http://blogs.forbes.com/...e-have-the-bush-tax-cuts/

Interesting article.

+1 Bonus Post

ya end the tax cuts

Yea, the US Congress is so far from reality right now it's insane...

they arn't far from Reality.. it just bends into an entire new perspective that only they can control...

Im a Republican, but on the debt ceiling negotiations the GOP is full of fluff. Got to side with Obama here.

I am libertarian, and the GOP and Dems are both full of fluff. One cuts taxes and spends too much, the other raises taxes and still spends too much.
Once my paycheck runs out, I have to stop spending. It has worked for me for years. How about the government showing the same responsibility.

I can't really put all the blame on the political parties. The public is just as much to blame as the government. The public demands the government not touch the entitlement programs and to not raise taxes, while at the same demands they cut the deficit. We can't have it both ways. The big three entitlement programs plus the interest on the debt currently equals our entire revenue. The entire bureaucracy and the military is funded entirely through deficit spending because all revenues are eaten by the entitlements.

Unless the public is willing to accept entitlement cuts or tax increases without voting the politicians that vote for them out of office, were screwed.

That is indeed the crux of it.

I don't understand why the US Public doesn't understand that ending social security, medicaid and medicare would be DISASTROUS for society as a whole -- maybe they *want* to be more like South Africa, with super-rich people holed up in compounds with defensive walls, and huge un-ending slums elsewhere in places they don't have to go

Money spent early on prevention of symptoms (both medical, financial, societal etc) saves boat loads in the long term.


Also you can't just STOP SPENDING in a recession/depression, unless you want to deepen it; furthermore, the wealthy have doubled their take of the economy over the last decade, so it's not like they're using the money to create jobs -- they're just hoarding, so better to tax them; though again, capital gains tax would be the best way to start

I wish American's were more like Canadians. Or at least more like qzjul.

No one wants to just end the entitlements. They need to be reformed because they eat up our entire budget at the moment. No matter how much you tax the rich, it will not cover our current budget deficit. Ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich saves 70 billion per year. Our deficit is ~1.5 trillion. If you tax the upper bracket close to 100%, it still wouldn't cover it. The only sensible option is entitlement reform combined with well targeted tax increases.

Hiking capital gains rates is silly. The last thing we need to be doing is disincentivizing investment. Now taxing wealth would be a different story, that could force the rich to put the money back into the system to avoid the tax and do something productive with it rather than hoarding it. We should also look at expanding the estate tax.

I am wondering for those for raising the debt ceiling to pass this budget.
When is it going to be enough?

The 10 year budget Obama and the Senate last talked about had deficits of 1+ trillion for the next 10 years. So basically we are 14.5 trillion in debt now, but in 10 years(if we stay on that budget) we will be over 25 trillion in debt.

Is that feasible?

Anyone who says we can't stop spending take a look at the 1921 recession in the United States and what our government did to get us out of it and quick.

One can say we shouldn't end the programs, the problem is they are ending whether we want them to or not. They simply cost too much. Social security has about a 0% chance of even being around when I retire unless they seriously cut back on benefits and raise the retirement age. Medicare/caid have constantly risen above predictions of cost and are eating a huge portion of our budget now and at an ever increasing rate. Pair this with the amount of money we will pay on the interest of our debt....where is this money going to come from?

They either have a controlled end or uncontrolled end...what's it going to be?

and Qz, we already had this discussion about capital gains tax in another thread a few weeks ago. History has proven that raising that capital gains tax will not increase revenue and will decrease investments, thus costing us jobs. The numbers are there, lets not ignore the conversation we had before and act like I have to bring up all that was talked about.

You realize that two things helped us get out of the Great Depression. Federally funded public works programs/utility projects, and World War II.

Right now we're spending less on our own infrastructure and massive public works projects (like Hoover Dam, for example) that would put a lot of the unemployed back to work. Also, while 9/11 was a big focal point of this decade, we have spent MORE money keeping our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan than realizing that there isn't much more we can do for a region of the world that is still stuck in the Dark Ages as far as civil rights and politics are concerned.

huhuh...you do realize the author of the New Deal himself said it didn't work. The unemployment was above 20% for almost FDR's entire presidency. As I said, check out the 1920-1 recession. It was worse than the 1930 depression drop, only our government actually did the correct thing rather than ramp up socialism.

