If not, why not?

I've watch 4 people die in the last year where Medicare picked up the combined tab of close to 1 million, the care prolonged their lives 1 week to 4months. So yes they need to pick up more of the load but we need to fix this mess called Medicare. Life is for the living not keeping the dead alive.

The argument is misleading......
The sliding scale already makes the higher net incomes pay a higher percentage. So do you want to lower that percentage to what a teacher pays, or decrease the amount of loopholes? I suspect you are referring to loopholes, aka, fishing trips "researching" a book or fishing article.

That's a loophole?

Is that what you call a business expense?

Once upon a time I used to have a commercial hand-line/jigger license. At the time licenses were easy and cheap, and the write offs were awesome. One of my better moves.....of which I have very few.

I know I'm getting old but didn't we just have this debate a week or two ago?

uh huh.....and a while before that......and.....

flat rate no loop holes or on income tax natioal sales tax

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-gets-feisty-not-class-warfare-math-172623358.html


Your not old DBA just not watching the news..

Yes. EVERYONE should pay the same rate (%).

Flat tax all the way. No "loopholes", no having kids for a write off, but best of all NO IRS.

What's so wrong with across the board fair?

As long as fair means a tax on the percentage of disposable household income, not gross household income.

You flat-rate advocates either don't get it, or are on the upper income bracket, because a conversion to a flat rate system does NOT benefit lower and middle class income makers.

Here's a little C/P............



Tax Rates

U.S. individual income tax rates are progressive, meaning that higher tax rates apply to higher incomes. The top marginal tax rate for the 2008 tax year was 39.6 percent, which is low by historical standards in this country. Millions of low-income workers owed no federal taxes at all.

Read more: Income Vs Taxes Paid United States | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5144404_income-taxes-paid-united-states.html#ixzz1YSflt9is

You mean after lotto tickets, cell phones, cable TV, internet, doghnuts and RockStar?

It's easier for poor to pay taxes if we make living expenses for them cheaper. That's why walmarts and apartment complexes are so important. Oh and don't forget grocery outlet. duh.

The tax code stacked is about five feet tall. A lot of lobbyists and political contributions made that possible.

Of course a flat tax would mean huge tax breaks for the wealthy and an even greater shifting of the tax burden to the middle class and poor. Sounds fair in theory - until one does the math.

I like the proposal of the flat tax because it shows how many stupid people are out there. Like Eyeman's $30 car tabs, most of the retards that voted for it were paying less than $30 for tabs already.

There's a damn good reason Billionaires like Steve Forbes* get huge boners when they hear about a Flat Tax.




*Because they can do math and know numbers n stuff, dummy.

How about flat rate, no deductions and the ONLY thing congress is allowed to adjust is the bar. The bar being the agreed upon poverty level.

So, two options here for a $20K poverty level:

$100K = $10K tax.
$20K = $0 tax

or

$100K = ($80K * 10%) = $8K tax
$20K = $0 tax.

So the poor aren't harmed and all that's left is to decide the percentage for everyone else.

An AP article in USA Today:

