Who nominally has to pay the tax is often only a difference in optics.
Which is pretty much why I don't really care much for the corporate tax. It violates most of the principles of a good tax, namely transparency and accountability, and most of the time someone can't even tell me who actually is getting taxed from it.
Totally agreed! If I was tax dictator, I would get rid of the corporate income tax. If we want to tax rich people, just tax rich people. In fact, without a corporate income tax, we could tax dividends and capital gains at full freight without running into the distortionary effects of double taxation. If you want to tax consumption based on location, just use sales/VAT.
But with the Democrats in charge, that sort of thinking is probably not realistic. A lot of the support on the left sees corporations as people that should be paying for some nebulous justice reasons.
If you get rid of the corporate tax then rich people will just pay themselves in stocks or find other ways to leave their money in the corporation while they continue to get richer.
Yeah you tax their gains on said stock as income when they sell it or transfer it. It’s worthless paper until they convert it into goods/etc.
But the rich can use their stocks as collateral to get a loan with an interest rate much lower than any taxes they would pay on the stock, so that they never have to sell the stock. Or they do things like count the stock being sold as the stock that was just issued to them (so least growth) and keep all of their higher gains stock.
The problem is that the rich can incredibly game the system with regards to taxes, we need to stop that gaming and get rid of so many exemptions and work arounds.
Who cares if they get a loan? They eventually have to pay it back with actual money, meaning that at some point they need to sell stock and thus they have to pay capital gains. If they don't pay it back, the lender takes the collateral, liquidates it, and the bank's shareholders pay the taxes on that. The loans are a means to defer taxes and gain liquidity, not avoid taxes outright.
Right, but the rich don't need to use personal cash for all of their expensive living. Private Jet - owned by shell corporation; Luxury Yacht in the Maldives - owned by corporation and used for "entertainment". Vacation mansions - owned by shell corporation and exclusively leased to corporation for "corporate retreats".
So all of that massive amount of consumption that you're attributing their need to sell stock for, just isn't necessary. And yes, a lot of this is all very gray taxable liability areas, but the IRS has been so neutered that it's essentially impossible for them to audit/enforce those rules against the ultra rich. So who cares if they sell $1M of stock a year to pay for the things they need to when $100M worth of ultra-rich living is paid for by corporation/shell-corporations that you are advocating skate by tax free.
Right, but the rich don't need to use personal cash for all of their expensive living. Private Jet - owned by shell corporation; Luxury Yacht in the Maldives - owned by corporation and used for "entertainment". Vacation mansions - owned by shell corporation and exclusively leased to corporation for "corporate retreats".
So all of that massive amount of consumption that you're attributing their need to sell stock for, just isn't necessary. And yes, a lot of this is all very gray taxable liability areas, but the IRS has been so neutered that it's essentially impossible for them to audit/enforce those rules against the ultra rich. So who cares if they sell $1M of stock a year to pay for the things they need to when $100M worth of ultra-rich living is paid for by corporation/shell-corporations that you are advocating skate by tax free.
The corporation needs revenue to pay for those things. A VAT would effectively tax their revenue and so would tax those things.
Who nominally has to pay the tax is often only a difference in optics.
Which is pretty much why I don't really care much for the corporate tax. It violates most of the principles of a good tax, namely transparency and accountability, and most of the time someone can't even tell me who actually is getting taxed from it.
Totally agreed! If I was tax dictator, I would get rid of the corporate income tax. If we want to tax rich people, just tax rich people. In fact, without a corporate income tax, we could tax dividends and capital gains at full freight without running into the distortionary effects of double taxation. If you want to tax consumption based on location, just use sales/VAT.
But with the Democrats in charge, that sort of thinking is probably not realistic. A lot of the support on the left sees corporations as people that should be paying for some nebulous justice reasons.
If you get rid of the corporate tax then rich people will just pay themselves in stocks or find other ways to leave their money in the corporation while they continue to get richer.
If you receive stock as compensation, you are taxed on the value of that stock when it vests at ordinary income tax levels.
Who nominally has to pay the tax is often only a difference in optics.
Which is pretty much why I don't really care much for the corporate tax. It violates most of the principles of a good tax, namely transparency and accountability, and most of the time someone can't even tell me who actually is getting taxed from it.
Totally agreed! If I was tax dictator, I would get rid of the corporate income tax. If we want to tax rich people, just tax rich people. In fact, without a corporate income tax, we could tax dividends and capital gains at full freight without running into the distortionary effects of double taxation. If you want to tax consumption based on location, just use sales/VAT.
