U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old Yesterday, 02:45 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
7,687 posts, read 2,064,138 times
Reputation: 2254

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD View Post
I'd be fine with raising the capital gains rate some as long as the cost basis is indexed to inflation. If I own something for 25 years, the cost basis should be multiplied by 1.762 (using the BLS inflation calculator) to account for 25 years of inflation. You can't increase the rate too much or nobody would ever risk their money investing since the reward would all be taxed into oblivion. As a matter of public policy, I think you'd want to make the rate variable depending on the class of investment. You tax things lower that produce economic growth. Buying 1,000 shares of an S&P 500 index fund on the open market isn't helping anything grow. Investing the same amount of money as private equity in a fledgling company that needs the capital to grow is a heck of a lot more risk and benefits the economy far more.
As for high risk investments, thatís difficult to hold down. A start up could be high risk, but that is different from a fledgling family company.

The problem is if the investment is successful, that company will become just like other corporate institutions that value profit over the workers or traditional values/community benefits of said business.

Using cooperative investment (which is not motivated by financial profit) in a community atmosphere is a better way to sustain local businesses without having them become a corporate entity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 03:00 PM
 
12,160 posts, read 6,318,521 times
Reputation: 22340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
As for high risk investments, thatís difficult to hold down. A start up could be high risk, but that is different from a fledgling family company.

Actually, it's not different at all. I'm a career metro Boston tech startup guy. I've been part of founding teams for companies that eventually employed hundreds. Plenty of people have family businesses that create a ton of jobs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
The problem is if the investment is successful, that company will become just like other corporate institutions that value profit over the workers or traditional values/community benefits of said business.

Right. And once it's publicly traded, you tax gains differently than when it's small, private, and PE/VC funded.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Using cooperative investment (which is not motivated by financial profit) in a community atmosphere is a better way to sustain local businesses without having them become a corporate entity.

Investment is always motivated by financial profit.



The purpose of establishing a corporation is to limit the liability of the owners of the corporation. If I'm GeoffD doing business as XYZZY Company and someone sues XYZZY Company, I'm the one getting sued and every asset I have is at risk. My house. My savings. I can get 100% wiped out. If I incorporate XYZZY Company and I own 100% of the stock, the only thing at risk is my equity in XYZZY Company. You'd never get anyone to invest a dime in any business venture if they were liable in a lawsuit. The only business I can think of that operates like that is Lloyds of London. If they have a gigantic loss, the investors have to cough up more money. It doesn't happen very often but it's happened.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:14 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
7,687 posts, read 2,064,138 times
Reputation: 2254
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD View Post
Actually, it's not different at all. I'm a career metro Boston tech startup guy. I've been part of founding teams for companies that eventually employed hundreds. Plenty of people have family businesses that create a ton of jobs.





Right. And once it's publicly traded, you tax gains differently than when it's small, private, and PE/VC funded.





Investment is always motivated by financial profit.



The purpose of establishing a corporation is to limit the liability of the owners of the corporation. If I'm GeoffD doing business as XYZZY Company and someone sues XYZZY Company, I'm the one getting sued and every asset I have is at risk. My house. My savings. I can get 100% wiped out. If I incorporate XYZZY Company and I own 100% of the stock, the only thing at risk is my equity in XYZZY Company. You'd never get anyone to invest a dime in any business venture if they were liable in a lawsuit. The only business I can think of that operates like that is Lloyds of London. If they have a gigantic loss, the investors have to cough up more money. It doesn't happen very often but it's happened.
1. I was speaking more from a sense of where they are in the industry.

A start-up usually want to grow and become a corporate body one day. A family owned business that has been open for decades may not want to grow and prefers to provide for their community and hire locally.

The latter may accept investment to stay open financially, but lose its purpose and character in exchange.

Cooperative investment is different and does not have the same liability threat. The workers and community owns the production center and democratically decide investment by local needs (demand).