WASHINGTON – President Obama says he wants to make sure millionaires are taxed at higher rates than their secretaries. The data say they already are.
"Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it," Obama said as he announced his deficit-reduction plan this week. "It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million."
On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.
The 10% of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70% of federal income taxes, according to theCongressional Budget Office.
In his White House address on Monday, Obama called on Congress to increase taxes by $1.5 trillion as part of a 10-year deficit reduction package totaling more than $3 trillion. He proposed that Congress overhaul the tax code and impose what he called the "Buffett rule," named for the billionaire investor.
The rule says, "People making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay." Buffett wrote in a recent piece for The New York Times that the tax rate he paid last year was lower than that paid by any of the other 20 people in his office.
"Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires," Obama said. "That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that."
There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. But that's less than 1% of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.
This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average 29.1% of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.
Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15% of their income in federal taxes.
Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5% of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7%.
The latest IRS figures are a few years older — and limited to federal income taxes — but show much the same thing. In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid on average 24.4% of their income in federal income taxes, according to the IRS.
Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9% in federal income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3%.
Obama's claim hinges on the fact that, for high-income families and individuals, investment income is often taxed at a lower rate than wages. The top tax rate for dividends and capital gains is 15%. The top marginal tax rate for wages is 35%, though that is reserved for taxable income above $379,150.
With tax rates that high, why do so many people pay at lower rates? Because the tax code is riddled with more than $1 trillion in deductions, exemptions and credits, and they benefit people at every income level, according to data from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress' official scorekeeper on revenue issues.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that 46% of households, mostly low- and medium-income households, will pay no federal income taxes this year. Most, however, will pay other taxes, including Social Security payroll taxes.
"People who are doing quite well and worry about low-income people not paying any taxes bemoan the fact that they get so many tax breaks that they are zeroed out," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center. "People at the bottom of the distribution say, 'But all of those rich guys are getting bigger tax breaks than we're getting,' which is also the case."
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was pressed at a White House briefing on the number of millionaires who pay taxes at a lower rate than middle-income families. He demurred, saying that people who make most of their money in wages pay taxes at a higher rate, while those who get most of their income from investments pay at lower rates.
"So it really depends on what is your profession, where's the source of your income, what's the specific circumstances you face, and the averages won't really capture that," Geithner said.

Kind of argues for a flat tax, very limited exemptions, doesn't it? We have a 60,000 page tax code so everyone, and I mean everyone, gets their tax break.

Since 10% of American households own 90% of America's wealth, they should pay 90% of America's taxes.

What is CCA's position on this?

Speaking of revolving debates, DO NOT answer that!

There's the RWWJ mentality again. Let's make taxes voluntary for the rich....oh we already do that.

Warren Buffett is a hypocrite. Berkshire Hathaway owes the IRS many years in back taxes, threatens to file lawsuits regarding those taxes and refuses to pay. They are currently trying to "settle" their tax bills... if he's so pro taxes, why is his company not paying theirs?

Did I not see on the news Pres O hanging an ornament around Mr. Buffet's neck? What was that for, any way?

and BTW, who exactly bought that ornament?

It was paid for by the gold teeth we extracted from RWWJ's.

Got a fresh prediction for us, TT?

Pretty tough to decide what counts towards disposable income. The bigger the house, the larger the payment, heating, electric and property taxes.

I thought we sort of do that now with the standard deduction and add ons for kids. Standard of living in New York compared to other states, plus inflation creep that increase household income but dont take expenses into consideration.

The "investment income/capital gains" tax appears to me to be a big issue, as it only attracts a 15% tax, yet can supply a luxurious income.

The top rate for millionaires is 36% for income tax alone, so they're already getting over.

We should go back to the raygun years and set the top rate back to 50%. They should pay tax more according to their share of America's wealth.

You'll never learn...

Take your pick:
50%
53.4%





But before you even go to the trouble, I know you'll just find some link to an article about his tax cut bill in '86 and try to claim that's what counts for his entire term, blah, blah, blah. Fact still remains half his presidency saw the top tax rate at 50% or better.

Like I said...

there is no valid reason to tax capital gains at a lower rate.

the cop pays more in percentage than the trustifarian he just locked up

Hank,

Did you post that table to refute yourself?

If so, it worked.

Twsiting in the wind.....

"knowing they too would be double-taxed."

It's not double taxation. Only the gain is taxed.

Again...

Hankster thinks capital gains is double taxation? Understanding this helps me understand that Hankster would be a NJ no matter if he were RWNJ or LWNJ. Making a lot more sense now.

So I earn money and its taxed, I then take whats left and I buy seeds for my garden which are taxed and after I plant the garden and tend it all summer I am taxed on what grows when I sell it . The way I was taught math I am taxed 3 times.

"The way I was taught math I am taxed 3 times."

No you get taxed 6 times for leading an exemplary life.

Seattle Times Fact Check Article:

Taxes

Now fer cryin' out loud, Mr. MartyMoose from Marysville, what are you doing? We don't need no stinkin' facts.

