Taxing Capital Gains

1. 76

   Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years ago

   I believe Capital Gains should be the most heavily taxed form of income there is. As much as 90% should go to support the social system that makes the capital gains possible.
   
   Being given money simply because one has money, should be treated as the bullying that it is.
   
   I believe the formation of this tax would cause the 1%'ers to invest thier resources in human progress, jobs, inventions, innovation. It would stop rewarding them for doing nothing.
   
   The big piles of money would become merely big piles of money collecting dust, instead of a means to an end.
   
   Thoughts?

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You're joking right? Capital Gains taxation should never rise above 50%.
      Capital Gains come from making good investments in the markets. Those who have millions to invest in the markets have a better shot at making Capital Gains than those who don't have money. It's part and parcel of the power of money.
      But they are not doing nothing. They are investing in their own future, just like anyone else who gets involved in the markets.
      You're talking about taxation, which is implemented by the government. You're talking about taking money, huge amounts of money from the upper 1% and giving it to the government, which would then do whatever it is that they want with it. Thus, implementing the taxation at the rate you suggest wouldn't accomplish anything, considering the politicians apparently cannot do what's right to begin with with the money they already get.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         No, I'm not.
         
         Why 50% and not 90%?
         
         
         Yes I am.
         
         No. to the people. (the government we have now are the puppets of the 1%'ers).
         
         Not if we sever the strings the 1% puppeteers have on them.
         
         Again, why 50% and not 90%?
         
         and again the politicians are puppets under the control of the 1%'ers we would have to cut those strings.

         replyreport
         1. 70

            Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            How is this not socialism? Giving people money IS socialism.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               ok then to a revamped Government that is not beholding to the 1%'ers.
               
               *** 'Bail-outs' are Socialism. ***

               replyreport
            2. 84

               Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               And what is it when the people with money use that money to influence our laws so that they are protected from losing money and get more and more opportunities to get more.
               
               What is it called when the middle class is systematically stripped of its wealth?
               
               What's THAT called?

               replyreport
               1. 84

                  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Oh, and tell me what it's called when house prices crash and the big guys get bailed out AND still get their multi million dollar bonuses but I lose $100,000 almost overnight because I'm unlucky enough to be selling one house and buying another right then.
                  
                  Tell me what THAT is called. I call it welfare for the rich and who cares about everyone else.

                  replyreport
            3. 60

               John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Oh bullsh!t.
               
               What is corporate capitalism if it's not about giving money to those who already have plenty?

               replyreport
   2. 71

      DonDWestposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Under this system, due to our low interest rates, everyone would deliberately max themselves in debt and refuse to invest/save a single dollar. There would be no investments/savings to use towards business start ups, everyone would be in debt, and the "too big to fail" banks would become even richer. Is that what you truly want?

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I don't follow what you mean? Why would 'not making lots of money by having money' lead to everyone maxing out debt?
         
         Agreed, people would stop trying to make money by having money, and would turn to trying something else(which is the point)
         
         Buying a company that makes a better mousetrap would be investing. It would also be promoting industry, innovation and so forth. By having the best products to sell one would make the most money.
         
         
         The same investments/savings that exist today would still be there for business start ups.
         
         We are all already completely 'In Debt' to the sum of trillions of dollars, so that is kind of a mute point.
         
         Obviously not. I want what we use to have: Freedom, Industry, Innovation... I want to be the Nation that builds the BEST mousetraps.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Repairguy47posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            We are in debt to the tune of Trillions, true. Who put us in debt and why should we give them more money?

            replyreport
            1. 76

               Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               The 1%'ers.
               
               
               We shouldn't, this is about getting our money back from the 1%'ers.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Repairguy47posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  You don't really understand do you? Government put us in debt by spending more than they take in. Why should we give them more?

                  replyreport
                  1. 76

                     Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Our Government is absolutely CONTROLLED by the 1%'ers.
                     We do not have a Government we have politicians that are puppets to the hidden dictators of our country. The choices the puppets make aren't 'The Governments' choices. They are the choices of the people that Control the Government.
                     
                     What controls our Government...MONEY.
                     
