ABC News' Very Serious Anchor Charlie Gibson, who believes that capital gains cuts cause revenues to rise in spite of overwhelming consensus that this is not the case, also asserted in a debate at the end of January that a household consisting of two teachers would make about $200,000 per year in salary.
It's just so ironic and laughable for a rich, out-of-touch "journalist" like Gibson to question Obama's common-man cred. Since when have you heard a friend or family member bitch about how high the capital gains tax is these days? It's just not a concern of average Americans. Is Gibson planning to dump a whole lot of stock in the next couple of years or something?
To spend such a large amount of time on capital gains taxes which overwhelmingly affects the richest sliver of the population (people who own stocks through IRAs and tax-sheltered savings accounts don't pay tax when the value goes up, and about 83% of the benefits of the 2003 capital gains cut went to the richest 5% of the population), is a huge disservice to those who don't actually have the time to fact-check the debates themselves. In fact, not only don't revenues go up, but there is evidence that it encourages tax sheltering it doesn't even incentivize the type of investment we want.
Kos is right, next time let's discuss the horrendous price of caviar. But not before we spend at least an hour assessing the candidates' relative love for America.
It's just so ironic and laughable for a rich, out-of-touch "journalist" like Gibson to question Obama's common-man cred. Since when have you heard a friend or family member bitch about how high the capital gains tax is these days? It's just not a concern of average Americans. Is Gibson planning to dump a whole lot of stock in the next couple of years or something?
To spend such a large amount of time on capital gains taxes which overwhelmingly affects the richest sliver of the population (people who own stocks through IRAs and tax-sheltered savings accounts don't pay tax when the value goes up, and about 83% of the benefits of the 2003 capital gains cut went to the richest 5% of the population), is a huge disservice to those who don't actually have the time to fact-check the debates themselves. In fact, not only don't revenues go up, but there is evidence that it encourages tax sheltering it doesn't even incentivize the type of investment we want.
Kos is right, next time let's discuss the horrendous price of caviar. But not before we spend at least an hour assessing the candidates' relative love for America.