TJ needs a remedial math class.

using guilt to get people to give away what they worked for is the basis for the Tea Party book "Underdogma". just sayin...

Well, calling it "guilt" is certainly a more effective political phrase than calling it "having a conscience".

Just sayin'.

yes, since taxing capital gain income is not double taxation.

if i invest $1000 after tax dollars in XYZ stock and then sell it for $1500, i would pay tax on the $500 in capital gain, not on the initial $1000 investment. therefore it is not double taxation.

again, why should the cop pay a higher rate than the trustifarian he arrests?

double taxation, what a load of shite!

i don't want to see confiscatory tax rates on any income group, but taxing unearned income the same as earned income is fairer than any fair tax plan being proposed.

Well hell, lost track of the thread and what the ?????????????? MM is posting links to facts about taxes? What on ever is this world coming to? Next thing you know the Libs will have to fess up that BO is a piece of Chicago crap that seldom lets truth stand in his way. Damn, just plain damn!!!!!!

SG

I take it you have never paid CG?


"One other peculiar aspect of the capital gains tax has made many economists conclude that it is economically inefficient: it is a form of double taxation on capital formation. Economists Victor Canto and Harvey Hirschorn explained:

A government can choose to tax either the value of an asset or its yield, but it should not tax both. Capital gains are literally the appreciation in the value of an existing asset. Any appreciation reflects merely an increase in the after-tax rate of return on the asset. The taxes implicit in the asset’s after-tax earnings are already fully reflected in the asset’s price or change in price. Any additional tax is strictly double taxation.6

Take, for example, the capital gains tax paid on a pharmaceutical stock. The value of that stock equals the discounted present value of all of the company’s future proceeds. If the company is expected to earn $100,000 a year for the next twenty years, the sales price of the stock will reflect those returns. The “gain” the seller realizes from the sale of the stock will reflect those future returns, and thus the seller will pay capital gains tax on the future stream of income. But the company’s future $100,000 annual returns will also be taxed when they are earned. So the $100,000 in profits is taxed twice—when the owners sell their shares of stock and when the company actually earns the income. That is why many tax analysts argue that the most equitable rate of tax on capital gains is zero.7"

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/CapitalGainsTaxes.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So I should be exempt from paying taxes because my salary is simply an appreciation of my education and experience.

This statement refutes their own argument:

"The taxes implicit in the asset’s after-tax earnings are already fully reflected in the asset’s price or change in price."

In other words when you purchased the "asset" it was known to you that any appreciation was taxable and therefore inherant in the price you paid and when sold you are well aware that gains are taxed and, to your benefit, losses are deductable. Using their argument against them would mean:

You pay $10 for a share knowing if it appreciates 10% you will owe $.15 in tax. On the other hand if you knew at the time of purchase that no taxes would be owed then you may be willing to pay $11 for a share.

BTW, earnings (future returns) are not doled out to shareholders. Maybe you mean dividends?

Most economists accept the reason for the dividend tax rate being ONLY 15% is because the tax burden is being shared between the Corp and the shareholder. However we all know that most large corps pay little to no tax. And the uber rich can live off of dividends and pay a substantially lower tax rate than the rest of America.

Vic and Harv are a couple of assclowns.

Their argument wouldn't hold water in a 200-level econ class.

But as long as their opinion validates some other assgoblin's argument, it will get bantied about like it actually means something.

This is an assumption with no basis in fact, or reality.

Fish on...

Todd

total load of crap. the companies profits are not tied to a stock price as rigidly as your make believe example. the profit from the company and the market for ownership of the company are two entirely separate entities and the price for a share of the company can be far more volatile than the companies profits. stocks are sold by companies to raise capital, and then the stocks are publicly traded on markets which have zero bearing on the company. the company can make tons of money and their stock price can be depressed and vice-versa.

i'll use a real life example. during the bird flu scare a few years back, stocks of chicken producing corporations were knocked down severely by scares of bird flu. the companies profits were not impacted, but fear ruled. if you purchased during the fear you made a profit that was not tied to the companies economic fundamentals at all. the company pays taxes on their profits, which have zero bearing on when and if people sell shares and accrue capital gains.

the market is independent of the corporations when it comes to the price of the stocks.

your comparison is like stating there should be no taxes on casino winnings because the casino pays taxes on their profits.

