patrick.net

mell says

But taking a risk or doing a job where you could lose all your money instead of making money is very different form a guaranteed paycheck

Capital gains are taxes on profits not principal. If someone is losing their shirt/house/car due to a bad stock call it won't be due to capital gains taxes. It'll most likely be due to them making a bad call and using debt to finance it.

mell says

In any case I am opposed to any raises as long as there are loopholes and deductions for other types of gains and/or debt.

There will always be loopholes and ways to abuse any tax law, particularly for the very rich, so this is at best poor reasoning.

mell says

Btw. if the market would have been allowed to correct itself in 2008 there would not be that much calls for a capital gains debate as the money possibly collected from those gains would not matter much amidst a sea of losses.

Unfortunately if the market had been allowed to correct itself back then there would be no market and the modern economy does need the market. IMO it should have been done in a better manner, by putting the bad banks in receivership and manage the bad debt over time. I know the banks/regulators claim it wasn't possible but they said the same thing to William Black back in the S&L days and it worked just fine.

More importantly though if capital gains taxes had been higher there may not have been such a bubble to begin (less money for the banks to mal-invest) with and if there had anyways it would've been smaller in magnitude and the govt. could've been redistributing the money throughout the rest of the country. Which would've allowed the US to weather a major recession in a much better fashion.

mell says

But taking a risk or doing a job where you could lose all your money instead of
making money is very different form a guaranteed paycheck.

Yes, in one case you have to sacrifice your time and energy and in the other you just sit back and make money while sipping umbrella drinks in the Caribbean.

You think money earned by sweat should be taxed MORE than money made doing nothing?

tts says

More importantly though if capital gains taxes had been higher there may not have been such a bubble to begin (less money for the banks to mal-invest) with

Why? It would have taken them just a tad bit longer, but without tail-risk nothing will change.

tts says

Unfortunately if the market had been allowed to correct itself back then there would be no market and the modern economy does need the market.

No it doesn't - DOW 6000 is also market, but one where people speculate far less, no matter what the capital gains tax is.

tatupu70 says

Yes, in one case you have to sacrifice your time and energy and in the other you just sit back and make money while sipping umbrella drinks in the Caribbean.

You think money earned by sweat should be taxed MORE than money made doing nothing?

You take money that you already earned from your sweat job and that has been already taxed to invest and you bear the full brunt of the risk. This imagery of siting in the Carribean while watching your accounts multiply is mostly just fantasy, esp. in a real market with all the tail-risk. What's next, paying and taxing people by how much you think they are sweating/thinking/working at their job? Most full-time traders I know work more than the average person and often have a second "normal" job.

That being said, I consider short-term investments and flips less productive than long-term investment that give corporations necessary capital to develop (e.g. development stage biotech), so maybe the distinction we currently have in taxing short vs. long term investments is not all that bad.

However the problem is not the capital gains tax, it's removing the tail-risk for some insiders and sectors that can blow assets bubbles that pop when retail finally gets on board, and while retail bears the full brunt of their losses, the few TBTFs caught in this as well will be bailed out by the same retail middle-class citizens - double-whammy!

mell says

You take money that you already earned from your sweat job and that has been
already taxed to invest and you bear the full brunt of the risk

Yes, and expect commensurate return for the risk. What's your point? Please give me one reason why capital gains should be taxed LESS than labor. Just one.

mell says

However the problem is not the capital gains tax, it's removing the tail-risk
for some insiders and sectors that can blow assets bubbles that pop when retail
finally gets on board, and while retail bears the full brunt of their losses,
the few TBTFs caught in this as well will be bailed out by the same retail
middle-class citizens - double-whammy!

Well, we have many problems, but capital gains tax rate is a big one. Moral hazard is way down the list, IMO. But, break up the TBTF immediately, if that's what you're worried about. I'm all for it!

tatupu70 says

You think money earned by sweat should be taxed MORE than money made doing nothing?

