4 ms·

More on capital gains?? If I buy 1 share of GOOG with my after-tax income, and someone buys it from me for a $100 more with their after-tax income, why should t

by webXL 16y ago

More on capital gains?? If I buy 1 share of GOOG with my after-tax income, and someone buys it from me for a $100 more with their after-tax income, why should the government get a cut of that, let alone more of a cut? And I don't think they have a lower rate. The super-rich (top 1%) already pay 38% of all tax revenue, but they only earn 20% of total income (http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html). You can only squeeze them so much before they leave. Ask Mayor Bloomberg.

jshen 16y ago
Let's say you bought microsoft early on and sold it for a huge profit. You then bought google early on and sold it for a huge profit. You then use that to buy apple 7 years ago, and you now sell it for a huge profit. Let's ay you made millions on this. You believe that you should pay a lower percentage on that than what I pay on my income as a programmer? The rich weren't squeezed out before the bush tax cuts were they?
- webXL 16y ago
  In order to make millions on my investments, I would have had to risked millions more of already taxed income to do so. The fact that others' after-tax income was transferred to me along the way in exchange for shares is irrelevant to the question why a positive or negative return on investment should involve the government for a second, third, fourth... time. It's called double-taxation, and it prevents people from buying and selling more than they actually would with the money the government lets them keep. I don't think they were squeezed, but the bush tax cuts were a step back after decades of tax increases, when the wealthy were paying a larger share. Sure the top bracket wasn't the 90% pre-Kennedy rate, but the group of 38-42%'ers were paying a larger a share of GDP that they ever did before. There is a point of diminishing returns on tax increases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve How else did the government fund itself when Kennedy cut taxes? Someone at the time must have thought the rich were being squeezed.
  - jshen 16y ago
    My pay comes from people who bought a service with after tax income. Why should you pay a lower percentage than me?
    - webXL 16y ago
      Your pay most likely comes from sales of goods and services, buyers of which are taxed at a lower rate. They are using after tax income, so it is double taxation there, too. But value was created in those instances, so one can say that the government helped create that value to justify it. I supposed the value of the stock can also be viewed in that manner, but why should it be taxed as much as income, when goods and services aren't?
      - jshen 16y ago
        because someone like warren buffet shouldn't pay a lower percentage of his income in taxes than the rest of us. Hell, you're the one that is making the case that a worker generates more value than people who gamble on stocks.
        webXL 16y ago
        News Flash: Warren Buffet pays more in percentage terms than you do: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/02/distribution_of_1.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/02/distribution_of_... And he gives a lot more away to charity in percentage terms, too!
        jshen 16y ago
        I pay way more than 17.7% of my income. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06... Warren E. Buffett was his usual folksy self Tuesday night at a fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as he slammed a system that allows the very rich to pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class. Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent. Buffett said that was despite the fact that he was not trying to av

by webXL 16y ago

jshen 16y ago

Let's say you bought microsoft early on and sold it for a huge profit. You then bought google early on and sold it for a huge profit. You then use that to buy apple 7 years ago, and you now sell it for a huge profit. Let's ay you made millions on this. You believe that you should pay a lower percentage on that than what I pay on my income as a programmer? The rich weren't squeezed out before the bush tax cuts were they?

webXL 16y ago
In order to make millions on my investments, I would have had to risked millions more of already taxed income to do so. The fact that others' after-tax income was transferred to me along the way in exchange for shares is irrelevant to the question why a positive or negative return on investment should involve the government for a second, third, fourth... time. It's called double-taxation, and it prevents people from buying and selling more than they actually would with the money the government lets them keep. I don't think they were squeezed, but the bush tax cuts were a step back after decades of tax increases, when the wealthy were paying a larger share. Sure the top bracket wasn't the 90% pre-Kennedy rate, but the group of 38-42%'ers were paying a larger a share of GDP that they ever did before. There is a point of diminishing returns on tax increases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve How else did the government fund itself when Kennedy cut taxes? Someone at the time must have thought the rich were being squeezed.
- jshen 16y ago
  My pay comes from people who bought a service with after tax income. Why should you pay a lower percentage than me?
  - webXL 16y ago
    Your pay most likely comes from sales of goods and services, buyers of which are taxed at a lower rate. They are using after tax income, so it is double taxation there, too. But value was created in those instances, so one can say that the government helped create that value to justify it. I supposed the value of the stock can also be viewed in that manner, but why should it be taxed as much as income, when goods and services aren't?
    - jshen 16y ago
      because someone like warren buffet shouldn't pay a lower percentage of his income in taxes than the rest of us. Hell, you're the one that is making the case that a worker generates more value than people who gamble on stocks.
      - webXL 16y ago
        News Flash: Warren Buffet pays more in percentage terms than you do: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/02/distribution_of_1.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/02/distribution_of_... And he gives a lot more away to charity in percentage terms, too!
        jshen 16y ago
        I pay way more than 17.7% of my income. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06... Warren E. Buffett was his usual folksy self Tuesday night at a fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as he slammed a system that allows the very rich to pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class. Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent. Buffett said that was despite the fact that he was not trying to av