• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Taxing Capital Gains

DeacMan said:
And now let's address this little gem.

I PAY more than you. Perhaps I should have MORE say. That's just as fucking ludicrous as what you've posted in the above.

The government does pathetically little to support my "money bin". They are going to bankrupt social security before I retire. I'll get nothing there and neither will you. They pave the roads with more of my money than your's. Last time I checked you like the fact trucks bring you food to eat just as much as me and benefit from being able to drive to work just like me. They defend our country with my money. Last time I checked you like being defended just as much as me. It isn't like they come by my house and provide me with added security because I draw a bigger pay check than you. And they don't pave the road in front of my house and sooner than they do the one in front of your house.

If I didn't know any better you might as well suggest I get more of a say in how we're governed than you because I make a bit more money each year than you. Which, naturally, would be preposterous.

And if I didn't know any better you almost seem to take the position that your ability to save for retirement matters to you less than my ability to do so does to me just because I make more money than you. Wouldn't the opposite actually be true. I need the government less than you do to get ahead in life just because I happened to choose a different profession than you.

And before you get your undies in a wad again, your profession isn't somehow "inferior" to mine or any other which might pay better than yours. People make all sorts of choices in life that are based on what is "best" for them. Many of them recognize they could have made more money if they'd chosen to do something else. Lots of people on this board could have become an investment banker. I'm sure you're one of them. The fact you didn't choose that lifestyle is perfectly fine. I wouldn't want that lifestyle either.
Click to expand...

The middle class gets screwed as usual. I think the ROI for the very rich and, to a much smaller degree, the very poor, is much higher than the middle class.
 
The fact that two guys whose entire livelihoods (public school professor and lawyer) are made possible by the existence and actions of government are arguing about who gets more value from government is pretty funny. As a lawyer, I can say that there is pretty much no more useless profession in the absence of government. Not sure the membership in the South Sudan Bar Association is very strong. The entire operating system of my career is government. Lawyers bitching about how government is valueless are a funny joke, just like Ron Swanson the arch-libertarian bureaucrat on Parks and Recreation. Great show by the way.

If one of you wants to go raise some crops and beef and live from the fruits of your labor, come back and complain about how the government does not create value for you. Just don't cash your subsidy check first. Or file the deed to your land. Or send any cows to market on the roads.

On the issue of capital gains: I agree with those posters who essentially say "it doesn't matter". We have been treating capital gains more favorably than labor for the past couple decades or so, I believe, and I don't think it has made a bit of difference (positive or negative) to the American economy. There are plenty of legal ways to minimize, delay, or avoid the tax for actual operating businesses and their owners. Passive investors just pay it and bitch about it, but it doesn't stop them from investing (except for fringe cases). Raising (or lowering) it would not have any serious impacts on capital flows into the US economy in my opinion.

What would actually change things for the better is reforming our territorial tax system so it lines up with the rest of the Western world, and lowering the face value of the corporate tax (offset by eliminating a host of lobbyist-bought special deductions).

The bigger problem is identified by jhmd, which is, how do we get some of these capital gains to benefit the middle class and poor in our society? Their income has been stagnant for decades while the cost of living, and especially the outlays necessary to get ahead (college) have risen greatly. Sure, some people may have the fortitude to scrimp and save and put some money into savings, but the vast majority of the bottom 60-70% income earners have all they can do to pay for food, housing, health care, and education.
 
Government could create more value for all of us by being smaller. So consider me the lawyer who wants to "give it back" by arguing we need fewer people in our profession 923. And my point isn't about whether I 'benefit" from government. But rather that I benefit from it no more than Ph. Somehow he has this notion that people who make more benefit more from the government - the ultimate "you didn't build that" argument. Shit, he wouldn't even have a job, if the state of Florida didn't form the university where he works - presuming he is still working at a land grant university.
 
Deacon923 said:
The fact that two guys whose entire livelihoods (public school professor and lawyer) are made possible by the existence and actions of government are arguing about who gets more value from government is pretty funny. As a lawyer, I can say that there is pretty much no more useless profession in the absence of government. Not sure the membership in the South Sudan Bar Association is very strong. The entire operating system of my career is government. Lawyers bitching about how government is valueless are a funny joke, just like Ron Swanson the arch-libertarian bureaucrat on Parks and Recreation. Great show by the way.

