3 ms·
This similar to the logic that used to fuel Adobe's anti-piracy numbers. They claim they lose (number_of_pirated_copies X retail_cost) to piracy, making the hug
by menacingly 9y ago
This similar to the logic that used to fuel Adobe's anti-piracy numbers. They claim they lose (number_of_pirated_copies X retail_cost) to piracy, making the huge assumption that everyone who pirated would have bought a copy, and needs photoshop so badly that they will sell a kidney to get it if you could stop piracy. You can't selectively change variables and assume the others stay the same.
Your life would be negatively impacted if everyone paying capital gains decided it was advantageous to avoid paying them, so you can't talk about adjusting that tax structure as if all of the same money would stay on the table. If it were less enticing to invest it, fewer would, and that changes the environment in complex ways. It's a big assumption that if you raise taxes, everything else remains pinned down and we can analyze that variable in isolation.
- njarboe 9y agoI think I am on the side of Warren Buffet and agree that investment tax rates does not much effect how eager people are to invest. I mean, what else are the rich going to do with their money? If they think, "These tax rates on investments are too high. I'm not going to invest. I'm just going to spend it on yachts, hookers, blow, and black-jack.", then soon they will run out of money and have to start earning it again. Most investors like making successful investments and growing their wealth. What the capital gains tax rate is is not going to change that. Maybe they would not switch investments as much. That might be a good thing. Maybe a better argument would be that successful investors use of money is better for everyone in society in the long run and that having lower taxes on earned income would just let more money be spent on "useless" things: longer vacations or fancy lattes.