Taxing people for dying sound demonic.
Democrats would tax people for passing money from their right hand to their left hand if they could figure out how to enforce it.
Capital Gains
- Thread starter theiacowtipper
- Start date
Taxing people for dying sound demonic.
Democrats would tax people for passing money from their right hand to their left hand if they could figure out how to enforce it.
The middle class has already been decimated, while we continue to cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations.
“The heated rhetoric notwithstanding, there is no obvious relationship between tax rates on capital gains and economic growth.”
-Leonard Burman, Daniel Patrick Moynihan Professor of Public Affairs at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University
He also said:
"How should capital gains be taxed? Under an income tax the answer is that capital gains should be taxed in full as they are earned, not when realized. Capital gains are income, not really different in substance from interest, rents, and royalties: other kinds of capital income that are taxed as ordinary income. Under the pure comprehensive income tax, corporate income would be allocated to shareholders and taxed as ordinary income, in the same way that S-corporations and partnerships are taxed."
I agree.
Here's Oregon - cutting capital gains to stimulate growth:
Oregon's capital gains deferral program, established by the 1995 legislature and first effective for the 1996
tax year, is intended to increase investment in Oregon, primarily in startup companies. The program,
however, has not achieved this goal. As Table 1 shows, in its first two years, 65 taxpayers utilized the
deferral, investing just $8.6 million in qualifying businesses and deferring $773,000 in Oregon personal
income taxes. It is likely that much of the investment qualifying for the tax deferral would have occurred
even without the program, so the net investment stimulated by the program is even smaller.
Would you like to see more? What have you got?
Well, that's because you're not taxing the dead person, you know. You're taxing the person who gets the asset...that they never paid for. And only if they sell it. And they get it at the value it had when they inherited it. So...yeah...your post is really stupid.
The middle class has cut it's own throat by buying into the wingnut bullshit. The huge middle class existed because unions demanded an equitable distribution of corporate revenues. The wingnuts succeeded in demonizing unions while lionizing the wealthiest members of society and convincing everyone that the wealthy - given full access to all the money - would take care of everyone else. Hasn't really worked out but people are still buying it.
I get that you want the govt seizing wealth any way they can, but I still find it heinous, and deleterious to the capital formation that actually underpins civilization, to let the govt siphon wealth at every transaction.
So you’re stupid.
Oh bull-f'n-shit. If your dead guy sold that asset the day before he died he would have owed taxes on the entire capital gain. That gain is simply wiped away upon his death. No taxes at all are owed for the first $11.4 MILLION for his heir. And the heir GETS the asset at its current value...so it can be sold with no capital gains taxes owed at all. And none of this applies if the asset is left to a spouse. Your entire premise is idiotic.
Tarheel the useful idiot is claiming socialism is good for the middle class. Yes tax our way to prosperity
Hahaha
Hahaha
What does the left have to do with deficits in 2017-2019? Why are you singling out the left?
We all know the 2017 federal budget was voted on and determined in 2016, while Obama was still President. Most of those budgetary items and positions are set for years. i know you know that, but go ahead and act like you don't.
Name some Democrats that are proposing cutting spending........ crickets.
Pretty much every investment ever made above the risk free rate. That is what I got.
Why invest at a higher risk if the return is going to take a huge hit? You don't.
I especially like the assumption in Oregon that the investment would have happened regardless. Sure.
Here is an interesting quote from a hero of the left.... I suppose you will disown him now.
The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital . . . the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy. — President John F. Kennedy, 1963
I'll ask him the same thing I asked you...likely with the same results....prove it. JFK's excuse is that he's dead. What's yours?
You...ummm...do understand that there was investment in Oregon prior to the lowering of the capital gains tax. Right? So there was a pretty well established rate of investment. Which...you know...didn't change. So the assumption would be based on factual evidence. Unlike YOUR fairy tale which is based on nothing at all.