Absolutely. People who earn their money from labor are ASSHOLES!

tatupu70 says

Please give me one reason why capital gains should be taxed LESS than labor.
Just one.

I'll take your silence as indication that you have no good reasons.

tts says

Capital gains are taxes on profits not principal. If someone is losing their shirt/house/car due to a bad stock call it won't be due to capital gains taxes. It'll most likely be due to them making a bad call and using debt to finance it.

Investing into companies, esp. long-term, is not just "betting", you are loaning them your cash for product development. It's irrelevant whether you use debt (margin financing for equity investments is super strict as opposed to housing and there are no bailouts) or not and whether you consider it a bet or not, it comes from already taxed money most people have earned in another job. When there are zero deductions, capital gains exemptions and pre-tax opportunities across the board to fund other assets such as housing, then we can talk about capital gains tax rates, before it's a no-no. And once we achieve the former, overall income tax rates can likely be lowered due to the money taken in from eliminating loopholes and exemptions.

tatupu70 says

I'll take your silence as indication that you have no good reasons.

I've given you my reasons, esp. for long term investments. You had noting of significance for rebuttal, so there is nothing for me to say. Otherwise, see above.

mell says

it comes from already taxed money most people have earned in another job.

So what? Is there some golden rule that money can only be taxed once? Every dollar in existance has been taxed an uncountable number of times. Who cares?

mell says

When there are zero deductions, capital gains exemptions and pre-tax
opportunities across the board to fund other assets such as housing, then we can
talk about capital gains tax rates, before it's a no-no.

Why? We can't talk about two things at once? Why is one more important than the other?

mell says

I've given you my reasons, esp. for long term investments. You had noting of
significance for rebuttal, so there is nothing for me to say. Otherwise, see
above.

You can't repeat them again? They must really be good ones if you're afraid to clearly state them in a new post.

mell says

1. Yes you can.

2. Short term speculation, even a trade that lasts 5 minutes, has a long term capital gains tax rate on 60% of the profit. This is the 60/40 rule that applies to commodities and traders have been screwing people for decades.

It's impossible to foresee company developments or market conditions over a year or years, you cannot rely on that as source of income, 2008 comes along and your long-term investments are gone. Why do you think all the TBTFs and major power brokers/funds now make a guaranteed major chunk of their money with HFT/algo and short-term trades? Because that's where they have an unfair edge. Long-term, not so much.

mell says

It's impossible to foresee company developments or market conditions over a
year or years, you cannot rely on that as source of income, 2008 comes along and
your long-term investments are gone. Why do you think all the TBTFs and major
power brokers/funds now make a guaranteed major chunk of their money with
HFT/algo and short-term trades? Because that's where they have an unfair edge.
Long-term, not so much.

So how about we put a special tax on short term trading in addition to increasing capital gains rates to the same as labor?

mell says

Long-term investment is not speculation, it is giving companies much needed
cash to develop their products. E.g. biotech could not exist without cash
infusions from investors throughout their entire development stage cycle which
can easily last 10-20 years.

Nor could it exist without smart people actually developing products that make our lives better.

But you think that the people who come up with the product should be taxed MORE than the people who give them money?

tatupu70 says

So how about we put a special tax on short term trading in addition to increasing capital gains rates to the same as labor?

A transaction tax could solve this (esp. with regards to HFT, but also requiring bids and asks to stand for a minimum duration to maintain fairness), but every tax has pros and cons. Again, if all deductions and exemptions are eliminated I could support it, but not before. Also I would like to see a lower income tax overall once everything is taxed the same and loopholes and exemptions have been eliminated. Maybe flat 25% or 30%, and if progressive, then the rates for middle-class and upper middle-class should be significantly lowered. And spending curtailed of course ;)

mell says

Again, if all deductions and exemptions are eliminated I could support it, but
not befor

Seriously--you can only handle one good idea at a time? You need some work on time management.

tatupu70 says

mell says

Again, if all deductions and exemptions are eliminated I could support it, but

not befor

Seriously--you can only handle one good idea at a time? You need some work on time management.

