Right Wing Regressives Need to Stop

[pErvinalia]

Best police force/justice system money can buy.

I also love how income gained through long term (12 months) capital gains is taxed at no more than 20% in the USA, no matter how rich or poor you are.

There's good reason why capital gains should be taxed fairly low. If you were tax "capital gains" at 50%, for example, then when you opened up a TD Ameritrade account, put $500 in -- taking 100% of the risk -- and investing in a stock or bond. Then you leave that money there for two years and it turns into, say $1000, if you are taxed at 50% then the $500 that you gained, would be cut in half. You now have only $250 for your risk and loss of use of funds for 2 years. If you invested that $500 and it went down to $400, nobody is reimbursing you. Nobody else is bearing that risk.

So, as a matter of government policy, if you want people to invest their money, and increase the money available for lending to businesses and industry, then you don't want to eliminate the benefit to the people taking the risk.

You're right. We should actually pay people to invest. If more investment is better for the economy then that's what we should do, right?

This is about as inane as the economic liberals trotting out the Laffer curve.

[Forty Two]

In this post I think I made it pretty clear that I was distinguishing between political protest at a political event and your specious attempts at making political protest at non-political events equivalent.

The context was a protest of the kind against the Shakespearean play "Julius Caesar," which is not a "political event."

It most certainly is when the main character is the President.

It's not a political "event." It's a political play. But, so would a play with a pro-LGBT message or character, to a person or group that opposes LGBT. That's the point.

Almost any play can be political. A Doll's House garnered a lot of protest when it came out because of its "political" messages regarding divorce, female autonomy, etc. The play "Rent" has political overtones and messages.

I'm clarifying that there is no real distinction being made where someone says that a disruptive protest is legitimate when directed at a political play rather than a non-political play. Someone can have a political view of a play enacting Beauty and the Beast, opposing the message it sends to women. The play itself was not written to be a political statement or political play, but it certainly can be opposed or protested on political grounds.

[Forty Two]

Best police force/justice system money can buy.

I also love how income gained through long term (12 months) capital gains is taxed at no more than 20% in the USA, no matter how rich or poor you are.

There's good reason why capital gains should be taxed fairly low. If you were tax "capital gains" at 50%, for example, then when you opened up a TD Ameritrade account, put $500 in -- taking 100% of the risk -- and investing in a stock or bond. Then you leave that money there for two years and it turns into, say $1000, if you are taxed at 50% then the $500 that you gained, would be cut in half. You now have only $250 for your risk and loss of use of funds for 2 years. If you invested that $500 and it went down to $400, nobody is reimbursing you. Nobody else is bearing that risk.

So, as a matter of government policy, if you want people to invest their money, and increase the money available for lending to businesses and industry, then you don't want to eliminate the benefit to the people taking the risk.

You're right. We should actually pay people to invest. If more investment is better for the economy then that's what we should do, right?

This is about as inane as the economic liberals trotting out the Laffer curve.

The Laffer curve is not seriously disputed. It's just the economic theory of the elasticity of tax revenue as tax rates change. The main import is that as tax rates increase, at a certain point, raising the "rate" becomes counter-productive.

To suggest that it is "inane" that taxing something puts downward pressure on demand is rather interesting on your part. The higher prices go, the lower demand tends to go. The same goes for investing, where if you tax investments, there is a tendency to push down the demand for investments. It doesn't mean people will stop investing because you tax it. It means there are limits and tendencies.

More investment is often better for the economy, yes. But that doesn't mean we should pay people to invest.

[pErvinalia]

Best police force/justice system money can buy.

I also love how income gained through long term (12 months) capital gains is taxed at no more than 20% in the USA, no matter how rich or poor you are.

There's good reason why capital gains should be taxed fairly low. If you were tax "capital gains" at 50%, for example, then when you opened up a TD Ameritrade account, put $500 in -- taking 100% of the risk -- and investing in a stock or bond. Then you leave that money there for two years and it turns into, say $1000, if you are taxed at 50% then the $500 that you gained, would be cut in half. You now have only $250 for your risk and loss of use of funds for 2 years. If you invested that $500 and it went down to $400, nobody is reimbursing you. Nobody else is bearing that risk.

