[an]

[quote=SK in CV]Your assertion is uses binary assumption. If tax law shows preference for earned income, that preference must prefer people work until they die. It presumes that it is impossible to retire with preferential rates for earned income. Yet we had just those preferential rates from 1965 to 1981 and millions of people retired.[/quote]
I never said it was impossible to retire.

[an]

[quote=SK in CV]Your assertion is uses binary assumption. If tax law shows preference for earned income, that preference must prefer people work until they die. It presumes that it is impossible to retire with preferential rates for earned income. Yet we had just those preferential rates from 1965 to 1981 and millions of people retired.[/quote]
I never said it was impossible to retire.

[an]

[quote=SK in CV]
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][/quote]
I don’t see how that can be a straw man argument? When you retire, do you have active income or passive income? If it’s passive, then it would be tax at a much higher rate. So, if you think it’s a straw man argument, then please clarify what one’s preference is if one prefer tax investment income at a much higher rate?

[an]

[quote=SK in CV]
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][/quote]
I don’t see how that can be a straw man argument? When you retire, do you have active income or passive income? If it’s passive, then it would be tax at a much higher rate. So, if you think it’s a straw man argument, then please clarify what one’s preference is if one prefer tax investment income at a much higher rate?

[an]

[quote=SK in CV]
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][/quote]
I don’t see how that can be a straw man argument? When you retire, do you have active income or passive income? If it’s passive, then it would be tax at a much higher rate. So, if you think it’s a straw man argument, then please clarify what one’s preference is if one prefer tax investment income at a much higher rate?

[an]

[quote=SK in CV]
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][/quote]
I don’t see how that can be a straw man argument? When you retire, do you have active income or passive income? If it’s passive, then it would be tax at a much higher rate. So, if you think it’s a straw man argument, then please clarify what one’s preference is if one prefer tax investment income at a much higher rate?

[an]

[quote=SK in CV]
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][/quote]
I don’t see how that can be a straw man argument? When you retire, do you have active income or passive income? If it’s passive, then it would be tax at a much higher rate. So, if you think it’s a straw man argument, then please clarify what one’s preference is if one prefer tax investment income at a much higher rate?

[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).

[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=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]
What does “much higher rate” mean to you?

[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]
What does “much higher rate” mean to you?

[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]
What does “much higher rate” mean to you?

[Author]

Posts