If Saint Ronald Reagan was still around, he might say to Bill O’Reilly, “There you go again.” Because, frankly, O’Reilly is beginning to sound like a broken record with his threats to stop investing.
This time, O’Reilly was griping about Hillary Clinton’s proposal to raise taxes on stock profits from stocks not held over a long term. O’Reilly complained, “Apparently, she wants to raise taxes on affluent Americans who buy stocks.”
O’REILLY: That means about 40% of your profit, if you’re in the big zone, would go to the government unless you held for three years! You’d have to hold the stock for three years no matter what happens to it, if you have money made. That would change the game for me. I would not invest in stocks any longer if that were the law. It’s too risky, as we’re seeing this month with the stock market collapsing.
…I’m being quite serious. If Hillary Clinton’s elected and the cap gains go up to 40% on stocks and you have to hold ‘em for two years, I’m out. 100% out. …Because the risk/reward isn’t worth it. …I’m not paying 40% of my profits to the feds when the down side is, I could be wiped out. That’s insane.
Wiped out? First of all, you can always be “wiped out” by stocks. But more importantly, the only way O’Reilly would be “wiped out” under a 40% plan is if he holds a stock not worth holding, just to avoid the tax.
If this sounds familiar, it’s because this is at least the third time O’Reilly has made this threat. He threatened in 2011 and 2012, too. And does anybody believe O’Reilly would actually carry this out? What’s he going to do, put his money in a savings account which currently pays .01% interest? A CD, at well under 2%? Or is he going to invest in real estate or gold? That seems rather risky.
But here’s a news flash for O’Reilly. I highly doubt the economy is going to tank or even notice if you yank your millions or even billions out. I’m willing to bet that nobody other than O’Reilly, his investment advisor and, perhaps, his heirs, care what he does with his dough.
While he was at it, O’Reilly used the moment to fear monger that the economy is teetering on the verge of collapse already.
O’REILLY: We’ve seen President Obama fail. The economy is not strong and the stock market decline in August is gonna make it worse. ‘Cause people are gonna get scared. They’re not gonna buy as much, housing’s gonna stop, car buying’s gonna stop. All of it’s gonna dovetail down and it’s good for the Republicans because the Democrats are just gonna look like idiots. But Mrs. Clinton is doubling down on this. …Insane.
It’s too bad liberal Juan Williams, who debated O’Reilly in this segment, didn’t ask how much profit he’s made since President Obama took office. If O’Reilly is half as good an investor as he boasted in this discussion, he’s made plenty.
Watch it below, from the August 24, The O’Reilly Factor, via Media Matters.
- Ted Nugent says he’ll be “dead or in prison” if President Obama wins reelection
- Sean Hannity made a promise to get waterboarded for charity more than SIX YEARS ago
And now, BillO.
Why do rightwingnut mouthpieces keep making promises/threats/predictions they have no intention of keeping/following through?
In other words, you hold onto a stock (or other investment) for a period of time and you sell it, you pay a tax on the difference between the amount of the stock’s value when bought and when sold. As an example, BillO buys 10 shares of LoofahsRUs stock for $1000 and he holds on to the stock for 8 months and it’s gone up to $2500 when he decides to sell off to take the profit. He’s made a profit of $1500 and he only held the stock for 8 months, so he’s subject to a “short-term” tax rate and the rate will also vary based on his regular tax bracket. If he’s in the top tax bracket of 39.6%, he’s going to be subject to a $594 tax but if he’s in the 28% tax bracket, he’ll only pay $420. (Now, if he’d held on to the stock for 13 months, he could have saved a lot on taxes. The top bracket would only be subject to a mere 20% so his tax would only be $300 for a savings of almost $300; in the 28% tax bracket, his capital gains rate would only be 15%, so he’d pay just $225 for a savings of nearly $200.)
ANY investment analyst worth his salt will tell investors to HOLD onto your stocks/investments for as long as possible. Not only do you maximize your investment in terms of getting the highest rate possible but you also pay a lower tax rate. (Of course, if your stock is tanking, the sooner you divest the better—but you can always write off a sizable chunk of the loss.) So, I’m pretty sure that the folks at the investment firms aren’t really concerned about Hillary’s plan—except for the “day traders” (the folks who buy stocks today and sell them off the next day—or even that same day—if the stocks have gone up in value and whose actions played a big part in that last major financial crisis of 2008). So unless Bill’s been doing a lot of quick buy and sell action, Hillary’s plan isn’t really likely to affect his bottom line much, if at all.
BOR, full of sound and fury signifying nothing (except that the folks had better vote Republican because Democrats scare him). Take your tired, old fear-mongering and go away already, BOR.