@arthur-dent do you believe institutional investors are not “working”? What is it you think they do all day? Just throw money at whatever feels right in the moment?
I mean, I've met a few that are like that. Most do a lot of research and are careful with their money. Some though have that F-U money and can be wowed by a pretty presentation.
@carramrod if I have owned Microsoft stock since 1985, what exactly do I pay tax on if I sold it tomorrow? I do not believe I pay any corporate tax or employee tax. I really believe I would pay cap gains and that is it. So if I sell $400,000 I pay cap gains, no income tax, no corporate tax, no employee taxes (Social Security, Medicare, etc). Just cap gains
You are employed by someone else and make $400,000 you pay income tax that is higher and you pay the employee taxes.
Microsoft paid corporate taxes in 1985 and every year since you bought the shares. As an owner, these were taxes the company you own paid and have affected the value of your shares.
@franz-znarf but Microsoft is a totally different legal entity. Money moved from one legal entity to another. They get free speech rights just like a human.
To see the fallacy, if I owned $400,000 of Bitcoin for 5 years and sold it, it also is taxed as capitol gains. That Bitcoin has never paid a penny of tax in those 5 years.
The Microsoft stock tax isn't cheap because Microsoft paid tax. If it were the reason, Bitcoin would be taxed as normal income (same for artwork and more). It is taxed like it is because wealthier people hire damn good lobbyists.
@franz-znarf but Microsoft is a totally different legal entity. Money moved from one legal entity to another. They get free speech rights just like a human.
To see the fallacy, if I owned $400,000 of Bitcoin for 5 years and sold it, it also is taxed as capitol gains. That Bitcoin has never paid a penny of tax in those 5 years.
The Microsoft stock tax isn't cheap because Microsoft paid tax. If it were the reason, Bitcoin would be taxed as normal income (same for artwork and more). It is taxed like it is because wealthier people hire damn good lobbyists.
I think a fair solution would be to reduce the corporate income tax to zero, and then tax all investment income the same as regular income.
Some though have that F-U money and can be wowed by a pretty presentation.
Cough. Email addys? Cough.
The money to purchase that Microsoft stock was already taxed. That’s why cap gains tax is less. Now they pay another 15-20%, plus state tax if they want to sell an asset. Let’s start with a cap gains tax for those making under $50k a year. They pay no cap gains tax currently. Must be their lobbyists.
All you’re doing is discouraging investment. Which is silly and a recipe for stagnation.
I reject the idea that any asset that appreciates ought to be a source of government revenue. It’s not their damn business.
@franz-znarf but Microsoft is a totally different legal entity. Money moved from one legal entity to another. They get free speech rights just like a human.
To see the fallacy, if I owned $400,000 of Bitcoin for 5 years and sold it, it also is taxed as capitol gains. That Bitcoin has never paid a penny of tax in those 5 years.
The Microsoft stock tax isn't cheap because Microsoft paid tax. If it were the reason, Bitcoin would be taxed as normal income (same for artwork and more). It is taxed like it is because wealthier people hire damn good lobbyists.
I'd be fine taxing Bitcoin like a currency
@franz-znarf but Microsoft is a totally different legal entity. Money moved from one legal entity to another. They get free speech rights just like a human.
To see the fallacy, if I owned $400,000 of Bitcoin for 5 years and sold it, it also is taxed as capitol gains. That Bitcoin has never paid a penny of tax in those 5 years.
The Microsoft stock tax isn't cheap because Microsoft paid tax. If it were the reason, Bitcoin would be taxed as normal income (same for artwork and more). It is taxed like it is because wealthier people hire damn good lobbyists.
I think a fair solution would be to reduce the corporate income tax to zero, and then tax all investment income the same as regular income.
If there was a school of economists out there who knew how to balance the tax burden, I bet they are at the bottom of an unmarked grave.
@franz-znarf but Microsoft is a totally different legal entity. Money moved from one legal entity to another. They get free speech rights just like a human.
To see the fallacy, if I owned $400,000 of Bitcoin for 5 years and sold it, it also is taxed as capitol gains. That Bitcoin has never paid a penny of tax in those 5 years.
The Microsoft stock tax isn't cheap because Microsoft paid tax. If it were the reason, Bitcoin would be taxed as normal income (same for artwork and more). It is taxed like it is because wealthier people hire damn good lobbyists.
I'd be fine taxing Bitcoin like a currency
Sign me up.
