4 ms·

yes, but those workers will at some point retire and live off their investment income, no?

maxxxxx 9y ago
And they would have had much more money to invest if their income tax had been lower. You don't seem to want to understand my point: Low taxes for investment benefits wealthy people disproportionately. Yes, lower income also get some benefit but the vast majority goes to the wealthy. Same for all the Republic "tax reform" proposals: A little tax cut for small incomes, large tax cut for high incomes.
- vasilipupkin 9y ago
  it's a zero sum view of the world that is not correct. You could be lower income when you are 30 and wealthy when you are 65. So it's a lot of the same people that benefit. But more importantly, you are not considering the benefit of higher investment that the wealthy make because their investment taxes are lower. Higher investment leads to more economic activity and more jobs. In fact, the whole world has moved over time for this reason to taxing consumption more than investment. Yes, I understand Saez disagrees. But he is hardly the final word on this. Hardly.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    Most people aren't wealthy at 65. Some do, but that's an exception. You seem to live in a different world than I do.
    - vasilipupkin 9y ago
      Average net worth of a 65 year old is over half a million in the US. most 65 year olds who are wealthy at 65, weren't at 30. Just pointing out that if you support a policy because you don't think it will affect you, it very well might later on. But that's an aside point, not the main point.
  - orthecreedence 9y ago
    > Higher investment leads to more economic activity and more jobs In some cases. Investing in the stock market doesn't. It's just a somewhat randomized wealth redistribution system. If I invest $1M in IBM, IBM doesn't see any of that money. Nor do the investors in IBM. It might move the price of a fraction of a penny, but the money just goes to whatever person sold their stock. So, some investment (private companies, municipal bonds, etc) leads to more economic activity, but not all investment. I'd be interested to see the breakdown.
richardknop 9y ago
Very few people actually do that. Majority rely on government checks when retired as they can't save / invest a sizable capital during their life working normal job to really be able to live on dividends from that.
plandis 9y ago
I grew up pretty poor and a lot of people I know are still working. My step mom is 80 and still has to work. A lot of poor people never retire. Also, we have ways to encourage and provide benefits for people who are lucky enough to save for retirement. 401Ks, IRAs, etc... You don't need a lower capital gains tax, instead, provide more benefits for investments specifically set aside for retirement if you think not enough is being done.
- vasilipupkin 9y ago
  poor people already pay very little to none income tax. lower capital gains tax is supposed to stimulate overall investment, which leads to more jobs, including for poor people. That's the idea behind it.

And they would have had much more money to invest if their income tax had been lower. You don't seem to want to understand my point: Low taxes for investment benefits wealthy people disproportionately. Yes, lower income also get some benefit but the vast majority goes to the wealthy. Same for all the Republic "tax reform" proposals: A little tax cut for small incomes, large tax cut for high incomes.

vasilipupkin 9y ago
it's a zero sum view of the world that is not correct. You could be lower income when you are 30 and wealthy when you are 65. So it's a lot of the same people that benefit. But more importantly, you are not considering the benefit of higher investment that the wealthy make because their investment taxes are lower. Higher investment leads to more economic activity and more jobs. In fact, the whole world has moved over time for this reason to taxing consumption more than investment. Yes, I understand Saez disagrees. But he is hardly the final word on this. Hardly.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  Most people aren't wealthy at 65. Some do, but that's an exception. You seem to live in a different world than I do.
  - vasilipupkin 9y ago
    Average net worth of a 65 year old is over half a million in the US. most 65 year olds who are wealthy at 65, weren't at 30. Just pointing out that if you support a policy because you don't think it will affect you, it very well might later on. But that's an aside point, not the main point.
- orthecreedence 9y ago
  > Higher investment leads to more economic activity and more jobs In some cases. Investing in the stock market doesn't. It's just a somewhat randomized wealth redistribution system. If I invest $1M in IBM, IBM doesn't see any of that money. Nor do the investors in IBM. It might move the price of a fraction of a penny, but the money just goes to whatever person sold their stock. So, some investment (private companies, municipal bonds, etc) leads to more economic activity, but not all investment. I'd be interested to see the breakdown.

richardknop 9y ago

Very few people actually do that. Majority rely on government checks when retired as they can't save / invest a sizable capital during their life working normal job to really be able to live on dividends from that.

plandis 9y ago

I grew up pretty poor and a lot of people I know are still working. My step mom is 80 and still has to work. A lot of poor people never retire. Also, we have ways to encourage and provide benefits for people who are lucky enough to save for retirement. 401Ks, IRAs, etc... You don't need a lower capital gains tax, instead, provide more benefits for investments specifically set aside for retirement if you think not enough is being done.

vasilipupkin 9y ago
poor people already pay very little to none income tax. lower capital gains tax is supposed to stimulate overall investment, which leads to more jobs, including for poor people. That's the idea behind it.