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.
Because it's already been "earned" as income. The income invested in the first place was already taxed.
Furthermore, investment has to be encouraged.
so has income derived from a person's savings account, yet we are taxed on that.
Wouldn't investment still occur even if it weren't "encouraged"? This is the same argument that
the govt subsidizes its favorite groups (tax breaks for families, college education, homeowners, etc)
so has income derived from a person's savings account, yet we are taxed on that.
That's true, but investment is critical.
Like I said in my earlier post, I wouldn't care if all income (including through investment, savings, etc.) was considered income and taxed at the same rate, as long as that rate is not higher than current capital gains taxes regardless of income level.
so has income derived from a person's savings account, yet we are taxed on that.
Wouldn't investment still occur even if it weren't "encouraged"? This is the same argument that
the govt subsidizes its favorite groups.
Really? you have earned enough from a savings account to be taxed on it?
Like I said in my earlier post, I wouldn't care if all income (including through investment, savings, etc.) was considered income and taxed at the same rate, as long as that rate is not higher than current capital gains taxes regardless of income level.
If nobody paid more than current capital gains rates, then you're talking about another govt shortfall. Given the current atmosphere where neither party will cut entitlements or defense, just who would make up the shortfall?
Why does a "true" capitalist need a de facto "government subsidy" to continue their investments? Wouldn't they still invest even if they were taxed at a higher rate (ordinary income rate)?
Lol. A government subsidy? The lefty thought process never ceases to amaze me.
You act as if it's a black and white thing. The higher the rate, the less the ROI, the lower the "screw it" cutoff.
Why isn't it a subsidy? Govt is encouraging ppl (subsidizing) to act in a certain way. So what if the the ROI is less? Ordinary workers must grapple with the same sort of taxation. The more we work, the more they take. Nobody comes to their defense. Why are the capital gains folk such "sacred cows"?
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.