                     Who has the money..... 1%'ers.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Repairguy47posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Nice try but not good enough, business doesn't influence the government to put money into wasteful programs, liberal politicians do. Business doesn't insist that money is wasted on pet projects, that honor goes to politicians buying votes. The blame goes to government and the corrupt politicians elected by ignorant voters. Occupy space is just the latest group of useful idiots, they won't last long.

                        replyreport
                        1. 76

                           Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           For a politician to run for election what must they have?
                           
                           MONEY
                           
                           Who has the money?     1%'ers
                           
                           Our votes are merely a ruse to make us think we have some kind of say in our Government. If they get to decide who can run for election by granting or with-holding the necessary funds, they are the ones deciding who our leaders will be. Our secondary votes are merely a choice between which of thier puppets lied to us better.

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              Repairguy47posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              More money is raised from individuals than from corporations, you want better leaders then quit voting for political hacks like Obama and vote for someone who has actually created a job. You wont, you want freebies.

                              replyreport
                              1. 76

                                 Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 Thanks for playing.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 60

                                    Repairguy47posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                    When you grasp WHO spent the money then maybe you will understand things a little more clearly. Until then you're occupying space.

                                    replyreport
                              2. 62

                                 Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 More money is raised from individuals than from corporations,
                                 
                                 Hello, that is the point.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 76

                                    Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                    Thank You Hollie

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 62

                                       Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                       Talk about leading the horse to water....

                                       report
                        2. 59

                           Moderndayslaveposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Nah,corporations buy legislation that is favorable in either lucrative contracts or tax loophles.They do this by either campaign contributions or promises of jobs when the representative gets out or a job for family members.That's just for starters.We have "The best congress money can buy"

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              Repairguy47posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Goes back to who you elect, quit voting for the best catch phrase and critique the candidates better.

                              replyreport
                              1. 59

                                 Moderndayslaveposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 You mean like voting for the person with an "R" next to their name

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 60

                                    Repairguy47posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                    Why do you care? You can't vote here. Clean up your mess and leave us to ours.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 59

                                       Moderndayslaveposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                       Where are you in The UK ?  I'm in NY and vote Independent,that is for who with run this country into the ground,,,,, LEAST,,,,,,,After the Bush years that's a no brainer. That guy in front of the teleprompter isn't running the country anyway, no matter what party

                                       report
                                       1. 60

                                          Repairguy47posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                          Sorry, I thought I was responding to someone else. I do apologize, feel free to vote for whomever you choose.

                                          report
                                    2. 62

                                       Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                       Who were you addressing?

                                       report
                     2. 71

                        DonDWestposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        But if our government is controlled by the 1%; what good is it to hand the government 90% of what the 1% earns? The government would just funnel the money back to the 1%; and people like you and I would pay the administration fees through tax dollars.

                        replyreport
                        1. 76

                           Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Your right, we should just give up. We should make a suicide pact and all pull the trigger at the same time. Or we could continue to do what we are doing and wait for the violence to start (the Revolution).
                           
                           The system isn't working. Trillions of dollars in national debt is the proof. Something has to change. If nothing changes, we will end up repeating history and the redistribution of the world's resources will once again be through violence.
                           
                           
                           Stop telling me what won't work, and tell me what will.
                           
                           (Nothing will work is not an option).

                           replyreport
         2. 71

            DonDWestposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I'm sorry, but your knowledge of economics is lacking. Let's say someone has a savings rate of $50,000. He hopes to one day raise enough capital to start a business, but finds even for a tiny micro-business; $50,000 doesn't quite cut it. Instead he must save and invest until he has enough capita.
            
            However, the government just announced that it's putting a 90% tax on capital gains. This disincentives our hypothetical person from investing. He can't exactly park his money into a savings account because inflation would erode his money year after year. As you said, he has no choice but to liquidate his money immediately and shove it into the economy.
            
            This sounds good on the surface, only one problem. Perhaps he could have done more with say $100,000 in the future vs. $50,000 today. The $100,000 in the future could have created jobs; while the $50,000 today just allows our hypothetical person to buy a corvette. Good temporarily for the corvette dealership, but once the sale is complete, our person is broke and we have lost the potential to accumulate jobs in the future.
            
