 |
|
9 ECAC Titles
|
|
The flat tax issues and the regressive/progressive tax structure issues are different.
I can't see the argument for blowing CGT away, other than another obvious giveaway to the wealthy (among who I hope to be someday, at which point I'll suddenly see the light).
I'm in favor of allowing people a CGT exemption in the same way that they get an income tax exemption. Let the first 10k CG be tax free, then tax the rest.
Note that this would encourage small investers, but not seriously dent revenue nor proliferate loopholes.
Last edited by 9 ECAC Titles on 29-01-2002 at 02:16
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Victor Galis
|
 |
in exile
Jul 1999
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Personally, I definitely think so, given the fact that it is simply a way of a)taxing a person twice, |
How so?
quote:
b)punishing a person for doing well in the market, and, to a lesser degree |
Are you on crack?
quote:
c)discouraging investment. |
You know, roads and police protection aren't exactly free. The state also does plenty of things that make stock markets possible.
And no they should not be abolished, though I personally would like to see the first $5000-$10000 of each person's capital gains get exempted, for the benefit of middle class investors.
quote:
Why? It's already been taxed before being placed in investment. |
-No. Imran, the tax is only on the gains. i.e. the amount you make through this investment, not on the original ammount that was taxed.
quote:
As it stands, taxing the rich at a higher percentage than the poor is blatantly and entirely unfair and immoral. |
-Some people would say that it is unfair and immoral for some people to make more than others. And others might tell you that you'll be among the first against the wall when the revolution comes
quote:
It's punishing the rich for being successful - or being born into a successful family. |
-You need to get past this rhetorical nonsense.
quote:
The only fair income tax is a flat tax. |
-You mean the tax that would have to starve the poor to provide the services that the govt. provides now.
quote:
Moving along, though, capital gains tax is unfair because the money you put into the market has ALREADY been taxed. |
-This is why it isn't taxed. Only the gain is taxed.
quote:
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. |
-I actually paid this tax last year. Only form of income tax I paid, and you don't hear me whine.
quote:
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. |
-You seem to assume that the money you are making is in some way related to the money the company is making, which at least for the last couple years has not always been the case.
quote:
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. |
-Aren't house sale gains tax exempt anyway? (Well at least the first sale every 5 years)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Adam Smith
|
 |
Maryland, USA
Jan 1970
time: 00:17
|
|
Chegitz:
Your rejoinder is far too simplistic. The issue is a matter of degree....not NO investment, but less than there otherwise would be.
Victor:
quote:
You seem to assume that the money you are making is in some way related to the money the company is making, which at least for the last couple years has not always been the case. |
Huh?? If you invest in the company, and they do not make money, then you do not make money. How can that NOT be the case?
I used a house as an example. Gains on houses are exempt. Other gains are not.
edit: response to Victor's simultaneous post.
Last edited by Adam Smith on 29-01-2002 at 02:55
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
9 ECAC Titles
|
|
> In the 1970s when income tax was 97% on top earners (~£1,500,000 per annum IIRC) a lot of people just left the country.
In the US, the top bracket tax rate was at its highest in the 1940's through the 1960's, the golden age of the US economy.
Also worthy of note: during the same period, corporate taxes were also at their highest.
Progressive taxation helps the middle class, especially the lower middle, the most. A strong middle class equals a strong economy. Or perhaps you're going to sell all your goods and services to the 1% who would benefit from a flat tax?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
Guys, I'm not talking about expediency and efficiency. As berzerker says, I don't care about those. I care about right and wrong, just and unjust.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
Germany has other problems, such as their too-high income taxes, too many social services/programs/entitlements, no gun ownership, etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dauphin
|
 |
Caught in a tuna net
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by 9 ECAC Titles
> In the 1970s when income tax was 97% on top earners (~£1,500,000 per annum IIRC) a lot of people just left the country.
In the US, the top bracket tax rate was at its highest in the 1940's through the 1960's, the golden age of the US economy.
Also worthy of note: during the same period, corporate taxes were also at their highest.
Progressive taxation helps the middle class, especially the lower middle, the most. A strong middle class equals a strong economy. Or perhaps you're going to sell all your goods and services to the 1% who would benefit from a flat tax? |
Perhaps it was because it was a golden age that the US could get away with high taxes. Stick high taxes in a redundant economy and no one will stick around.
Anyway, high taxes are not a problem in and of themselves, it is disparity that is the problem. Why invest/work in a country with such high CGTs, Income taxes etc when neighbouring countries will give you higher returns? Only if the neighbouring economy is crap will you stick around.
On earnings I think progressively increasing taxes is just and fair - to compensate for the "tax" that is the cost of living. Ideally I think taxes should be placed on disposable income and not actual income, but calculating what is disposable/essential income would be a nightmare.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
9 ECAC Titles
|
|
> calculating "disposable" income would be a nightmare.
Well, theoretically at least that's what having exemptions for self and children is all about.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
We seem to have a different definition of 'theft' here. |
Apparently. My definition is something along the lines of "forcibly taking things which don't belong to you". What's yours?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
I suppose you are one of these loony libertarian types who seem to think that you wouldn't get your head smashed in by a baseball bat if there was no government keeping order. |
If someone was stupid enough to come at me with a baseball bat, he'd get a bullet.
But that's irrelevant, as no Libertarian supports anarchy.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-01-2002 00:45
|