Sounds like the class is caught up in a battle of ideology and semantics fueled by belief dependant realism. I doubt most of you will ever wear the shoes of a heavy CG tax burden. Sometimes a different pair of shoes changes your outlook on life.

what heavy capital gains burden? would that be the current 15% or the 20% if the bush tax cuts expire?

my thinking is that income is income. unearned or earned doesn't matter.

also, you might be surprised by the shoes some of us walk in. i don't know your situation and you certainly don't know mine.

i don't presume that the people supporting low rates on unearned income are top 1%'s or derive their primary income from unearned income. i think you and they are wrong, but i wouldn't presume anything about your financial situation.

but you are certainly full of crap when you try to put a company paying taxes on their profits and people selling stock in that same company as double taxation. total 100% bullcrap and you know it.

TW, I don't care what your situation is ignorance is ignorance.

"what heavy capital gains burden? would that be the current 15% or the 20% if the bush tax cuts expire"

A company makes $100 profit. It pays 35% in income tax it can only disribute $65 to shareholders in dividend or capital gains. If as a dividend it is taxed at your individual rate or when you sell your stock you are taxed an additional 15%. Its a double tax period end of story.

DanS prefers to shoot the messenger with no corroboration so here is two, one from the left and the right. Argue with them.



"Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman first recognized the inequity in double taxation in his book Capitalism and Freedom (The University of Chicago Press, 1962) and wrote about it in Free To Choose (Harcourt, 1990). He wrote,

“The corporate income tax, too, is highly defective. It is a hidden tax that the public pays in the prices it pays for goods and services without realizing it. It constitutes double taxation of corporate income—once to the corporation, once to the shareholder when the income is distributed. It penalizes capital investment and thereby hinders growth in productivity. It should be abolished.”

And recently in his book, Supercapitalism (Random House, 2007), Robert Reich came to the same conclusion:

“In reality, the corporate income tax is paid—indirectly—by the company’s consumers, shareholders, and employees.”, and concludes that “Abolishing the corporate income tax would … help capital markets work better.”

Reich extends his analysis and observes because corporations are not people they should not be afforded the opportunity to challenge laws in courts, nor to lobby government, and should be denied other rights and privileges reserved for citizens. Subsidizing corporations would be unnecessary without a corporate tax. And in this age of bailout-mania, eliminating the business tax would reduce or obviate the need for Washington to rescue companies with taxpayer money.

By ending double taxation, we will create an environment of capital formation, and with it business growth without the need for stimulus, bailout, subsidy, tax credit, tax deduction, tax loophole, or other gimmicks. We believe this is the way we can make our economy strong—permanently strong—and competitive, without deficits, Federal borrowing, and increased taxation.

Friedman-Reich will make unnecessary:

- bailouts
- stimulus packages
- tax loopholes
- government subsidies
- capital gains taxes
- corporate lobbying

Friedman-Reich will:

- attract capital to business
- make companies more competitive in the world economy
- halt layoffs and increase employment
- keep jobs here
- increase the value of retirement and other savings accounts
- make capital markets more efficient and relieve the credit choke
- ultimately increase government tax revenue

There is no better time to consider this proposal. We have an economy that needs revitalization, a new President who has called for bi-partisan ideas, and a breakthrough concept with support from both sides of the political spectrum. This is an idea started by a conservative and advanced by liberals. And Mr. Reich is an advisor to President-elect Obama. We believe we have therefore, at this moment, the perfect storm to advance a proposal that would redress systemic disadvantages our tax system imposes on businesses and capital markets, precisely at the time when both need help."

"A company makes $100 profit. It pays 35% in income tax it can only disribute $65 to shareholders in dividend or capital gains. If as a dividend it is taxed at your individual rate or when you sell your stock you are taxed an additional 15%. Its a double tax period end of story. "

A company does not distribute anything in "capital gains".

