Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by Seattle, Aug 8, 2019.
How was your weekend?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
god i wish reality was like your ignorant bubble but its not. you know before you say something as ignorant as that last sentence perhaps look at the stats of stock ownership.
next time you want to have a woe is me and wonder why people think you are a rightwing asshole this is why. you are not morally superior for getting paid enough to buy stocks, you are just lucky. you are literally to ignorant to have a real conversation with because you are completely out of touch with how the economy functions for the vast majority of people.
? If someone has a lot of wealth, they belong in the category "wealthy".
It's not so much what they put into a mutual fund, or other capital venture, that makes people rich - it's what they get back out. And that's what is taxed.
It sorta is. You can't have $5 million in a 401k and not be considered rich. Even if you never touch it.
Ownership doesn't require physical contact. What you own, you control. And If you've put $5mil in a retirement fund, you were probably taking quite a nice paycheck home, so, unless you've been living way above your means or giving it away to charity, you're probably rich, even without the 401K. And, of course, if you never touch it, you're either too rich to need it, or dead, and your kids are rich.
"Touch" in this case means "use" - as you well know.
Yes. Which part of my observation does that invalidate?
And if they don't but own stocks why should they be taxed more?
They should not be - nor are they.
Not at the moment.
It's only "at the moment" situations that can be discussed with any degree of contact with reality.
The ownership of stocks is unlikely to become taxable at any future moment, since it doesn't generate new revenue. Returns, dividends, interest or profit on the stocks is going to be - the owner hopes - income, beyond and above whatever income that person receives for labour, consultation or property rentals. When such income comes in, it will be taxed.
Army godda blow expensive ship up; president godda fly around in luxury jet; senators got campaign promises to pay off.
How much is the question or rather how much change from the current status. The concept that it needs to be the same as wages is silly. It's not wages. Property taxes are the same as wages nor are corporate taxes.
Ultimately it's whatever the government says it is but incremental change in tax laws is always preferable. Otherwise you just get side effects that aren't generally good policy.
That's a question. I don't know the answer. Do you?
Wages, salaries, remuneration, consideration, profit, dividend, capital gains. The words change with $$ amounts and status and method of collection, don't they? No two are the same.Yet they're all the same: money coming in.
Why? What about various forms of income requires different levels of taxation?
Analysis? Rationale? Or just hand-me-down wisdom?
Unlike certain members, I'm not going to footnote every post. It's basic economics for one. Must we argue every point, always?
If you suddenly double the capital gains tax above $1 million (for example) people adapt and the ways are not always so efficient or good for the economy.
Raise capital gains taxes on farmers selling land by a few percentage points and they will sell anyway. Double them and they will just take out equity in the form of loans and will not sell, therefore there will be no capital gains taxes paid.
Or they will sell $500k in land one year and $500k in land the following year, avoiding the doubled tax rate. Or they will not make the same kind of capital purchases for fear that the tax rates won't be stable and therefore they can't plan and run a business that way.
The public is sold these ideas by saying it won't apply to you. Do you make $1million a year, no?, then don't worry about it. However if you invest and sell all your investments at retirement age now you may have that coming in for once in your life and now you will be paying 40% in taxes (instead of 20%) and you will still have state capital gains on top of that plus whatever other land transfer taxes, commissions, etc.
The end result is to make it so that it's not economically feasible to invest and take care of yourself. You might as well just do nothing and let the government take care of yourself.
This isn't good public policy except on Sciforums where the prevailing argument is that everyone is poor, can't save or invest and therefore we need to tax those who did invest which is similar to arguing that it makes sense to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. All that happens is that the goose is killed and everyone is worse off.
The reason that many people can live with this sort off (flawed) thinking is that you figure the higher taxes will never apply to you. Selling your house could make it apply if you live in a big enough city but maybe they will have an exemption for your house so then it's OK, right? Why is an exemption for you OK but not for people with different situations? It's not.
Regarding rates and sources of taxable funds. You can argue for a flat rate across the board for property taxes, sales taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate taxes. Good luck. That's not going to happen nor should it really. Simple doesn't mean that's it's the best way to do things. Sometimes it is but in life most things are more complex than that.
Historically, that hasn't turned out so well.
Historically, what has?
Taking care of yourself.
Separate names with a comma.