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.
Under liberal utopia world, Joe cant run a fortune 500 company because there wont be any. They would simply leave, or run by government, and we would all "elect" people to run the failed businesses which are left.
Like something along the lines of Fannie and Freddie ?
50% is not the proper number. All earnings should be taxed at the same rate, it's ridiculous that wages earned by working are taxed at a higher rate than those not earned by working.
Capital gains is taxed at wages and profit AND THEN taxed as Capital Gains. Capital gains taxes are MORE, not less.
What is the evidence behind your theory? In fact, the evidence from the decades of data that we have from capital gains, there isn't any empirical evidence to show that your theory isn't just pulled from thin air. On the contrary, there is a vast pool of evidence to prove the opposite. When capital gains was 39.9%,
FYI, when capital gains were taxed at 39.9% the first 60% of capital gains were exempted from that tax. Maybe you didn't know this, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Quote:
there were plenty of investors willing to invest and the fact that they had to pay tax on their gains did not deter them. Short term capital gains used to be 60%
Are you sure you are not talking about the exclusion mentioned above? Maybe you're correct. Please tell me when ST capital gains were that high.
BTW. Short term capital gains are taxed at a higher percentage to discourage the practice of day trading and other risky behaviors that cause market volatility. Most investors avoid this. In fact people who do this type of trading are considered rogue investors.
Quote:
and it didn't stop speculators from investing in stock options, one of the riskiest investments.
Why would stock options be any different than any other stock? Do you know what a stock option even is?
Quote:
We have decades of evidence that disproves the right-wing Laffer theory that moderate taxation on labor or investments discourages people from working or investing. The idea that people with money to invest would not invest because they had to pay taxes on the gains (not principle) defies logic.
We are not talking about "moderate taxation". This statement is either off-topic or delusional.
Last edited by Mr. Joshua; 11-19-2011 at 09:51 AM..
i'd be happy if they just set capital gains rates = to rates on wages, and stopped trying to pretend folks with investment income are some kind of "magical job creators".
Let's say we are going to build a $37 million dollar facility.
That means that we will have to have made roughly $52 million'ish to do that.
At current rates, 15%, we would only need slightly above $43 million'ish.
You see how that would hamper growth?
You do expect us to get a ROI, right? You do understand building that facility (or property or whatever else) will employ lots of people and operating it will require lots of contractors, right?
Now a 0% capital gains tax rate would mean we would only need dollar for dollar to continue our growth and continue to build more and more facilities and employ more and more contractors and employees.
What is the evidence behind your theory? In fact, the evidence from the decades of data that we have from capital gains, there isn't any empirical evidence to show that your theory isn't just pulled from thin air. On the contrary, there is a vast pool of evidence to prove the opposite. When capital gains was 39.9%, there were plenty of investors willing to invest and the fact that they had to pay tax on their gains did not deter them. Short term capital gains used to be 60% and it didn't stop speculators from investing in stock options, one of the riskiest investments.
We have decades of evidence that disproves the right-wing Laffer theory that moderate taxation on labor or investments discourages people from working or investing. The idea that people with money to invest would not invest because they had to pay taxes on the gains (not principle) defies logic.
It's to for you to get out of the class room and get into the real world where we like to call that rubber-meets-road.
You have no clue about the Laffer Curve. If you did you would know that as you reach a zero tax rate he explicitly states you would be bringing in no revenues and government would fail. The exact opposite is true as you reach a 100% tax rate and he's also stated that more times than I'd like to even count (while I'm on vacation).
Why raise the capital gains tax to only 50% Raise it to 100% This way you can be 100% assured that absolutely no one would invest any money in anything.
The OP thinks that a person who invests $100,000 [money that was already taxed] in a risky venture, has to keep it in the venture for over a year, might be lucky to gain $10,000 should have to split half of the profit [$5000] with the U.S. government.
Why raise the capital gains tax to only 50% Raise it to 100% This way you can be 100% assured that absolutely no one would invest any money in anything.
.
I think you answered your own question very well. Good job.
You are completely wrong. Dividends for example are REALIZED gains. Its money you put in your pocket, you get to spend. Furthermore, the company that made the $80 is TAXED by the group that made it before its passed onto you.
Dividends are not capital gains and the point of this thread is capital gains. Don't change the subject.
As I said earlier in this thread:
Quote:
Capital gains, by it's nature, is a tax on unrealized gains. Someone earned $120 dollars working, paid $20 tax and kept $100. They invested that $100 and earned $180 (in price appreciation.) They never paid tax on the $80 and that's precisely what is subject to capital gains tax.
Yes, "the money used to invest has already been taxed as income," but that money isn't being taxed again, just the gain from that money.
I know how easy it is to just keep repeating the same talking point, even if it is 100% false.
Regarding the $80, no company was taxed on that $80. That was capital appreciation of the rising stock, the investor owned.
It seems you have no idea what capital gains means.
Why raise the capital gains tax to only 50% Raise it to 100% This way you can be 100% assured that absolutely no one would invest any money in anything.
There is a logical fallacy called, reductio ad absurdum (argument to absurity or to reduce to absurdity) -- in which a true statement is carried into the absurd. Your absurd argument, about taxes, is the example Wiki uses:
Quote:
Proposition: "Raising taxation rates always results in increased tax revenue."
Proposition: "Lowering taxation rates always results in increased tax revenue."
These can both be disproved using reductio ad absurdum as follows:
"If taxes were raised to 100% of income, individuals would not work, and companies would not operate, resulting in zero income, and thus zero tax. That is less than current tax income, thus the proposition is false."
"If taxes were lowered to 0%, no taxes at all would be collected. Zero will always be less revenue than even the lowest non-zero tax rate would produce, thus the proposition is false."
Suggesting that nobody would work if taxes were 100%, does not disprove the idea that a 50% rate is a good idea.
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.