But with the Democrats in charge, that sort of thinking is probably not realistic. A lot of the support on the left sees corporations as people that should be paying for some nebulous justice reasons.
If you get rid of the corporate tax then rich people will just pay themselves in stocks or find other ways to leave their money in the corporation while they continue to get richer.
Yeah you tax their gains on said stock as income when they sell it or transfer it. It’s worthless paper until they convert it into goods/etc.
But the rich can use their stocks as collateral to get a loan with an interest rate much lower than any taxes they would pay on the stock, so that they never have to sell the stock. Or they do things like count the stock being sold as the stock that was just issued to them (so least growth) and keep all of their higher gains stock.
The problem is that the rich can incredibly game the system with regards to taxes, we need to stop that gaming and get rid of so many exemptions and work arounds.
Getting a loan isn't a problem. They either have a cash stream that can pay for the loan so the loan was mostly just a convenience anyway, or they have to sell in the future and you collect then. It's no different than a mortgage really
Allowing selling newer lots with lower gains (or older lots with reduced gains) is probably one of the US' biggest tax fuckups. Just roll everything into one big batch of fungible shares. No selling lots with different acquisition prices, you just have one average price
Right, but the rich don't need to use personal cash for all of their expensive living. Private Jet - owned by shell corporation; Luxury Yacht in the Maldives - owned by corporation and used for "entertainment". Vacation mansions - owned by shell corporation and exclusively leased to corporation for "corporate retreats".
So all of that massive amount of consumption that you're attributing their need to sell stock for, just isn't necessary. And yes, a lot of this is all very gray taxable liability areas, but the IRS has been so neutered that it's essentially impossible for them to audit/enforce those rules against the ultra rich. So who cares if they sell $1M of stock a year to pay for the things they need to when $100M worth of ultra-rich living is paid for by corporation/shell-corporations that you are advocating skate by tax free.
The corporation needs revenue to pay for those things. A VAT would effectively tax their revenue and so would tax those things.
Seriously, you can't make a better case for consumption taxes than providing examples of how rich people write off personal expenses.
For me the benefit of VAT over Sales Tax is literally just the ease of use at the end user side.
There are a lot of specific complaints to lodge against our various taxes and approaches and levels. Regressivity versus progressivity. Perverse incentive structures, dead weight loss, enforcement costs. &c. But even if you put all of the arguments of what those ought to be to one side, the way we do it is just extremely annoying. Needlessly so.
Hard agree here.
The ways and permutations sales taxes take not to mention the various entities who claim various portions of said taxes. For instance, Arkansas has different counties who charge special sales taxes on if a beverage is served to you cold or not. Which includes picking up some soda or milk from your local gas & service station. That's right. Warm milk has a different, lower sales tax rate than cold milk.
I would hope that a VAT would be used to get rid of such things, simplifying tax structures not only throughout states but also unify the collection. Because right now having city, county, state, with the possibility for geographically bound special sales taxes is a gigantic pain the tuchus.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
Right, but the rich don't need to use personal cash for all of their expensive living. Private Jet - owned by shell corporation; Luxury Yacht in the Maldives - owned by corporation and used for "entertainment". Vacation mansions - owned by shell corporation and exclusively leased to corporation for "corporate retreats".
So all of that massive amount of consumption that you're attributing their need to sell stock for, just isn't necessary. And yes, a lot of this is all very gray taxable liability areas, but the IRS has been so neutered that it's essentially impossible for them to audit/enforce those rules against the ultra rich. So who cares if they sell $1M of stock a year to pay for the things they need to when $100M worth of ultra-rich living is paid for by corporation/shell-corporations that you are advocating skate by tax free.
The corporation needs revenue to pay for those things. A VAT would effectively tax their revenue and so would tax those things.
I assume you'd still advocate for use-taxes then for things like private jets and yachts that are bought and chartered in the Caymans but yet spend 90% of their time in the states?
Right, but the rich don't need to use personal cash for all of their expensive living. Private Jet - owned by shell corporation; Luxury Yacht in the Maldives - owned by corporation and used for "entertainment". Vacation mansions - owned by shell corporation and exclusively leased to corporation for "corporate retreats".
So all of that massive amount of consumption that you're attributing their need to sell stock for, just isn't necessary. And yes, a lot of this is all very gray taxable liability areas, but the IRS has been so neutered that it's essentially impossible for them to audit/enforce those rules against the ultra rich. So who cares if they sell $1M of stock a year to pay for the things they need to when $100M worth of ultra-rich living is paid for by corporation/shell-corporations that you are advocating skate by tax free.