Fairness aka equal opportunity comes way before redistribution and equalizing. That's all. But yes, I am open to all proposals in the right order. Discussion is important, but a blow-hard I-am-always-right mentality as shown by some does not advance this topic at all. But, hey it's just an internet forum ;)

mell says

Fairness aka equal opportunity comes way before redistribution and equalizing.

Fairness is BS. It's completely subjective and impossible to implement. Redistribution is what's important.

You'd rather have a "fair" system and economy of Somalia or "unfair" system like the US had from 1950 - 1980?

HydroCabron says

No. But it is of some value, if less than the guy who changes the HVAC
filters every six months.

"Noble" is a near-meaningless intensive here. I'm lightly mocking their
profession.

Verbal irony, or, as Bgamall would put it, a sort of false flag.

I think the value is questionable, but regardless, all I'm asking is to tax them like we tax all other value enhancing work. According to the same progressive rates. How could anyone be against that?

tatupu70 says

mell says

Fairness aka equal opportunity comes way before redistribution and equalizing.

Fairness is BS. It's completely subjective and impossible to implement. Redistribution is what's important.

You'd rather have a "fair" system and economy of Somalia or "unfair" system like the US had from 1950 - 1980?

Well that's where we disagree then. It's every simple to be fair to the best possible extent. A simple way to start out with is treat everybody the same under the rule of law, no bailouts or get out of jail free cards. Keep laws short and to a minimum so that there is no wiggle room to misrepresent/misinterpret them or take advantage of loopholes. Etc.

mell says

It's every simple to be fair to the best possible extent.

That's comlete BS. Like I said--fairness is 100% subjective. What's "fair" to you is not to your next door neighbor. Ask 1000 people what is fair and you'll get 1000 different answers.

mell says

A simple way to start out with is treat everybody the same under the rule of
law, no bailouts or get out of jail free cards. Keep laws short and to a minimum
so that there is no wiggle room to misrepresent/misinterpret them or take
advantage of loopholes. Etc.

How does that have anything to do with capital gains tax rates?

tatupu70 says

HydroCabron says

No. But it is of some value, if less than the guy who changes the HVAC

filters every six months.

"Noble" is a near-meaningless intensive here. I'm lightly mocking their

profession.

Verbal irony, or, as Bgamall would put it, a sort of false flag.

I think the value is questionable, but regardless, all I'm asking is to tax them like we tax all other value enhancing work. According to the same progressive rates. How could anyone be against that?

Brainwashing, maybe?

It reminds me of William Shirer's statement about having lunch with perfectly intelligent Germans in the 1930s, who could converse in depth on numerous topics, and then blandly assert outrageous bullshit about Jews or the persecution of Germany by the world as if no one could find such statements unreasonable.

I once had a boss who came to work one morning and flat-out told us that the reason the economy was so good (this was 1999) was due entirely to Reagan's tax cuts in 1982. I know people who believe no income beyond a certain level should be taxed at all. You would have been laughed out of a John Birch society meeting for saying that in 1970. Now you're welcome at any Republican or Libertarian Party gathering.

tatupu70 says

That's comlete BS. Like I said--fairness is 100% subjective. What's "fair" to you is not to your next door neighbor. Ask 1000 people what is fair and you'll get 1000 different answers.

If you don't think your country has fair laws you either have to leave the country or work to repeal those laws or challenge them in court. Selectively applying them is far worse.

tatupu70 says

How does that have anything to do with capital gains tax rates?

It is a prerequisite for me however to get support for the capital gains tax adjustment. I consider this the fundamental problem, you don't. That's fine.

mell says

If you don't think your country has fair laws you either have to leave the
country or work to repeal those laws or challenge them in court. Selectively
applying them is far worse

I think fairness is an abstract concept that is unimportant. Laws are made to promote behavior that society wishes to encourage. Often the two are the same.

mell says

It is a prerequisite for me however to get support for the capital gains tax
adjustment. I consider this the fundamental problem, you don't. That's fine.