It’s like a public venture that is not affiliated with any government (local or otherwise) authority.

Edit: and if you lower CGT for these small local businesses investments will come (as there is more of a motive when larger companies have a higher tax on profits) to them, and once they grow to the point where the CGT rises on their investments, it will be too late to turn back to a none corporate entity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:05 PM
 
466 posts, read 215,839 times
Reputation: 549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Before the state era. Look at Neolithic tribes, Neanderthals, even native tribes.

They could not own capital that was not immediately stored by themselves so power could never be centralized by ownership.

In such a case the needs of society were met by sharing labor and resources and sharing the end distribution.
You might want to work a bit more on your sales pitch. I donít think too many people would sign up to living like a Neanderthal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:10 PM
 
Location: New York
752 posts, read 562,512 times
Reputation: 1325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Libertarians, as you know them, tend to misunderstand the existence of freedom.

Freedom exists in the absence of power,But you want more Govt control/power??? since you can't eliminate power, you have to restrict ownership to what people can naturally consume/store.

That would force people to work together for larger projects and not pursue more control or wealth. The market system of consumerism makes us less free and less happy. So , dont take part in consumerism? Thats a choice that we have as Americans

.
So what im hearing you say, is that not as smart or handy people, or people who just want to free load should get the same benefits or money as those who are smarter, work harder? Sort of like reward the grasshopper and punish the ants?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:13 PM
 
Location: New York
752 posts, read 562,512 times
Reputation: 1325
Quote:
Originally Posted by CentralUSHomeowner View Post
(I didn't bother to read all the posts responding to your original thought)


What do you invest in? Do you have savings and what do you do with it? Are you debt free? Do you receive any weekly or monthly benefits from the government? Do you work or are you retired?

Just trying to ascertain your profile and where you might be coming from.
There is no way this person "invests" in anything but blaming others for having more. "Wah, I chose not to try harder/work harder/ (fill in the blank) and now I feel those who have succeeded should pay my way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:17 PM
 
Location: Haiku
3,229 posts, read 2,258,232 times
Reputation: 4889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
It is only a tax on profits (so not total sale value).

It is a tax on profits AND on inflation! It is crazy that you can buy a house, for instance, which does not increase in real value (i.e., its value only goes up with inflation), but when you sell it you have to pay for that inflation!

So, the inflation part should be 0% tax.

Now, about the other part - I put MY money up, so I am taking risk. I am rewarded for that risk with a profit. I think I should pay some tax on that, but 90% is absurd, you would strangle our economy. I think current 15% for low amounts is fair.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:22 PM
 
17,066 posts, read 18,290,727 times
Reputation: 24678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
It is only a tax on profits (so not total sale value).

I'm not supporting it from a tax revenue stand point, I don't care about that, but it would lower economic activity in the corporate sector and dissuade people from investing (and inflating) the stock market.

The materialistic profit motive that has driven our economy has built an authoritarian state where money buys you freedom, and the more money you have, the more freedom you have as well.

To create a freer society it must be more egalitarian and not based on increasing economic activity.

Also in the long run it will lower government revenues and slow imperialistic ambitions abroad.

Furthermore people will be happier not trying to become millionaires and building a life rather than making a living.
Why can’t I do both? Or all three? I mean imagine being able to make a living, building a life and making money. I’m putting my money up and taking a risk I want the reward.

Christ I’m glad you’re not running the country.

Feel free to move to oh....Cuba, any of the Africa countries, South America, if you don’t like what we do here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:25 PM
 
8,415 posts, read 4,025,824 times
Reputation: 11033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Corporations will have weaker economic influence over the economy, and provide more freedom for the non-executive class.

There wouldn't be much of an economy to influence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:45 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
7,687 posts, read 2,064,138 times
Reputation: 2254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim1921 View Post
You might want to work a bit more on your sales pitch. I donít think too many people would sign up to living like a Neanderthal.
Read the previous posts, it's related to that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top