Capital Gains Tax should be raised to 90% (residence, small business, free-market)

[TaxPhd]

Originally Posted by Winterfall8324

Personal property is the land you live on, and the goods you store.

But that is besides the point, you have nothing to share. That tells me more than enough about you.

The tax law disagrees with you.

[TaxPhd]

Originally Posted by Winterfall8324

Buying property for speculation purposes or profit is separate from buying something for its function.

In both cases, the property is purchased. There is no difference.

That means demand is increased from the former when it should only be affected by the latter

It’s cute that you believe that you can dictate what affects demand.

[TaxPhd]

Originally Posted by Winterfall8324

You can not own what you do not utilize. If people want to make money, fine. But the property they use cannot be deemed legal by the concept of private property.

Of course you can. People do it all the time.

[Winterfall8324]

Originally Posted by TaxPhd

The tax law disagrees with you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property

[Winterfall8324]

Originally Posted by TaxPhd

Of course you can. People do it all the time.

Not for hundreds of years before industrial capitalism.

In fact if you were not a lord or some form of nobility, you only owned what you utilized and could personally store.

[Winterfall8324]

Originally Posted by TaxPhd

In both cases, the property is purchased. There is no difference.


It’s cute that you believe that you can dictate what affects demand.

Purchasing property is a show of demand.

If people could no longer profit from owning property like commodities, land, or stocks, the incentive for that demand would no longer exist.

In its place commerce and demand would be based on the function of the good, not its monetary value.

[TaxPhd]

Originally Posted by Winterfall8324

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property

From the very first sentence of your link:

Personal property is generally considered property that is movable,[1] as opposed to real property or real estate.

Did you even read what you linked?

[TaxPhd]

Originally Posted by Winterfall8324

Not for hundreds of years before industrial capitalism.

In fact if you were not a lord or some form of nobility, you only owned what you utilized and could personally store.

Times have changed a lot since the Middle Ages. It’s strange that you seem so desperate to return to those times . . .

[TaxPhd]

Originally Posted by Winterfall8324

Purchasing property is a show of demand.

If people could no longer profit from owning property like commodities, land, or stocks, the incentive for that demand would no longer exist.

In its place commerce and demand would be based on the function of the good, not its monetary value.

Econ 101. You need it. Desperately.

[AlaskaAma]

Originally Posted by Winterfall8324

No its not. Back then private property was personal property and the outcome of ones labor was stored personally.

Industrial capitalism has credit loans that extend ownership to property that is not utilized, while market value is sold to private investors as a system of coordinating capital for profit.

Okay. I'm pretty sure that sentence didn't mean anything.

There is nothing contrary to a free-market, voluntary system in exchanging a promise for future returns for a sum of money (or other goods) in the present.

So here's a question that you'll completely sidestep: Do you own anything you're not using *right now*? If you're on your computer, does that mean I can take your car since you're presumably not using them at the same time? If not, why?