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.
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.
This is ridiculous. Why would I want to take the risk and time and effort to invest or improve anything if my upside was limited to 10%? I suggest a different approach to capital gains whereas assets held less than 5 years are taxed at an ordinary income rate, 4 years at 80% of OI, 3 Years at 60% of OI, 2 Years at 40% of OI, and 1 year and less at 20% of OI. This approach would encourage long-term investment especially in equities.
You're right, I didn't even realize it was him when I replied.
Prepare for OP spending days relentlessly pressing refresh on his screen to respond to this thread in some bizarre war of attrition where he ignores anything that sinks his argument while spending most of his time claiming to have logically mastered all that arrive despite the prevailing opinion being strongly in the other direction.
This is a right wing site, and people and naturally inclined to support corporate power and private investments.
But the question as to why growth in wealth is good is never asked. Right now we have a system where oif you are not making money, you are punished.
This is ridiculous. Why would I want to take the risk and time and effort to invest or improve anything if my upside was limited to 10%? I suggest a different approach to capital gains whereas assets held less than 5 years are taxed at an ordinary income rate, 4 years at 80% of OI, 3 Years at 60% of OI, 2 Years at 40% of OI, and 1 year and less at 20% of OI. This approach would encourage long-term investment especially in equities.
I don't want long term investment.
The goal is to lower all long and short term investments as not to inflate value and corporate wealth.
If society does not need to make money to survive, people would not be slaves to those with the greatest economic power.
Is life better when investments are growing the economy, or when people look after one another.
I don't invest in the stock market and neither should you, it puts economic well being in danger and makes you a slave to the value of the corporate sector and leads you to support destructive public policy to save the wealth you have locked up in the market.
If taxes were raised to 90% 401ks and other investment tools would become less attractive and production/economic activity will become less inflated by capital investment and greed.
this is likely the worst advice posted here in a while !!!!! not even worth replying any further too . this discussion is a waste of time
The goal is to lower all long and short term investments as not to inflate value and corporate wealth.
If society does not need to make money to survive, people would not be slaves to those with the greatest economic power.
Is life better when investments are growing the economy, or when people look after one another.
Without investment we are unable to maintain what exists. Investment is needed in clean energy, improved infrastructure in things like water, sewage and treatment. Mass transit projects require investors as well as improvements to utilities. If we just stagnate and fail to invest we will quickly create our own demise. It is not an "either/or" argument. There is a middle ground. Corporations should not be given free rein but anti-corporations is not the answer. I see that you live in Manchester, NH. Dean Kamen has made remarkable contributions to not only the Manchester area but globally as well in addition to the contributions he has made to education as the founder of FIRST. There are many positive examples of business and corporate contributions throughout the world.
The real issue is the step up in basis at inheritance. This is a huge element of tax avoidance by the wealthy, essentially allows them to pass wealth from generation to generation without paying taxes.
Another is deduction of "business expenses" - such as private planes, cars, meals, etc. Allows them to claim living expenses as business expenses.
It's fine to have your own opinion. I happen to disagree with it but that is neither here nor there.
You have not finished your thought though. Assume that the tax is raised to 90%. What are the downstream effects and how, exactly, does this benefit the greater society?
People have money, they are going to do something with it, so what do they do?
This would just lead to divestment in America stalling any progress comparatively to other nations. The brain drain will be real, as why invent or research here if you will not profit from your work.
For the good of society? Maybe sometime in the future that would be enough. But that would take time and it would have to be a combined effort of many nations to get to that point.
At this point we would just be putting America at a disadvantage.
It's fine to have your own opinion. I happen to disagree with it but that is neither here nor there.
You have not finished your thought though. Assume that the tax is raised to 90%. What are the downstream effects and how, exactly, does this benefit the greater society?
People have money, they are going to do something with it, so what do they do?
Corporate for profit investment does not have the best interests of the public in mind and in excess can hurt society.
But there are other forms of investment besides in the public and corporate sector. Community investment by credit union banks and electric cooperatives invest not for profit, but relative to the needs of the community, which the community controls.
Instead of investing in corporate wealth and widening the gap or trying to raise property value, people will spend there money in terms of self-sustaining living, not some artificial stored value in stocks or commodities.
any bets we have a non investor here ..... nothing is ever suggested that effects the person with the bad idea . it always effects others .
A 45 percenter for sure.
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.
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.
