Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Taxes!
- This topic has 278 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 2 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 8, 2011 at 9:46 PM #703082June 8, 2011 at 10:37 PM #701897
swave
Participant[quote=AN][quote=swave]Investing should be encouraged, but gambling should not be. A variable tax rate on capital gains would have this affect. From 99% tax rate on trades made in seconds or minutes to 0% on investments that last 50 years.[/quote]How many companies have been around for 50 years and how many have come and gone in less than 50 years? How many of those who survive actually beat the rate of inflation? For those who want to retire at 65, they would have to invest all their money they would retire with at 15. If they invest when they’re 40-50, which is usually one’s best earning year, you either have to pay HUGE taxes when you retire @65 or just pass it on to their heir (unless they live until 90-100 years old).[/quote]
Obviously, there would be other rates between these extremes. Perhaps 1% at 40 years, 2% at 30 years, 5% at 10 years, 10% at 5 years, 20% at 1 year, 30% at 6 months, 50% at 1 month and 70% at 1 week.
June 8, 2011 at 10:37 PM #701996Participant[quote=AN][quote=swave]Investing should be encouraged, but gambling should not be. A variable tax rate on capital gains would have this affect. From 99% tax rate on trades made in seconds or minutes to 0% on investments that last 50 years.[/quote]How many companies have been around for 50 years and how many have come and gone in less than 50 years? How many of those who survive actually beat the rate of inflation? For those who want to retire at 65, they would have to invest all their money they would retire with at 15. If they invest when they’re 40-50, which is usually one’s best earning year, you either have to pay HUGE taxes when you retire @65 or just pass it on to their heir (unless they live until 90-100 years old).[/quote]
Obviously, there would be other rates between these extremes. Perhaps 1% at 40 years, 2% at 30 years, 5% at 10 years, 10% at 5 years, 20% at 1 year, 30% at 6 months, 50% at 1 month and 70% at 1 week.
June 8, 2011 at 10:37 PM #702587Participant[quote=AN][quote=swave]Investing should be encouraged, but gambling should not be. A variable tax rate on capital gains would have this affect. From 99% tax rate on trades made in seconds or minutes to 0% on investments that last 50 years.[/quote]How many companies have been around for 50 years and how many have come and gone in less than 50 years? How many of those who survive actually beat the rate of inflation? For those who want to retire at 65, they would have to invest all their money they would retire with at 15. If they invest when they’re 40-50, which is usually one’s best earning year, you either have to pay HUGE taxes when you retire @65 or just pass it on to their heir (unless they live until 90-100 years old).[/quote]
Obviously, there would be other rates between these extremes. Perhaps 1% at 40 years, 2% at 30 years, 5% at 10 years, 10% at 5 years, 20% at 1 year, 30% at 6 months, 50% at 1 month and 70% at 1 week.
June 8, 2011 at 10:37 PM #702737Participant[quote=AN][quote=swave]Investing should be encouraged, but gambling should not be. A variable tax rate on capital gains would have this affect. From 99% tax rate on trades made in seconds or minutes to 0% on investments that last 50 years.[/quote]How many companies have been around for 50 years and how many have come and gone in less than 50 years? How many of those who survive actually beat the rate of inflation? For those who want to retire at 65, they would have to invest all their money they would retire with at 15. If they invest when they’re 40-50, which is usually one’s best earning year, you either have to pay HUGE taxes when you retire @65 or just pass it on to their heir (unless they live until 90-100 years old).[/quote]
Obviously, there would be other rates between these extremes. Perhaps 1% at 40 years, 2% at 30 years, 5% at 10 years, 10% at 5 years, 20% at 1 year, 30% at 6 months, 50% at 1 month and 70% at 1 week.