The corporation needs revenue to pay for those things. A VAT would effectively tax their revenue and so would tax those things.
I assume you'd still advocate for use-taxes then for things like private jets and yachts that are bought and chartered in the Caymans but yet spend 90% of their time in the states?
And right on topic, a bombshell exclusive from the Financial Times (the world's best newspaper IMHO). Pardon the FB link, but it gets you around their paywall in incognito mode.
The Biden administration is calling for the world’s biggest multinational companies to pay levies to national governments based on their sales in each country, as part of an ambitious proposal for a global minimum tax.
The plan would apply to the global profits of the very largest companies, including big US technology groups, regardless of their physical presence in a given country.
The US Treasury laid out its proposal in documents obtained by the Financial Times, which had been sent to the 135 countries negotiating international taxation at the OECD in Paris.
This has been going on for a while. Unfortunately there is a giant loop hole in it because it uses profit as a percentage of gross, which can be easily manipulated by having daughter corps loan money to you.
Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
This has been going on for a while. Unfortunately there is a giant loop hole in it because it uses profit as a percentage of gross, which can be easily manipulated by having daughter corps loan money to you.
This has been going on for a while. Unfortunately there is a giant loop hole in it because it uses profit as a percentage of gross, which can be easily manipulated by having daughter corps loan money to you.
That doesn’t work if everyone has the same tax rate. The way avoidance works is that you reduce your income in a high tax jurisdiction and increase it in a low tax jurisdiction. If you could just make the “profit” disappear then this plan wouldn’t matter.
The point is that if there is a minimum rate then a nation does not gain a benefit trying to avoid taxes by shifting income because the tax rates are too similar to make it worthwhile
+2
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
Right, but the rich don't need to use personal cash for all of their expensive living. Private Jet - owned by shell corporation; Luxury Yacht in the Maldives - owned by corporation and used for "entertainment". Vacation mansions - owned by shell corporation and exclusively leased to corporation for "corporate retreats".
So all of that massive amount of consumption that you're attributing their need to sell stock for, just isn't necessary. And yes, a lot of this is all very gray taxable liability areas, but the IRS has been so neutered that it's essentially impossible for them to audit/enforce those rules against the ultra rich. So who cares if they sell $1M of stock a year to pay for the things they need to when $100M worth of ultra-rich living is paid for by corporation/shell-corporations that you are advocating skate by tax free.
The corporation needs revenue to pay for those things.
Turns out the corporation runs at a huge loss! Then it goes out of business and sells its assets to this new travel corporation for way under market.
Right, but the rich don't need to use personal cash for all of their expensive living. Private Jet - owned by shell corporation; Luxury Yacht in the Maldives - owned by corporation and used for "entertainment". Vacation mansions - owned by shell corporation and exclusively leased to corporation for "corporate retreats".
So all of that massive amount of consumption that you're attributing their need to sell stock for, just isn't necessary. And yes, a lot of this is all very gray taxable liability areas, but the IRS has been so neutered that it's essentially impossible for them to audit/enforce those rules against the ultra rich. So who cares if they sell $1M of stock a year to pay for the things they need to when $100M worth of ultra-rich living is paid for by corporation/shell-corporations that you are advocating skate by tax free.
The corporation needs revenue to pay for those things.
Turns out the corporation runs at a huge loss! Then it goes out of business and sells its assets to this new travel corporation for way under market.
Repeat as necessary.
There's a bar/concert venue/event center here that has been running that model for 20+ years.
It's currently a "wedding event center" but I'm guessing very soon it's going to go bankrupt again and be "sold" to another one of the owners who will then turn it into god knows what.
Hopefully back into a concert venue since it was the only good indoor one we had here but at this point I wouldn't be surprised if the next thing is an indoor alpaca farm or something.
Right, but the rich don't need to use personal cash for all of their expensive living. Private Jet - owned by shell corporation; Luxury Yacht in the Maldives - owned by corporation and used for "entertainment". Vacation mansions - owned by shell corporation and exclusively leased to corporation for "corporate retreats".
So all of that massive amount of consumption that you're attributing their need to sell stock for, just isn't necessary. And yes, a lot of this is all very gray taxable liability areas, but the IRS has been so neutered that it's essentially impossible for them to audit/enforce those rules against the ultra rich. So who cares if they sell $1M of stock a year to pay for the things they need to when $100M worth of ultra-rich living is paid for by corporation/shell-corporations that you are advocating skate by tax free.