What we need to do is step up our Immigrations & Customs Enforcement, give them the kinds of information that places like the Dept. of Workforce Services have, allow them to arrest and deport illegals in this country with 'no-knock warrants'. This would cut down on the strain on our welfare programs, as well as keep them from employment where they can work as many jobs as they please, paying absolutely nothing to the Federal government, as they aren't citizens of this country. Illegals pay no federal or state income taxes, no Social Security, Medicaid, or any of the things OUR tax money goes towards. So they're screwing us multiple times. I say be rid of them, this would open up jobs as those who had filled them before are now on their way back to the countries they came from. More jobs equals lower unemployment. Lower unemployment means more people are working, putting their money back into the economy, and while the problem we're having won't be solved immediately, it will become solved over time.

Also, we could save MORE money by taking those who are currently imprisoned for decades long to life sentences, send those pricks to these countries, we'd save $4,000 per prisoner, and save close to $8 billion alone a year getting rid of our prison populations instead of using OUR tax dollars to keep them 'in storage' until they're either released or put to death.

I agree there. I had just thought you confused the 1920-21 recession with the Great Depression. What's sad enough is that the 1929 Stock Market Crash, and the Dec. 2007-currently ongoing recession was caused by banks, just as it was in 1929. :P

Sort of caused by banks.

Both were caused largely by government though. I'm on my way out the door, so briefly...

Smoot-Hawley tariff caused the great depression. We were in a recession, but that tariff totally destroyed us.

The government forcing banks to make risky loans was another problem today. The government backed all loans fully so the banks had a blank check. Were banks innocent? Of course not, but the atmosphere was created by the government.

Proven?? I wouldn't say so; the capital gains tax is so low now as to be laughable; as with all taxes (or other economic policies in general) there will be a maxima for tax revenue, perhaps not a parabola, but a generally smooth curve with a maxima; republicans act like this maxima MUST BE AT ZERO. Which makes no sense; 100% also makes no sense; Somewhere in the middle obviously makes sense. But I'd wager that it's above 50% and below 75% if I had to make an educated guess. And if I was an especially long-lived politician, I'd run an experiment. [ Ideally, we'd mandate that each of the 50 states run a different range of capital gains tax for say... a decade.. and then report back on which was best ]

But the current what... 15%? is just absurdly low.

Prisoners cost closer to $100k per year.

I don't think this will fix your deficit though.

I am just trying to get the hell out of this country, can't go south, there is wall....and if I go north, bears will eat me in the woods

How about capital Gains taxes atleast be the same rate as ordinary income... As right now they are anywhere from 5-20% below the rate for EARNED Income. and that isn't even adding the fact that Capital Gains also Don't pay Social Security?Medicare Taxes so another almost 16% lower tax rate

It isn't just Congress. The democrats, the republicans, and the American public at large have all, for a lack of a better term, been drinking the kool-aid for far to long. Well guess what people, it is time to wake up to the reality the everything that anyone wants the government to do cost money. Every time the bill's come do we as a society have all basically said "Hey that is expensive, I don't want to pay it. *points to neighbor* he has more money then me, make him pay it."

Then the neighbor does the same thing, and so on, and so on.

The truth is that we ALL made this mess. It wasn't just the president or congress that got us this deep in the hole. We elected all of our leaders, and therefore it is we, the American public, that bears the ultimate responsibility for the actions of our government. After all our government tends to reflect the habits of our society as a whole.

Now it is time for us all to step up to the plate and pay the price for the fiscal failings of our society. Hopefully we will emerge stronger and smarter if we ever get this all sorted out.

bah, i already paid for my sins.

You're basing your argument about ideal tax rates on the false assumption that Americans are interested in maximizing the power of the State. Most Americans reject the idea that we need a nanny to take care of us. Therefore, the ideal capital gains tax is not the rate which brings in the highest revenue to the government, its the rate which generates the most investment and thus economic well-being for the country as a whole.

Edit: Not sure what happened here but I'm trying to quote qzjul

Klown? "on which was best ]" Remove the stray ] I think.

As for this topic? Some of you have mistaken the Kool-aid for LSD.

Social Security is an absolute mess - I'm not sure how they run this thing but it's basically useless. I hate the thought of even paying into it. I think my mattress is more secure than it's future. Unfortunately, there is no way out. Americans on the whole aren't smart enough to ensure their own retirement.

