Capital gains & income averaging.

LTCG are taxed at a different rate to encourage long term investing and discourage speculative casino-style trading.
Not really.

OK, there are legislators that actually think that they always know what's best and can make investors do what they want, but most taxers simply want money so they set rates at levels they can get away with. Long term investing has a different return pattern and can be taxed at a different rate than short term investing.
 
...Your contention is that eliminating the tax reduction granted to LTCG incomes will reduce what?

Government revenues and economic growth.

The favoring tax reduction for a particular characteristic of income is justified how?

Economic growth is good.

All other incomes are less worthy because?

Reality.
Ah that explains it. I couldn't make heads or tails out of Sup's post because I think every cost/tax should be justified, and Sup says we have to justify reducing a tax.

So easy for me to forget that the state-control mindset says all taxes are justified and a 'cost' is anything not taxed yet, as in " we can't afford more tax-cuts". What makes it worse is baseline budgeting which considers that the status quo to be increased spending, and that's how the left complains about "spending cuts" even when spending's increased.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: Jos
...Your contention is that eliminating the tax reduction granted to LTCG incomes will reduce what?

Government revenues and economic growth.

The favoring tax reduction for a particular characteristic of income is justified how?

Economic growth is good.

All other incomes are less worthy because?

Reality.
Ah that explains it. I couldn't make heads or tails out of Sup's post because I think every cost/tax should be justified, and Sup says we have to justify reducing a tax.

So easy for me to forget that the state-control mindset says all taxes are justified and a 'cost' is anything not taxed yet, as in " we can't afford more tax-cuts". What makes it worse is baseline budgeting which considers that the status quo to be increased spending, and that's how the left complains about "spending cuts" even when spending's increased.

His mindset is "all income belongs to the government" and anything that reduces the government's take is unjustified.
 
...His mindset is "all income belongs to the government" and anything that reduces the government's take is unjustified.
At first glance your comment looked like cheap hyperbole, stuff we see to much of on these threads. In my dreams. That's exactly how the left thinks, they say all new jobs are created by Obama, that all created wealth is property of the collective America and that's why this "American collective" will see to it that our wealth gets 'shared around'.

Not hyperbole at all; may even have erred on the side of restraint...
 
Really? In what world does that happen?[bankers going bankrupt]


Certainly not in the one you and I are sharing right now.

the liberal has no clue that many of the big banks went bankrupt with owners losing everything. Some were absorbed, like Merryl Lynch, again with owners losing everything. Many that remain are zombie banks, like BOA, whose survival and stock price are questionable.

What world does the liberal live in?
 
Long term capital gains.

To the extent that sales revenue is spent on behalf of an enterprise, such revenues are “invested” into that enterprise.

To the extent that an enterprise sells any portion of their enterprises’ and the sales revenues is devoted to the benefit of the enterprise, the sales revenue has been invested.
I’ve heard estimates that no more than ½% of stock and bond sales transactions involve IPO shares; that certainly seems to be a realistic number.

If that’s the case, approximately 99.5% of stock or bond sales transactions were transfers of wealth rather than investments.
Investments are factored into and contribute to nations’ GDP. Other than the prices of brokerage services, transfers of wealth contribute nothing else to a nation’s’ GDP.

Long term capital gains, (LTCG) are sales profit of non stock-in-trade items that were continuously owned by the seller for a year or more prior to the sale. LTCG profits are taxed at extremely lesser than ordinary income tax rates and thus reduce the nation’s tax revenue.
Almost the entire aggregate reductions of taxes due to LTCG are for the benefit of our wealthiest population segments. No LTCG benefits derive from stocks and bonds when held within tax deferred accounts.

Generally the major benefit a middle income family may derive from LTCG occurs if they sell their home and do not choose to purchase another house. LTCG is an inequitable tax reduction that reduces the nation’s tax revenue and is a net detriment rather than a contributor to the economy.

[Refer to the next message entitled “Income Averaging”].

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Income Averaging
There was an “income averaging” provision within our income tax regulations that mitigated progressive tax rate’s excesses when applied to the filing’s year’s taxable income.

This tax reduction rewarded but was not limited to wealthy investors or those that sold their homes. It benefitted lottery or quiz program winners, sport or entertainment figures, inventors or anyone else that hit ANY KIND of financial jackpot within the taxable year for which they were filing an income tax return.
It compensated those who were lucky or daring or devoted years for study or practice of their chosen professions but were otherwise seriously harmed due to progressive tax rates.

There are tax methods superior to progressive rates for the consideration of lower income earners. But until we enact something new, I'd be satisfied with something that worked and is supperior to what we now have.

It is politically and financially unfeasible to greater reduce taxes for the wealthy or to increase taxes upon those who earn less.

