4 ms·

If I make $1,000,000 profit from selling stock I pay much lower taxes than if I made $1,000,000 from selling my labor to a company.

• randomdata 3y ago
  There is no productive output in the sale of stock, though. You are only moving capital around. Similarly, moving labour around carries no tax burden, leaving capital to be the one with the higher taxes. If your capital holdings produced $1,000,000 in productive output, presumably in the US you would pay the same taxes as if you you made $1,000,000 selling your labour. That would be the case here.
  • synetic 3y ago
    You are free to make whatever distinctions you want. Most people would say that it is unfair that a person who sells stocks for $50,000 profit pays far less in taxes than a person who lays bricks for a year for $50,000.
    • randomdata 3y ago
      Because they don't realize the productivity of the capital is also taxed, and is taxed at the same rate as labour? That double taxation should sum to more than a labourer would be on the hook for. After all, the value of capital is determined by its productivity potential. If there is no ability to generate productivity, the capital will be worthless, and then there will be no capital gains to speak of. Let's face it, the real problem with the tax code (in this country, but I understand the US is the same) is that the borrowed income against capital is not taxed at all. This allows one to effectively create money out of thin air without paying a cent.