"dividend it is taxed at your individual rate"

Dividends are taxed at 15% regardless of your individual rate.

When you sell your stock you are taxed 15% on any gains you achieved. No double taxation for you.

You are really proving you know nothing about corps, taxes, the stock market or investing.

I would also like you to find us a US corporation that pay's a 35% tax.

Friedman? Are you joking? You are a more than a RWWJ you are a neocon.

IRS tax topic 404

"Ordinary dividends are taxable as ordinary income unless they are qualified dividends. Qualified dividends are ordinary dividends that meet the requirements to be taxed as net capital gains."


You are really proving you know nothing about corps, taxes, the stock market or investing.

Now you are mixing short term investing versus long term investing. Short term capital gains and dividends are taxed as ordinary income. Long term, held more than 12 months, capital gains AND dividends are taxed at 15%. Spoon it in, chew well and then swallow.

A good documentary for you to watch is The Shock Doctrine. Maybe one of your neighbors has a tv and dvd player they'll let you use. You'll need lots of tin foil to keep your head from exploding though.

But! but! but! but ! Next!

"But! but! but! but ! Next!"

The end.

TJ,

Tell me about your degree in Economics, or Finance, or your MBA.

Do you think if you say "period end of story" that actually means anything, other than you're an arrogant ass who thinks he's in control of the conversation?

I'm not sure why this topic is being debated. In 1993 we saw Republicans cry from the rooftops that the Clinton tax hikes would wreck the economy and lead to a sever recession. Needless to say that turned out not to be true. In fact the results turned out to be quite the opposite of those dire predictions. Likewise Bush made many claims that his tax cuts would lead to a robust economy and we all saw how that turned out.

Moral of the story: conservatives base their economics on faith not facts. For them tax cuts are a religion. Believe your eyes and what we have seen for ourselves in history, not conservative rhetoric. Conservative economics is a record of failure except for those at top. It has nothing to offer the average person but falling wages and greater economic insecurity.

DanS,

Refute Friedman-Reich or pound sand your choice.

And yet, conservative voters continue to vote for those very policies that screw them just as much as they screw the rest of us.

Are they just "born conservative" and are unable to think rationally?

Are they under the very mistaken thought that, even though it's virtually impossible under conservative economic principles, that they, too, will some day be in that top 1% that gets all the breaks and controls everything?

Do they value their hate of whatever isn't them more than they value their actual well being, and that of their country and countrymen?

Are they just stupid?

Fish on...

Todd

TJ,

WTF are you to judge Friedman-Reich? Does your Econ degree tell you their proposals are valid? Does your degree in Finance lead you to believe them?

Or, they agree with you, so that makes them right?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

You go pound sand, dick. Then go kill yourself.

Common you really want to post something about a degree or your background maybe even your IQ ,why wait for me to ask? Just do it or refute Friedman-Reich. don't dilly dally man up whip it out and show us how big your intellectual cock is. I will bet a hundy you are a UW or WSU BA at most.

Tell us about your degree, champ.

Go ahead and take Friedman's sack off your chin first if you need to.

Just to be fair...both of those Presidents were attempting to ride false economic bubbles.

Clinton's bubble was the Internet Stocks of the late 90's and GWB's was an artificially inflated real estate market.

Neither plan worked in the end and both popped in dramatic fashion conveniently at the end of both of their terms.

Is TJ a closeted Dartmouth or Tuck Grad?


Tune in to find out.....

"refute Friedman-Reich"
What you neocons call for is to remove all tax burdens from corporations and drop it directly into the lap of the dissappearing middle class. Then the magic fairy waves her wand and all corporations reduce their prices across the board to balance out the middle classes acceptance of a heavier tax burden. Only we all know the magic fairy doesn't exist. It's just another form of trickle down economics. A proven failure.

Liberals too apparently because Robert Reich is a democrat and quite liberal.

