6 ms·
> capital gains tax should be much higher than income tax Then you would in effect discourage investing. Investing, which creates jobs and promotes innovation.
by nickpp 2y ago
> capital gains tax should be much higher than income tax
Then you would in effect discourage investing. Investing, which creates jobs and promotes innovation. Is as simple as that.
- immibis 2y ago[citation needed] Consider the opposite extreme, where the government subsidizes investments to 100x what they are actually worth. Would this create more jobs and innovation, or merely "bullshit investments"? If a subsidy wouldn't create jobs and innovation, a tax wouldn't take them away. There is also the likely possibility that the same investments would be made, but valued lower.
- nec4b 2y ago>>[citation needed] Any economics text book.
- immibis 2y agoGo on. Which economics text book would tell me that if the government incentivized investments to 100x their actual value, the resulting investments wouldn't be bullshit?
- nec4b 2y agoAny economic textbook will tell you increasing taxes on capital, decreases investments. No need to make up silly analogies which are false equivalences.
- immibis 2y agoThen decreasing taxes on capital increases investments. Decreasing them all the way to negative ten thousand percent would increase investments a lot. Is that a good thing?
- nec4b 2y agoYou really aren't making an argument you think you are. If you are truly interested about macroeconomics there are plenty of good books out there from many different ideological viewpoints. Most of them explain what you are trying so vehemently disapprove with weird analogies. >> Decreasing them all the way to negative ten thousand percent would increase investments a lot. A physicist would say you have just invented perpetuum mobile. >> Is that a good thing? Does it matter if what you suggest is impossible?
- immibis 2y agoCan you answer the question? No, you can't.
- danaris 2y agoThen let's do something to encourage actually investing—putting money into a company, not into the stock market. If I buy shares of, say, APPL today, Apple Inc. doesn't actually get that money. The person who owned those shares before does. Even if I bought up $2B worth of shares, Apple would see none of that money. It is not actually invested in the company in any way. If you want to encourage investing, then you need to find a way to advantage shares being sold directly by the company. (And, frankly, strongly discourage stock buybacks, because that's literally the opposite of investing, and generally only benefits the wealthiest shareholders.)
- roncesvalles 2y agoI wish there were a way to differentiate capital gains arising from being a passive owner vs capital gains arising from being an active owner. If your only contribution to a company is that you've funded it, I really don't think you should enjoy the same tax benefits as an entrepreneur who put their blood and sweat into it. Let's define it like this - if working for a company is your primary occupation, you can enjoy the lower capital gains tax from its success. This includes founders and employees with equity. For everyone else it's income tax, because they've done little else than speculate, and, well, gambling wins count as personal income.