            If I were in that position, I would most likely use my 50K to take out another 50K at the low interest loans of around the 3% mark we have today. I would then subsequently binge away all my money, because 50K spent today (at 3% interest) will buy a lot more than 50K in the future. Because you have removed the incentive of capital gains with your tax scheme; there's no incentive for me to save. Instead you're providing incentive to spend and put yourself in debt. The banks make money off debt; so this method enriches the banks and impoverishes everyone else.
            
            The baby boomer generation has systematically voted in the very pro-consumer system in which you speak. It’s a system that encourages to spend big in the now; and to save not a dime in the future. The result has been boomers living the hog life on depreciating assets (they're currently whining how these depreciating assets won't support their retirement, duh!); while their children live in relative poverty. And guess what? "Children" such as me who caught onto the scheme many years ago are very pissed off. Expect more of us. . .

            replyreport
            1. 76

               Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               That is usually my problem, I don't know what I'm talking about.
               
               What do the Banks make money off of? Debt?  No they make money off of Capital Gains

               replyreport
               1. 71

                  DonDWestposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  You're wrong, banks are not investment firms. Banks make money by issuing out loans to people and collecting interest. Therefore, banks make money off of debt.  If you want to tax the money "earned" on interest rates by the banks at 50%; then you may have a policy that's worthy of discussion and debate. . .

                  replyreport
                  1. 71

                     Quilligrapherposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Howdy, Don and Mikel. How are you both tonight?
                     
                     May I interject? I was surprised by both of your comments above because I know there are different kinds of banks and they all derive bushels of money from all sorts of activities beyond  “issuing out loans to people and collecting interest” and capital gains.
                     
                     An analysis conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago reports, “In recent years, banking companies have taken advantage of deregulation to generate substantial amounts of noninterest income from nontraditional activities like investment banking, securities brokerage, insurance agency and underwriting, and mutual fund sales.” (1)
                     
                     So, it appears, one of you is half-right and the other is half-wrong. The facts seem to indicate that net interest income has been steadily declining since 1970 while net non-interest income has been steadily rising until they are currently nearly the same. “Remarkably, noninterest income now accounts for nearly half of all operating income generated by U.S. commercial banks,” the Chicago Fed concluded.(1)
                     
                     Sorry, for the interruption, guys. Please continue.
                     
                     (1)http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_asset … g_Rice.pdf

                     replyreport
                     1. 76

                        Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Ok. Got a better idea? I'd LOVE to hear it. How do we fix it?

                        replyreport
   3. 74

      KeithTaxposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Mikel, you miss another part of the tax code, Section 1244. A small business can incorporate and when selling exclude 50% of the capital gain before paying the lower 15% capital gain rate.
      
      Let me make it clearer: You make $100,000 at your job. You pay income tax of about 28% and 7.65% FICA tax.
      
      I sell my tax practice at a $100,000 gain. 50% doesn't count, so I only pay capital gains tax on $50,000. There is no FICA tax on capital gains. Total tax is $7,500 on a $100,000 gain.
      
      Note: I know ordinary tax rates are higher. I am using a simple illistration.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         You're illistrating the fact that the current tax code is complicated and full of loopholes?
         
         Yea I know.

         replyreport
2. 80

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   Here was Obama's tax proposal...makes dam good sense to me.
   
   http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/01/pf/taxe … /index.htm

   replyreport
3. 70

   Cagsilposted 13 years ago

   Socialism is not a solution to America's problem.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I agree.
      
      However what I'm proposing isn't Socialism. It is a tax on the people that capitalism has made a 1%er of. That system is on the brink of collapse because the 1%'ers have become too good at capatilism and now have 'Too Much Money' for the system to support. They have reached a point that historically leads to violence against (and the death of) the 1%'ers. Historically at the hand of the 99%'ers who have no hope of a better life. Making it harder to be a 1%'er or to remain a 1%'er in a peaceful way is what this form of taxation does. It may be the only way to have a peaceful resetting of the balance (distribution of planetary resources).
      
