but it’s still a much higher return than you’d get otherwise. The best non-capital investments that I’ve seen are only gonna earn you around 5-6% if you can meet the high minimum. The market has the potential for a much higher return plus the compounding factor of making money on the money you’ve made. And absorbing part of the risk, if you take a capital loss - it’s tax deductible. Since people will be treating this as income, why is it not fair to treat it like income? I don’t get the huge complaints about capital gains tax being in line with a middle to upper-middle class tax bracket.
I did not see the debate, but from what I’ve read here, it seemed to sound like this. Or am I wrong and there was more to it?
[QUOTE=mswas]
But the reason I invest it in the first place is the hope of a higher return on it than I would achieve otherwise.
[QUOTE]
As my Intermediate MicroEcon professor would say: the capital gains tax is an attempt to legislate behavior. I think we as a society should think that the greater good is investing in ourselves. What a better, more direct way to do that than to invest in a corporation? (If you are one that blanket thinks that corporations are eeeevil, then this discussion is lost on you). The flip side of the coin, the risk, is that people will leverage this opportunity to maximize their profit, or as RTE Firefly put it: “gambling.” (Not to hijack this any further, but shorting provides a more accurate view of the market, helps the futures market, and provides more efficiency in the interest rate, but I digress…)
Ideally, I argue that their should not be any tax. That money was taxed already as personal income. But, I realize that the money works, so we have to tax it, but at the same time we do not want to prevent investment. If we want a classless society, then we need to allow our citizens the opportunity to free operate in the market and reap the rewards from their wise investing (or good luck) if they don’t have the capital to do so in the first place.
Having a difficult time posting.
As my Intermediate MicroEcon professor would say: the capital gains tax is an attempt to legislate behavior. I think we as a society should think that the greater good is investing in ourselves. What a better, more direct way to do that than to invest in a corporation? (If you are one that blanket thinks that corporations are eeeevil, then this discussion is lost on you). The flip side of the coin, the risk, is that people will leverage this opportunity to maximize their profit, or as RTE Firefly put it: “gambling.” (Not to hijack this any further, but shorting provides a more accurate view of the market, helps the futures market, and provides more efficiency in the interest rate, but I digress…)
Ideally, I argue that their should not be any tax. That money was taxed already as personal income. But, I realize that the money works, so we have to tax it, but at the same time we do not want to prevent investment. If we want a classless society, then we need to allow our citizens the opportunity to freely operate in the market and reap the rewards from their wise investing (or good luck) if they don’t have the capital to do so in the first place.
Wait a minute. In this thread (see title), you only consider the last paragraph a hijack? Of course you didn’t start it either.
Switch to a consumption tax.
I’m all for a wealth tax instead of an income tax…
I’ve always been of proponent of this, even if the personal income tax has to be slightly higher to make up for taxes beyond that. Fine, tax my income in order for me to take it home, but after that it’s double taxation and “nickel and diming” me down to my last blood cell.
I am am a turnip!
Umm… no it’s not? Capital GAINS tax. The tax is on the GAINS. Its not on the money you put in, its on the money the money you put in created. So no… it’s not double taxation (which is a term easily defined into nothingness depending on how far back in time you go the money and taxes) How about instead of exempting it from all taxes, just treat it as normal income and have it taxed at whatever bracket you belong in? Otherwise you have the wealthiest people living relatively income-tax-free lives.
Eh?
On the topic of the debate, I think that once she really got into talking about some of her policies, Hillary really shone. If she had stayed on that tack throughout this campaign and stopped all the stupid attacks and lying - she would have a much, much stronger chance at the nomination. The race really would be a deadheat. It’s really, really too bad that she chose to go this route.
as in squeezing the blood from a
which doesn’t make sense, because no one complains about their savings and money market account dividends being taxed as normal income. Guess which one affects more people?
The lady who asked the flag questions explains why she thought it was important.
I got the link from Fark where quite a few people pointed out how she sounds just a little bitter about her economic plight and so is clinging to this flag issue to feel as if she has control over something.
If irony were made of strawberries, we’d all be having a bunch of smoothies right now.
You probably have the correct interpretation of the post I was responding to; I really can’t argue capital gain tax issues but thought he was talking about only personal income and the taxes associated with that. If it was simply talking about capital gains, I freely admit I did not understand that.
I meant “I am not a turnip!” as in the response in post # 192.
I am not a Hillary fan, but I think she has some really good ideas, if she would only stick to espousing them more. The personal attacks and lying make me not want to listen to her though.
That’s what I thought. 
Usually, when someone is called a turnip, it’s a statement of their intellectual capacity.