You really are a Republican. You must extract a bounty to support something you believe in??

tatupu70 says

So how about we put a special tax on short term trading in addition to increasing capital gains rates to the same as labor?

Problem with capital gains is that certain corporate structures get taxed twice. However, taxing all income at same as labor... I'm all for that.

It's an abomination that working man pays more in taxes than the man who is controlling the money. I'm a strong believer that all income should be taxed equally without special interest loopholes.

tatupu70 says

You really are a Republican. You must extract a bounty to support something you believe in??

It's fairness first AKA equal opportunity. How can you talk about RAISING already existing taxes while you can flip a house after 2 years and pocket 250K/500K taxed at 0%?? I am not married to a specific cap. gains tax rate, but you have to understand that there is a significant difference between committing your money for years with the possibility of losing it all vs getting a paycheck every month and getting taxed on that. Also, what tax rate for interest from savings?

mell says

I am not married to a specific cap. gains tax rate, but you have to understand that there is a significant difference between committing your money for years with the possibility of losing it all vs getting a paycheck every month and getting taxed on that.

Robert the Bruce: Wait! I respect what you said, but remember that these men have lands and castles. It's much to risk.
Willam Wallace: And the common man who bleeds on the battlefield, does he risk less?

tatupu70 says

easier than investing your money somewhere and watching it grow?

Or losing it all, like in 2008 (for most). Ok, I can see your point and where we disagree is how we think wealth disparity is mainly generated in the first place. The TBFTs and connected one (I count most politicians and people such as Buffet amongst them) would grow a bit slower, but without the tail risk they would still be TBTFs. Give me a continuously printing-press backstopped, guaranteed multi-bagger investment and bailouts if something goes awry and I don't care much what tax rate I pay on those ill-gotten gains. While you can redistribute some of those they don't address the core problem.

seeitnow says

these men have lands and castles.

Are you talking about our resident patnet landlord rentiers? None of the people I know who trade or invest at the side or even as their main source of income have lands or castles. Plus they invest other peoples retirements who don't want to get fucked over by the Fed and 0% savings interest and if they are good at it they do good for their clients.

mell says

Give me a continuously printing-press backstopped, guaranteed multi-bagger
investment and bailouts if something goes awry and I don't care much what tax
rate I pay on those ill-gotten gains. While you can redistribute some of those
they don't address the core problem.

You really need to get over the bailout that happened 5 years ago. There was no policy decision that decreed that whenever a company is in trouble, it will be bailed out. If anything, the backlash has ensured that bailouts will never happen again.

So, why exactly do you think there is no tail risk?

And the whole crony argument is BS. It's a distraction from the real issues.

Homeboy says

m, we were talking about JOBS. Unemployment went UP starting in 2000. Where was the job-creating effect of that cut in capital gains rate?

there was lots of job formation after 1997 especially in Silicon Valley..
the PWC money tree will showed $150B flowing into venture backed startups.

Money to hire employees, manufacture goods, pay vendors, and rent facilities.

This is obvious.. even to Bill Clinton since he always liked to visit the Bay Area (esp Santa Clara) to ask for Donations.

Homeboy says

You seem to be having an imaginary argument with someone other than me. Did I say tax increases promote business activity? No, I simply said cutting the capital gains rate does NOT promote business activity. You are committing the fallacy of denying the antecedent. The reason to tax capital gains as ordinary income would be to balance the budget by ending preferential tax treatment for the investor class. The problem could be solved without people going hungry or dying from lack of medical care.

As the above example shows.. lowering taxes actual promoted activity... it is clearly documentation by PWC money tree and in any history books.. Salaries paid to employees, payments to vendors, rent paid to office landlords were all ORDINARY INCOME to these parties and GOVT be it FED or STATE taxed the INCOME at HIGHEST RATE.

ALL of the funds came from one source.. AFTER TAX Savings from the RICH ( your so called 10%) put at RISK as Venture backed INVESTMENTS to fuel economic expansion.

