It isn't directly, but it would impact the debt to equity ratio and some other ratios which could impact the ability to raise capital, and it could also impact debt covenants.
Regardless, imo that is a little too indirect and no gurantee that the corporation will take advantage of it to invest in jobs and opportunity.
The #1 thing that moves a stock is relative volume. Volume is buys and sells. If there are no buys, there are no sells, if there are no sells, there are no buys. If a stock doesn't rise there's no shareholder value. If there's no shareholder value soon there will be no shareholders. If there's no shareholders there's no company. If there's no company, there's no jobs. Still too indirect for you?
All else equal, the lower the capital gains rate the more incentive there is for investors to buy stock. The more investors buy stock the higher the market goes. The higher the market goes the more wealth is created in the private sector. The more wealth created in the private sector the more jobs are created. The more jobs created the more government tax revenue is generated. A high capital gains rate equals a job killer. Low capital gains rate equals job creation. You're hurting the poor and middle class the most with a high capital gains rate.
All else is not equal, this is the prime issue. Perhaps, if it were spread over the entire private sector, not concentrated in the top 1%. Those are accumulating huge piles, no matter how much they spend. It doesn't all go into job creation by a long shot. Then why aren't our existing low capital gains rates creating jobs? Could it be that there is no direct correlation? Why didn't the high capital gains rates of the 90's kill jobs then? Hell, unemployment was low and the economy was the best its ever been. That's 100% percent backwards and completely counterintuitive.
It is spread over the entire private sector. Small business drives the US economy. If a small business owner makes a gain in the market and gets to keep more of that gain he/she has more money to hire new employees and expand business operations. Those that are accumulating huge piles are not hiding it under their mattresses. They are investing it in the stock market. This drives stocks higher which helps the overall economy. Partially because the market is still down 25-30% from its highs. Overall, many investors are still in the hole and don't have gains so the capital gains rate is not coming into play. If the market continues an upward trend then a high capital gains rate will undoubtedly hurt job creation. How can taking more money out of the private sector during an anemic recovery not hurt job creation? There's other variables that are leading to limited job creation. Small business owners fear the country is headed in the wrong direction. The capital gains rate during much of the boom in the 90's was still relatively low historically speaking. (It was near 40% during a portion of the 70's). During the last 3 years of the 90's the rate was 20%. Much of that boom was driven by the temporary tech stock bubble anyway.
You are conflating small businesses with individual income tax tax profits from investments. Oh yes, undoubtably . . . :rolleye33: But a lot higher than today. This doesn't wash.
Yes I am. As a small business owner if I sell an investment with a large gain and get to keep more of that gain I'm more likely to use the extra capital to expand my business and hirer additional employees. Do you think the small business owners personal financial standing has no bearing on their business? I'm not suggesting that a low capital gains rate is enough to prevail in this economic environment with massive unsustainable deficits, higher taxes, and out of control spending. You're only looking at one variable. I'm suggesting that a higher capital gains rate will only add to the many negatives the economy is already facing.
Someone with a $21,000 income probably won't be paying income taxes, and if they do they will be in the 10% bracket.
But there is no assurance that you will. You might also gamble it in Vegas. Sure, I just don't think that issues possibly affecting the small small business owners should be a reason to make policies that adversely affect the majority of middle class taxpayers who are wage-earners. Not if it lowers deficit spending.