I’m a proponent for replacing income taxes with a general sales tax to whatever extent practical. I doubt if we can replace all income taxes. If we can, we will; if we can’t, we’ll have a hybrid system. Everyone will pay the general sales tax; the wealthier segments of our population will also pay income taxes.
Many of our members are completely opposed to this scenario but politics is said to be the art of the possible.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:
Long term capital gains.

To the extent that sales revenue is spent on behalf of an enterprise, such revenues are “invested” into that enterprise.

To the extent that an enterprise sells any portion of their enterprises’ and the sales revenues is devoted to the benefit of the enterprise, the sales revenue has been invested.
I’ve heard estimates that no more than ½% of stock and bond sales transactions involve IPO shares; that certainly seems to be a realistic number.

If that’s the case, approximately 99.5% of stock or bond sales transactions were transfers of wealth rather than investments.
Investments are factored into and contribute to nations’ GDP. Other than the prices of brokerage services, transfers of wealth contribute nothing else to a nation’s’ GDP.

Long term capital gains, (LTCG) are sales profit of non stock-in-trade items that were continuously owned by the seller for a year or more prior to the sale. LTCG profits are taxed at extremely lesser than ordinary income tax rates and thus reduce the nation’s tax revenue.
Almost the entire aggregate reductions of taxes due to LTCG are for the benefit of our wealthiest population segments. No LTCG benefits derive from stocks and bonds when held within tax deferred accounts.

Generally the major benefit a middle income family may derive from LTCG occurs if they sell their home and do not choose to purchase another house. LTCG is an inequitable tax reduction that reduces the nation’s tax revenue and is a net detriment rather than a contributor to the economy.

[Refer to the next message entitled “Income Averaging”].

Respectfully, Supposn

I’ve heard estimates that no more than ½% of stock and bond sales transactions involve IPO shares

So what?
 
Ah that explains it. I couldn't make heads or tails out of Sup's post because I think every cost/tax should be justified, and Sup says we have to justify reducing a tax.

So easy for me to forget that the state-control mindset says all taxes are justified and a 'cost' is anything not taxed yet, as in " we can't afford more tax-cuts". What makes it worse is baseline budgeting which considers that the status quo to be increased spending, and that's how the left complains about "spending cuts" even when spending's increased.

ExPat_Panama, all existing or proposed laws or regulations should stand or fall upon be their own merits. I’m not particularly opposed to tax reductions but I’m generally opposed to inequitable laws and regulations.
If we’re reducing taxes, I prefer that we at least attempt to treat all persons of generally similar circumstances in a similar manner. Within this specific issue, I propose the LTCG tax reduction shoud be replaced with a re-drafting and re-enactment of the income averaging tax regulations.

Respectfully, Supposn

Excerpted from message #48:

This tax reduction, (i.e. income averaging) rewarded but was not limited to wealthy investors or those that sold their homes. It benefitted lottery or quiz program winners, sport or entertainment figures, inventors or anyone else that hit ANY KIND of financial jackpot within the taxable year for which they were filing an income tax return. It compensated those who were lucky or daring or devoted years for study or practice of their chosen professions but were otherwise seriously harmed due to progressive tax rates.
 
b]I’ve heard estimates that no more than ½% of stock and bond sales transactions involve IPO shares[/b]
So what?

ToddsterPatriot, The purchase of IPO shares provide capital for the issuing enterprise; it is an investment into the enterprise that fully contributes to the nation’s GDP.

Purchases of non-IPO shares provide sales revenue to the seller and the broker, but nothing for the issuing enterprise. (I.e. the transactions are essentially transfers of wealth rather than investments).
Other than brokerage fees, those sales contribute nothing else to the GDP.

If only a ½% stocks and bonds transactions are IPO transactions, than 99.5% of the tax revenue lost due to LTCG reduced tax rates increased our federal deficit but contributed almost nothing to our economy.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Why not do like business friendly Australia and have a flat rate 20% corporate income tax.

U.S. Citizen, if individuals’ tax rates exceed businesses’, individual entrepreneurs and executives will show little incomes “on the books” but they’ll live very well upon their expense accounts.

If income’s taxed, we should tax both individuals’ and commercial incomes and their maximum rates should be similar.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
I advocate elimination of the long term capital gains loophole and restoring the income averaging,

Respectfully, Supposn

why not eliminate all taxes on business activity so businessmen will make all decisions capitalisticially, i.e., based on improving our standard of living rather than on what some idiot soviet liberal bureaucrat guesses will serve some special interest.

Businesses do not make decisions based on improving your standard of living. They could give a fuck if you lived in a palace or on a shit farm, as long as they profit.
 
b]I’ve heard estimates that no more than ½% of stock and bond sales transactions involve IPO shares[/b]
So what?

