Wayne Huizenga wants to sell Dolphins
 

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/f...,1382404.story

Dolphins owner H. Wayne Huizenga said Sunday no date has been set for selling up to 45 percent more of the team to Stephen Ross, but the presidential election is among the issues weighing on his decision.

That's because a Barack Obama administration is expected to mean higher capital-gains taxes.

"He wants to double the capital gains tax, or almost double it," Huizenga said. "I'd rather give it to charity than to him."

Ross purchased 50 percent of the team and Dolphin Stadium for $550 million earlier this year with the intention he would eventually become majority owner. NFL owners approved the eventual transfer this month, meaning it can take place anytime.

"If you do it this year or you do it next year, the difference is humongous because of the taxes," Huizenga said.

But the Obama campaign disputed Huizenga's figures on Monday, saying the candidate's plans are to raise the capital gains tax maximum from 15 percent to 20 percent – a 33 percent increase, not double. And the top rate would be for families earning more than $250,000 or individuals earning more than $200,000.

"Mr. Huizenga is wrong about Senator Obama's tax plan, which calls for a maximum capital-gains rate of 20 percent -- a third lower than the rate that President Reagan set in 1986," said Bobby Gravitz, Obama campaign South Florida spokesman. "Furthermore, Senator Obama's tax cut for 95 percent of working families will mean a whole lot of Dolfans will be better able to afford those ever-rising ticket prices."

Regardless of when he sells, Huizenga vows to maintain a 5-percent stake in the team.

"It's been 19 years and after 19 years, it's kind of time," he said. "I don't want to be one of those owners who gets real old and hangs in there, we know some of those stories already, I don't want to be one of those guys."

you listening Al?

STFU N00b!!!!!!! May he live to 160 and run that teams operations every. single. day.

ooops sorry. forget that Al!!! what are we worried about? he will forget it before he's done reading it

LMAO He hasn't been able to read in over 20 years.

capital gains tax is meaningless and it shouldn't sway voters just because of that. Here's a trivial question...

every time there was a recession what party was president? It seems like Republicans hurt the economy the worst. Don't get me wrong about the cap tax because I'm all for lower taxes because hey paying less sounds better. I think that if the taxes go up so will capital and it will balance out in the end. I just don't think Republicans will solve the economy with the same old tactics anymore. The Dems have a better understanding of it. Still a long ways to go. OH BTW I'm a registered Republican. lol

I wonder if he would take a check.

I've got 5 bucks. Who else is in? We can buy the 'Phins, meld their best players into the Chiefs organization and then just dump the scrubs that are left as well as the team. As long as I personally am only out $5 it sounds like a good deal.

amazing, this and alot of other business owners understand the implications of Obo

Jesus - how f'n stupid are you?

Have you ever bought a stock? I guess not..

Let me give you an example you may understand - but probably won't.

You buy 100 shares of "WMT" Wal-Mart at $45/share. You sell the stock 3 years later when its at $80/share. You've made $3500 because you A.) did your homework on a good company and invested in it B.) took a risk with your hard earned money C.) Considered the market timing and thought it was a good investment.

So you made $3500. Then tax time comes. Instead of paying your current 15% share of capital gains tax ($525), you will pay the new Obama tax of 29% ($1015).

Why? Because you took your hard earned money - risked it - and are a capitalist. Obama would like you to pay twice that amount.

So when Wayne says he needs to sell - extrapolate that out to his 100's of millions for the Dolphins. Why would he want to give that to Obama to spend on his "programs"?

Because it does not go to the president and by definition those are "our" programs.

I understand what you mean but the wording in your post as well as the quote from Wayne irritates me.

The article says max of 20%. Which is it. If it is 29% where is your source?

I think he's referring to Ralph (Wilson). :doh!:

I'm in maybe we could move the team to Olathe or something

This is a completely new market. I have 6 figures in the market and I only get taxed if I sell. I bought Intel stock when it was 3.50 a share for 100 shares. I have 2,800+ shares of Intel now after so many splits. GE has also made me a butt load of money. I have around 3,100 shares after it split bought it around $4.80 for 100 shares. I'm sure you can do the math.

Here's how I look at it. If rent goes up you gotta make more money. Everyones rent will go up so everyone will create more volume to make more money to pay higher taxes. The only thing is the new recession is making capitalists save instead of spend now which brings everything down. Higher tax will save us now that we're in save mode.

Soon as Wilson is gone, the Bills are gone.

