Bizarre Stuff

[keycocker]

One number that would matter in answering that question is
What percent of that earned money depended on things that taxes buy?
All of it?
If those successes depend on the highways, the cops, solders defending and guarding the oil, a clean environment to grow and produce unpolluted products, legislation that prevents big players crushing new ones, legislation that lets you get your money back from fraudulent investments, then I propose that the cost of buying those things with taxes be a business cost.

Things that are business costs come out of the profits. Whether they are a percent of the total paid by a lot of other people who have nothing to do with your business not a factor.
Does the new startup make a profit after all costs, including paying for hi ways and security,favorable legislation etc? The new biz that meet this single requirement will always have investors.

The same companies that want lower cap gains taxes use that savings to pay voluntary taxes. They put millions into lobbyists and purchasing politicos who build hiways right to their door, favorable legislation, etc.
If you consider this, the share of Govt costs paid by the rich is much higher than 35% because of all the influence money.

[uwindsurf]

To put a finer point on my prior post:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2013/11/14/bill-gross-is-on-the-right-track-lets-equalize-most-capital-gains-taxes/

"Primary investments create jobs by providing working capital to new or expanding businesses. Secondary investments do not create jobs, but are essentially speculations on the future value of the investment. The difference is not in the level of risk, skill, or time involved, but in whether the money is directly injected into a business or simply allows another investor to exit their investment position.

Buying Twitter stock in the IPO counts as a primary investment because that money went to the company to finance its future growth, creating jobs. Buying Twitter stock on the stock exchange is a secondary investment as it simply transfers the stock’s ownership from one shareholder to another; no funds go to the company. Similarly, initial purchases of bonds from a company would count as primary investments, but buying a bond from a previous investor would not.

Primary investments should be encouraged, but secondary investments do not help build a business, so they have less reason to be incentivized by the government. Many financial investments simply transfer money from one person to another, somebody wins while another party loses. There is no economic gain from such activities.

Following this reasoning, capital gains taxes on primary, job-creating investments should continue to be taxed at a lower rate. Secondary investments that yield capital gains but create no jobs should see any gains taxed like regular income. This is a modified version of the proposal by Bill Gross, with capital gains taxes only rising on some investment profits.

[techno900]

youwindsurf,

I agree, and what I didn't post was that there are other types of capital gains which you pointed out. While secondary investments like stocks are passive, there still is risk, plus when money is invested in the market, the nations economy gets a boost. Anything that encourages investments is a good thing. The article that you posted also said that the top income earners are already being taxed enough.

[swchandler]

techno900,

As youwindsurf so aptly pointed out, money made in the stock market doesn't truly represent the classic idea of an investor/risk taker. I happen to agree that capital gains made through most stock market transactions should be taxed at the same rate as wage earners.

To keep things on a level that most average folks can understand, think about the money you've invested in a 401k type plan or an IRA. Unless it's a Roth IRA, any money that you make for your retirement investing in stock, bonds or mutual funds is taxed as wage income when it's withdrawn. We don't get the advantage of profits being taxed at a lower capital gains rate. Without question, we're taking risks too, literally the same risks. Should after tax income have such huge advantages?

These days, life isn't at all as some might present. Your idea of the investor is more of an ideal of years ago, where your banker or entrepreneur was investing directly into the business community.

[keycocker]

The reason I mentioned the importance of tax bought infrastructure to making money in business is because I made my whole fortune in a conservatives paradise.
There is no cap gains tax at all in Belize. Since that is how I made money, I have never owed a penny in income tax there for thirty five years.

Because of low taxes there is no infra to make business profitable. I took opportunities which had been ignored by others for decades and built all the infra from my own pocket. I built all the roads in half of the island. We had to provide electricity, water, hire police, supply healthcare, build a school, do everything.
Paying for things that taxes buy in the US absorbed about 75% of our gross revenue. The risk of zero profits is much higher in a no tax environment than the risks an investor takes in the US.
It would have much cheaper to pay 40% capital gains on the profit.
That is why investors are so numerous in America and Europe despite high taxes and so thin in places with no taxes at all.

[J64TWB]

Sorry to go off topic. Keycocker is that Caye Caulker you are referring to? I went scuba duba in Ambergris back in the 90's on a trip including Tikal and thought that island was so cool! I am sure it's changed a lot now as has Caulker. I heard Caulker was the place. Wouldn't go to Guatemala again until the drug stuff goes away. My sister in law (she is guatemalan) brother was killed randomly down there. So sad a story. Tikal is land of the dinosaurs and worth a trip if it is safe. Freaky cool. The other island we had a great time on was Roatan.

[keycocker]

Yeah. Lived on CC for thirty five years until two years ago.
Roatan wa good but I liked Utiila better. More like Caye Caulker.

[MalibuGuru]

For all you guys who thought Sarah Palin would make a good president.....I've said since day 1 she should be an Avon saleswoman. Al Gore is in the same looney bin.

Sarah Palin claimed today that Malaysia Flight 370 may have vanished because it mistakenly flew too high and ended up in heaven.

During an appearance on Fox News last night, Sean Hannity asked the former vice-presidential candidate for her thoughts about the aircraft, which has been missing for nearly two weeks.

The former Alaska governor stunned viewers with an unorthodox new theory that international investigators have so far ignored.

“I see all these smarty pants people on CNN saying that it was terrorism or a fire in the cockpit,” she explained to a bewildered Hannity, “but I don’t hear anyone talking about the God possibility. I mean what if they accidentally flew too high and got stuck in heaven?

“I’m no expert on international aviation. But I do know that God is up there looking down on us. And everyone knows that once you go to heaven you can’t come back. This would explain why we haven’t found any wreckage in the ocean and why no one saw the plane land.

"The radar had the plane at 45,000 feet, well above its usual cruising altitude. Who knows how much higher they went?

“Of course the looney liberal media can only imagine secular explanations for this mystery. They would never tell the American public that God might be involved! But I hope the Malaysian authorities and the NTSB take a look at the facts and seriously consider the idea that this flight crossed into Christ’s kingdom and isn't coming back.”

[windoggi]

There's a sucker born every minute.

[pueno]