Taxes!

[jstoesz]

[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]

I have thought about this very hard, but this strikes me as a solution which would result in severe market imbalances. Its ripe for unintended consequences. For example, arbitrage trading is something that has problems but also has a valid place in the market.

[swave]

[quote=jstoesz][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]

I have thought about this very hard, but this strikes me as a solution which would result in severe market imbalances. Its ripe for unintended consequences. For example, arbitrage trading is something that has problems but also has a valid place in the market.[/quote]

I don’t think the market imbalances would be severe. Arbitrage trading would still occur. It would just be much less profitable, or occur over a longer time horizon. The winner shouldn’t be the person with the biggest computer. This is a huge waste of resources both in terms of expensive computers and smart people who might invent the next great product if they couldn’t make billions on Wall Street.

[swave]

[quote=jstoesz][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]

I have thought about this very hard, but this strikes me as a solution which would result in severe market imbalances. Its ripe for unintended consequences. For example, arbitrage trading is something that has problems but also has a valid place in the market.[/quote]

I don’t think the market imbalances would be severe. Arbitrage trading would still occur. It would just be much less profitable, or occur over a longer time horizon. The winner shouldn’t be the person with the biggest computer. This is a huge waste of resources both in terms of expensive computers and smart people who might invent the next great product if they couldn’t make billions on Wall Street.

[swave]

[quote=jstoesz][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]

I have thought about this very hard, but this strikes me as a solution which would result in severe market imbalances. Its ripe for unintended consequences. For example, arbitrage trading is something that has problems but also has a valid place in the market.[/quote]

I don’t think the market imbalances would be severe. Arbitrage trading would still occur. It would just be much less profitable, or occur over a longer time horizon. The winner shouldn’t be the person with the biggest computer. This is a huge waste of resources both in terms of expensive computers and smart people who might invent the next great product if they couldn’t make billions on Wall Street.

[swave]

[quote=jstoesz][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]

I have thought about this very hard, but this strikes me as a solution which would result in severe market imbalances. Its ripe for unintended consequences. For example, arbitrage trading is something that has problems but also has a valid place in the market.[/quote]

I don’t think the market imbalances would be severe. Arbitrage trading would still occur. It would just be much less profitable, or occur over a longer time horizon. The winner shouldn’t be the person with the biggest computer. This is a huge waste of resources both in terms of expensive computers and smart people who might invent the next great product if they couldn’t make billions on Wall Street.

[swave]

[quote=jstoesz][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]

I have thought about this very hard, but this strikes me as a solution which would result in severe market imbalances. Its ripe for unintended consequences. For example, arbitrage trading is something that has problems but also has a valid place in the market.[/quote]

I don’t think the market imbalances would be severe. Arbitrage trading would still occur. It would just be much less profitable, or occur over a longer time horizon. The winner shouldn’t be the person with the biggest computer. This is a huge waste of resources both in terms of expensive computers and smart people who might invent the next great product if they couldn’t make billions on Wall Street.

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN][quote=SK in CV]
Straw man argument. Nobody has suggested such a preference. Historically, the US tax code has provided preferences both for earned and various types of unearned income. With very minor exception there is little empirical evidence that rate changes, by themselves, either promote or reduce the availablity of capital or labor.[/quote]
Are you sure nobody has suggested such a preference? Here, I’ll help you out:

[quote=CA renter]IMHO, we need to discourage gambling and encourage work. That’s why I would lower the rate on **earned** income, and tax investment income at a much higher rate, with steeply progressive rates.[/quote]
[/quote]

I understand the confusion. It was the other preference you suggested that was straw.

[quote=AN]So those who prefer active income vs passive income prefer people working till they die vs being able to retire. After all, once you retire, you’re not making active income anymore.[/quote]

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN][quote=SK in CV]
Straw man argument. Nobody has suggested such a preference. Historically, the US tax code has provided preferences both for earned and various types of unearned income. With very minor exception there is little empirical evidence that rate changes, by themselves, either promote or reduce the availablity of capital or labor.[/quote]
Are you sure nobody has suggested such a preference? Here, I’ll help you out:

[quote=CA renter]IMHO, we need to discourage gambling and encourage work. That’s why I would lower the rate on **earned** income, and tax investment income at a much higher rate, with steeply progressive rates.[/quote]
[/quote]

I understand the confusion. It was the other preference you suggested that was straw.

[quote=AN]So those who prefer active income vs passive income prefer people working till they die vs being able to retire. After all, once you retire, you’re not making active income anymore.[/quote]

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN][quote=SK in CV]
Straw man argument. Nobody has suggested such a preference. Historically, the US tax code has provided preferences both for earned and various types of unearned income. With very minor exception there is little empirical evidence that rate changes, by themselves, either promote or reduce the availablity of capital or labor.[/quote]
Are you sure nobody has suggested such a preference? Here, I’ll help you out:

[quote=CA renter]IMHO, we need to discourage gambling and encourage work. That’s why I would lower the rate on **earned** income, and tax investment income at a much higher rate, with steeply progressive rates.[/quote]
[/quote]

I understand the confusion. It was the other preference you suggested that was straw.

[quote=AN]So those who prefer active income vs passive income prefer people working till they die vs being able to retire. After all, once you retire, you’re not making active income anymore.[/quote]

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN][quote=SK in CV]
Straw man argument. Nobody has suggested such a preference. Historically, the US tax code has provided preferences both for earned and various types of unearned income. With very minor exception there is little empirical evidence that rate changes, by themselves, either promote or reduce the availablity of capital or labor.[/quote]
Are you sure nobody has suggested such a preference? Here, I’ll help you out:

[quote=CA renter]IMHO, we need to discourage gambling and encourage work. That’s why I would lower the rate on **earned** income, and tax investment income at a much higher rate, with steeply progressive rates.[/quote]
[/quote]

I understand the confusion. It was the other preference you suggested that was straw.

[quote=AN]So those who prefer active income vs passive income prefer people working till they die vs being able to retire. After all, once you retire, you’re not making active income anymore.[/quote]

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN][quote=SK in CV]
Straw man argument. Nobody has suggested such a preference. Historically, the US tax code has provided preferences both for earned and various types of unearned income. With very minor exception there is little empirical evidence that rate changes, by themselves, either promote or reduce the availablity of capital or labor.[/quote]
Are you sure nobody has suggested such a preference? Here, I’ll help you out:

[quote=CA renter]IMHO, we need to discourage gambling and encourage work. That’s why I would lower the rate on **earned** income, and tax investment income at a much higher rate, with steeply progressive rates.[/quote]
[/quote]

I understand the confusion. It was the other preference you suggested that was straw.

[quote=AN]So those who prefer active income vs passive income prefer people working till they die vs being able to retire. After all, once you retire, you’re not making active income anymore.[/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).

[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).

[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).

[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).

[Author]

Posts