      The Puppet Politicians keep attempting to get the needed resources from anyone but the ones that have them all...the 1%'ers. Because the Puppet Politicians work for the 1%'ers.

      replyreport
      1. 70

         Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         There's already a tax on them. The problem is there's too many loopholes in the laws to bring that tax burden down.
         I'm not even going to ask how you reached this conclusion.
         Not such reasoning for this either. Violence never is the answer and killing any of them would do nothing.
         There's always hope of a better life. It's the perception that it's non-existent is only derived from uninformed and uneducated people.
         No actually it doesn't. It does demonstrate that people seem to think that they are entitled to specific things which they are not actually entitled to in the first place. Again, it's called socialism.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            BradyBonesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I'm all for a flat tax for all Americans. We shouldn't allow welfare to be a career goal, nor should we expect the top 1% of our nation to carry a load that is heavier than anyone else. You want equality? Then ask the same of every man and woman, and learn to control your spending accordingly.
            One class asking another to carry their load is pathetic and weak.
            
            Likewise, government bailouts are an abomination to the natural selection of worthy businesses in the market place. Stay relevant and offer goods for reasonable prices, create American jobs, and you will continue to remain viable. If you don't, someone else will gladly take your place.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               This system does just that, it is equally distributed. Everyone that has more to give must. Because like it or not the societal system has to be paid for. If everyone living in the system paid a flat tax of 100 dollars and that total wasn't enough to pay for the system, then the additional funds must come from somewhere. We have reached a point where the bottom half of our society have nothing else they can give. The middle-class are being sucked dry and soon that class of people will be non-existent. The only people that have anything extra are the people on the top end. If these top enders don't "take up the slack", then the system falls. If the system falls then the top enders fall with it.
               
               If I am born poor and create a business that starts making 100 million a year I'll be paying the same thing as anyone else who makes 100 million a year. Knowing that by becoming successful in the system means I will have a greater responsibility to 'the system' is fair.

               replyreport
               1. 83

                  BradyBonesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  I disagree with your point. The system should never cost more than the population can provide. Having a realistic budget that doesn't break the backs of the tax-payer is a better solution than expecting those who might be considered as the most resourceful of our nation to carry the weight of those who choose not to put in the effort to get ahead.
                  
                  That's like me wanting anyone with over 300 hubs to receive less money for their effort than those of us with less than 50. How does that inspire greatness? How does it reward those hubbers who put more work (or have an easier time writing hubs due to personal strengths)? How does it encourage them to put more into the system by writing?
                  
                  A flat tax doesn't have to be 100 dollars per person, it could be by percent. No scale, no brackets. You put in 10% and Warren Buffet puts in 10%. Sure, he'll put in more, but we're not saying that his efforts are worth anything less to him than my efforts are worth to me.
                  
                  If God only asks for 10%, why should the government get more?

                  replyreport
                  1. 84

                     Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Except  that me having 300 hubs doesn't prevent you from having as many as you want.   Nor did I take any of your hubs to get my 300, and once I have 300, I can't give some to HP in exchange for them limiting you even more.

                     replyreport
                     1. 76

                        Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Nice. Good to know someone else gets it.

                        replyreport
                     2. 83

                        BradyBonesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        But therein lies the problem. The more hubs you have, the more chances at referrals you can get. So with 300 hubs, each with a referral token, you have far more chances at referring people to HubPages than I do. Why is it fair that you can get an extra 10% of ad impressions off of new members? Sure, I can recruit new members, but I can't recruit people who have already been recruited. Now my life sucks, and it isn't fair that you have so many people giving you more chances at potential income.
                        
                        Instead of working my tail off and writing hubs, I think I'll create a forum post about how I think that everyone should be getting 65% of ad impressions, and that HubPages should take that extra 5% across the board from those members with a lot of hubs and referrals.
                        
                        In fact, I think I'll write a letter to my congressman right now. Right? Because that's how we make up for inequality? We don't take ownership of our own fate, we sit around and complain about how much someone else has?

                        replyreport
4. 80

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   "first-ever audit of the U.S. Federal Reserve has revealed 16 trillion dollars in secret bank bailouts and has raised more questions about the quasi-private agency’s opaque operations.
   