So, as a matter of government policy, if you want people to invest their money, and increase the money available for lending to businesses and industry, then you don't want to eliminate the benefit to the people taking the risk.

You're right. We should actually pay people to invest. If more investment is better for the economy then that's what we should do, right?

This is about as inane as the economic liberals trotting out the Laffer curve.

The Laffer curve is not seriously disputed. It's just the economic theory of the elasticity of tax revenue as tax rates change. The main import is that as tax rates increase, at a certain point, raising the "rate" becomes counter-productive.

FFS, does everything have to be explicitly spelled out for you? The Laffer curve itself is fine as a theoretical model, but the problem is with the regular assumption by economic liberals that we are on the right side of the curve.

To suggest that it is "inane" that taxing something puts downward pressure on demand is rather interesting on your part.

I was actually describing my own characterisation of your position as inane. And that characterisation is the logical extension of simplistic thinking like less tax is necessarily better for the economy because it encourages investment.

More investment is often better for the economy, yes. But that doesn't mean we should pay people to invest.

Why not, that's the logic. If taxing people reduces investment, then negative taxation should increase investment. In fact, you'd have to be pretty special to not accept that investment would go up if you paid people to invest.

[Hermit]

Best police force/justice system money can buy.

I also love how income gained through long term (12 months) capital gains is taxed at no more than 20% in the USA, no matter how rich or poor you are.

There's good reason why capital gains should be taxed fairly low. If you were tax "capital gains" at 50%, for example, then when you opened up a TD Ameritrade account, put $500 in -- taking 100% of the risk -- and investing in a stock or bond. Then you leave that money there for two years and it turns into, say $1000, if you are taxed at 50% then the $500 that you gained, would be cut in half. You now have only $250 for your risk and loss of use of funds for 2 years. If you invested that $500 and it went down to $400, nobody is reimbursing you. Nobody else is bearing that risk.

So, as a matter of government policy, if you want people to invest their money, and increase the money available for lending to businesses and industry, then you don't want to eliminate the benefit to the people taking the risk.

Utter bullshit. Nobody with a spare $500 and a sound mind would stick that money under their mattress because capital gains were taxed at the same rate as whatever their marginal income tax is instead of a discounted one. At worst they'll deposit it into a bank savings account, and guess what'll happen to that money then?

[laklak]

It's only discounted if it's long term capital gains, otherwise it's taxed as ordinary income. I think that's a great idea.

[Forty Two]

Best police force/justice system money can buy.

I also love how income gained through long term (12 months) capital gains is taxed at no more than 20% in the USA, no matter how rich or poor you are.

There's good reason why capital gains should be taxed fairly low. If you were tax "capital gains" at 50%, for example, then when you opened up a TD Ameritrade account, put $500 in -- taking 100% of the risk -- and investing in a stock or bond. Then you leave that money there for two years and it turns into, say $1000, if you are taxed at 50% then the $500 that you gained, would be cut in half. You now have only $250 for your risk and loss of use of funds for 2 years. If you invested that $500 and it went down to $400, nobody is reimbursing you. Nobody else is bearing that risk.

So, as a matter of government policy, if you want people to invest their money, and increase the money available for lending to businesses and industry, then you don't want to eliminate the benefit to the people taking the risk.

Utter bullshit. Nobody with a spare $500 and a sound mind would stick that money under their mattress because capital gains were taxed at the same rate as whatever their marginal income tax is instead of a discounted one. At worst they'll deposit it into a bank savings account, and guess what'll happen to that money then?

No, but they might prefer to put it in a bank account and earn interest, rather than in an equity investment earning capital gains.

Guess what will happen to the money then? It will not be lost, because it is guaranteed. There is no risk. You get a low interest rate, but a guarantee.

