Not familiar with that argument I’ll be honest and not just Google it.
I’m not saying we need to sock it to the poor, just countering the old tired line that the rich don’t pay taxes or their “fair share”. I used CNBC because my opponent leans left and would have balked at a WSJ or Economist article.
This isn’t the place to solve the “fairest” or “least bad” tax regime… those arguments take entire books, and very few people even read them.
The wealthy earning their money through capital gains is the very reason they are wealthy in the first place. Read ‘Rich Dad Poor Dad’. The wealthy have learned how to make money work for them, instead of trading their finite time for money.
There is a very important reason that the rate on capital gains Is less than the rate for normal earnings. It actually has everything to do with fairness. That money has already been taxed several times.
For example. You earn $100 and are subject to 35% federal tax (ignoring SSI/FICA/state/sales etc…), leaving you $65 after tax income to invest. You buy $65 worth of non-dividend stock. You hold it for more than one year and sell at $130 (great return btw, go you). You are taxed at that point on the $65 gain for $9.75 or 15%. So you paid tax on the money you invested and then again on the sale. Not to mention the taxes the company pays to fed/state/local/employment that eat into your returns.
Capital gains taxes should be less than taxes on normal earnings.
Explain how it’s propaganda
That’s like saying that the government used to steal even more from the wealthy than they do now. Yeah, but they are still taking too much. Look at the numbers above.
Capital gains taxes should be completely eliminated. It’s clearly double taxation.
I don’t disagree being a Libertarian myself. But here in the real world we have to work with leftists to get anything passed.
True enough
It refers to a notorious WSJ editorial concerning a common conservative lament: So many individuals don’t pay Federal income tax, it’s difficult to create a groundswell of political support for cutting them. Infamously, the editorial intimated that these individuals–ie, those who don’t make enough money to qualify to pay Fed income tax–were somehow more fortunate than those who do earn enough to pay taxes. The line of infamy from the editorial was, “Who are these lucky duckies?”
Needless to say, this intimation drew withering criticism in some circles. My response has always been that, if one truly thinks those who are too poor to pay Fed income tax are the lucky ones, then one should simply join them–that is, quit your well-paying job and go work at Micky D’s. Do this and presto! You’re a lucky-ducky too.
I beg to differ. Capital and labor should be taxed at equal rates.
Yes, I thought you might disagree. But, you have to square the fact that money earned and taxed is then being invested. When that investment profits it is then being taxed again. Your differentiating between money earned originally and the profit from the original investment. I am simply stating that the money earned from the investment has come from the original money earned which was already taxed (too much) and that is double taxation.
We will never agree like most of everything else on PWI.
So…let me know your thoughts, but I will not respond. Nothing personal just have other things to do today that I keep not getting to.
My thought is, conservatives frequently lament and express frustration that the government ‘picks winners and losers.’ I can think of no more direct example of winner-loser picking than to tax one form of income at a more favorable rate than another.
I beg to differ more. Neither capital nor labor should be taxed. A national sales tax would be more just, harder to cheat and easier to administer. (That’s sales tax instead of income. Not both)
Also for reasons above, capital is double taxed (triple actually) and this should pay a lower rate.
Harder to cheat? C’mon.
Ah, thanks for that, not where I was going.
We are getting WAY out of the scope of this thread. But I feel while a safety net is important, that we should focus more on a hand up rather than hand outs.
The major reason for poverty in a prosperous country is a mismatch between the humans we’re producing and the roles we need filled (hence the need for H1B’s and illegals with 63% labor force participation). It would take a multi pronged approach to make inroads into that problem. Culture, education, parenting, government. We’d have to decide as a people to allocate humans more efficiently.
Nearly all currency is digital, and we know the NSA has full access to everything. It’s way easier to track down companies than people. We already have IRS and state sales tax agents who audit businesses. We could even go the route india went and eliminate all bills bigger than the $100 to prevent fraud.
That’s ok, it wasn’t that great of an original thread anyway lol. Like Groundhog Day…just keeps repeating
On that note, I’ve heard it suggested we get rid of the hunny, as very few people other than drug dealers, etc, use them.
Edit: A hunny is a hundred dollar bill. I thought I’d explain that as it’s unreasonable to expect everyone to be as familiar with street-lingo as a 55 y.o suburban white guy.
I thought you were slingin some Winnie the Pooh lingo.
Very high level, it’s because a) capital investment creates jobs at a lower cost than debt and b) risk. A lower cap gains rate encourages the type of economic activity we want, job creation.
That said, this isn’t to say you couldn’t point to certain activities (hedge fund) and make a compelling argument.
I’m with @Basement_Gainz gains, though. A flat federal sales tax makes way more sense and is progressive by nature.
And what was produced by this investment?
Because it is not true. The insurance companies have to disseminate this information to help justify their existence. Can’t let the truth get out. But Americans are willing to vote for politicians who are bribed by healthcare lobbyists. https://www.amsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/WaitingTimes_primer.pdf