   "This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else," U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, an Independent from Vermont, said"
   
   ....worked for them.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Repairguy47posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Bernie Sanders, you're using Bernie Sanders?

      replyreport
5. 80

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   I'm with Mikel...I say they can pay it back!

   replyreport
6. 80

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   For the people who always say 50% of Americans pay no taxes:
   
   "Income tax rates are at historically low levels. From the Center on Budget Policy Priorities: Despite this - "Most Americans pay more in payroll taxes, which support Social Security and Medicare, than they do in income taxes." They explain that "Federal Tax Burdens for Most Near Their Lowest Levels in Decades
   Bush Tax Cuts Are Key Reason for Sharp Drop for Highest-Income Households" (http://www.cbpp.org)./cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id"
   ***
   
   Reminder: incomes over $106,000 pay no FICA.
   
   Their taxes have been lowered.
   Poor and middle income working people pay more >a percentage of their incomes< in taxes than rich people...
   
   Can we stop this CANARD now?

   replyreport
7. 76

   Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years ago

   My idea of a good income tax system is one where the first $100,000 per year is not taxed. That's all yours. If you make more than $100,000 you pay 25% of those monies in taxes. If you make a million you pay 50% in taxes. 10 million and beyond, you pay 90% in taxes supporting the infra-structure that allows you to make that kind of money.
   
   Taxing ALL Capital gains at 90% would shift the focus of our 1%'ers from making money by having money, to making money by making a better mousetrap(product). Which is what our country/world needs.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      DonDWestposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Under this tax system, you will discover a lot of people will go out of their way to manipulate their taxable income to just at $99,999 per year. It will bankrupt the nation (never mind the fact it's already bankrupt).

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Those entities with billions of dollars in annual income will find it very hard to claim they only make $99,999. But you are correct people will try to get out of paying taxes. It is human nature.
         
         The 1%'ers have the system manipulated now so they pay almost nothing, this system would reverse that. By eliminating the loopholes.
         
         and you're correct the system we have now has already proven itself to be an abysmal failure.
         
         Which means we must try something new.

         replyreport
         1. 71

            DonDWestposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Wouldn't be too hard, they could just divide the money up between their parents, grand-parents, kids, cousins, aunts, uncles, friends, etc. Heck, if I were to take a several million a year and divide it up amongst my extensive family that has lived in Canada for almost 300 years; I could easily see it hitting $99,999 per person. All I would need to do is open up a corporate account and put these family members on payroll for "my company." I would hire each family member to do maybe an hour of work a year at some silly task. This closes any legal potential you may have to claim I'm being tax evasive.
            
            Are you going to insert laws preventing people from distributing money to their own family members in order to enforce this tax scheme? Good luck with that. . .

            replyreport
            1. 76

               Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               and all those people would be actually making nothing per annum?

               replyreport
               1. 71

                  DonDWestposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  If you got $99,999 tax free a year, would you work?

                  replyreport
8. 0

   Emile Rposted 13 years ago

   I'm not sure you are fully aware of everything that falls under the category of capital gains. I sold ten acres, off of my property a while back. That was capital gains. I wouldn't have sold it, had I known how much money the government would take.
   
   If you've ever filled out the schedule at tax time, you'll be able to commiserate. It's the oddest dance I've ever done to find out almost half of what I sold the land for had to be turned over to the public coffers.
   
   I don't support your OP. No one should pay 90% taxes of anything. For any reason.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Repairguy47posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Sucks, don't it?

      replyreport
   2. 76

      Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Buying and selling property should not be considered a Capital Gain. That is simply buying and selling, just like the candy bar you buy at the market.
      
      This shows how the puppets have twisted the system trying to wring the needed resources from the 99%'ers so the 1%'ers don't have to pay them.
      
      Throwing out absolutes is easy and it makes you feel good expressing your righteous indignation at being forced to pay 50% on the sale of your land.(which again I believe you should not have had to pay. The only tax that should have been involved in my opinion is sales tax).
      
      Laying the heaviest tax burden on the people that get the most out of our societal system seems to me to be the best option, however I am all ears if you have a better solution.(Don't just tell me my idea sucks, give me a better one.)