And the CBO weighs in with this metastudy:
This paper discusses several quantitative analyses of whether lower taxes on
capital gains are likely to raise GNP by increasing the total amount of saving
and investment in the economy. Most of the studies, including two by the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO), consider the effects of a 30 percent
capital gains exclusion. Of the eight studies reviewed, five, including the two
CBO studies, found that cutting taxes on capital gains is not likely to increase
saving, investment, and GNP much if at all. Three studies found that cutting
capital gains taxes increases GNP by enough so that the addional tax revenue
collected on the higher level of income offsets the initial losses in tax revenue
that the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office
have estimated would result from such tax cuts.
The findings vary for several reasons. The studies make different
assumptions about how saving responds to changes in the return to saving and
how investment responds to changes in the cost of capital. Studies that have
estimated the effects of a 30 percent exclusion also use different estimates of
the degree to which an exclusion of this size would raise the return to savers
and lower the cost of capital to businesses.
The more that a capital gains tax cut raises the return to savers and
lowers the cost of capital to businesses, and the more that saving and
investment respond to such changes, the more likely it is that such a tax cut
will spur saving and investment and raise GNP. Studies that found that
cutting capital gains taxes has large positive effects on GNP made optimistic
assumptions about how much cutting capital gains taxes would raise the real
after-tax return received by savers and reduce the cost of capital faced by
businesses. These studies also made optimistic assumptions about the
responsiveness of saving and investment to changes in the rate of return and
the cost of capital. These assumptions-especially that private saving is quite
responsive to changes in the real after-tax rate of return-are at the high end
or outside of the range of most empirical evidence, and are thus likely to
overstate the positive effects of cutting capital gains taxes. If these
assumptions do not hold, cutting capital gains taxes has little or no positive
effect. Under plausible assumptions, cutting taxes on capital gains could even
slow capital formation and slow growth if the deficit was increased by more
than the increase in private savings. Taken together, the studies thus raise
doubt about whether cutting taxes on capital gains can be counted on to raise
saving and investment enough to significantly increase GNP.
You like that word? Empirical? Good word.
This paper discusses several quantitative analyses of whether lower taxes on
capital gains are likely to raise GNP by increasing the total amount of saving
and investment in the economy. Most of the studies, including two by the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO), consider the effects of a 30 percent
capital gains exclusion. Of the eight studies reviewed, five, including the two
CBO studies, found that cutting taxes on capital gains is not likely to increase
saving, investment, and GNP much if at all. Three studies found that cutting
capital gains taxes increases GNP by enough so that the addional tax revenue
collected on the higher level of income offsets the initial losses in tax revenue
that the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office
have estimated would result from such tax cuts.
The findings vary for several reasons. The studies make different
assumptions about how saving responds to changes in the return to saving and
how investment responds to changes in the cost of capital. Studies that have
estimated the effects of a 30 percent exclusion also use different estimates of
the degree to which an exclusion of this size would raise the return to savers
and lower the cost of capital to businesses.
The more that a capital gains tax cut raises the return to savers and
lowers the cost of capital to businesses, and the more that saving and
investment respond to such changes, the more likely it is that such a tax cut
will spur saving and investment and raise GNP. Studies that found that
cutting capital gains taxes has large positive effects on GNP made optimistic
assumptions about how much cutting capital gains taxes would raise the real
after-tax return received by savers and reduce the cost of capital faced by
businesses. These studies also made optimistic assumptions about the
responsiveness of saving and investment to changes in the rate of return and
the cost of capital. These assumptions-especially that private saving is quite
responsive to changes in the real after-tax rate of return-are at the high end
or outside of the range of most empirical evidence, and are thus likely to
overstate the positive effects of cutting capital gains taxes. If these
assumptions do not hold, cutting capital gains taxes has little or no positive
effect. Under plausible assumptions, cutting taxes on capital gains could even
slow capital formation and slow growth if the deficit was increased by more
than the increase in private savings. Taken together, the studies thus raise
doubt about whether cutting taxes on capital gains can be counted on to raise
saving and investment enough to significantly increase GNP.
