# Some thoughts on taxes **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 24, 2015, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-thoughts-on-taxes/735639 "2015-10-24T16:48:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-thoughts-on-taxes/735639/41 "2015-10-30T23:22:31Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > The point is that as a result of Social Security, the CEO only loses control of a small fraction of the money he earns. He can use nearly all the money he earns in the way he chooses, whether that be investing in stocks or investing in bonds or buying 28 Ferraris or blowing it all in Vegas. > > For middle-class folks, Social Security takes a much larger chunk of their income out of their hands. 12.4% May not sound like a huge amount. But consider how much a typical worker spends on other taxes, and on housing and utilities and insurance and other necessities. Social Security grabs a large portion of middle class disposable income and puts it under the government’s control. The total tax - including medicare and medicaid - is about 15%. That’s off the first dollar you earn, even if you’re a self-employed pool-cleaner, clearing $20K. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-thoughts-on-taxes/735639/42 "2015-10-30T23:59:33Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Quote: > > Originally Posted by LinusK View Post > > 1.) Social Security taxes. Currently, Social Security taxes are paid on the first dollar you make, and then you stop paying them after $118,500. I propose eliminating the cap on Social Security taxes, and sheltering the first $12,000 of income from them altogether. > > > > Secondly, I propose imposing Social Security taxes on all income, rather than just income from work. Together, these measures would “save” social security indefinitely, while simultaneously allowing for a decrease in the tax rate. > > Frankly, I’d like to see Social Security phased out. By that, I mean, keep the promises to people at or near the retirement age and provide a prorated benefit to people below it down to a point where they’re young enough to make an adjustment to their retirements to account for it, then start phasing out the taxes for it. Instead, I’d rather either see us find better ways to encourage people to invest for retirement or just make a properly funded program. > > However, if we are going to keep it, at least in it’s current state, it’s regressive as hell, so it makes sense to make adjustments to it. No, Social Security is absolutely necessary. For poor people who have worked their whole lives - often doing the hardest, dirtiest, most dangerous work - leaving them with nothing when they can’t work anymore is cruel. And besides, what are you going to do with the 78 year old former construction worker with no money? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Quote: > > 2.) Copyright taxes. The government provides a copyright to corporations and individuals who create new books, movies, songs, and other material. I propose a fee for copyrights: free for the first 10 years, cheap for the following 10 years, and increasingly expensive after that. The fee would be voluntary: if you didn’t pay it, the work would fall into the public domain. > > I think copyright needs a massive overhaul; this whole life + 70 or whatever it is now is ridiculous. That someone might get lucky with an idea becoming massively successful shouldn’t guarantee their grand children can still be exclusively milking the ideas long after they’re dead. In my mind, it defeats the whole purpose, which is to allow people who have creative ideas to profit from it, but still put it in public domain at some point so other people can add onto those ideas. That Disney, who is notorious for pushing for extending copyright laws, is also one of the biggest adapters of public domain ideas is just… mind boggling. > > That said, I don’t think taxes make sense. It just means that a big company like Disney can, and will, pay the fees to maintain highly profitable ideas, and people who don’t have the money or means to market their ideas might get screwed. I’d rather see the timelines drastically reduced, something like 20 years or something. Because, really, if you can’t make something of a creative work in about that time, you probably never will. I’m totally on-board with shortening copyright as an alternative. But if a person or a corporation wants to hold onto a copyright for an extra ten years by paying for it, I’m OK with that, too. You could even have the fee as a percentage of the value of the copyright, if you wanted. > [@](#): > > Maybe there could be some kind of extra wording that extends it as long as it’s being actively developed, but if I try something and it doesn’t work, it doesn’t mean someone else might not see gold in that idea. But at some point, even actively developed intellectual properties must enter the public domain. I also think some greater allowances for fan work while still under copy right should be there. > > Regardless, I don’t think it’s a good idea to tax it, because it’s just going to discourage the creative types that don’t have the funds. It’ll end up providing even more power to conglomerated studios and labels and publishers. Copyright protection starts - to my understanding - when you release the art to the public. When you’re still working on it, there’s no copyright. In any case, I’m fine with free copyright for 10-20 years. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Quote: > > 3.) Patent fees. Patents are a big business, particularly in high tech. Apple was recently ordered to pay $533 million, for example, to Smartflash, a company Apple described as a “patent troll.” > > > > A full 90 percent of tech patent cases are filed by patent trolls. > > > > Apple, on the other hand, is no stranger to suing over patents. It sued Samsung, for example, over a patent “which consists of a one-sentence claim about the ornamental design of an electronic device, accompanied by nine figures depicting a thin rectangular cuboid with rounded corners,” and was awarded $1.049 billion in one of its lawsuits. > > > > It costs around a thousand dollars to file for a patent in the US. I propose adding a patent fee of, say 1% of the value of the patent, after five years, if you want to maintain it. > > Again, I see this as helping large corporations and hurting more of the individuals. Of course the large companies will pay a small fee to maintain it, but an individual may not be willing or able. Is it based on what it might sell for or based on profits of products and services made using it? The fee is 1% of the value of the patent. You could even put a floor under it, so that patents worth less than $100,000 were exempt. > [@](#): > > I’d rather see us go after patent trolls. If a company deliberately violates one, they shouldn’t just reimburse the patent owner, but they should also pay for the costs of enforcement. The idea that a companies exist that do nothing other than get patents to sue people over is a ridiculous and obviously unintended part of patent law. I agree, but you have to have some mechanism to discourage patent trolls. Like I said, depending on your definition Apple is a copyright troll itself. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Quote: > > 4.) Trademarks. The US government protects trademarks, which can be extremely valuable. Last year, U-Haul had to pay $62 million for using the word “pods,” for example. Several years ago, a jury awarded Adidas nearly $305 million in a lawsuit over its trademarked three-stripe shoes. > > > > Forbes says Google’s trademark is worth $44.3 billion. Microsoft: $42.8 billion. WalMart: $36.2 billion. Etc. > > > > I propose a trademark fee, for companies that want to use US courts to maintain their trademarks. Say: 0.5% or so. > > Trademarks are probably the most valuable thing a company owns. If it operates on a razor thin margin or even at a loss for some points, paying some percentage of what that trademark is theoretically worth could kill the business. Moreso, the value of the trademark is directly related to the reputation of a company, that’s why it’s important to protect it because if someone violates it, it suddenly becomes less valuable. > > But more importantly, trademarks exist to protect the consumer. That is, a lot of companies work hard to earn the trust of the consumer and consumers make purchasing decisions, rightly or wrongly, based on that trust. For instance, consider Google, everyone knows that trademark, and knowing what their services are, I know what to expect. But if someone else comes along and creates Google.biz or [Google.tv](http://Google.tv) or whatever, not only does that company instantly get associated with a well known company and get unearned consumer trust, but they may even provide either a vastly inferior product or even deliberately manipulate that trust for nefarious purposes. After all, this is EXACTLY how phishing attacks work, just imagine that on a larger scale. > > Of all the intellectual properties, frankly, protecting trademarks is one of the most important because the others might determine who does or doesn’t get rich off of an idea, but this one could actually affect everything from public health to general consumer confidence. You have a good point. I’m prepared to abandon the trademark idea. I have to say, though, if a company is barely getting by, that should be a sign it’s trademark isn’t worth much, isn’t it? Which in turn means they wouldn’t have to pay much. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Quote: > > 5.) Additional tax brackets. Currently, the top US tax bracket is 39.6% of taxable income over about $400,000. I propose bumping it to 45%, and 50% for taxable income over $1,000,000. > > I do think if we’re going to have a progressive tax system, then the highest tax rate should be higher. But ultimately, one of the biggest problems isn’t taxable income, it’s capital gains. I’m unsure just how much effect this would really have. Hell, I think just making capital gains taxable just like any other income would raise tax income a lot. > > But more, I’d rather not see brackets, but a continuous tax rate curve, and based on utility rather than raw income. After all, $50k might be well off in some areas of the country, but it’s well below median in others. Hell, where I live, the median household income is well into 6 figures, $50k could barely afford a 1 bedroom apartment here. I like the idea of making capital gains taxable like any other income. The only thing I’d add is that capital losses should be taken into account. IOW, if you have a capital loss, you should be able to off-set it indefinitely, until the loss is recouped. Otherwise you’re punishing risk-taking, which is economically unhealthy. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-thoughts-on-taxes/735639/43 "2015-10-31T00:44:47Z")
Here is a nice tax for you (the US imposed this one for a while, starting in the '30s): a 0.5% tax on financial instrument trades. This reduced volatility in the stock market somewhat by disincentivizing speculation and paid down the deficit. If I were imposing it, the tax would accumulate on derivation: complex derivatives would have a much higher trading tax, based on the number of steps to the original asset. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-thoughts-on-taxes/735639/44 "2015-10-31T03:30:16Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > The only thing I’d add is that capital losses should be taken into account. IOW, if you have a capital loss, you should be able to off-set it indefinitely, until the loss is recouped. . \*\*That’s how it works now. \*\*:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-thoughts-on-taxes/735639/45 "2015-10-31T05:12:15Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > Here is a nice tax for you (the US imposed this one for a while, starting in the '30s): a 0.5% tax on financial instrument trades. This reduced volatility in the stock market somewhat by disincentivizing speculation and paid down the deficit. If I were imposing it, the tax would accumulate on derivation: complex derivatives would have a much higher trading tax, based on the number of steps to the original asset. This is one tax which might be best set to maximize revenue. This is logical: if you regard the U.S. sound financial structure as a service the USG is marketing, it would try to maximize revenue. (And indeed, the U.S. does provide such a service with its regulations and bailouts.) Trade in U.S. stocks is in the ballpark of $50 trillion annually. Assuming it remained there with a 0.1% tax imposed, that would be an extra $50 billion in tax revenue. Not even counting transactions taxes on derivatives, bonds, etc. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > The point is that as a result of Social Security, the CEO only loses control of a small fraction of the money he earns… > For middle-class folks, Social Security takes a much larger chunk of their income out of their hands… So you favor increasing the SocSec tax on CEO’s? 😃 Don’t rush to answer; we’re not holding our breath wondering if you can draw this obvious conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-thoughts-on-taxes/735639/46 "2015-10-31T05:15:31Z")
> [@AdamF](#): > > Copyright needs a complete overhaul, but charging fee is not a good idea. It would strongly favor rich corporations. It would encourage corporations that hold old copyrights to _do_ something with them–sell copies, license derivative works. Get the material out there in the culture where it can live and, incidentally, make some money. Rather than sitting on the work of past artists and letting it fade and die. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-thoughts-on-taxes/735639/47 "2015-10-31T05:21:33Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > I think copyright needs a massive overhaul; this whole life + 70 or whatever it is now is ridiculous. That someone might get lucky with an idea becoming massively successful shouldn’t guarantee their grand children can still be exclusively milking the ideas long after they’re dead. In my mind, it defeats the whole purpose, which is to allow people who have creative ideas to profit from it, but still put it in public domain at some point so other people can add onto those ideas. Why should people who create great value for society by their art be prevented from passing the profit of that on, when people who create value in, say, their business endeavors, can? The heirs of Henry Ford are still doing pretty well. Other people _adding on_ doesn’t require public domain, it just requires that the material be accessible. Public domain means any random asshole can profit, potentially, _without_ adding anything new. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2015, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-thoughts-on-taxes/735639/48 "2015-11-01T13:37:41Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > I like the copyright tax ideas, but the higher taxes on the rich won’t work. If you increase the top tax rate from 39.6 to 50 and include all the income for Social Security taxes. That is a tax hike of 50% on the most taxed people. Someone in California would be paying a total tax rate of around 78%. Such high rates are almost certainly on the wrong side of the Laffer curve and would result in both lower economic growth and lower overall tax collection. That’s true. And i tend to agree: taxing people over 50% is counterproductive, since it creates a disincentive to work, and an incentive to cheat. So I guess I’d propose another rule: a tax ceiling of 50%. Once your effective tax hits 50% it can’t go higher than that. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2015, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-thoughts-on-taxes/735639/49 "2015-11-01T13:42:01Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > \*\*That’s how it works now. \*\*:rolleyes: Uh, not the last time I read the tax code. (Which I admit was some years ago.) Do you have a cite? ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2015, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-thoughts-on-taxes/735639/50 "2015-11-01T13:44:50Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > It would encourage corporations that hold old copyrights to _do_ something with them–sell copies, license derivative works. Get the material out there in the culture where it can live and, incidentally, make some money. Rather than sitting on the work of past artists and letting it fade and die. Yes. I’ve personally tried to get old stuff that I liked years ago, and wanted to have for myself - only to discover it’s unavailable, because the copyright owner is sitting on it, and not letting anyone produce or sell it. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2015, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-thoughts-on-taxes/735639/51 "2015-11-01T13:56:36Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Why should people who create great value for society by their art be prevented from passing the profit of that on, when people who create value in, say, their business endeavors, can? The heirs of Henry Ford are still doing pretty well. > > Other people _adding on_ doesn’t require public domain, it just requires that the material be accessible. Public domain means any random asshole can profit, potentially, _without_ adding anything new. The copyright clause of the US Constitution is this: > [@](#): > > To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. You’ll notice that the purpose is to “promote the progress of science and arts” and that copyrights were to be granted for “limited times” to the “authors and inventors”. The purpose is not to enrich corporations indefinitely, or to enrich the children or grandchildren of authors and inventors. To put it differently, copyrights are supposed to serve the public. They’re not a means to ensure unlimited, unearned profits indefinitely. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2015, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-thoughts-on-taxes/735639/52 "2015-11-01T21:58:55Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Uh, not the last time I read the tax code. (Which I admit was some years ago.) > > Do you have a cite? Honestly, in the Tax World, that about like asking for a cite on “Does the Earth revolve around the sun?”:rolleyes: If you didnt know that, you have \*never \*read the tax code, it’s been that way since 1954 or so, iirc. :dubious: Here are a few cites anyway fro the top of the Google Search of over 300,000 results: > **[Capital Loss Carryover: Definition, Rules, and Example](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capital-loss-carryover.asp)** > > Capital loss carryover is the capital loss that can be carried forward to future years and used to offset capital gains or as a deduction against ordinary income. > **[How To Use Capital Losses on Your Tax Return](https://www.thebalancemoney.com/can-a-capital-loss-carryover-to-the-next-year-2388983)** > > Whether or not a capital loss will carry over to the next year depends on several factors. Learn more about carry-forward losses and how to use them to your benefit. [https://ttlc.intuit.com/questions/2251182-how-many-years-can-i-claim-capital-loss-carryover](https://ttlc.intuit.com/questions/2251182-how-many-years-can-i-claim-capital-loss-carryover) ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2015, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-thoughts-on-taxes/735639/53 "2015-11-02T03:21:32Z")
If it’s not true, I’ve a lot of revised returns to file. ---
**Author:** ![Snnipe\_70E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5a626/32.png) [@Snnipe\_70E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snnipe_70E)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2015, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-thoughts-on-taxes/735639/54 "2015-11-02T04:52:07Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > That may have been true when the Roosevelt Administration introduced Social Security. It’s not true now. Back in the 30’s, the retirement age was later than the average time of death. In other words, Social Security was an insurance program, designed to protect people who lived longer than expected against crushing poverty when they could no longer work to support themselves. > > Over the years, it’s changed to something totally different. An ordinary person now expects to collect a lot of money from Social Security. So it’s not an insurance program protecting people against unlikely circumstances; it’s rather an investment opportunity, with the unique feature that everyone is forced to participate and the government determines both what we invest and what returns we get. > > But it is interesting that Democrats rush to defend a law which imposes higher taxes on the poor than on billionaires. SS was part of the New Deal program. The Idea was people working now would pay for the retirement of the older workers now. The end result of this would take the older worker out of the job market leaving more positions for the younger workers. And hopefully decreasing unemployment. it was not a program designed to protect people who lived longer than expected against crushing poverty when they could no longer work to support themselves. It was a program to get people who could still work to retire. ---