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         But, if you pay one amount and then sell it for a higher ten years later, it is a gain. I don't see how else to look at it.

         replyreport
         1. 76

            Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            If I buy cloth and make jeans from the cloth, and sell the jeans at a higher price, that to me isn't capital gains. It is commerce.
            
            Capital Gains should be reclassified as the making of money by having money. Loans, earned interest that kind of thing. (especially loans)

            replyreport
         2. 76

            Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I'm still pondering this...
            
            If you made an investment (buying the land) and used that simply for a capital gain, I guess it would be one.
            
            Knowing up front that any profit you made on this purchase and subsequent sale would be divided 90% to the Government and 10% to you won't stop the investers from investing. They will see that they are making 10% profit on thier investment, call this tax 'overhead' it is simply a necessary part of the investment game, just like overhead in any other commercial endeaver. (if that makes sense) 
            
            The bottom line for me is those that get the most out of our societal system must be the ones that support it the most, because only they can.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               See, I disagree for philosophical reasons. Fair should be fair. A good business investment shouldn't be penalized. If I purchase something and keep it over a period of time, and the value goes up; I'm not certain why I should be penalized.
               
               I have an emotional mental block when it comes to taxes; but I believe a fair system top to bottom, without loopholes, would leave ample room to fund the government without over taxing any individual group.
               
               No one should be forced to give 90% toward the common good.

               replyreport
               1. 76

                  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  I disagree, those that recieve 90% of the common good, should pay more than those that only recieve 10% of the common good.
                  
                  The wealthy get more from the system, it is fair that they give more as well.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     That leaves no incentive for people trying to get ahead. I honestly believe you are either not explaining your idea well; or you haven't thought it through entirely. As it stands, its definitely a non starter. I'm pretty open minded when it comes to brainstorming for answers, but even I can't see an upside.

                     replyreport
                     1. 76

                        Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        People will try and get ahead, and some will be successful. However since there are not unlimited resources in the world, success must have limits. Otherwise the successful will have everything and everyone else will have nothing.
                        
                        We are at the point where the successful have amassed such a percentage of the total resources available that the remainder of humanity cannot live. They simply don't have enough resources left to them to live and feed thier children.
                        
                        Historically when societies get to this point they have a revolution, the successful people are killed and the resources are taken by those who were previously unsuccessful.
                        
                        I'm looking for a societal system that ends that vicious cycle.
                        
                        My suggested tax system would make becoming exceedingly rich harder and harder, thereby at least slowing the cycle. Possibly ending it. (easy to get and be comfortable, hard to become a 1%er and always more difficult the higher your percentage of total resources was.)

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Mikel,  no matter how noble your intent, your suggestion is basically unfair. The primary thing that motivates us toward productivity is the belief that we have the opportunity to get ahead. 'Ahead' needs to be fair and equitable too, or you lower the motivation considerably.

                           replyreport
                           1. 76

                              Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              I think you're mistaken. People will do what they have to in order to survive. Most will do the barest minimum required. People that want to 'get ahead' are motivated to do so because for them it defines them as a better person.
                              
                              Making a societal rule that limits these go getters from going too far and causing the destruction of that society, is not unreasonable or unfair. Afterall we don't allow people to use nuclear bombs to destroy thier competition so they may become wealthier do we? Is that unfair?
                              
                              Having a system that makes it impossible for a go getter to go too far, won't create a society of unmotivated people that sit around and wait to die because they can't have 100% of the worlds resources.
                              
                              The only other solution I see is finding unlimited resources, perhaps in space?

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 The only resources I see the 1% sucking up is the money. Unfairly.  You might go easy on the use of the word resources, though. We, as the developed nations (America most of all), uses more than our fair share of resources.
                                 
                                 Like I said, if we had a fair and equitable tax system  in America we wouldn't be in this position. If you want to overtax, I suppose you could argue for a 90% death tax. You'd get some support there.

                                 replyreport
      2. 83

         BradyBonesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         You can't change the definition of Capital Gains to suit your own agenda. Using money to make money includes the act of buying property for cheap, sitting on it, and then selling for more than you bought it for.
         