June 8, 2011 at 10:37 PM #703097Participant[quote=AN][quote=swave]Investing should be encouraged, but gambling should not be. A variable tax rate on capital gains would have this affect. From 99% tax rate on trades made in seconds or minutes to 0% on investments that last 50 years.[/quote]How many companies have been around for 50 years and how many have come and gone in less than 50 years? How many of those who survive actually beat the rate of inflation? For those who want to retire at 65, they would have to invest all their money they would retire with at 15. If they invest when they’re 40-50, which is usually one’s best earning year, you either have to pay HUGE taxes when you retire @65 or just pass it on to their heir (unless they live until 90-100 years old).[/quote]
Obviously, there would be other rates between these extremes. Perhaps 1% at 40 years, 2% at 30 years, 5% at 10 years, 10% at 5 years, 20% at 1 year, 30% at 6 months, 50% at 1 month and 70% at 1 week.
June 8, 2011 at 11:12 PM #701907jstoesz
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=jstoesz]Your statement about no evidence is bologna. As I stated previously, it can be hard if not impossible to tease out the effects of tax changes on the economy, but that is not the same as no empirical evidence. Anyone can plainly see that discouraging investment through increasing capital gains taxes will result in less investment. It’s not rocket science.[/quote]
No, it’s not rocket science. You are using intuition rather than evidence. I won’t dispute that your argument has intuitive logic. But history has provided little evidence it is accurate. To the contrary, there is strong evidence that maximum tax reveues are produced with top marginal rates above 60%, with no discernable decline in employment rates or availablity of capital.[/quote]
The problem with your “analysis” is simple. You can not divorce the cap gains tax rate effects from the rest of the happenings in the economy. No way no how, the more statistical voodoo economists pull, the more I feel the need to call BS.
Not when their voodoo lines up with my intuition though…that is an entirely different matter:)
June 8, 2011 at 11:12 PM #702006Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=jstoesz]Your statement about no evidence is bologna. As I stated previously, it can be hard if not impossible to tease out the effects of tax changes on the economy, but that is not the same as no empirical evidence. Anyone can plainly see that discouraging investment through increasing capital gains taxes will result in less investment. It’s not rocket science.[/quote]
No, it’s not rocket science. You are using intuition rather than evidence. I won’t dispute that your argument has intuitive logic. But history has provided little evidence it is accurate. To the contrary, there is strong evidence that maximum tax reveues are produced with top marginal rates above 60%, with no discernable decline in employment rates or availablity of capital.[/quote]
The problem with your “analysis” is simple. You can not divorce the cap gains tax rate effects from the rest of the happenings in the economy. No way no how, the more statistical voodoo economists pull, the more I feel the need to call BS.
Not when their voodoo lines up with my intuition though…that is an entirely different matter:)
June 8, 2011 at 11:12 PM #702597Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=jstoesz]Your statement about no evidence is bologna. As I stated previously, it can be hard if not impossible to tease out the effects of tax changes on the economy, but that is not the same as no empirical evidence. Anyone can plainly see that discouraging investment through increasing capital gains taxes will result in less investment. It’s not rocket science.[/quote]
No, it’s not rocket science. You are using intuition rather than evidence. I won’t dispute that your argument has intuitive logic. But history has provided little evidence it is accurate. To the contrary, there is strong evidence that maximum tax reveues are produced with top marginal rates above 60%, with no discernable decline in employment rates or availablity of capital.[/quote]
The problem with your “analysis” is simple. You can not divorce the cap gains tax rate effects from the rest of the happenings in the economy. No way no how, the more statistical voodoo economists pull, the more I feel the need to call BS.
Not when their voodoo lines up with my intuition though…that is an entirely different matter:)
June 8, 2011 at 11:12 PM #702747Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=jstoesz]Your statement about no evidence is bologna. As I stated previously, it can be hard if not impossible to tease out the effects of tax changes on the economy, but that is not the same as no empirical evidence. Anyone can plainly see that discouraging investment through increasing capital gains taxes will result in less investment. It’s not rocket science.[/quote]
No, it’s not rocket science. You are using intuition rather than evidence. I won’t dispute that your argument has intuitive logic. But history has provided little evidence it is accurate. To the contrary, there is strong evidence that maximum tax reveues are produced with top marginal rates above 60%, with no discernable decline in employment rates or availablity of capital.[/quote]
The problem with your “analysis” is simple. You can not divorce the cap gains tax rate effects from the rest of the happenings in the economy. No way no how, the more statistical voodoo economists pull, the more I feel the need to call BS.
