11–20 of 136 posts
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. How does that square with the article's "The new I.R.S. guidance will be retroactive, applying to all transactions as far back as Jan. 1, 2011." ?
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. How does that square with the article's "The new I.R.S. guidance will be retroactive, applying to all transactions as far back as Jan. 1, 2011." ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, in this case the IRS isn't passing a retroactive law, they are clarifying the interpretation of an existing law.
The need to clarify the point implies that it was interpreted differently in the past. So this change in interpretation being applied retroactively is what the OP is concerned with.
Not to mention that there is solid precedent that retroactive taxes are not, in general, ex post facto laws in the first place, such that even if this was Congress adopting a retroactive tax law, it still wouldn't fall afoul of the ex post facto prohibition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, in this case the IRS isn't passing a retroactive law, they are clarifying the interpretation of an existing law.
The need to clarify the point implies that it was interpreted differently in the past. So this change in interpretation being applied retroactively is what the OP is concerned with.
"Battery" is a crime. If the state decides that "smacking someone's back" meets the definition of battery, they can prosecute people who committed that act before the clarification, as long as a judge finds their interpretation to be consistent with the wording of the law.
Law is not computer code that fully specifies a simulation in advance.
Maybe all cap gains should just be taxed at the same rate. 1 year threshold his so artificial.
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. How does that square with the article's "The new I.R.S. guidance will be retroactive, applying to all transactions as far back as Jan. 1, 2011." ?
...but that justification seems like a horribly slippery slope. If you accept that logic, what stops congress from passing a law that creates the "Criminal Investigation Service" and gives their director the power to make things illegal? Would he then be allowed to make a "policy change" retroactively making something illegal and arresting them for it?
edit: I think Peugh v. United States actually answers this. Retroactive application of changes to US sentencing guidelines by a government commission were ruled to be a violation of ex post facto protections.
Maybe all cap gains should just be taxed at the same rate. 1 year threshold his so artificial.
All of these things are done to change the incentives about something, you can't expect them to be consistent without reference to those goals (and even then...)
$25 billion is all employees money; Even if we exclude Simon's money ($14 billion) it is a ton. 35% avg annualized returns for 20 years. Simply stunning.
In my opinion this is a much better article on the subject. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-21/renaissanc... Essentially the US has a few different taxes you can pay as an investor. There is a short term tax on trading profits and a longer term holder tax for "investors" which is lower. This obviously creates a situation where people will do their best to make their trading fall into the later category…
The rules are deeply arbitrary, and goes to the nature of financials as being rather abstract concepts with arbitrary definitions. I buy stock in a firm, that firm makes a lot of profit, but I don't liquidate my position. How is that different (short-term vs long-term gains) from me selling their stock and buying another stock? It's even the same word: A retail business sells its stock (product), and sells it's stock…