26-01-2002 04:50									#1
	Capital Gains Taxes - Should they be abolished? Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Do you guys think capital gains taxes should be abolished?

Personally, I definitely think so, given the fact that it is simply a way of a)taxing a person twice, b)punishing a person for doing well in the market, and, to a lesser degree, c)discouraging investment.

What do y'all think?

	26-01-2002 04:58									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

A) Don't have to be the same person... b) doing well in all forms means taxes, no (real) difference here c) Depends if you want spendings or savings.... If you got millions on the bank, what's the option really?

	26-01-2002 05:20									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

No.

	26-01-2002 05:25									#4
	Taxes in general should be reduced Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara No.

That settles that then. How can anyone possibly argue against such a well thought out case?

	26-01-2002 05:29									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I agree wholly and without reservation with chegitz.

	26-01-2002 05:33									#6
	Support Apolyton

They should be abolished only to the extent income tax should be ablolish. Ehile the income tax still plauges us, the best thing to do with capital gains is to anually index the basis, and tax what gain still occurs along with the ordinary income.

	26-01-2002 05:47									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Yes

	26-01-2002 05:51									#8
	Got spare money?

Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than income. This means that the government takes money you work for at a higher rate than money you don't work for. :hm: It also creates lots of perverse market incentives and accounting loopholes, and makes it a lot more complicated to pay taxes. Capital gains should simply be counted as income.

	26-01-2002 05:52									#9
	Re: Taxes in general should be reduced Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc That settles that then. How can anyone possibly argue against such a well thought out case?

I'm glad you're finally begining to see things my way. This will make life much easier.

	26-01-2002 05:52									#10
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Why? It's already been taxed before being placed in investment.

	26-01-2002 05:52									#11
	Remove this text

We NZer's don't have em, so this is an ambiguous arguement!

	26-01-2002 05:59									#12
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Why? It's already been taxed before being placed in investment.

You don't get taxed on the money you invest, only the money you gain as the investment grows. Hence, capital gains tax. By and large, you get taxed at a lower rate than income taxes (unless your income is in a low bracket and/or you cash out your investment in less than a year).

Back when I had options (back in the good old days of the .com bubble) I looked long and hard about how to deal with these suckers. If you sell your stock under a year after inve3sting in it, any capital gains are taxed at 28% (IIRC). If you sit on them for a year, they are taxed at 20%.

	26-01-2002 14:43									#13
	Re: Capital Gains Taxes - Should they be abolished? Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Do you guys think capital gains taxes should be abolished? Personally, I definitely think so, given the fact that it is simply a way of a)taxing a person twice, b)punishing a person for doing well in the market, and, to a lesser degree, c)discouraging investment. What do y'all think?

No.

a. How does said person is taxed twice?
b. That seems to be irrelevant
c. On the other hand, it discourages speculation.

	26-01-2002 17:45									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Why should Capital Gains Tax be abolished before income tax? After all, as Richard said, it is a tax on money you didn't work for. Seems fair enough to me.

Even worse, CGT is paid mainly by rich people - so I would be in favour of raising it and bleeding some of these rich bastards dry.

	26-01-2002 18:35									#15
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Capital gains should simply be counted as income.

You mean it isn't?

Wait a sec....

(looks at his income tax declaration)

Indeed it isn't!

But if we want to count it as income, it has to be declared, which means that accumulation overtime has to be sorted out (the so-called "pothen esches" or "where did you get that?")

Tax them for all they've got!

	26-01-2002 19:05									#16
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Grrr We NZer's don't have em, so this is an ambiguous arguement!

Nor do Finns

(At least not much )

	26-01-2002 20:05									#17
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by axi Tax them for all they've got!

IRS data shows that the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the USA pay aproximately 36 percent of all federal income tax. The bottom 50 percent of wage earners pay just 4. It looks like we are already taxing "them" for all they've got to the extant we can without going completely socialist.

	26-01-2002 20:07									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Richard Bruns Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than income. This means that the government takes money you work for at a higher rate than money you don't work for. :hm: It also creates lots of perverse market incentives and accounting loopholes, and makes it a lot more complicated to pay taxes. Capital gains should simply be counted as income.

That's interesting. In Britain, capital gains tax is actually higher than all but the top rate of income tax. British taxation policy has always been tougher on "unearned wealth".

	26-01-2002 21:08									#19
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: IRS data shows that the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the USA pay aproximately 36 percent of all federal income tax. The bottom 50 percent of wage earners pay just 4. It looks like we are already taxing "them" for all they've got to the extant we can without going completely socialist.

Yes, but how about the income of those groups? What part of the income does this top 1% get?

	26-01-2002 22:58									#20
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Who gives a **** about the income gap? As it stands, taxing the rich at a higher percentage than the poor is blatantly and entirely unfair and immoral. It's punishing the rich for being successful - or being born into a successful family.

The only fair income tax is a flat tax.

Moving along, though, capital gains tax is unfair because the money you put into the market has ALREADY been taxed. So what if you put it to work to get more money? That sounds like the American Way to me. And believe me, it isn't just the rich who pay it (although even if it was it would be just as wrong - the rich are people too) - middle-class white collar workers generally have some money invested in the stock market, and get hurt by this tax as well.

To all you people who want to "bleed the rich dry", "tax them for all they are worth", etc., all I can say is You people are a bunch of thieves, or at least you support theft, not only basic income theft, but an extra, punishing, unfair theft as well

	26-01-2002 23:06									#21
	Support Apolyton

To back up David's last point, federal taxes as they stand now are at historically high levels consuming more than 19% of the US economy. At what point will we say that we have bled them dry? Once it reaches 25%? Or would you say that it should be even higher than that?

