31–40 of 323 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not the progressive tax structure that's the problem, it's the fact that cap gains are taxed at a much lower rate than other forms of income.
That's to encourage money to be invested and also to compensate for the risks.
Because politicians sell progressive income taxes as a way to screw the rich, when it actually just screws the upper middle class, since the actual rich don't have jobs to tax the income from.
It's not the progressive tax structure that's the problem, it's the fact that cap gains are taxed at a much lower rate than other forms of income.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not the progressive tax structure that's the problem, it's the fact that cap gains are taxed at a much lower rate than other forms of income.
That's to encourage money to be invested and also to compensate for the risks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not the progressive tax structure that's the problem, it's the fact that cap gains are taxed at a much lower rate than other forms of income.
That's to encourage money to be invested and also to compensate for the risks.
> Americans in the top 1 percent, and especially the top 0.1 percent, have seen their wealth and income multiply in recent decades as the rest of the country’s share of the economic pie shrank. Since 2000, a recent study found, the top 1 percent have made those gains almost entirely on income from capital, especially corporate stock—not on labor income. One reason may be the financial options of the wealthy: Business…
I am confused. If you put your bonus into a corporation, you will have to pay tax twice, the corporate tax and your personal tax. And if your corporation is an LLC, it all flows through to your personal taxes anyway. So, I don't see how you shelter this just by putting into a corporation.
I believe the example was that you may as a contractor (with your own company) receive a bonus to your corporation and be able to offset taxes for another 11 months compared to having the bonus paid out personally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see it that way. When you invest you risk the capital. You might get a return, you might not and therefore the taxation rules should reflect that. The situation as a worker is different. The only risk you take is that you might select a bad company.
> You might get a return, you might not and therefore the taxation rules should reflect that. So... you take a loss on your taxes, probably spreading it out in some way so you don't pay taxes for a few years, if it's a serious enough loss. Right? Why does the rate need to be different?
Furthermore, I think you are misunderstanding the double taxation argument. The double taxation arises because the company has already payed tax on their profits.
> Americans in the top 1 percent, and especially the top 0.1 percent, have seen their wealth and income multiply in recent decades as the rest of the country’s share of the economic pie shrank. Since 2000, a recent study found, the top 1 percent have made those gains almost entirely on income from capital, especially corporate stock—not on labor income. One reason may be the financial options of the wealthy: Business…
They're currently trying to close a couple of those loopholes here in Canada, and it's surprising how much traction the complaints against the reforms are getting. The opponents are claiming that the reforms are going to devastate family doctors and family farms. The complaints are mostly bogus, but people don't understand tax law so are vulnerable to an emotional plea.
Especially as Vancouver is trying to build its tech and entrepreneurial ecosystem, it's important to ensure that we aren't driving away or hindering small businesses to grow while also not letting huge corporations like TD, Telus, or Apple get the biggest benefits from the tax system the more money they have.
How do you encourage families to save for retirement? isn't a lower tax rate on investment income a way to do that?