301–310 of 320 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>[citation needed] Any economics text book.
Go on. Which economics text book would tell me that if the government incentivized investments to 100x their actual value, the resulting investments wouldn't be bullshit?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe, but then let me capture my long and short term gains together to offset gains. It's crazy that if I have a $5k loss in year one, I can't completely offset it in year 2 if I have a 5k gain. Now I can only use 3k going forward forever.
> Now I can only use 3k going forward forever. Wait did they change the carry forward rules? At least the way it used to work was: * Year 1 - 50k loss, 3k offset of ordinary income 47k carry forward * Year 2 - 60k gain, 47k zeroed out from last year's carry forward, 13k is taxed Is that not still the case?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without capital labor has no value.
How so? One can dig a hole with their bare hands and find a water source. If one create some rudimentary tools then the process is faster. If another one sculpts the dug clay and fashion rudimentary sun-dried clay vases you got a way to temporary store that water. All of that has value and the only "capital" needed were the basic resources of some wood, food, and water, if you stretch the meaning of capital. Capital…
QED
> Wealth inequality is just a radical left fairy tale to villainize the hard-working 1%. The problem with that mindset is that we know how it's going to end up: it's not only the 0.1% or 1% that are going to suffer the wealth tax. It's the 30%. At first the "tax on billionaire" was supposed to be that: a tax on billionaires. But then there are already publications explaining how "taxing anyone who has more than a mil…
Wealth tax 2% at $1million was a platform policy of the very left Green Party in New Zealand - and NZD $1M is about USD600k! Although they did increase it to NZD2million asset limit. Governments (or maybe voters) don't seem to understand incentives: New Zealand government and its taxation structure discourages building or growing a profitable business. Why should anyone build a business when any winnings will be slow…
Because the payout might be better than wage labor and you only pay the tax if you win big?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Capital includes everybody’s life savings. Capital in the sense being discussed (which derives from the same critique of capitalism in which "capitalism" was coined) refers to the non-financial, non-land means of production; one's life savings are not capital, though they may (or may not) be used to acquire capital. > It’s common to have a goal of retiring someday, and having capital is how you retire. Having priva…
If you’re going to be that picky about the definition of “capital” then maybe the question is why would anyone be against farms and factories? :) So okay, for capital, substitute “ownership of a claim to the profits from capital.” I think it might be fun to imagine an economic system very different than ours, but I suspect it’s going to need cultural institutions that fulfill similar roles, because they serve human n…
No one is against farms and factories. Some people are against ownership of farms and factories by private parties separate from working in them.
> For example, suppose that in the system you’re imagining, a retired worker goes to the store to get something to eat.
Then they pay money for it. Which likely comes out of a retirement pension.
> So the retiree has present some kind of abstract claim showing what they’re entitled to.
That "abstract claim" is called "money", and exists separate from (and predates) capitalist property structures, and does not rely on private ownership of the means of production.
> It’s going to serve a similar role to retirement savings. How does it work? When you retire, how secure is your claim? How much can you get, and what happens when political institutions change?
No claim is resilient to change of political institutions; systems of property rights are themselves political institutions.
> I think it’s easier to talk about such things in terms of familiar institutions that we understand well
Yes, but the problem is that you are confusing entirely different institutions that do not rely on each other, simply because they happen to coexist in the system you are most familiar with (though that is not universally historically the case.)
"Capital", "money", and "some form of provision for retirement" are not the same thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it a big problem for country that wealthy people are living? I thought most country wealth comes from oil and gas. And until it’s no longer the case it somewhat makes sense to avoid large wealth gaps.
That argument is a bit circular. It is a bit like saying someone doesn't need to get a law degree until after they've opened a legal firm - there are some obvious cause-effect issues. If there is a tax on wealth, why would we expect there to be local examples of great wealth created that aren't physically extracted from the land? If a Norwegian had a great idea for a new product, presumably they wouldn't be stupid en…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so? One can dig a hole with their bare hands and find a water source. If one create some rudimentary tools then the process is faster. If another one sculpts the dug clay and fashion rudimentary sun-dried clay vases you got a way to temporary store that water. All of that has value and the only "capital" needed were the basic resources of some wood, food, and water, if you stretch the meaning of capital. Capital…
Try starting a lemonade stand without capital. QED
Don't be an asshole, every single time I attempted to have a discussion on this topic with you you've been a dismissive asshole, instead of some of your more usual thoughtful comments you retract into this dogmatic stupidity.
Again: what can capital do without labour?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basically, capital gains tax should be much higher than income tax. That seems obvious to me. Someone working for a paycheck should pay a smaller tax rate than someone who randomly bought NVDA stock a few years ago and watched the number go up.
> capital gains tax should be much higher than income tax Then you would in effect discourage investing. Investing, which creates jobs and promotes innovation. Is as simple as that.
If your only contribution to a company is that you've funded it, I really don't think you should enjoy the same tax benefits as an entrepreneur who put their blood and sweat into it.
Let's define it like this - if working for a company is your primary occupation, you can enjoy the lower capital gains tax from its success. This includes founders and employees with equity. For everyone else it's income tax, because they've done little else than speculate, and, well, gambling wins count as personal income.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nonsense. You posted this comment 7 hours ago. Current you has zero impact on whether you posted it. Time flows forwards, not backwards.
What action did you take that caused your grandpa to invest in real estate? If none, it is lucky for you that your grandpa took one action over another, as you had no impact on the event.