	26-01-2002 23:48									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

David Floyd is right! Literally thousands of American children may not be able to go to Aspen or St Moritz this year!

	27-01-2002 03:57									#23
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

LOL@Bugs!

Taxes are not theft - Property is theft!

(eagerly waits to see enraged David Floyd choking on the foam coming out of his mouth)

	28-01-2002 16:59									#24
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Who gives a **** about the income gap? As it stands, taxing the rich at a higher percentage than the poor is blatantly and entirely unfair and immoral.

Why?

quote: It's punishing the rich for being successful - or being born into a successful family.

How are the rich being 'punished' by having more money than the poor? Do you think that all rich people are rich because of their own skill and hard work and that all poor people are poor because they are incompetent or lazy? And why do you think that some people should have more money based solely on their genetic makeup?

	28-01-2002 19:51									#25
	Remove this text

1. Capital gains in the US are subject to double taxation. Suppose youmake an investment and it earns some money. The company you made the investment is required to pay corporate income tax on that investment (IIRC corporate tax rate of something like 40 percent) before you even see one thin dime of it. Then, when it is reported to you as income, you pay a capital gains tax, which is someting like 20 or 28 percent depending on how long you held the asset.

2. By taxing capital gains more than regular income the tax code encourages consumption and discourages investment. And its not like you earned this money by doing nothing. What you are being paid for when you receive a return on an investment is that fact that you could have bought something right now with the money, instead of wating years for the investment to pay off.

3. I am in favor of abolishing the capital gains tax for all assets held over some set period of time, say three years. Retaining the tax for shrot term assets would help discourage short term speculation, which is not necessarily in the best interest of the economy.

4. Capital gains taxes should be adjusted for inflation as Lefty sugests. Suppose you own a house for 20 years, and you keep it in the same good condition for 20 years. Then you sell the house for much more than you bought it for. You still have the same house you started with, but most of the increase in price is due to inflation. No point in taxing this, since it is no real gain.

5. Income tax rates should, generally, increase with income. Why? Income taxes are generally a tax on labor. As people are taxed more, they will work less. However, as people's incomes increase, they tend to work less anyway because they take more of their time as leisure. Taxing high income people at a higher percentage of their income will cause less of a reduction in work for a given amount of money raised. Conversely, reducing taxes fro low income people will cause a proportionately larger increase in the amount they work.

6. Carried to its logical conclusion, the best policy is to have a negative income tax for low wage workers, and proportionately higher taxes for high wage workers. This gives low income workers further incentive to work, and minimizes the amount of labor lost for a given maount of money raised by the government.

edit: removing the curse of Apolyton

	28-01-2002 20:10									#26
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The return on capital should be taxed in the same way as the return on labour. It will be difficult at times to figure out the real return, and you'll need some exceptions for political purposes (eg the return on your house is the service of shelter it provides - try taxing that like rent income...).

The good thing about Austria's tax law: hold stocks longer than a year, and the appreciation gain is tax free. And no, I have no idea _why_ that is so...

AS:

"...and minimizes the amount of labor lost for a given maount of money raised by the government."

But you are replacing more productive labour with less productive labour here....

	28-01-2002 21:16									#27
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Adam Smith 1. Capital gains in the US are subject to double taxation. Suppose youmake an investment and it earns some money. The company you made the investment is required to pay corporate income tax on that investment (IIRC corporate tax rate of something like 40 percent) before you even see one thin dime of it. Then, when it is reported to you as income, you pay a capital gains tax, which is someting like 20 or 28 percent depending on how long you held the asset.

I don't see anything wrong with that. Imagine that instead of investing money with them, you sold them a machine part, and make a profit. You should be taxed on that profit, and the company who uses the part to make a profit should also be taxed on that profit. If you rent them the machine part, you should still be taxed on the profit you make.

Investing money with the company is just renting them some extra funds. The company makes a profit and is taxed, and you make a profit (from the 'rental') which is also taxed.

Your objection should really be that you have a bad agreement with the company. Your profit is dependent on how well they do, and the taxation of their profit reduces that, meaning that you get less money.

	28-01-2002 21:55									#28
	Inflate your Upload Space

RJ:

"Imagine that instead of investing money with them, you sold them a machine part, and make a profit. You should be taxed on that profit, and the company who uses the part to make a profit should also be taxed on that profit...."

That's a different situation. If I make that part for 100 and sell it for 110, I should be taxed on the 10. If at the next stage a profit is made, my profit is deducted as a cost for that company. So each profit is taxed at its stage, but not one profit multiple times.

But when I invest 100 and the company makes a profit of 10 on that, itis subject to say 4 in corporate tax, and the 6 I get are subject to say 2 in income tax.

	28-01-2002 22:10									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

No.

I'd say that this would make the gap between rich and poor even greater.

I guess if you are working calss you can't affrod to invest and if you have modest sums of money to invest it is still Ok if 25% go away. Not to mention if you are rich and you get paid in stock options when you execrise them you pay 40% but on any gain you pay further 25%. That would work well for me if I was rich. Perhaps all taxes should be lined up according to your personal level of income but that would discourage investment I'd say.

	28-01-2002 23:17									#30
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Bugs ****ing Bunny That's interesting. In Britain, capital gains tax is actually higher than all but the top rate of income tax. British taxation policy has always been tougher on "unearned wealth".

Actually the rates are the same/less. The lower and upper tax rates are the same. The basic rate is lower by 2%.

AND once you take into account the fact that you don't pay national insurance on top of CGT (an additional 10%), the overall amount creamed off by the government is much less. This, even without the allowance for CG, which transferable to spouses, which is £7,500 (x 2 if you have a spouse to transfer it to) against £4,535 for earnings.

From a tax perspective, it is better to have CGs than earnings.