Not when their voodoo lines up with my intuition though…that is an entirely different matter:)
June 8, 2011 at 11:12 PM #703107Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=jstoesz]Your statement about no evidence is bologna. As I stated previously, it can be hard if not impossible to tease out the effects of tax changes on the economy, but that is not the same as no empirical evidence. Anyone can plainly see that discouraging investment through increasing capital gains taxes will result in less investment. It’s not rocket science.[/quote]
No, it’s not rocket science. You are using intuition rather than evidence. I won’t dispute that your argument has intuitive logic. But history has provided little evidence it is accurate. To the contrary, there is strong evidence that maximum tax reveues are produced with top marginal rates above 60%, with no discernable decline in employment rates or availablity of capital.[/quote]
The problem with your “analysis” is simple. You can not divorce the cap gains tax rate effects from the rest of the happenings in the economy. No way no how, the more statistical voodoo economists pull, the more I feel the need to call BS.
Not when their voodoo lines up with my intuition though…that is an entirely different matter:)
June 8, 2011 at 11:22 PM #701912CA renter
Participant[quote=bubba99]IMPORT Tax, or Tariff.
In 1789 the U.S. did not need income taxes because all was paid for with tariffs on imports.
America’s strength is consumption. Unless we are willing to compete for $1.00/hour manufacturing jobs, we must go with our strength – consumption. Add $1,000/container import duty and kill all the other taxes.
Yes, other countries will also add tariffs, but we are a net importer and need to offset Chinas currency manipulation.[/quote]Yes!!! X a billion!
We should engage in **fair** trade, not “free” trade. We should only import things that we cannot make for ourselves, and we should only trade with other countries that have the same environmental and labor standards as we do.
June 8, 2011 at 11:22 PM #702011Participant[quote=bubba99]IMPORT Tax, or Tariff.
In 1789 the U.S. did not need income taxes because all was paid for with tariffs on imports.
America’s strength is consumption. Unless we are willing to compete for $1.00/hour manufacturing jobs, we must go with our strength – consumption. Add $1,000/container import duty and kill all the other taxes.
Yes, other countries will also add tariffs, but we are a net importer and need to offset Chinas currency manipulation.[/quote]Yes!!! X a billion!
We should engage in **fair** trade, not “free” trade. We should only import things that we cannot make for ourselves, and we should only trade with other countries that have the same environmental and labor standards as we do.
June 8, 2011 at 11:22 PM #702602Participant[quote=bubba99]IMPORT Tax, or Tariff.
In 1789 the U.S. did not need income taxes because all was paid for with tariffs on imports.
America’s strength is consumption. Unless we are willing to compete for $1.00/hour manufacturing jobs, we must go with our strength – consumption. Add $1,000/container import duty and kill all the other taxes.
Yes, other countries will also add tariffs, but we are a net importer and need to offset Chinas currency manipulation.[/quote]Yes!!! X a billion!
We should engage in **fair** trade, not “free” trade. We should only import things that we cannot make for ourselves, and we should only trade with other countries that have the same environmental and labor standards as we do.
June 8, 2011 at 11:22 PM #702752Participant[quote=bubba99]IMPORT Tax, or Tariff.
In 1789 the U.S. did not need income taxes because all was paid for with tariffs on imports.
America’s strength is consumption. Unless we are willing to compete for $1.00/hour manufacturing jobs, we must go with our strength – consumption. Add $1,000/container import duty and kill all the other taxes.
Yes, other countries will also add tariffs, but we are a net importer and need to offset Chinas currency manipulation.[/quote]Yes!!! X a billion!
We should engage in **fair** trade, not “free” trade. We should only import things that we cannot make for ourselves, and we should only trade with other countries that have the same environmental and labor standards as we do.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.