51–60 of 323 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why our two-party political system needs to change. It's proven inadequate to reflect the people in a nuanced enough way.
The problem is a strong multiparty system can get fringe elements in power. We also, need to rank candidates: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ranking-candidate...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's what was done in the 1950's, and there was still plenty of wealth then. That time period was one of great prosperity that won't be repeated. Market returns were higher; most of the low hanging fruit has been plucked, and you can expect ~5% in equities returns. Its going to take far more capital now to get the same returns your grandparents had, which is why you see capital chasing returns across the world. htt…
Then why not try to structure our economy so that the lower and middle classes have more money to spend? It seems like that would be a pretty good way to get the economy moving more since giving poorer people money increases the velocity of money considerably[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
As someone who works at a startup and has interacted with many others, there is some merit to the claims. I agree that these loopholes should be closed and the tax system reformed, but I think we should be careful to do it in such a way that doesn't negatively affect e.g. companies like the one I work for, which went from three people to 70 and millions in revenue in just a few years. Especially as Vancouver is tryin…
> 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…
Edit: (in the US)
The biggest lie is this nonsense about "double taxation," ie taxing money that's already been taxed is somehow unfair. So stupid. Capital gains tax shouldn't exist. It should all be one income tax. You can carve out discounts or exemptions for things like sale of PPOR, sale of family business up to a certain point, if you want.
Your life would be negatively impacted if everyone paying capital gains decided it was advantageous to avoid paying them, so you can't talk about adjusting that tax structure as if all of the same money would stay on the table. If it were less enticing to invest it, fewer would, and that changes the environment in complex ways. It's a big assumption that if you raise taxes, everything else remains pinned down and we can analyze that variable in isolation.
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.
"The only risk you take is that you might select a bad company." - that's the same risk an investor takes no? Except the investor can diversify across many companies, while the employee can rely on only one. Yours seems like an argument for investors to pay a higher rate than an employee, because they can diversify their risk. Personally, I don't think taxes should be based on risk assessment.
> 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.
Makes my blood boil reading this, especially how poor republicans who have the most to gain through tax reform are consistently voting against their interest.
Makes my blood boil reading this, especially how poor republicans who have the most to gain through tax reform are consistently voting against their interest.
Of course, the poor are getting screwed, I just don't think one of the ways they are getting screwed is income tax policy.