The corporation needs revenue to pay for those things.
Turns out the corporation runs at a huge loss! Then it goes out of business and sells its assets to this new travel corporation for way under market.
Repeat as necessary.
Running at a loss means they still generate revenue.
In financier related news, Ponzi scheme king Bernie Madoff has died in prison:
Bernie Madoff, the financier who pleaded guilty to orchestrating a massive Ponzi scheme, died in a federal prison early Wednesday, a person familiar with the matter told The Associated Press. He was 82.
Madoff died at the Federal Medical Center in Butner, North Carolina, apparently from natural causes, the person said. The person was not authorized to speak publicly and spoke to the AP on the condition of anonymity.
Last year, Madoff’s lawyers filed court papers to try to get him released from prison in the coronavirus pandemic, saying he had suffered from end-stage renal disease and other chronic medical conditions. The request was denied.
In financier related news, Ponzi scheme king Bernie Madoff has died in prison:
Bernie Madoff, the financier who pleaded guilty to orchestrating a massive Ponzi scheme, died in a federal prison early Wednesday, a person familiar with the matter told The Associated Press. He was 82.
Madoff died at the Federal Medical Center in Butner, North Carolina, apparently from natural causes, the person said. The person was not authorized to speak publicly and spoke to the AP on the condition of anonymity.
Last year, Madoff’s lawyers filed court papers to try to get him released from prison in the coronavirus pandemic, saying he had suffered from end-stage renal disease and other chronic medical conditions. The request was denied.
No huge loss, but he would probably have walked were it not for his one critical mistake.
The stock market is not the economy and I'm the first one to say that but I love that you can see the point where Biden's proposed 40% tax on capital gains.
The stock market is not the economy and I'm the first one to say that but I love that you can see the point where Biden's proposed 40% tax on capital gains.
Side note, the proposal would increase the tax rate on capital gains for millionaires from ~37% to ~40% on short-term gains and from 20% to 40% on long-term capital gains.
The stock market is not the economy and I'm the first one to say that but I love that you can see the point where Biden's proposed 40% tax on capital gains.
It's even better for me because today is payday, and I think my 401(k) shares get purchased at the market close.
Side note, the proposal would increase the tax rate on capital gains for millionaires from ~37% to ~40% on short-term gains and from 20% to 40% on long-term capital gains.
How are they defining millionaires? If I have a million in my 401k when I retire, does that mean I'm getting taxed higher? Or if I make a million in income per year?
edit: nevermind I looked it up. Income of 1 million. So I guess this just means people won't sell all at once and will spread it out over years.
Side note, the proposal would increase the tax rate on capital gains for millionaires from ~37% to ~40% on short-term gains and from 20% to 40% on long-term capital gains.
Side note, the proposal would increase the tax rate on capital gains for millionaires from ~37% to ~40% on short-term gains and from 20% to 40% on long-term capital gains.
Honestly, Capital Gains should have more brackets and basically match the treatment for income tax. Either double the amount of standard deduction for it or stair step it down a bracket in order to keep the incentive for investment, but the
00% $0-$40,000
15% $40,001-$441,450
20% $441,451+
Approach currently is just wholly disconnected from anything. But then, our current income tax brackets are also just Calvinball. 5 or 10 brackets stair stepping from 5%-50% would be lovely, and then the argument can be over what income level puts you where. I know it won't happen, but still.
frankly it's not like we need an "incentive for investment" anyway
the incentive is you turn money into more money without doing any work
tax long term cap gains as income and short term cap gains should get a 5% penalty
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
frankly it's not like we need an "incentive for investment" anyway
the incentive is you turn money into more money without doing any work
You also lose money for no fault of your own. It's not like every investment opportunity pays off, and a lack of investment capital will ultimately be a drag on innovation.
frankly it's not like we need an "incentive for investment" anyway
the incentive is you turn money into more money without doing any work
You also lose money for no fault of your own. It's not like every investment opportunity pays off, and a lack of investment capital will ultimately be a drag on innovation.
The stock market is not investing, in that sense. Not a dime of that money actually goes to anyone doing productive work.
frankly it's not like we need an "incentive for investment" anyway
the incentive is you turn money into more money without doing any work
You also lose money for no fault of your own. It's not like every investment opportunity pays off, and a lack of investment capital will ultimately be a drag on innovation.
The stock market is not investing, in that sense. Not a dime of that money actually goes to anyone doing productive work.