Medicaid/Medicare/Obamacare - This is your government selling you to insurance companies unless you are a child, pregnant with a child, mentally insufficient, physically insufficient, or just a good liar. This whole thing could have been solved and lowered the complexity/cost/overhead and offered a good reason to raise taxes without throwing the medical insurance companies under a bus. Simply have a base coverage plan and then have the insurance companies offer supplemental + competitive plans that have the stipulation it must continue coverage into old age. Offer tax breaks to those that have their own insurance.

Dump the Bush era tax cuts, there was no reason for them in the first place. Raise the CGT slightly. Tax cripple any company that exports jobs out of the US, tax relieve any company that creates and maintains those jobs for more than 4 years. Tax them first and refund them later(passing the buck to the future but nothing else is going to work right now).

If you want an economy that is spending and making money to tax, try giving them jobs... The employment situation is the catch22. get the jobs back to the US. Create new jobs, and create them out of thin air if need be.

Cut military spending more, we spend more than most the world combined. The sad part is we are falling behind in several places so that money isn't going where it should or being used all how it should.

Stop cutting projects that already have billions invested in them, all this is doing is making the US fall behind in almost everything.

Cut government salary's at the top, I am sorry but a congressman doesn't need to make over 100k a year especially as they are getting ridiculous amounts of "gifts". Get rid of the congress retirement fund, make them use social security like everyone else.

Stop secret service protection for life on presidents. Two terms after their presidency should be sufficient. Stop the lavish dinners and over-the-top spectacles by the white house.

No more foreign aid... It's going to stop one way or the other. If it's not bringing profit, drop it. No more non-self defending military operations, the war is good for the economy ship sailed after 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Stop wasting time and money on frivolous bills of fancy and stupid bullfluff that does nothing but piss people off. Focus on the problems that are ruining the country. No more vacations until things are fixed. This should stop all the gridlocking and ridiculous posturing by congress. Possibly suspend pay when they can't decide things in a reasonable amount of time.

No bank is too big to fail. Push for new technology like doing away with combustion engines. At over a trillion dollars a year budget you can not tell me that the Department of Defense does not have some products it could sell to business or public?

I can't say all of my ideas are perfect, but for fluff sake I compiled what I would say is a workable list in 30 minutes. Why can't they do that, it's what the tax payers are paying them for.

I think QZ is Canadian. ;) If the Bush family hadn't ruined the US economy, both Sr and Jr... Obama wouldn't be taking the flack he is. The guy can only try to fix the hand he was dealt. He has clearly been a man of the people, trying to fix what is broken. Now, if he'd pullback the troops and let the middle east sort itself out now that the US has come to their aid, helped train new troops and educate the new leadership... The US has done what they set out to... Time to bring the boys back home... And rebalance the budget sheet.

Agreement or disagreement with the Bush tax cuts is fine, but you don't erase them/raise taxes with such high unemployment. Small businesses typically file as S-Corps and will be slaughtered by any increases. When many of them are barely skating by as is because of high unemployment rates then you will force layoffs or cloures; either way you increase the drain on the system.

As for solving the debt issues, you have to fundamentally reform entitlement spending. You can't get there by revenue alone unless you're willing to nearly double your tax levels over the next twenty years and that's evaluating it all in a static environment that does not assume your tax hikes have consequences.

If you want to push tax hikes then the only feasible way is a rewrite of the entire tax code that essentially removes all the deductions/writeoffs/etc that everyone uses. It's technically increasing folks taxes, but since it's understandable, across-the-board, and presumably won't be changed then you may get buyin from the business community who sorely want predictability in their tax levels.

Those of you saying layoff Medicare and Social Security, that's just funny. It's like saying keep spending $100k for every $40k you earn. Of course the debt will never come due.

Sure, except that if americans *want* a first-world social security net, then they *need* to be able to pay for it; you don't need to maximize the power of the state, but clearly you *do* need to maximize the revenue of the state until you've managed to dig yourselves out of this hole...






Actually I'm pretty sure Social Security is well funded and having no problems -- except that the federal government has stolen/borrowed the money to fund things like... wars... and everything else... the real question is whether ther US govt will ever repay its debt to the Social Security fund.