You like that word? Empirical? Good word.
Meh, I'd tend to agree with you but the capital gains tax rates have been adjusted and changed over the years multiple times without much ado about it or turmoil in the capital markets.
There is no "correct" way to collect tax. Taxes are collected to 1) pay for government expenditures, and 2) influence behavior.
Well, #1 is close to a trillion short, so out goes that reason. But still, governments need a way to collect revenue, while making some attempt to make it "fair".
As for #2, it has now become political to the point where influencing behavior is gone. Taxes are set by those in power to favor those that helped them gain that power.
Capital gains tax has been less than ordinary income tax for decades. It's purpose is too encourage long term capital investment in assets that carry a greater risk than investments that produce ordinary income (CD's, Bonds, etc). Businesses trying to raise capital would have to pay more for investments that will be taxed at ordinary income rates. The Federal government decided a long time ago that it was a good idea to encourage investors to buy stock or real estate, so they reduced the taxes on the appreciation in those assets.
Dinking around with tax rates is no good. Savers/investors need some degree of confidence that they understand the tax cost on the other end. Stability is the answer, not frequent tinkering.
I had a very sweet elderly widow as a client. Her income was almost all dividends. When the dividend rate was cut in half, she saved over $20k in tax. Knowing that she was not exactly in need of government assistance, she asked me, "Why did they decide it was a good idea to cut my taxes?". I explained to her that the government hoped she spend the savings to help stimulate the economy. She replied, "Well, I guess I do need a new washing machine." So much for changing her behavior.
Well, #1 is close to a trillion short, so out goes that reason. But still, governments need a way to collect revenue, while making some attempt to make it "fair".
As for #2, it has now become political to the point where influencing behavior is gone. Taxes are set by those in power to favor those that helped them gain that power.
Capital gains tax has been less than ordinary income tax for decades. It's purpose is too encourage long term capital investment in assets that carry a greater risk than investments that produce ordinary income (CD's, Bonds, etc). Businesses trying to raise capital would have to pay more for investments that will be taxed at ordinary income rates. The Federal government decided a long time ago that it was a good idea to encourage investors to buy stock or real estate, so they reduced the taxes on the appreciation in those assets.
Dinking around with tax rates is no good. Savers/investors need some degree of confidence that they understand the tax cost on the other end. Stability is the answer, not frequent tinkering.
I had a very sweet elderly widow as a client. Her income was almost all dividends. When the dividend rate was cut in half, she saved over $20k in tax. Knowing that she was not exactly in need of government assistance, she asked me, "Why did they decide it was a good idea to cut my taxes?". I explained to her that the government hoped she spend the savings to help stimulate the economy. She replied, "Well, I guess I do need a new washing machine." So much for changing her behavior.
Would love to see some posters take a income tax test. It would be most enlightening/embrassing to some.
Double taxation can apply to dividends that have been taxes at corporate level before passed to other entities to be taxed at it's income level be it corporate or individual.
Double taxation can apply to dividends that have been taxes at corporate level before passed to other entities to be taxed at it's income level be it corporate or individual.
FIFY
Your original would be a reasonable argument for actual investments. But much (most?) of what gets taxed at cap gains rates is just gambling gains.
You buy stock. Your money doesn't go to the company, it goes to another "investor." It doesn't help that company grow. It's just gambling. Which is why I put "investor" in quotes.
IPO stock purchases should probably be handled differently, since they are closer to actual investing, and your argument would make sense.
This can't be overemphasized. It's why some call America an "oligarchy" while some insist on overturning Citizens United and McCutcheon, and some call for a constitutional amendment making it clear that corporations are not people, and so on.
There is no "correct" way to collect tax. Taxes are collected to 1) pay for government expenditures, and 2) influence behavior.
Well, #1 is close to a trillion short, so out goes that reason. But still, governments need a way to collect revenue, while making some attempt to make it "fair".