At the end .. the original dollar invested was taxed as Ordinary Income rates.. the gains above ordinary income were taxed at lower rates due to risk. You rather there was NO investment made and no jobs created and those no higher tax revenues collected?

thomaswong.1986 says

At the end .. the original dollar invested was taxed as Ordinary Income
rates.. the gains above ordinary income were taxed at lower rates due to risk.
You rather there was NO investment made and no jobs created and those no higher
tax revenues collected?

Nope--I'd rather the same investments be made and then taxed at the same rate as labor.

Your argument comes down to this reasoning. People will pass up opportunities to make $1MM because they'd have to pay an extra $30K in taxes. Maybe that makes sense in your world Thomas--it sure doesn't in mine.

And btw--there's no guarantee that the original dollar was taxed as ordinary income... The 1% get very little earnings as ordinary income. That's why the Koch Bros. et. al., are programming you to think raising capital gains will have a negative effect on jobs and the economy.

Seriously--sit back and think for a second. Companies don't hire based EBIDTA or net earnings. They hire when they need more people to meet demand. If they can meet demand and increase earnings, that's what they'll do--they certainly won't hire any more people just because their earnings are up.

Plenty of delusions on both sides:

http://patrick.net/?p=1230589&c=1017529#comment-1017529

smaulgld says

Plenty of delusions on both sides:

http://patrick.net/?p=1230589&c=1017529#comment-1017529

Yes: Both sides do it.

(Source: precious-metals bugs who lecture everyone on the evils of partisan divisiveness while voting a straight Republican ticket their entire lives.)

There are the Foxbots / Rushbots, i.e. CaptainShuddup, TomWong, and Bap33.

Then there are AustrianBots, i.e. mell and "Reality."

Said bots just keep repeating the same PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times) over and over again. They hope to establish truth by perpetual repetition. If you repeat something often enough, it becomes the truth!

Do we have any RandRoids on here just to complete the far-right economic insanity? As if we don't have enough of the GNP flowing into the hands of the wealthiest 400 people?

I suppose errc's constant whining about how the Democrats won't let him smoke dope is relatively harmless. It does get annoying though.

I can't take credit for the term "PRATT." I got it from RationalWiki.

freak80 says

There are the Foxbots / Rushbots, i.e. CaptainShuddup, TomWong, and Bap33.

Surely you little lefty pricks heard of the National Review... or your just some 20 year old Obamatron..

thomaswong.1986 says

freak80 says

There are the Foxbots / Rushbots, i.e. CaptainShuddup, TomWong, and Bap33.

Surely you little lefty pricks heard of the National Review... or your just some 20 year old Obamatron..

You mean that National Review? The one which purged Buckley's son for being a dirty leftist?

tatupu70 says

Your argument comes down to this reasoning. People will pass up opportunities to make $1MM because they'd have to pay an extra $30K in taxes. Maybe that makes sense in your world Thomas--it sure doesn't in mine.

It all makes prefect sense and the multiplier effect kick in fueling more jobs, rent payments and puchases.. all this increases Federal, State, Retail Sales Tax, Property Taxes several times over.

Your solution is Federal Govt gets its all once for all up front.. there is no circulation of investments and disposal incomes to benefit society as a whole.

HydroCabron says

You mean that National Review? The one which purged Buckley's son for being a dirty leftist?

Is that all you know of it ? surely you must know more about the Late Buckley himself.

thomaswong.1986 says

It all makes prefect sense

lol. OK. Show me someone who would pass up $1MM because he would have to pay $30K of it to the government.

tatupu70 says

And btw--there's no guarantee that the original dollar was taxed as ordinary income... The 1% get very little earnings as ordinary income. That's why the Koch Bros. et. al., are programming you to think raising capital gains will have a negative effect on jobs and the economy.

there is no guarantee that ORIGINAL investment was returned either.. what is your risk incentive ? Based on your logic .... savings would never get invested into high risk projects... what you see today, would not have happened.