I'm pretty sure that was part of the original idea, but that got gutted by the republicans, so you have a laughable plan now; they took away one of the key cornerstones of the proposal, and now it makes no sense.



Yes, except I'd raise CGT more than slightly.



Military R&D is important; but running overseas wars is expensive...



Not a bad idea; though that won't actually save very much money.




Again, that wouldn't save much; not a bad idea I suppose; that said, there are all sorts of wackos out there, so it might be less embarrassing just to keep them under guard heh.



Foreign Aid is cheaper than wars; that's often why this is done...



Heh; I agree, though there's always people who will say this or that bill is or isn't frivolous. I think they should ban the phrase "think of the children" though



I think there should be a law that if ever a company is deemed too big to fail, then it should be nationalized or split up; because then it's not really a private firm anymore, it's essentially become part of the state apparatus.




A few things they really need to do though are...

- fix the citizens united ruling
- update election donations rules to be more like Canada (maximum $1100 donation from individuals, no corporate donations + $2 per-vote subsidy)


- fix the revolving door of washington - corporate CEO world -- perhaps make it so they can't work in a sector that was targetted by any of the bills they voted on

- make a congressman/senator tabling a bill WRITTEN BY a lobbyist a capital crime! Bills should be drafted in committee with no lobbyists present.

Qz, social security is not fine on funding at all. Read the Trust Report. Given life expectancies and a smaller population to follow Baby Boomers, it is in the red. But it does work against come late 2050s if I remember right.

As for Citizens v United--I have a serious reservation about media companies being able to run editorials, but corporations being unable to voice their opinions in a paid advertisement. I think that's patently unfair. I think you should have to disclose who pays for what, but I don't think anyone should be forbidden from using their funds accordingly.

we really shoulda just not gave the rich tax breaks.. who ever came up with that Idea was crazy... they rich don't need tax breaks... they are rich.. I do think we gotta cut somewhere... we can't just keep upping the Min Wage.. if the economy can't handle it then don't raise it... I'm a middle of the road person.. I hate both the Dems and the Republicans.. they both do the same damn thing... every time we switch the majority we say the same damn thing... well atleast we got rid of the "Party name" from majority.

We gotta elect some Idependents... like Ross Perot..

best governed governs least.... including taxes

don't buy the videos, don't buy the music, don't buy the games, and the rich wouldn't have any money to withhold from the government. you feed them simply because you want to be entertained, then complain that they ain't paying enough.

Qz, do we really need to talk about the Clinton era capital gains tax cut? The investment in this country only...quadrupled in 3 years.

See, the problem with liberals here is they talk about what they think should happen, but not what will happen.

"But I'd wager that it's above 50% and below 75% if I had to make an educated guess."

Um, we have already had an extensive conversation about what already happened once about 15 years ago. Why are we needing an educated guess?

"so it's not like they're using the money to create jobs -- they're just hoarding, so better to tax them; though again, capital gains tax would be the best way to start"

What happens when you tax people that have mobile assets? They move, simple as that. We lose their business and wealth. I would think that California with their internet tax would have been a good enough example for those in here, but I guess not. It gets me wondering when an example can ever come around that will be enough.

"Actually I'm pretty sure Social Security is well funded and having no problems"

What trumper said is exactly right, it is in the red. We have no money set aside and the costs continue to rise while intake continues to shrink. Heck Obama can't promise payments August 3rd if we don't borrow more money for it. Clearly the tax isn't covering the costs.

Stop thinking of step one in the economic process. Think of all the steps that occur. What happens when you raise taxes on the "rich"? Why will that happen? What are some unintended consequences that will occur? Why will they happen? How does that affect the entire situation?

Don't just think, we tax the rich and they will sit there and pay more taxes for all of us to enjoy. Reality will not allow that to happen and we only discourage businesses from keeping their money here. For example, do you know why businesses don't bring their profits made internationally back to the US? We are the only country in the world that money made internationally and taxed already by the country the money was made in, will be taxed AGAIN here. So businesses just keep their money abroad, thus we lose wealth here in the US.

The same logic goes for capital gains tax. Why invest if most of the profits are taken away? You take the risk, yet the government reaps the rewards?

I also want to know why social security or other programs are not voluntary. I don't want to rely on the government so I would rather not pay in and keep my money. If I don't save, that is my beef to live with. Why should I be FORCED into a system? A system that has been robbed by the politicians and will likely not exist when it comes time to reap the benefits.