Like I said above you are getting drunker by the minute on a cocktail of belief dependant realism with an ideology back. DC suffers from this and it's killing the country. A little pragmatism and cooperation from both sides is the only solution.

"Next, toe jam will be telling us that the economic troubles are the middle classe's fault'

Partially the massive transfer of wealth from the US to other countries lies at the feat of consumers buying foreign goods and burning foreign oil. The people that buy the most and drive the most are whom?

Why didn't Obama let the Bush tax cuts sunset if they're so terrible?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/16/AR2010121606200.html

"In remarks before signing the bill, Obama called it "a substantial victory for middle-class families across the country." He added: "They're the ones hardest hit by the recession we've endured. They're the ones who need relief right now."

Obama described the bill as "a package of tax relief that will protect the middle class, that will grow our economy and will create jobs for the American people."

"belief dependant realism"

BWAHAHAHAHA....wow....aren't you the one with the pie in the sky ideas? If we'd only reduce the burden on the rich all things will set themselves right. Where have we heard that before?

I hate to be the one but here goes...There is no such thing as pure capitalism and if there were by now it would be a one corp world that owns everything. Your version of capitalism is a "belief dependant realism". Sorry.

"I hate to be the one but here goes...There is no such thing as pure capitalism and if there were by now it would be a one corp world that owns everything."

Another UW or WSU BA?

Type Craigslist into your browser. Private parties selling and trading goods without government regulation or taxation is as pure as capitalism gets.

But! But! But ! next!

Well what are you waiting for? Go approach Washington with your craigslist idea. It's pure genius.....NOT. Yup. All we need is one gigantic garage sale.
So, there's this thing. You may or may not have heard about it. It's called a GED. Maybe you'll get one for Christmas?

I'm sure the foil blocked out the fact that everything listed on Craigslist has either been purchased once already, most likely it was taxed, or stolen. That must be some high grade foil!

RowVsWade: You know the answer to that question as well as I do. The Republicans were holding the extension of unemployment benefits hostage in exchange for continuation of the Bush tax cuts. So Obama decided to compromise, and much to the displeasure of many Democrats I might add.

craigslist



Maybe TJ really IS Elvis..........because only Elvis could spew some stupid sh!t like that with a straight face.

What a f'n goat.

I disagree. The talk of a so-called bubble only began to be heard when the economy began to cool toward the end of the Clinton administration. The Republicans put this idea forward as a way to explain the economic success of the Clinton years. Prior to that, however, Republicans actually credited Reagan for the economic success of the 1990's.

Refute Friedman and Reich? TJ, generally you can't prove a theory or null hypothesis. The way the test works is you reject the null hypothesis or fail to reject the null hypothesis, but you can't accept the null hypothesis.

By way of analogy:
Null hypothesis: there is no gold in them thar hills.

I go look and find gold, therefore reject the null hypothesis.

I go look and despite my best efforts I find none, therefore fail to reject the null hypothesis.

But no matter what, I can't accept the null hypothesis because it's impossible to prove there ain't no gold in them thar hills.

Ergo economic theories. Economists develop theories. Nobody proves them, but some are proved false. Consequently your challenge that we refute your economists beliefs (not the same as facts) is like suggesting we go spit into the wind. No thanks; you're wasting your time.

And BTW, yes, I've been taxed on CG, like that's got anything to do with the price of milk in Chicago.

Sg

Here's another piece of Republican illogic: Conservatives deny that Clinton's 1993 tax bill deserves any credit in the economic recovery we saw in those years. And why is that? Because according to them the economy was well on its way to recovery before Clinton took office. Yet what was it that so angered Republicans with the first President Bush? The answer is simple: he broke his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge. So apparently the economy began to recover after Bush raised taxes but it was somehow not a factor when Clinton did so.

I challenge anybody to go back and see what the Republicans were saying in 1993 about Clinton's tax proposal. Then compare those claims to what Clinton claimed the bill would do for both the economy and the deficit. After that, please come back here and tell us which prediction proved to be correct.

you obviously don't actually understand what a capital gain is and no amount of cutting and pasting google searches will help you.