5 ms·

I mean, great, but the GOP will never let this happen. the Senate will kill this before it even gets to committee, let alone a floor vote.

rileymat2 8y ago
I am not sure I support taxing capital gains as ordinary income unless there is some way to adjust the gains for inflation. For instance, if your capital gains tracked inflation precisely it seems fundamentally unfair to tax a percentage of the gains, as the person has not really "gained" in real terms.
- _bxg1 8y ago
  One could say the same thing about salaries; most (salaried) people get a minimum 3-4% "raise" every year just to keep up with inflation and living expenses.
  - reboog711 8y ago
    2% or less is a lot more common in my experience, irregardless of what inflation is.
- jdavis703 8y ago
  It looks like this plan would only apply to a fraction of the economic top 1%. Most people tend to support a progressive tax system, probably because it seems reasonable that the richest should help out a little more than the poorest.
  - rileymat2 8y ago
    I 100% support a progressive tax system, whether it applies to the 1% or everyone, not accounting for inflation strikes me as structurally unfair.
  - microcolonel 8y ago
    Even in a flat system, the productive contribute more. The current system is aggressively progressive, almost all the income taxes are paid by a tiny minority.
    - rileymat2 8y ago
      The rich surely contribute more in absolute terms, but that is not the only way to look at things. For instance, you could look at contribution as a percentage of discretionary income. In those terms, you might find that the middle class contributes the "most".
    - danaris 8y ago
      The rich can afford to give up a much higher percent of their wealth or income in taxes than can the not-rich. Living expenses do not simply increase as a linear function of income or wealth. They increase, sure, but there's an effective upper bound. Jeff Bezos does not need to buy 10,000 times more food (or food 10,000 times more expensive) than someone making minimum wage. Thus, the statement that "in a flat system, the rich contribute more," while trivially true, serves only to obscure the horribly damaging nature of flat tax schemes—or, indeed, even schemes that are only as progressive as the one we have now, which has allowed the very wealthy to accumulate the vast majority of all gains in the economy for decades. That's...not a good thing. It's something we need to be working against, and increasing the progressiveness of our tax scheme (however "aggressive" some may feel that makes it) is one good way of doing so.
- erentz 8y ago
  But don’t we tax normal interest as income too? We don’t adjust that for inflation.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
WillPostForFood 8y ago
There are probably more bipartisan approaches, like focusing on increasing taxes on things like carried interest instead of capital gains broadly.
tssva 8y ago
You introduce it now to setup being able to pass it later when you have a majority. The Republicans now have to officially go on record opposing it which means you can use it as a campaign issue when running against them. If you then win a majority while having raised the issue during the campaign you can claim a "mandate" for passing it.

rileymat2 8y ago

I am not sure I support taxing capital gains as ordinary income unless there is some way to adjust the gains for inflation. For instance, if your capital gains tracked inflation precisely it seems fundamentally unfair to tax a percentage of the gains, as the person has not really "gained" in real terms.

_bxg1 8y ago
One could say the same thing about salaries; most (salaried) people get a minimum 3-4% "raise" every year just to keep up with inflation and living expenses.
- reboog711 8y ago
  2% or less is a lot more common in my experience, irregardless of what inflation is.
jdavis703 8y ago
It looks like this plan would only apply to a fraction of the economic top 1%. Most people tend to support a progressive tax system, probably because it seems reasonable that the richest should help out a little more than the poorest.
- rileymat2 8y ago
  I 100% support a progressive tax system, whether it applies to the 1% or everyone, not accounting for inflation strikes me as structurally unfair.
- microcolonel 8y ago
  Even in a flat system, the productive contribute more. The current system is aggressively progressive, almost all the income taxes are paid by a tiny minority.
  - rileymat2 8y ago
    The rich surely contribute more in absolute terms, but that is not the only way to look at things. For instance, you could look at contribution as a percentage of discretionary income. In those terms, you might find that the middle class contributes the "most".
  - danaris 8y ago
    The rich can afford to give up a much higher percent of their wealth or income in taxes than can the not-rich. Living expenses do not simply increase as a linear function of income or wealth. They increase, sure, but there's an effective upper bound. Jeff Bezos does not need to buy 10,000 times more food (or food 10,000 times more expensive) than someone making minimum wage. Thus, the statement that "in a flat system, the rich contribute more," while trivially true, serves only to obscure the horribly damaging nature of flat tax schemes—or, indeed, even schemes that are only as progressive as the one we have now, which has allowed the very wealthy to accumulate the vast majority of all gains in the economy for decades. That's...not a good thing. It's something we need to be working against, and increasing the progressiveness of our tax scheme (however "aggressive" some may feel that makes it) is one good way of doing so.
erentz 8y ago
But don’t we tax normal interest as income too? We don’t adjust that for inflation.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

WillPostForFood 8y ago

There are probably more bipartisan approaches, like focusing on increasing taxes on things like carried interest instead of capital gains broadly.

tssva 8y ago

You introduce it now to setup being able to pass it later when you have a majority. The Republicans now have to officially go on record opposing it which means you can use it as a campaign issue when running against them. If you then win a majority while having raised the issue during the campaign you can claim a "mandate" for passing it.