Capital Gains tax applies to more than just stock trades.
frankly it's not like we need an "incentive for investment" anyway
the incentive is you turn money into more money without doing any work
You also lose money for no fault of your own. It's not like every investment opportunity pays off, and a lack of investment capital will ultimately be a drag on innovation.
The stock market is not investing, in that sense. Not a dime of that money actually goes to anyone doing productive work.
Eh. It did, originally. Either through stock sales that raise money for the company or folks getting stock in exchange for their labor to the company.
frankly it's not like we need an "incentive for investment" anyway
the incentive is you turn money into more money without doing any work
You also lose money for no fault of your own. It's not like every investment opportunity pays off, and a lack of investment capital will ultimately be a drag on innovation.
Eh. You get paid for the risk in the proposed rate of return. Given that we've not seen significant inflation in decades, the original reason for cap gains being treated differently, I don't mind it being just called income. Folks in normal person brackets have investment vehicles that shield retirement savings from it.
The stock market uses a billion dollars to drive a million dollars of investment. The other nine-hundred and ninety nine million is used for gambling, except in this case the house always loses because stock markets grow at a rate that exceeds inflation.
The stock market uses a billion dollars to drive a million dollars of investment. The other nine-hundred and ninety nine million is used for gambling, except in this case the house always loses because stock markets grow at a rate that exceeds inflation.
Now, strictly speaking, some of that growth is from looting other countries via exploitative working conditions and such.
There are some insane things happening with the market, which seems to be juicing the upper parts of the K in our current recovery trajectory....SPACs for one, and shit like a tiny, who-even-knows-if-it’s-open deli that is the sole asset of a holding company with a $100+ million valuation (!)
Morina is also principal of Paulsboro High School. But he has another, even more impressive-sounding job. Morina is CEO of Hometown International, a company whose stock price (Ticker: HWIN) valued it around $100 million. What makes Hometown International’s valuation so strange is what the company does, which is operate a single deli in Paulsboro that is open for 32 hours a week. Last year, that deli was closed between March and September and did just $13,976 in sales. Yet despite doing less in sales last year than the Defector merchandise store did on its very first day of operation, the stock values the firm at the same price that Apple spent on a virtual reality company last year....
... Einhorn’s summary was correct. This $100 million company owns one deli with low sales numbers. It is incorporated in Nevada. The largest shareholder is the CEO/CFO, Morina, who does not take a salary. The Chairman of the Board is Peter Coker, a businessman once based in Macungie, Pennsylvania. Other shareholders include firms in Macau and Hong Kong...
... “The analysis of new business opportunities will be undertaken by or under the supervision of our executive officers and directors, none of whom is a business analyst,”...
... Despite the pandemic, the company privately sold 2.5 million shares of stock for $2.5 million in April of last year. Last May, it began paying Peter Coker Sr.’s Tryon Capital Ventures $15,000 a month in consulting fees. It also started paying VCH Limited, a Macau company that is also a shareholder, $25,000 a month. Hometown International expected these fees to continue through 2021—if they continued in business at all, that is. “These factors raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern,” the filing reads. “If we are not successful in expanding our Your Hometown Deli concept, or finding a business to merge with, we may need to cease our operations, which would result in our shareholders losing their entire investment in us.”...
... Meanwhile, shares of Hometown International plummeted on Friday—at first. Down 34 percent by late morning, HWIN rallied in the afternoon. (Closing the deli worked!) It ended Friday down just 5.53 percent. By the end of the day, the company was still worth a little more than $100 million. As of this morning, it was up another 3.77 percent. Just another week in the modern business world.
Posts
Who cares if they get a loan? They eventually have to pay it back with actual money, meaning that at some point they need to sell stock and thus they have to pay capital gains. If they don't pay it back, the lender takes the collateral, liquidates it, and the bank's shareholders pay the taxes on that. The loans are a means to defer taxes and gain liquidity, not avoid taxes outright.
So all of that massive amount of consumption that you're attributing their need to sell stock for, just isn't necessary. And yes, a lot of this is all very gray taxable liability areas, but the IRS has been so neutered that it's essentially impossible for them to audit/enforce those rules against the ultra rich. So who cares if they sell $1M of stock a year to pay for the things they need to when $100M worth of ultra-rich living is paid for by corporation/shell-corporations that you are advocating skate by tax free.
The corporation needs revenue to pay for those things. A VAT would effectively tax their revenue and so would tax those things.