@carramrod if I have owned Microsoft stock since 1985, what exactly do I pay tax on if I sold it tomorrow? I do not believe I pay any corporate tax or employee tax. I really believe I would pay cap gains and that is it. So if I sell $400,000 I pay cap gains, no income tax, no corporate tax, no employee taxes (Social Security, Medicare, etc). Just cap gains
You are employed by someone else and make $400,000 you pay income tax that is higher and you pay the employee taxes.
Why should you owe taxes to employees who Microsoft is already paying tax on and income tax, to which your investment has already been paying tax on?
@franz-znarf but Microsoft is a totally different legal entity. Money moved from one legal entity to another. They get free speech rights just like a human.
To see the fallacy, if I owned $400,000 of Bitcoin for 5 years and sold it, it also is taxed as capitol gains. That Bitcoin has never paid a penny of tax in those 5 years.
The Microsoft stock tax isn't cheap because Microsoft paid tax. If it were the reason, Bitcoin would be taxed as normal income (same for artwork and more). It is taxed like it is because wealthier people hire damn good lobbyists.
There is some logic to the value creation of investing in equity or debt in companies that employ people, make things, etc., vs. speculative assets, but just because capital gains were broadened for administrative reasons isn't a strong argument for changing it in your example of an investment in Microsoft.
@franz-znarf but Microsoft is a totally different legal entity. Money moved from one legal entity to another. They get free speech rights just like a human.
To see the fallacy, if I owned $400,000 of Bitcoin for 5 years and sold it, it also is taxed as capitol gains. That Bitcoin has never paid a penny of tax in those 5 years.
The Microsoft stock tax isn't cheap because Microsoft paid tax. If it were the reason, Bitcoin would be taxed as normal income (same for artwork and more). It is taxed like it is because wealthier people hire damn good lobbyists.
I think a fair solution would be to reduce the corporate income tax to zero, and then tax all investment income the same as regular income.
That's throwing away hundreds of years of economic growth and progress in hopes that your new regime will be as successful.
@franz-znarf but Microsoft is a totally different legal entity. Money moved from one legal entity to another. They get free speech rights just like a human.
To see the fallacy, if I owned $400,000 of Bitcoin for 5 years and sold it, it also is taxed as capitol gains. That Bitcoin has never paid a penny of tax in those 5 years.
The Microsoft stock tax isn't cheap because Microsoft paid tax. If it were the reason, Bitcoin would be taxed as normal income (same for artwork and more). It is taxed like it is because wealthier people hire damn good lobbyists.
There is some logic to the value creation of investing in equity or debt in companies that employ people, make things, etc., vs. speculative assets, but just because capital gains were broadened for administrative reasons isn't a strong argument for changing it in your example of an investment in Microsoft.
You want to encourage people to invest and save. You'd also prefer they save in assets like gold, Bitcoin, art, and etc. It's much better for society than turning a utility like housing into a savings vehicle. If housing goes up 5x quickly, you have a big problem. If Bitcoin or gold does it, who cares.
@franz-znarf but Microsoft is a totally different legal entity. Money moved from one legal entity to another. They get free speech rights just like a human.
To see the fallacy, if I owned $400,000 of Bitcoin for 5 years and sold it, it also is taxed as capitol gains. That Bitcoin has never paid a penny of tax in those 5 years.
The Microsoft stock tax isn't cheap because Microsoft paid tax. If it were the reason, Bitcoin would be taxed as normal income (same for artwork and more). It is taxed like it is because wealthier people hire damn good lobbyists.
There is some logic to the value creation of investing in equity or debt in companies that employ people, make things, etc., vs. speculative assets, but just because capital gains were broadened for administrative reasons isn't a strong argument for changing it in your example of an investment in Microsoft.
You want to encourage people to invest and save. You'd also prefer they save in assets like gold, Bitcoin, art, and etc. It's much better for society than turning a utility like housing into a savings vehicle. If housing goes up 5x quickly, you have a big problem. If Bitcoin or gold does it, who cares.
You also want to promote foreign investment. I like knowing that Dutch pension funds subsidize my drug-fueled sexcations in Amsterdam.
Look at the glee with which this smiling Jacobin talks about taxing the rich. Practically salivating as he talks about hammering Ken Griffin's condo with a new tax.
https://twitter.com/NYCMayor/status/2044508902809628760
It's not about benefiting people, it's about punishing the rich. Barrack Obama was posed a question in 2008 by Charlie Rose.
"If you raised the capital gains tax, and it resulted in less tax revenue (as it surely would), would you still do it?"
Obama said something along the lines of "I believe in raising the Cap gains tax for purposes of fairness"
Such a response should have been disqualifying. It's not about revenues, it's about jealousy. Always has been.