Capital Gains tax...

http://www.youtube.com/...p;feature=player_embedded

This is what liberals are about. Fairness, not prosperity. Hence the last time we had this conversation I brought up that you cannot have equality and prosperity. One or the other.

The clinton tax cuts happened *during an explosive expansion in the technology sector* -- I highly doubt any changes to the CGT affected what was going on then

As for mobile assets; that was my whole point I think, you tax things that aren't mobile; hence property + CGT

And, that's not true at all; 1) that's not what liberals are about; 2) prosperity does not have to MEAN *forced disparity*; there's a difference between fairness and a system designed to reduce equality


"Heck Obama can't promise payments August 3rd if we don't borrow more money for it. Clearly the tax isn't covering the costs."

Technically, the fed borrowed a fluff ton of money from social security; so social security relies on the US paying its debts; because the fed *IS IN DEBT TO* the social security fund. social security is well funded through 2025, and then again after, and there's only a few years where it may fall short, and some policies will have to be adjusted to deal with the baby boomers...


"Don't just think, we tax the rich and they will sit there and pay more taxes for all of us to enjoy. Reality will not allow that to happen and we only discourage businesses from keeping their money here."

Money moving isn't really the issue - at least not cash; if they're trading US stocks, they'll get hit with the CGT; likewise property can't be moved. Technically US non-residents can use an offshore account to trade stocks and the US allows them to be exempt from capital gains, but it wouldn't be difficult to remove the flat exemption and make it dependant upon country of residence (to prevent tax-havens for example)



Also, this lack-of-investment crap is crap... INVESTMENT is about putting money into something -- not putting it in and taking it out 1 second (or even a month or two) later. *REAL* investment is putting in money and holding; DIVIDENDS that you get are *not* taxed via capital gains.


A high capital gains tax should encourage long-term investment and encourage earning via dividends rather than via high-speed-trading, or even quarterly trading. In fact, it might actually help America in a *larger* way, as it might help curtail the quarterly thinking that has evolved over the last 30 years.



None of the profits are taken away if you invest long-term. Because you put your money in and leave it there, and reap the dividends.

"As for mobile assets; that was my whole point I think, you tax things that aren't mobile; hence property + CGT"

It has been shown that people will not invest as much with a higher capital gains tax. If you watched that video, it also happened under Bush while there was NOT an explosion in the economy. Watch it and listen to Obama's answer to the question. Your theories are all well and good, but they aren't what actually happens and thus void. Reality has shown what happens and lower capital gains tax rates increase investment and revenue. It really is as simple as that.

Watch the video and you see Obama say that even though raising the capital gains tax will lower revenue(thus by logic investment falling under capital gains) he doesn't care...it's about fairness. To create equality(rather than let the market decide) you bring down the best, just as you are with your taxing of the prosperous investors. Bring down the best and they will leave. Like electricity finding the path of least resistance, humans will find another country to park their wealth.

"Technically, the fed borrowed a fluff ton of money from social security; so social security relies on the US paying its debts; because the fed *IS IN DEBT TO* the social security fund. social security is well funded through 2025, and then again after, and there's only a few years where it may fall short, and some policies will have to be adjusted to deal with the baby boomers..."

Technically, sure...but where is that money? Where is it? It doesn't exist, it is gone, spent...so does it really matter that it is owed to them? Social security is running red and our government cannot pay it back because it is borrowing above and beyond that just to make ends meet. It's like saying that I've borrowed my aunt, who is on welfare, 3 million dollars over the last 15 years and I expected to get it back. Now I'm starting to run low on cash and am calling in my debts, will I get that money? I said the difference between liberals was that you just went on what you thought would happen, vs reality and this just shows that point. The Treasury could owe 100 trillion to social security, but they aren't getting that money. With SS in the red and costing an ever increasing amount, how are we going to pay for it? That is the question that has no answer.

"if they're trading US stocks"

They won't be! That is the point we have been discussing this entire time. They will not invest in US stocks. Why would they? Better to not risk their money at all than risk it and not get the reward.

"but it wouldn't be difficult to remove the flat exemption and make it dependant upon country of residence (to prevent tax-havens for example)"

Yea, and then they just change their country of residence. Common sense Qz, they will leave because it will be cheaper. It goes back to proof of when Clinton and Bush lowered the capital gains tax rate. Discourage investment and less investment will occur.