ToddsterPatriot, The purchase of IPO shares provide capital for the issuing enterprise; it is an investment into the enterprise that fully contributes to the nation’s GDP.

Purchases of non-IPO shares provide sales revenue to the seller and the broker, but nothing for the issuing enterprise. (I.e. the transactions are essentially transfers of wealth rather than investments).
Other than brokerage fees, those sales contribute nothing else to the GDP.

If only a ½% stocks and bonds transactions are IPO transactions, than 99.5% of the tax revenue lost due to LTCG reduced tax rates increased our federal deficit but contributed almost nothing to our economy.

Respectfully, Supposn

The market for IPOs would be much less if we punish traders on the secondary market.
Your posts suffer from stage one thinking. I found the cure.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Applied-Economics-Thinking-Beyond-Stage/dp/0465003451]Amazon.com: Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One (9780465003457): Thomas Sowell: Books[/ame]
 
The market for IPOs would be much less if we punish traders on the secondary market.
Your posts suffer from stage one thinking. I found the cure.

Amazon.com: Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One (9780465003457): Thomas Sowell: Books

ToddsterPatriot, I can’t know if you’ve “found the cure”. Your link is an advertisement for a book. Your link provides no information but there’s possibly an implication within your message.

Your implying that if there was no reduced tax rate for long term capital gains, (LTCG), there’d be less stocks and bonds sold?
The motivations to buy shares are much more dependent expectation of the shares’ increased values and much less dependent upon the rates of brokerage fees or income taxes.

But you missed the major point of my objection to the reduced tax rate for LTCG Sales profits. The government is replacing the judgment of the market. The market is favoring entrepreneurs selling shares or their entire enterprises rather than existing upon a portion of their incomes while they and nurture and reinvest into their enterprises. This is government’s intervention of their population’s self-determination.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
...If we’re reducing taxes, I prefer that we at least attempt to treat all persons of generally similar circumstances in a similar manner...
Sounds like your primary goal in structuring taxes is 'fairness' with revenue/general prosperity being secondary. That's a bad choice because while questions about rates versus revenue are easier to settle, disagreements over 'fairness' can go on forever. Those are best resolved on the local level with as little involvement of central government as possible.
 
The market for IPOs would be much less if we punish traders on the secondary market.
Your posts suffer from stage one thinking. I found the cure.

Amazon.com: Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One (9780465003457): Thomas Sowell: Books

ToddsterPatriot, I can’t know if you’ve “found the cure”. Your link is an advertisement for a book. Your link provides no information but there’s possibly an implication within your message.

Your implying that if there was no reduced tax rate for long term capital gains, (LTCG), there’d be less stocks and bonds sold?
The motivations to buy shares are much more dependent expectation of the shares’ increased values and much less dependent upon the rates of brokerage fees or income taxes.

But you missed the major point of my objection to the reduced tax rate for LTCG Sales profits. The government is replacing the judgment of the market. The market is favoring entrepreneurs selling shares or their entire enterprises rather than existing upon a portion of their incomes while they and nurture and reinvest into their enterprises. This is government’s intervention of their population’s self-determination.

Respectfully, Supposn

You should buy and read the book.
Your "ideas" sound good on the surface, if you ignore all the bad seconday effects.
That book explains how liberals can't think past Stage One. Like you.
 
You should buy and read the book.
Your "ideas" sound good on the surface, if you ignore all the bad seconday effects.
That book explains how liberals can't think past Stage One. Like you.
//////////

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Applied-Economics-Thinking-Beyond-Stage/dp/0465003451]Amazon.com: Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One (9780465003457): Thomas Sowell: Books[/ame]


ToddsterPatriot, by favoring LTCG incomes over other income sources, government’s determination is being unjustifiably substituted for the determinations of the markets.
The government is choosing winners and losers.

Your response is to provide a book title? You cannot express or link me to an argument that can concisely explain the fault of my position?

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:
You should buy and read the book.
Your "ideas" sound good on the surface, if you ignore all the bad seconday effects.
That book explains how liberals can't think past Stage One. Like you.
//////////

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Applied-Economics-Thinking-Beyond-Stage/dp/0465003451]Amazon.com: Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One (9780465003457): Thomas Sowell: Books[/ame]


ToddsterPatriot, by favoring LTCG incomes over other income sources, government’s determination is being unjustifiably substituted for the determinations of the markets.
The government is choosing winners and losers.

Your response is to provide a book title? You cannot express or link me to an argument that can concisely explain the fault of my position?

Respectfully, Supposn

I already told you why raising the capital gains tax rate was a bad idea.
Did you miss it?
 

Forum List

Back
Top