If capital gains were not taxed at all, then it would be a very attractive investment, and people would really want to do it. Tax gains at 1% and it wouldn't bother people much, because it's such a small amount. Tax it at 100%, and people would look for other uses for their money that aren't taxed at 100%. Tax it at 50%, and it's much better than 100%, but much worse than 0%. However, it will certainly impact a person's decision-making.

[Forty Two]

It's only discounted if it's long term capital gains, otherwise it's taxed as ordinary income. I think that's a great idea.

Yes, very good. It recognizes the difference between people flipping investments fast, and those that take a longer term risk, putting their money at play for a lengthy period of time.

[Hermit]

Best police force/justice system money can buy.

I also love how income gained through long term (12 months) capital gains is taxed at no more than 20% in the USA, no matter how rich or poor you are.

There's good reason why capital gains should be taxed fairly low. If you were tax "capital gains" at 50%, for example, then when you opened up a TD Ameritrade account, put $500 in -- taking 100% of the risk -- and investing in a stock or bond. Then you leave that money there for two years and it turns into, say $1000, if you are taxed at 50% then the $500 that you gained, would be cut in half. You now have only $250 for your risk and loss of use of funds for 2 years. If you invested that $500 and it went down to $400, nobody is reimbursing you. Nobody else is bearing that risk.

So, as a matter of government policy, if you want people to invest their money, and increase the money available for lending to businesses and industry, then you don't want to eliminate the benefit to the people taking the risk.

Utter bullshit. Nobody with a spare $500 and a sound mind would stick that money under their mattress because capital gains were taxed at the same rate as whatever their marginal income tax is instead of a discounted one. At worst they'll deposit it into a bank savings account, and guess what'll happen to that money then?

No, but they might prefer to put it in a bank account and earn interest, rather than in an equity investment earning capital gains.

Wrong. Where do you think the interest comes from that the bank pays the persons who places money in its accounts? The bank will lend it to someone - who invests it.

Tax gains at 1% and it wouldn't bother people much, because it's such a small amount. Tax it at 100%, and people would look for other uses for their money that aren't taxed at 100%. Tax it at 50%, and it's much better than 100%, but much worse than 0%. However, it will certainly impact a person's decision-making.

Nobody taxes capital gains at 100%. We're talking about taxing those gains like other forms of income, like wages and salary.

[Hermit]

It's only discounted if it's long term capital gains, otherwise it's taxed as ordinary income. I think that's a great idea.

Capital gains are discounted more when they are long term than short, and long term is twelve months. Not many people buy and sell a business, shares, a painting, real estate or whatever in under that time frame. Of course it's a great idea - for people who have enough money to gain income through buying assets and selling them at a profit. I certainly liked the idea when I sold my investment property. From memory I paid the ATO around 15% of the taxable difference rather than 48.5%.

[Brian Peacock]

Is there no relief? I'm finding this all very taxing.

[JimC]

It's only discounted if it's long term capital gains, otherwise it's taxed as ordinary income. I think that's a great idea.

Capital gains are discounted more when they are long term than short, and long term is twelve months. Not many people buy and sell a business, shares, a painting, real estate or whatever in under that time frame. Of course it's a great idea - for people who have enough money to gain income through buying assets and selling them at a profit. I certainly liked the idea when I sold my investment property. From memory I paid the ATO around 15% of the taxable difference rather than 48.5%.

Capitalist swine! You'll be hanging from a lamp post come the revolution!

[pErvinalia]

[Hermit]

It's only discounted if it's long term capital gains, otherwise it's taxed as ordinary income. I think that's a great idea.

Capital gains are discounted more when they are long term than short, and long term is twelve months. Not many people buy and sell a business, shares, a painting, real estate or whatever in under that time frame. Of course it's a great idea - for people who have enough money to gain income through buying assets and selling them at a profit. I certainly liked the idea when I sold my investment property. From memory I paid the ATO around 15% of the taxable difference rather than 48.5%.

Capitalist swine! You'll be hanging from a lamp post come the revolution!

The revolutionaries will have to dig my rotted carcase up first.

[JimC]