         Your proposal impacts far more than just the top 1% -- and the basis of your argument indicates that you don't have a very good idea of how our economic system actually works. Perhaps it's just easier for you to blame someone who has more money than you do.

         replyreport
         1. 76

            Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Got a better idea?

            replyreport
            1. 83

               BradyBonesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I do. You're obviously here on HubPages for at least one, if not two, reason(s). #1. You are here to make money. I checked one of your hubs and you do, indeed, have ads enabled. #2. You are here to propagate your own agenda. Most of us are, so I don't see any harm in that.
               
               Let's go back to #1. You are making money here. No one is stopping you from making money here. You are expected to pay taxes, just like everyone else here. HubPages gives you every right to the same number of impressions as everyone else, with the exception of the referral program where you can get an extra 10% of HP's profits from the hubs of the people you refer.
               
               If you take the money you make here and invest it, I don't think there is any reason for the government to take the money you make with that investment (money herein begetting money without additional effort) and tax it at a ridiculous rate.
               
               So work hard. Spread your agenda as you see fit. And prosper. Spend less time worrying about what other people have and spend more time making your little piece of the world better.
               
               Wars have been waged and people have died because some fool was jealous of what some other fool had.
               
               I work full time, I go to school full time, I write part time, and I save for my own retirement. I don't expect the system I've paid into to take care of me when I'm old, and in the same right I don't wish to have that system take from me what I have earned with my hard work and savings. I wish to build an empire for my children, and that should be my right. Just as doing nothing is the right of so many others.

               replyreport
               1. 76

                  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Neither did I, but they did by giving my country and my job to criminal invaders. Why? so some rich guy's bottom line would go up a point or two.
                  I started working when I was 9 years old, for most of my life I worked 2 jobs. The only problem is my skills are the same ones the criminal invaders have, and since they are criminals and don't pay taxes and such they can work for less. Which means I can't compete with them. I counted on my Government to... oh I don't know... enforce the law... but they don't, because it is better for thier owners(the 1%ers) bottom line.
                  
                  I'm glad you have faith in the system, it is very American of you. Too bad they are lying to you, but that is unfortunately very American too.

                  replyreport
                  1. 83

                     BradyBonesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Your criminal invaders today were the african slaves yesterday and countless white endentured servants along with them. That is the system. You don't have to have faith in it, it is what it is with or without our concent.
                     
                     For the record, it isn't something I'm proud of - quite the contrary. We just have a different view of the solutions for this problem.

                     replyreport
                     1. 76

                        Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        That is incorrect, The slavery and endentured servitude was something terrible. Those things should not have existed. That is why we ended those practies. But those practices were legal. Legal being the important concept.
                        
                        the system is suppose to be:
                        
                        Law and Order Justice for all, equal protection under the law, equal rights(all men are created equal...)
                        
                        what the system is:
                        
                        Obey or Starve
                        
                        If a group of people are above the law, which the 1%'ers definately are, then we have no law and order we have a dictatorship and tyranny.
                        
                        I want to fix that. You want to pretend that everything is ok and I just don't know what I'm talking about. Many years ago the ethic of "Work hard and you will succeed" was true. Today it isn't. If you get in the way of the 1%'ers they will simply bring in criminals from foreign lands to take your place.
                        
                        My point in this thread is that we must establish a top limit. We must create a system that prevents any one individual from becoming so powerful that thier power becomes a risk to the survival of the system. The 1%'ers have now reached a level of power and wealth that is destroying our culture, our way of life. Pretending it isn't so because it is scary to think about and terrifying to admit, is what most of us are doing. Hiding in our delusions, telling ourselves everything is ok, this is always the way it has been. That is untrue. Once upon a time we had Justice in this country. We had innovation, Industry, Hope. That is no longer true. Today we simply have Tyranny.

                        replyreport
9. 60

   Repairguy47posted 13 years ago

   Capital gains can be a bit befuddling for some.

   replyreport
10. 53

    KevinPradoposted 13 years ago

    There is no proof that higher capital gains profits leads to more jobs, so taxing them at a higher rate will not negatively effect employment either.
    
    Eyepothesis

    replyreport