Mr Spinkles said:
To be clear, I'm not saying Obama is "pro-capitalist", I'm simply saying the facts paint a more complicated picture than the overly-simplistic charge that Obama is "anti-capitalist".
Revoltingest said:
You confuse "simplistic" with "simple".
The distinction is important.
Only when the distinction exists.
Revoltingest said:
When I point out that your argument & sources lack scope & accuracy, this is not retreating.
In fact, it's somewhat aggressive...assailing your shoddy evidence.
Note that you utterly failed to notice the 3.8% surcharge on investment income.
Under Obama, capital gains tax (on some asset classes) went from 15% to 20% + 3.8%, which is a 59% tax increase.
(On some other classes, capital gains is the full income tax rate, so the 3.8% increase is a smaller percentage.)
First, I don't accept your charge that the figures are inaccurate. You
asserted (hoped?), but did not
show, that the two non-partisan tax centers aren't competent enough to take into account changing IRS definitions of "income". The fact of the matter is, the Tax Foundation says in its description of the figures that it does indeed account for changing IRS methodologies, by re-calculating the tax rates paid going back as far as possible (in this case to 2001), using a consistent methodology. So they claim the figures going back to 2001 are indeed comparable, contrary to your objections/hopes. (BTW the Tax Foundation, if anything,
is sometimes accused of having a conservative, pro-business tilt.)
Second, I did notice the 3.8% capital gains tax increase on high-earners from the Affordable Care Act. This, if anything,
"lacks scope", to borrow your words, since it didn't take effect until after 2010. So it doesn't address whether Obama's actions were "pro-capitalist" or "anti-capitalist" from 2008--2010. Furthermore, the
tax rates charged on capital gains "lacks scope" even after 2010, since this is insufficient information to judge the
average tax rate paid after 2010. (For example, Mitt Romney's nominal rate was 15%, and yet the rate he actually paid was less than that.)
For example, again borrowing your words,
"note that you utterly failed to notice" the effective tax rate
decreases enacted in 2010 by the
Affordable Care Act, such as the Small Business Health Care Tax Credit, the Health Insurance Premium Tax Credit (the credit that helps people afford insurance in the non-group market), reduced taxes and increased credits on health coverage for children, etc.
In order to derive something meaningful from various tax increases and decreases, I would like to account for all of them in calculating the net effect, in both direction and magnitude, and how that compares to historical trends. That's a pretty reasonable wish, isn't it? Now, you
assert you know this net effect. I don't say your assertion is
wrong. Again:
I don't say you're wrong. I am just curious to know if you can
back up that assertion with convincing sources (e.g. non-partisan tax think tanks). Also, if we time-traveled back to 2010, would you have conceded at that time that Obama's tax policy was "pro-capitalist", consistent with your apparent definition of that term? So far, the answer to both questions seems to be "no".
Revoltingest said:
You won't pay this tax, but I will.
I think that's the crux of your argument. "We" (by which you meant, "I") have seen "our" taxes go up.
Ergo--I'm sorry,
therefore 
--Obama is anti-capitalist. Nevermind the bigger picture (What about average rates? What about the average rate
paid after deductions etc., rather than that
charged? How do the new rates compare to historical rates? Etc. The comprehensive data I provided from two non-partisan tax centers come much closer to answering these big picture questions, than just the capital gains rates you cited.)
FWIW, don't be too sure I won't ever pay this tax. I know plenty of people who pay the tax you refer to, and I admire, respect, and congratulate them
and you on your business savvy and financial success. :clap I aspire to be like you, and them -- that is, wealthy enough to pay this tax. Again, FWIW.
Revoltingest said:
As for back up, I base my claims on personal experience as a taxpayer. I have a fine CPA working
for me, we discuss strategy regularly, & I pay a whole lotta tax. So I know wherefrom I speak.
Doubt if you wish, but I'm not here to convert the unconvertible.
I have no doubt you know what you are talking about in terms of your taxes. I am wondering if one man's taxes can be extrapolated to describe tax policy under the Obama administration generally, and if so to what degree, how does it look historically, etc. Answering these questions would provide factual meaning to the otherwise vacuous phrase, "anti-capitalist".
Revoltingest said:
But you're in no position to say that Obamacare won't increase
the deficit, since it isn't implemented yet, which means you have speculations rather than data (aka facts).
To clarify, my point wasn't that Obamacare reduces the deficit (although the best available evidence does, in fact, support that IMO). My point was that many Americans falsely believe that it will increase the deficit, i.e., they believe they have sufficient evidence for this assertion, when in fact they do not. My point is correct any way you slice it, whether we take deficit forecasts seriously, or whether we accept your "know-nothing" view that effects on the deficit are mere speculation.
Revoltingest said:
I don't expect to convince you of anything. We're each entrenched in our positions,
I'm not.