It's widely known that he wants to take the rate back to 29% (clinton era). Once he got the nomination he is trying to push this 20% rate - although all investment professionals know that he is going to push it to 29%. (see Wayne H. and every other person on Wall St.) Here is an article about it dated 9/19/07. Notice how this fits his election cycle and now the 20% number is being floated. 20% will never happen. He is going to 29% and beyond.



http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-...ent-taxes.html
Money & Business


Article Index | Subscribe Home > Money & Business > Capital Commerce > Obama Pushes for Higher Investment Taxes
« 'Helicopter Ben' Touches Down
Brighter Jobs Picture Lessens Recession Risk »

Blog Entry Comments (55) Obama Pushes for Higher Investment Taxes
September 19, 2007 03:02 PM ET | James Pethokoukis | Permanent Link | Print
As part of his "Tax Fairness for the Middle Class" plan, Barack Obama is in favor of nearly doubling the capital-gains tax rate from 15 percent to 28 percent. Leaving the fairness issue aside for a moment—as well as the impact of higher taxes on economic growth—the Obama plan could also be called a "Ways in Which Government Can Collect More Taxes to Pay for New Spending" plan, since Democratic candidates are all scrambling to figure out ways to plausibly pay for new healthcare, education, and infrastructure spending if elected.

But Dan Clifton over at Strategas Research thinks the Dems may be disappointed by the ROT—return on taxes—from higher cap-gains rates. After reviewing the connections between changing cap-gains rates and government revenue during the past five decades, he concludes that higher cap gains could well be a revenue loser for Uncle Sam.

We examined the impact of capital-gains tax rates on investors realizing their gains. As the tax rate increases, investors hold their gains to avoid paying the higher tax. Conversely, lowering the capital-gains tax rate spurs realizations. Interestingly, the 1986 Tax Reform Act increased the capital-gains tax rate from 20 to 28 percent, but investors were given roughly three months before the tax increase was enacted into law. In turn, investors rushed to realize their gains before the higher tax rate kicked in, and capital-gains realizations remained depressed for nearly a decade thereafter with the higher tax rate in place.... Therefore, proposals to raise tax revenue from capital-gains tax increases will be scored as a net revenue gain to pay for new spending, but in reality, the tax revenue may not materialize, which will force tax increases elsewhere to pay for spending.

:cuss:

excuse me. 28%

Listen to this shit. This is one scary mf'er. Take your money and then gov't revenues decline.

You think the market crashing 4 weeks before an election is a coincidence?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WpSDBu35K-8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WpSDBu35K-8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

:cuss: sonofa..........:mad:

Hey I think it's royally ****ed up too. Bills fans are a passionate bunch and I wouldn't wish any fan base (Oakland excepted) to lose their franchise.

If it wasn't so painful I would think your pic was funny. :(

ROFL

Gee that's funny...the Clinton era was the best period of prosperity in my lifetime (born: 1969). Dumb****.

yep. I made majority of my money during that era, too. Even though I hated Clinton. lol

:mad:

What did the Bills logo used to look like?

Hey! you know you're my girl! ;) :evil:

Didn't have the Canadian maple leaf, IIRC...

You guys are killing me!!! :crybaby:

Umm...Dumbasses are those that don't understand economic cycles and what the effects of gov't intervention are. Look back at the economy in 2000 - how much did you make then? Clinton handed Bush a "tech bubble recession". Or did you just happen to forget that like most liberal morons.

And - why do you think investments have gone south in the last year? The housing market has crashed and has killed all of the banks that made risky mortgages and the associated credit default swaps. You probably don't hear that or want to hear that, but that is what is happening. Not Bushies - although that is the easy route for the stupid to blame.

If you have the intellectual wherewithal - watch this and LISTEN. You will understand why the mortgage market is what it is and why your "Clinton years" did better. Thanks Barney, Nancy, Harry, and Osama.. If you watch this and conclude this was a Republican problem then you are nothing but a Democratic hack.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_MGT_cSi7Rs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_MGT_cSi7Rs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

You know what? I could ****ing care less who's to blame now or who was the catalyst behind the '90's prosperity. All I know is there was a Democrat as President then, and a Republican for the last 8 shitty years. Guess who I'm voting for this year?

I get it. Dumbasses rule the world.

"I don't want to hear facts - I wanna cry and blame Bushie!"

I'm not blaming Duhbya. The facts are Clinton was in office when the country was running smoothly, and both Bushes were in office when we've been in a constant state of war and economic failure.

Plug your ears and scream when facts hit you Shane. You can't fix stupid and unfortunately you seem to fit in that class.

Do you think we have kings/queens in the US? Is congress not involved? Are there economic cycles or should the world markets just go up endlessly? You can't be this stupid - can you?

You're the one plugging your ears to the facts.

'90's - Clinton - peace & prosperity

'00's - Bush - war & economic catastrophe

And the biggest national issue during the Clinton administration was whether he got a BJ from an intern.

when the economy turned around after each depression/recession in the past who was in office? Who was there before/during the recessions turned around and who was in when it recessed? This is not about Bush. Its about the philosophy of the party when in office during a economic recession.

edit:
I'm also all for tax money from capital gains going into schools/education. Up here in Montana the state can't get enough funding and keep shutting down more schools..pretty sad.

Warren Buffet

GAME OVER

Congress has been controlled by whom 6 out of the last 8 years? STAY DOWN BITCH!

ROFL

bump for the first post made on this.

...

Let's buy them and move them to Olathe!

Its the easyiest thing for people to do and it takes no critical thinking.

Why is that so funny? I'd think the richest American would have a pretty good idea about budgets, the economy and taxation.