided, by your own admission the economy of the US, following the TRA of '97 (which included the capital gains tax cuts) should have seen little growth in employment or GDP. Yet the years of '98 and '99 were as big boom years as the country has seen in a long while. Employment fell to multi-generational lows. The budget was balanced for the first time in two generations. A complete contradiction to the point you're attempting to make.

So it should come as no surprise that, following another cut in capital gains, the economy is faltering again. Especially because the tax cut had to be funded by increased debt. Always a dumb idea....That the economy is currently faltering has little to do with the cut in capital gains. In fact other than alleging it so you've provided no proof as to such a causal factor. As to the TRA of '97 the statistics are in. The increased revenue from the capital gains tax cuts is indisputable.

That the economy is currently faltering has little to do with the cut in capital gains.After 3 trillion in deficit spending and the tax cuts the economy should be positively roaring right now. Why isn't it? The middle class has gone nowhere in the last 8 years. The markets have gone nowhere - except down. My 401k nestegg was higher in 2000 than it is today - after 8 more years of matched contributions...The increased revenue from the capital gains tax cuts is indisputable.Capital gains revenues go up and down as the economy does. A high tide lifts all ships. The argument that the tax cut itself increased revenues does not necessarily follow.

If you have another explanation do present it.


I have already presented the fact that Kennedy's capital gains tax cut did not, by Kennedy's own admission, increase revenues at all. Closing the loopholes that allowed people to get out of paying taxes alltogether did. The only resopnse you could muster to that fact is "I am not talking about Kennedy".

Likewise, capital gains revenue in the 90s could have gone up because of the Internet economic boom, the boom in day-trading and the increased practice of giving stock options to employees.

After 3 trillion in deficit spending and the tax cuts the economy should be positively roaring right now. Why isn't it? The middle class has gone nowhere in the last 8 years. The markets have gone nowhere - except down. My 401k nestegg was higher in 2000 than it is today - after 8 more years of matched contributions...Capital gains revenues go up and down as the economy does. A high tide lifts all ships. The argument that the tax cut itself increased revenues does not necessarily follow.

The economy has been doing fine. In fact it's had the longest string of positive GDP numbers since they've started keeping the numbers, 21.
That the middle class has gone nowhere is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not decreasing the capital gains tax increases the revenue from the tax.

That your 401 is lower now than in 2000 says more about your management of the 401 than anything else. You're trying to take an all-time high in a market with a zero SpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpam risk premium and and a period where you had significant P/E expansion and compare it to a period when the SpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpam risk premium has expanded, PE's have contracted is silly.

AS for the revenue from capital gains taxes the numbers are what they are. To make your argument you need to demonstrate that the reported numbers, which showed revenue from the capital gains tax increasing after the tax cut are wrong. Good luck.

I have already presented the fact that Kennedy's capital gains tax cut did not, by Kennedy's own admission, increase revenues at all. Closing the loopholes that allowed people to get out of paying taxes alltogether did. The only resopnse you could muster to that fact is "I am not talking about Kennedy".

Likewise, capital gains revenue in the 90s could have gone up because of the Internet economic boom, the boom in day-trading and the increased practice of giving stock options to employees.

You're the only one talking about Kennedy and being disingenuous about it as well. You're trying to compare general revenues with revenues from capital gains taxes. It's a false comparison.

The correct comparison is revenue from capital gains taxes before the tax cut and after the tax cut.

Indeed they could have and the fact remains that when they've lowered the tax rate on capital gains revenues have increased.

You're the only one talking about Kennedy

There you go again... :rolleyes:

You're trying to compare general revenues with revenues from capital gains taxes.

No, I am not. You are getting desperate.

You could demonstrate where i've introduced Kennedy to the discussion. That'll be a short search.

The ONLY reason revenues increased when JFK cut the tax is because he also closed a lot of loopholes at the same time that people were using to avoid paying taxes at all.

You're not talking about general revenues at all are you.:rolleyes:

Tell us about the loopholes in the capital gains tax that were closed.:rolleyes:

That your 401 is lower now than in 2000 says more about your management of the 401 than anything else. Hey; I do my best. The problem is the Dow Nasdaq and S&P are all lower than in 2000 aren't they? Can't squeeze blood from a rock. All those tax cuts and deficit spending really haven't done much good (for the middle class - of which I am a member) have they? Thank God my Social Security isn't tied up in the markets - then I'd really be in a mess.....

The economy has been doing fine.Trillions in deficit spending can create that illusion. But you are right about one thing - the economy is doing fine for people like Warren Buffett and Donald Trump. They're the ones that got the tax cuts.

Hey; I do my best. The problem is the Dow Nasdaq and S&P are all lower than in 2000 aren't they? Can't squeeze blood from a rock. All those tax cuts and deficit spending really haven't done much good (for the middle class - of which I am a member) have they? Thank God my Social Security isn't tied up in the markets - then I'd really be in a mess.....
Sorry, Fluffer, but the reason I'm not buyin' your gripe here is twofold; firstly, middle class people don't drive late model BMWs and Porsches (unless they've decided to live in them, but I digress), and they most certainly didn't "lose" money in the market (9/11 aside) barring some freak incident where your entire team of brokers fell asleep at the wheel. Hell, I can't think of ONE fund manager (working for a mega company like Merrill Lynch, Prudential, et al) who actually netted a loss (for they'd be losing BILLIONS of dollars by way of allocating EVERYONES' funding in an absolutely abysmal fashion). I mean, you'd have to intentionally pick losers in '05 and '06 for that to be the case.

I managed (with a full match, just like you) to damn near DOUBLE my money in the last 6 years. I went from roughly 30k to 55k, and all I had to do was partake in the incredibly daunting task of shuffling group types (aggressive, moderately aggressive, conservative, etc.) based on intuition, suggestions, and market trends. Seriously, I'm no broker, but with the help of a competent team, I managed to make a fair amout of money. On that note, only one of two things could've conspired here to net you an 8 year loss: either your fund manager has Downs Syndrome, or you're lying to bolster your point. I'm leaning towards the latter, Mr. '07 BMW 5 series.
Trillions in deficit spending can create that illusion.
That's a decent point, it can, but only to a degree. That said, it doesn't explain why our industry (tech and otherwise) was booming roughly 12 months ago. A massive housing crash doesn't help the situation either.