posted
Oh, WOW, a long, 10-year-out-of-date, completely irrelevant post. I'm SOOOOO impressed.
Let me tell you about capital gains.
Let's say you invest in class C stocks. And they increase in value. And your brokerage decides they're going to switch to class-B stocks. They sell all your stocks and convert the $ to class B stocks. You've profited, even though you've never seen a penny of the money.
Then the stock market stumbles. The value of your new stock plunges. Your stocks are now worth LESS than your original investment.
You STILL owe capital gains tax on the money you never saw.
Now that may only be a minor annoyance for the superrich, but for middle-class people who are investing their savings or retirement money (like me, my mother and father), it can be disastrously unfair.
There's nothing quite as stupid having to pay income taxes on money you never got.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:By the end of the 80s, it had become clear that the rich were not investing their liberated tax dollars on "good" forms of investment, like jobs and productive tools and technology. Instead, the money went towards consumption, the good life, and economically meaningless investments like antiques and sport cars
Which essentially proves that tax-cuts to businesses won't do shit.
posted
First of two, you did get the money but you used it to buy more stock. It is your fault if you used the profits from the first sale to make a poor stock choice with the second sale. Just because you didn't have the money in your hand does not mean you didn't receive it.
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
Well, anyone who plays the stock market without realizing that it can be a 'gamble' (obviously, not Mr. Karl "Insider Information" Rove) needs their head examined.
quote: First of two, you did get the money but you used it to buy more stock. It is your fault if you used the profits from the first sale to make a poor stock choice with the second sale. Just because you didn't have the money in your hand does not mean you didn't receive it.
Actually, _I_ didn't. I was never consulted when the switch from Class C to Class B took place. Had I been, I would have taken the money and bailed, as this all happened shortly before the big tech crash.
Apparently, my folks (who, though retired, own stock with the same people and took an even larger hit) thought they could manage my money better than I could.
Zathras warn, bubble about to burst, but no one listen to Zathras.
Here's another stupid bit of capital gains... it applies to collectibles.
Say you buy a new Zoomer XGZ Sportscar for 30K. You pay sales tax above and beyond for that. You keep the car, which under normal circumstances would depreciate in value. But the XGZ becomes a collector's item. You spend money keeping it in shape. Later, you find a buyer who'll purchase your XGZ for 90K. You sell. You've got to pay CG taxes on that 60K.
The tax is arbitrary.
*wonders*
Do people who win the lottery have to pay CG tax as well as income tax? I mean, it IS a return on an investment of one dollar...
quote:By the end of the 80s, it had become clear that the rich were not investing their liberated tax dollars on "good" forms of investment, like jobs and productive tools and technology. Instead, the money went towards consumption, the good life, and economically meaningless investments like antiques and sport cars.
Er.. does the guy who wrote this understand that consuming is what drives the economy?
Listen, if all the money goes towards consumption, then the intelligent thing to do would be to tax consumption. There's a thing that does that, it's called a "Sales Tax."
The idea is that when people consume, a part of that money is taxed and sent to the government. It's balanced, because wealthy people (as stated in the article above) spend their money buying more expensive things.
There's a strong case, I'm told, that if we implemented a national sales tax around, oh, 6-7%, we wouldn't need an income tax at all, much less a capital gains tax. It would be fairer, as people would be taxed on what they actually PAID for an item, rather than the totally arbitrary profit from it (incidentally, that likely means I would have still taken the stock hit, but it'd be easier to justify).
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
It is irrelavent whether you made the sale and then the buy, or your broker did. Your broker is an agent working on your behalf. You were the one who gave him the power to make the transaction, and if you didn't you should sue him. This case has nothing to do with the capital gains tax just poor investments. If you had made money on both transactions you would not be complaining here. Well you would but just on the rate, but the rate is also irrelavent in your story.
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
But Rob, the point is the big corporations didn't directly create new jobs with the money, like you all are claiming they will. All they did was get some people a nice sales comission.
posted
The post, when it speaks of capital gains, talks primarily about individuals, not corporations. Individuals, who pay most of the capital gains taxes, rarely create jobs on their own, therefore the statement is a non-sequitur.
I will, however, say that it is a big problem when companies that are struggling are also paying huge salaries and bonuses to their executives. The leaders' salaries should reflect the financial state of the company, since they're responsible for it. As your dictator, I will attempt to close that loophole.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Do you think, when you're dictator, you might spare a couple of Booktroopers to spurn the maintenance dudes at my apartment complex to fix the heat ... ?
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