If one of you wants to go raise some crops and beef and live from the fruits of your labor, come back and complain about how the government does not create value for you. Just don't cash your subsidy check first. Or file the deed to your land. Or send any cows to market on the roads.

On the issue of capital gains: I agree with those posters who essentially say "it doesn't matter". We have been treating capital gains more favorably than labor for the past couple decades or so, I believe, and I don't think it has made a bit of difference (positive or negative) to the American economy. There are plenty of legal ways to minimize, delay, or avoid the tax for actual operating businesses and their owners. Passive investors just pay it and bitch about it, but it doesn't stop them from investing (except for fringe cases). Raising (or lowering) it would not have any serious impacts on capital flows into the US economy in my opinion.

What would actually change things for the better is reforming our territorial tax system so it lines up with the rest of the Western world, and lowering the face value of the corporate tax (offset by eliminating a host of lobbyist-bought special deductions).

The bigger problem is identified by jhmd, which is, how do we get some of these capital gains to benefit the middle class and poor in our society? Their income has been stagnant for decades while the cost of living, and especially the outlays necessary to get ahead (college) have risen greatly. Sure, some people may have the fortitude to scrimp and save and put some money into savings, but the vast majority of the bottom 60-70% income earners have all they can do to pay for food, housing, health care, and education.
Click to expand...

+1000
 
DeacMan said:
Government could create more value for all of us by being smaller. So consider me the lawyer who wants to "give it back" by arguing we need fewer people in our profession 923. And my point isn't about whether I 'benefit" from government. But rather that I benefit from it no more than Ph. Somehow he has this notion that people who make more benefit more from the government - the ultimate "you didn't build that" argument. Shit, he wouldn't even have a job, if the state of Florida didn't form the university where he works - presuming he is still working at a land grant university.
Click to expand...

-1000
 
I'd still have something to profess without government. What laws would lawyers have to lawyer with government?
 
DeacMan said:
Government could create more value for all of us by being smaller. So consider me the lawyer who wants to "give it back" by arguing we need fewer people in our profession 923. And my point isn't about whether I 'benefit" from government. But rather that I benefit from it no more than Ph. Somehow he has this notion that people who make more benefit more from the government - the ultimate "you didn't build that" argument. Shit, he wouldn't even have a job, if the state of Florida didn't form the university where he works - presuming he is still working at a land grant university.
Click to expand...


Fair enough. I would also like to see more streamlined regulation of business and smarter regulation that scales up as a company's size and ability to pay for compliance grows, instead of arbitrary cutoffs like having to comply with ADA as soon as you get to 35 employees (or whatever it is).

Without getting further into the spat between you and PH, I do think it is pretty obvious that certain industries and people benefit more from government than others. In another thread some time ago, I posted that a wealthy investment banker gets more benefit from government in one day than his janitor will likely get in a lifetime, simply because the complex legal structures that surround and enable his industry are not possible in a less advanced state. That doesn't mean that the investment banker didn't "build it" - drive and ambition and hard work and greed clearly helped him get that job at Goldman Sachs - just that I think people need to be honest with themselves about the many, many positive roles that a stable and generally honest government fills. Our governmental structure enables an awful lot of economic activity that is just not possible in countries with "less government" or dishonest government.
 
^just to play devil's advocate (to 923's post)
Under that argument the wealthy man might not have been able to create his absolute level of wealth without the framework of government and society, but the Janitor might not be alive without it.
 
bacon, how do you feel fine about the idea that somebody who works a full time job wouldn't be alive without the government?

Is that the fault of the janitor?
 
PhDeac said:
bacon, how do you feel fine about the idea that somebody who works a full time job wouldn't be alive without the government?

Is that the fault of the janitor?
Click to expand...

I don't feel fine about it, i'm just pointing the dichotomy of the argument that 923 is making.
From what I gather, 923 was saying that a ibanker person (monetarily) benefits more from government than a janitor because the kind of economic gains that the ibanker makes aren't possible without a sophisticated government/society. (which is a reasonable statement).