**Author:** ![Snnipe\_70E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5a626/32.png) [@Snnipe\_70E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snnipe_70E)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2015, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-thoughts-on-taxes/735639/55 "2015-11-02T05:05:10Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Actually at \*\*high income \*\*levels some of the benefit gets taxed, so this isn’t quite true. But close enough. > > ? Wrong. It is not high levels. It starts getting taxes at $32,000 a year. That means if you have a small retirement check coming in or your spouse has a job you are going to pay regular income tax on 85% of you SS check. And remember you already paid taxes on what you paid into the system. This pisses me off. ---
**Author:** ![Snnipe\_70E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5a626/32.png) [@Snnipe\_70E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snnipe_70E)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2015, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-thoughts-on-taxes/735639/56 "2015-11-02T05:16:31Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > \*\*That’s how it works now. \*\*:rolleyes: Net Capitol loss can be taken only at the level of $,3,000 per year. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2015, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-thoughts-on-taxes/735639/57 "2015-11-02T05:47:38Z")
> [@Snnipe\_70E](#): > > Net Capitol loss can be taken only at the level of $,3,000 per year. Or offset your gains. But in any case, you are “able to off-set it indefinitely, until the loss is recouped”. Which is what I said **That’s how it works now**. I am not sure what your point is? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2015, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-thoughts-on-taxes/735639/58 "2015-11-02T11:14:23Z")
> [@Snnipe\_70E](#): > > SS was part of the New Deal program. The Idea was people working now would pay for the retirement of the older workers now. The end result of this would take the older worker out of the job market leaving more positions for the younger workers. And hopefully decreasing unemployment. > > it was not a program designed to protect people who lived longer than expected against crushing poverty when they could no longer work to support themselves. > It was a program to get people who could still work to retire. Nonsense. “We can never insure 100 percent of the population against 100 percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-stricken old age.” That’s FDR upon signing enactment of the Social Security Act. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-thoughts-on-taxes/735639/59 "2015-11-04T23:38:43Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Honestly, in the Tax World, that about like asking for a cite on “Does the Earth revolve around the sun?”:rolleyes: > > If you didnt know that, you have \*never \*read the tax code, it’s been that way since 1954 or so, iirc. :dubious: > > Here are a few cites anyway fro the top of the Google Search of over 300,000 results: > > [Capital Loss Carryover: Definition, Rules, and Example](http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capital-loss-carryover.asp) > [Can a Capital Loss Carry Over to the Next Year?](http://moneyover55.about.com/od/taxtips/a/losscarryover.htm) > [https://ttlc.intuit.com/questions/2251182-how-many-years-can-i-claim-capital-loss-carryover](https://ttlc.intuit.com/questions/2251182-how-many-years-can-i-claim-capital-loss-carryover) From your first link: > [@](#): > > The net amount of capital losses that aren’t deductible for the current tax year but can be carried over into future tax years. Net capital losses (total capital losses minus total capital gains) can only be deducted up to a maximum of $3,000 in a given tax year. Any amounts exceeding $3,000 can be put toward offsetting capital gains in the current year or simply deducted in the next year(s). The second: > [@](#): > > If you have a $10,000 capital loss and no gains, you can use $3,000 of the capital loss to deduct against ordinary income. > If your ordinary income is $50,000, you will get to deduct the $3,000 of capital loss and so you will only pay tax on $47,000 of ordinary income. The third is a question and answer. The answer is: > [@](#): > > You claim it [capital losses] each year indefinitely until it is used up. Anyway, that you can only claim $3000 of capital losses against ordinary income - and that you have to wait for year(s)(?) to recover the rest is what I was talking about. Say you place a big bet on a start-up, and wind up losing a lot of money. What I’m trying to say is you should be able to deduct all the money you lost in the year you lose it, rather than paying taxes on money you don’t have, and waiting years to recover it. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-thoughts-on-taxes/735639/60 "2015-11-04T23:42:26Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Nonsense. > > “We can never insure 100 percent of the population against 100 percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-stricken old age.” That’s FDR upon signing enactment of the Social Security Act. In other words, not a savings account, but an insurance policy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-thoughts-on-taxes/735639.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-thoughts-on-taxes/735639.md?page=4)