As for #2, it has now become political to the point where influencing behavior is gone. Taxes are set by those in power to favor those that helped them gain that power.
Capital gains tax has been less than ordinary income tax for decades. It's purpose is too encourage long term capital investment in assets that carry a greater risk than investments that produce ordinary income (CD's, Bonds, etc). Businesses trying to raise capital would have to pay more for investments that will be taxed at ordinary income rates. The Federal government decided a long time ago that it was a good idea to encourage investors to buy stock or real estate, so they reduced the taxes on the appreciation in those assets.
Dinking around with tax rates is no good. Savers/investors need some degree of confidence that they understand the tax cost on the other end. Stability is the answer, not frequent tinkering.
I had a very sweet elderly widow as a client. Her income was almost all dividends. When the dividend rate was cut in half, she saved over $20k in tax. Knowing that she was not exactly in need of government assistance, she asked me, "Why did they decide it was a good idea to cut my taxes?". I explained to her that the government hoped she spend the savings to help stimulate the economy. She replied, "Well, I guess I do need a new washing machine." So much for changing her behavior.
The investors are compensated for this risk by a higher yield potential. Historically, you make more on this type of investment. Why should it also get a tax break? With interest rates so low, there’s p,entry of capital to go around. Index for inflation and tax gains as normal income
For all those wanting to change capital gains to be ordinary income I have a compromise for you. Get rid of all Corporate taxes. This way all companies are treated equally rather then the way it is today where a company like John Deere pays almost no taxes due to the R&D tax credit and a company like Kroger pays a ton of tax because there are very little tax credits for retailers. Then after getting rid of corporate taxes make all dividends and capital gains ordinary income making everyone happy that Warren Buffet and Mitt Romney will now pay the highest rate possible. From a corporation perspective this would be good for the economy as the corporation can only do 2 things with the cash they generate - either invest it in capital expenditures for growth which is good for the economy or pay it out in dividends or capital gains which would be taxed as ordinary income. Please tell me where the flaw in this plan is. All companies are treated equally rather than some getting preferential treatment as they do today and everyone would pay taxes at the proper rate. All fixed.
I have no rational argument for this approach, other than it would hurt me personally. Probably not a good enough reason, right?
I don't know what the % is, but it has to be a huge % of stocks gains are earned inside of a qualified retirement plan (401k, IRA, etc). Ultimately, these gains are taxed at ordinary income rates when the money is withdrawn.
A plan to eliminate the cap gains rate would benefit the wealthy. So, it's not going to happen.
There is no "correct" way to collect tax. Taxes are collected to 1) pay for government expenditures, and 2) influence behavior.
Well, #1 is close to a trillion short, so out goes that reason. But still, governments need a way to collect revenue, while making some attempt to make it "fair".
As for #2, it has now become political to the point where influencing behavior is gone. Taxes are set by those in power to favor those that helped them gain that power.
Capital gains tax has been less than ordinary income tax for decades. It's purpose is too encourage long term capital investment in assets that carry a greater risk than investments that produce ordinary income (CD's, Bonds, etc). Businesses trying to raise capital would have to pay more for investments that will be taxed at ordinary income rates. The Federal government decided a long time ago that it was a good idea to encourage investors to buy stock or real estate, so they reduced the taxes on the appreciation in those assets.
Dinking around with tax rates is no good. Savers/investors need some degree of confidence that they understand the tax cost on the other end. Stability is the answer, not frequent tinkering.
I had a very sweet elderly widow as a client. Her income was almost all dividends. When the dividend rate was cut in half, she saved over $20k in tax. Knowing that she was not exactly in need of government assistance, she asked me, "Why did they decide it was a good idea to cut my taxes?". I explained to her that the government hoped she spend the savings to help stimulate the economy. She replied, "Well, I guess I do need a new washing machine." So much for changing her behavior.
Yep. Agree with pretty much everything you stated here
