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.
I favor the opposite extreme. There should be no such thing as a capital gains tax. My income is already taxed. Once Uncle Sam has helped himself to my earnings, anything I do with the net should be off limits. If I choose to use some of that for investments, Uncle Sam shouldn’t be allowed to double dip: the income base has already been taxed.
It’ll never happen. Hopefully a profoundly idiotic 90% tax won’t either. Unfortunately I know which extreme is more likely.
Do you really think people should make money off of owning capital?
That means a person gains more economic power and freedom from producing no wealth; how is that sustainable?
I favor the opposite extreme. There should be no such thing as a capital gains tax. My income is already taxed. Once Uncle Sam has helped himself to my earnings, anything I do with the net should be off limits. If I choose to use some of that for investments, Uncle Sam shouldn’t be allowed to double dip: the income base has already been taxed.
It’ll never happen. Hopefully a profoundly idiotic 90% tax won’t either. Unfortunately I know which extreme is more likely.
Well, they are technically not double dipping, since gains tax is assessed on gains and not the amount you invested post tax.
But here is the catch. The government and or Fed purposefully keeps inflation at 2-3% and my investment needs to "gain" at least that amount to be even. Why should I pay gains tax on the whole amount of gain, and not just the amount over inflation? If they continue to tax the whole amount of gain, I should be allowed to claim tax break on the amount I lost to inflation as well. Not gonna happen either, I know, but I thought I should stake a claim here
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.
Just another of your very liberal views. I will trust my investment adviser to help me manage the few $$s I have. As for 90% it is nice to see some people have a sense of humor.
Well, they are technically not double dipping, since gains tax is assessed on gains and not the amount you invested post tax.
But here is the catch. The government and or Fed purposefully keeps inflation at 2-3% and my investment needs to "gain" at least that amount to be even. Why should I pay gains tax on the whole amount of gain, and not just the amount over inflation? If they continue to tax the whole amount of gain, I should be allowed to claim tax break on the amount I lost to inflation as well. Not gonna happen either, I know, but I thought I should stake a claim here
I understand what you’re explaining. I still maintain my position. Gains are derived by money that has already been run through uncle sams strainer. I should be able to enjoy the profit of my investment without further taxation. Income tax and all the other witholdings are enough. Government doesn’t need more than that. Hell, they don’t even need all of that!
But if a community owned its own capital through cooperative ownership, they would choose to invest it by the needs of the locality democratically;
And furthermore cost restrictions set by government and private ownershers would no longer be intrusive allowing families, churches, and other such institutions to provide care for the elderly.
I noticed you missed my question. I'll pose it again:
How would this work? Where would my checks in retirement come from? What is the mechanism that would be generating the revenue needed?
Do you really think people should make money off of owning capital?
That means a person gains more economic power and freedom from producing no wealth; how is that sustainable?
If you don't allow people to make money off of capital, they will not own capital after a few years or a generation. If that's your goal here, whom you think should own capital? I mean, you know, human civilization needs capital to make farm equipment, cars, new medicine, new computers.
What you were proposing originally is not new. Most throughout the human civilization, there was practically no growth. Do you really want to go back to stone age or to an early agrobased society with no modern medicine, transport system and smartphone/computer? I bet you don't have the skills to survive even one day in that condition - most left wing propaganda toting millennials can't survive either.
I understand what you’re explaining. I still maintain my position. Gains are derived by money that has already been run through uncle sams strainer. I should be able to enjoy the profit of my investment without further taxation. Income tax and all the other witholdings are enough. Government doesn’t need more than that. Hell, they don’t even need all of that!
Trying to understand your proposal here. Are you proposing that only employed people should pay taxes? What if my job is to manage my inherited money in the stock market and I live off of the capital gains?
Trying to understand your proposal here. Are you proposing that only employed people should pay taxes? What if my job is to manage my inherited money in the stock market and I live off of the capital gains?
It’s not a proposal, it’s an ideal I believe in. If I invest, since the money I’ve invested represents net income that has already been subject to taxation, anything I do with it or any gains resulting from it should not be subject to further taxation.
Last edited by iknowftbll; 01-14-2019 at 11:21 AM..
But if a community owned its own capital through cooperative ownership, they would choose to invest it by the needs of the locality democratically;
And furthermore cost restrictions set by government and private ownershers would no longer be intrusive allowing families, churches, and other such institutions to provide care for the elderly.
Quite frankly, I would never want to be dependent upon some church or institution to make decisions about my care, unless I had PAID them to do so. I am relying on my investments to enable me to provide for my own retirement - one that I choose, where I make my OWN decisions thank you very much.
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.
