3 ms·
All of this complication is the problem. Jeff ends up getting benefits that most people don't get, at least not most younger people. 15% and/or 20% plus 3.8% i
by annoyingnoob 5y ago
All of this complication is the problem. Jeff ends up getting benefits that most people don't get, at least not most younger people.
15% and/or 20% plus 3.8% is still less than the 22% to 32% range that a lot of people will fall into. And that 22-32% is on 100% of taxable income, there is no break on part of it.
- toast0 5y agoOk, but you're moving the goalposts a lot. The government is clearly incentivising long term capital gains here. The nice thing is it's easier than ever to get into a brokerage account and buy sensible funds without paying a lot of fees. Robinhood may have started it, but fidelity and maybe others will let you buy fractional shares in etfs as long as you're putting in at least $1. Mutual funds have let you do fractional shares for a long time too, but minimums are higher and $1,000 to get into a vanguard target date fund might be too much for some people.
- annoyingnoob 5y agoThat is kinda the point, the current policy helps richer people, and older people that have amassed some investments, but for many and for most younger people there isn't much benefit. Why should the burden be shifted to labor? Wouldn't the investment plan work even better if everyone got the same tax break to say 15-20%? I mean people would have more to invest every year and so compounding works even better. It doesn't make sense to punish labor - its all income, why does the source matter?. Our current system shifts taxes to labor and stifles labor's ability to invest and realize gains.