61–70 of 323 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's to encourage money to be invested and also to compensate for the risks.
If I had the money, I'd renovate my roof, get a solar roof with battery backup, etc. It's an investment just as much as in any business; why am I discriminated against as an individual?
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.
Investing 100% of your post-tax income for 20 years is easy? (Which would get you to three million by the way)
I'm saying there are plenty of people making $200k post-tax. Also, 7% annual returns combined with an additional $150k/yr would lead to having $6.5 million like I said.
I suppose this is a matter of your definition of "plenty of people".
"Taxing investors less is really not what the U.S. needs now,” Saez said. “Instead, we should focus on trying to rebuild middle-class wealth” by encouraging families to save for retirement and pay down mortgages." How do you encourage families to save for retirement? isn't a lower tax rate on investment income a way to do that?
> The most famous economic boom in U.S. history, right after World War II, occurred when the top rates on dividends were between 70 and 90 percent. This seems very much like presenting correlation without any semblance of causation. Specifically, "right after World War II" is a pretty significant variable to ignore. The financial impact of the war being over (and massive amounts of resources being re-allocated) may w…
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.
It's the same as the old cable company model. Slicing the list of available concerns up just perfectly enough that you can't get what you want without a bunch of shit you don't.
In the cable system, if I want channel 1 from package A, and channel 2 form package B.. I can get mad they aren't in the same package.. but I can ultimately just buy the super package and for $200 a month get all channels.
How do I do that in politics? Get one view from party A and one view form party B? I can't. I have to pick my priorities and only get one. or maybe guess which party has more things I like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's to encourage money to be invested and also to compensate for the risks.
Yes and we've seen the outcome - top 1% benefits too much, and results in too much concentration of wealth (along with other structural issues).
And companies wont last with out access to capital trust me I have chaired share holder meetings caused by lack of capital
> 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…
Could you link to any "for dummies"-type resources that show how you can incorporate and use that corporation to reduce your taxes? Something that would hopefully be applicable to your typical middle-class homeowner in their 30s with young kids and a 9-5 making enough to get by but is looking for any edge they can find? Edit: (in the US)