boedicca
Uppity Water Nymph from the Land of Funk
- Feb 12, 2007
- 59,439
- 24,109
- 2,290
By your logic, because a person risks something, they should be taxed at a lower rate. Well, what if I risk my money at the cards tables in Vegas? Or I decide to speculate in art or fine wines? How is that any different than speculating in stocks or bonds or commodities? After all, I'm risking losing my money.
In your "safe" labor analogy, unlike capital, the laborer cannot write-off his losses. In the tax code, if you lose money on your capital, you can write that off against future income, lowering your taxes in the future. That is the compensation for risking capital.
Oh Gawd. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
What don't you get about the benefit to labor productivity via the application of invested capital?
- Gambling in Vegas is not investing (and it is short term).
- Art and fine wines held for longer than a year do qualify for capital gains.
- A laborer who is not paid the wage he is owed has recourse to sue the deadbeat employer. It is a fee for service arrangement. FF has already pointed that out.
- Having the compensation for risking capital be the ability to write off losses is Insanely Stupid - what good does pouring money into guaranteed losing propositions just to game the tax code do for the economy or the investor as opposed to choosing what are better investments?