However, while, in the absence of a sophisticated government/society, the ibanker probably wouldn't have the ability to make as much money (from an absolute sense) the janitor might not be able to make a living at all and depending how much "lack" of "government" there is, might starve to death, or die of some preventable disease.
Of course, that assumes some things, like the ibanker is a high performer (relative to the general population) and would be a high performer even in a poorly "governed" society and the janitor is a low performer and would also be in a poorly governed society as the high performer would probably be able to scrap and claw his way to some kind of reasonable living but, depending how how poor this hypothetical government is, the low performer likely wouldn't have a proper job and might be living on the edge of survival like most people have for the majority of human history.

I'm not making a value statement in anyway, just another way to look at it.
 
I would bet on the janitor over most lawyers I know in south Sudan. Don't know any ibankers personally!

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
 
This thread has gone all over the place, but I'll admit it completely lost me at the idea that a janitor would be dead without government, while an investment banker would... do what exactly? Find a new job? Take the janitor's job?
 
avalon said:
This thread has gone all over the place, but I'll admit it completely lost me at the idea that a janitor would be dead without government, while an investment banker would... do what exactly? Find a new job? Take the janitor's job?
Click to expand...

It's not that complicated.
Ignore the terms Janitor and ibanker. I'm talking in general about high performing people and low performing people, which is why I made the distinction that I'm assuming the banker is a high performer and the janitor is a low performer (but of course those are generalizations). I'm not really insinuating that if an ibanker and a janitor were taken out of their lives and thrown in some god foresaken lawless place that one would do better than the other (because in fact, the janitor very well might do better as he might be more adept at surviving without luxury because he's had to). I'm talking about if a "high economic performer" and a "low economic performer" both came up in a "poorly governed" society that (depending on how badly governed") the "low performer" might have to be seriously concerned with where his next meal would come from whereas the high performer most likely wouldn't (although he surely wouldn't be as wealthy as he could be in a well governed area

Not trying to make some profound statement, just (as I said) making a devil's advocate "counterpoint" to 923's initial statement. Just food for thought

Also, didn't mean to derail and poignant conversation, just a comment that I obviously didn't explain well
 
Last edited:
OK, but it seems you are making it complicated. You’re getting into assumptions about the character and the circumstances of the two people that (1) may or may not be true and (2) have nothing to do with the government and the extent to which it is necessary for the existence of the various occupations.

The janitor’s ability to survive doesn’t just depend on his ability to live without luxury. His job would likely continue to exist in a world without a legal system that has the backing of a strong government. The lawyer’s and the banker’s would not.
 
i was discussing this thread with my wife yesterday, and we got to talking about capital gains and home ownership. the current tax landscape greatly encourages saving and investing via your primary residence. this reward people for entering illiquid and expensive investments. it would seem better for lower or middle classes to take that invested capital and be encouraged to invest in other ways.
 
avalon said:
OK, but it seems you are making it complicated. You’re getting into assumptions about the character and the circumstances of the two people that (1) may or may not be true and (2) have nothing to do with the government and the extent to which it is necessary for the existence of the various occupations.

The janitor’s ability to survive doesn’t just depend on his ability to live without luxury. His job would likely continue to exist in a world without a legal system that has the backing of a strong government. The lawyer’s and the banker’s would not.
Click to expand...

based on this response I don't believe I'm making my point clear, but it's not worth really going on about because it was just supposed to be a quip to think about. Not a reflection on two individuals or their circumstances
 
avalon said:
OK, but it seems you are making it complicated. You’re getting into assumptions about the character and the circumstances of the two people that (1) may or may not be true and (2) have nothing to do with the government and the extent to which it is necessary for the existence of the various occupations.

The janitor’s ability to survive doesn’t just depend on his ability to live without luxury. His job would likely continue to exist in a world without a legal system that has the backing of a strong government. The lawyer’s and the banker’s would not.
Click to expand...

He is simply saying that, in general, someone who has demonstrated success is likely going to find relative success in whatever environment he finds himself, whereas someone who has demonstrated a lack of success is likely going to find a similar relative lack of success wherever he is. If the whole countyr goes to shit, then the successful person may be at the top of the pile and the unsuccessful person is SOL.
 
It's interesting to me to see conservatives use terms like "government/society" or equate government to "the whole country."

I thought this was a discussion about the role of government not individual ability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top