"INVESTMENT is about putting money into something"

Investment is about making money, however it happens. Want less investment for capital gains? Raise the tax rate on it. Sure we can have dividends investment as well, I'm all for it, but why do you want to lower capital gains investment in the process?

You seem to think that it is a zero sum game. As if because money is here it cannot be there, or if one person has money another cannot. Wealth is created, not circulated.

Lets talk about something that's more exciting that taxes. Like what's going to happen when the US gov't collapses.

The US screwed themselves by spending more money then it has. The US tried too do too much when it couldn't afford too. Simple as that.

US tries to be number one, and soon the US is going to go into another great depression which will effect the entire world.

Good job US gov't. Your investments really paid off when you needed the cash.

Owait...

I can imagine the Canadian borders will close off, with all of the Canadian forces focused on keeping US immigrants out.

actually I don't :-D though I'm shooting myself in the foot for going with Comcrapst.... I shop at small store chains, and the like, I go half and half with products.. name brand, and store brand.

Rich are more privileged and there for should be taxed less. YAY!

Is this sarcasm?

First off, the depression started in 1929, not 1921. Secondly, the US (and most other world governments) are currently thought to have reacted poorly to the crash in almost every way possible. Delaying the recovery and deepening the unemployment.

What was it that actually got the world out of the depression? War production.

Umm Social Security is far from well funded. It is a highly mismanaged and overly complex orgy of money. Why do you think they keep raising the retirement age? It can't manage and yes it has been like a piggy bank for different causes, so what's truly in it and what's suppose to be in it are different things.

Capital Gains is too low a slight raise wont effect investment at all. Raising taxes on the rich wont drive them from the country. The US is one of the few countries stable and uncorrupted enough that their money is somewhat safe. Let's see them take their vast fortunes to the EU... I hear Euros are stable currency.

well what was said in the video was actually an incorrect statement if you look at the federal Revenue year to year the bush tax cuts caused a drop in federal revenue and it wasn't untill the end of 2005 before federal revenue returned to the 2000 level. but hey this is politics so lets not use the facts the politicians like to ignore them anyways.

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/yearrev2000_0.html#usgs302

h4: I think he was talking about the post-WWI recession, which was mainly because the US cut their army from millions to only a few hundred thousand, while the fed jacked up interest rates :p

this, obviously, led to the bidding down of labour prices in the US (according to Wikipedia, the US labour force expanded by 4.1% in 1920) and with the US government not spending millions on the war while heavily promoting investment, the economy obviously slowed. But that was just a frictional recession, which is why it was so short. What we have now are structural problems in so many areas (political and economic) that the US is basically fluffed :p

I'm sure they'll avert defaulting in the end, but it doesn't even begin to resolve the fundamental problems that the US has faced for years. I don't really need to touch on it too because qz did such a good job of articulating all those points :p

What pang said to the recession. I wasn't referring to the 1929 crash. Though I believe he fails to see that the lowering of taxes by something like half and spending by the same caused the boom after the recession.


Oceana, you do realize the video is talking about Capital Gains Tax rate right? Or did you conveniently miss that point?

Symac, it won't just be that they will take their money to China or India, but they simply won't invest at all. Like I said, wealth isn't just circulated, it is created. A fact that pretty much all liberals cannot understand.

So what CGT would maximize tax revenues? 0%? that, by definition, makes no sense.

Also, I'd have to point out that
a) most politicians don't really understand the CGT
b) it's hard to discuss the CGT and its effects on revenues when you compare it in different economic times. Anybody who suggests that the tech boom occurred due to a lowering of the CGT is hopelessly misinformed -- that occurred due to a convergence of technological innovations in the mid 90's, culminating in the www; they could have done anything to the CGT and revenues would have increased.

I've actually seen that before, I'm pretty sure i watched that live actually. The Republicans hopelessly tow this "NO TAXES WILL SOMEHOW BRING IN MORE REVENUE" line, or even just "NO TAXES", but they don't make sense; yes you can't expect people to invest at 100% CGT; but likewise the govt makes nothing at 0% CGT. It *IS* an optimization problem, and given the investment we had in the 20's and 50's and 60's, I don't see how anybody can say that 15% is stifling them, when they had 90% and were still investing back in the day...