If you receive stock as compensation, you are taxed on the value of that stock when it vests at ordinary income tax levels.
Getting a loan isn't a problem. They either have a cash stream that can pay for the loan so the loan was mostly just a convenience anyway, or they have to sell in the future and you collect then. It's no different than a mortgage really
Allowing selling newer lots with lower gains (or older lots with reduced gains) is probably one of the US' biggest tax fuckups. Just roll everything into one big batch of fungible shares. No selling lots with different acquisition prices, you just have one average price
Seriously, you can't make a better case for consumption taxes than providing examples of how rich people write off personal expenses.
Hard agree here.
The ways and permutations sales taxes take not to mention the various entities who claim various portions of said taxes. For instance, Arkansas has different counties who charge special sales taxes on if a beverage is served to you cold or not. Which includes picking up some soda or milk from your local gas & service station. That's right. Warm milk has a different, lower sales tax rate than cold milk.
I would hope that a VAT would be used to get rid of such things, simplifying tax structures not only throughout states but also unify the collection. Because right now having city, county, state, with the possibility for geographically bound special sales taxes is a gigantic pain the tuchus.
I assume you'd still advocate for use-taxes then for things like private jets and yachts that are bought and chartered in the Caymans but yet spend 90% of their time in the states?
Carbon tax would address that effectively enough.
Can you expand on this? I don't follow.
That doesn’t work if everyone has the same tax rate. The way avoidance works is that you reduce your income in a high tax jurisdiction and increase it in a low tax jurisdiction. If you could just make the “profit” disappear then this plan wouldn’t matter.
The point is that if there is a minimum rate then a nation does not gain a benefit trying to avoid taxes by shifting income because the tax rates are too similar to make it worthwhile
Turns out the corporation runs at a huge loss! Then it goes out of business and sells its assets to this new travel corporation for way under market.
Repeat as necessary.
There's a bar/concert venue/event center here that has been running that model for 20+ years.
It's currently a "wedding event center" but I'm guessing very soon it's going to go bankrupt again and be "sold" to another one of the owners who will then turn it into god knows what.
Hopefully back into a concert venue since it was the only good indoor one we had here but at this point I wouldn't be surprised if the next thing is an indoor alpaca farm or something.
Running at a loss means they still generate revenue.
Also don't think the gigantic meme is necessary.
No huge loss, but he would probably have walked were it not for his one critical mistake.
He conned rich people.
Is that what happened at 10am PST?
Side note, the proposal would increase the tax rate on capital gains for millionaires from ~37% to ~40% on short-term gains and from 20% to 40% on long-term capital gains.
It's even better for me because today is payday, and I think my 401(k) shares get purchased at the market close.
How are they defining millionaires? If I have a million in my 401k when I retire, does that mean I'm getting taxed higher? Or if I make a million in income per year?
edit: nevermind I looked it up. Income of 1 million. So I guess this just means people won't sell all at once and will spread it out over years.
Presumably on dividends as well?
It seems like the latter has been standard usage for a number of years now.
Under Gingrich
Honestly, Capital Gains should have more brackets and basically match the treatment for income tax. Either double the amount of standard deduction for it or stair step it down a bracket in order to keep the incentive for investment, but the
00% $0-$40,000
15% $40,001-$441,450
20% $441,451+
Approach currently is just wholly disconnected from anything. But then, our current income tax brackets are also just Calvinball. 5 or 10 brackets stair stepping from 5%-50% would be lovely, and then the argument can be over what income level puts you where. I know it won't happen, but still.
the incentive is you turn money into more money without doing any work
tax long term cap gains as income and short term cap gains should get a 5% penalty
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
You also lose money for no fault of your own. It's not like every investment opportunity pays off, and a lack of investment capital will ultimately be a drag on innovation.
The stock market is not investing, in that sense. Not a dime of that money actually goes to anyone doing productive work.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Capital Gains tax applies to more than just stock trades.
Eh. It did, originally. Either through stock sales that raise money for the company or folks getting stock in exchange for their labor to the company.
Eh. You get paid for the risk in the proposed rate of return. Given that we've not seen significant inflation in decades, the original reason for cap gains being treated differently, I don't mind it being just called income. Folks in normal person brackets have investment vehicles that shield retirement savings from it.
Now, strictly speaking, some of that growth is from looting other countries via exploitative working conditions and such.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
With more rules protecting investors.
https://defector.com/a-cnbc-reporter-ruined-my-lunch-plans-a-visit-to-the-n-j-deli-worth-100-million/