Support thread / safe space for those of us who feel vilified as investors

[HBFIRE]

When something grows large, it loses nimbleness. Change and adaptation becomes slow and difficult.

Precisely.  And this is about the time another competitor that is more nimble and adapt disrupts the complacent/overly bureaucratic players.  Happens all the time.  Complacent inefficient companies eventually die.  Ask me how I know, I've been at this for awhile.  That's the beauty of the free market.  In fact the death of such companies is the most critical part of a healthy free market.  Government will never have that pressure, hence will remain inefficient and complacent.  This is why we should only want government for very limited functions and as lean as possible.   My home state (California) has thrown more money at poverty than any other state.  Yet we remain the state with the highest poverty rate by a significant margin.  Just one example.

[Telecaster]

Okay, there are other sources which claim otherwise, but that is neither here nor there.  The point is, we shouldn't point to a 90% marginal tax rate during that period as indicative of anything.  It's completely misleading as no one paid anywhere remotely close to that.  Leftists like to use it as a talking point, and it's intellectually dishonest.

One person who claimed to pay the 90% rate was Ronald Wilson Reagan, who claimed he stopped making movies because he was only make ten cents on the dollar.   Was it also intellectually dishonest when Reagan used it as a talking point?  Or just when other people do it?

[BicycleB]

For the Americans out there, do you think it's fair that a country would take more than half (well more) of someone's income in all forms of tax - income tax, sales tax, import duty, fuel tax, council rates, land tax...

Excellent question! My response is not intended as representative of my fellow Americans though, jt's just my opinion.

Direct answer: I wouldn't like it as the taxed individual, but no worries - it would be fair if that's what it takes to ensure a decent society for all, it were properly administrated, it met some reasonable principle of relative justice between individuals, and there wasn't a cheaper way that would be just as effective.

Real Answer Part 1: No OECD country takes more than 50% of income for all taxes, at least for the country as a whole, according to the OECD. The highest country is France at 46.2%, edging out Denmark. The OECD average is 34.0%. And Australia is one of the LOWEST OECD countries, a member of the lowest-taxed quintile, at 27.8%... right next to USA! Look at the second chart in this short link:

https://www.oecd.org/ctp/tax-policy/revenue-statistics-australia.pdf

Real Answer Part 2: Australia gets off better than America, quit yer belly-achin'. As linked above, our total tax rates are almost identical. But as is well known and has been linked upthread, Australia has a single payer health care system that delivers broader cheaper care almost entirely funded through the taxes. Americans separately have to pay a huge amount (probably over US$5,000/AUS$7000 per person on average) for health care IN ADDITION to paying taxes. Thus our total cost to pay for the same services is higher than Australia's.

[Bloop Bloop]

I didn't say that our (Australian) average tax take was too high - rather that it was too skewed towards the top quintile paying almost all of it.

The American system is also progressive, but not so punishingly so as the Australian. No doubt, the American system is also less efficient, but that's not a function of progressively, rather a function of where the tax money goes.

Australia's health care system is well-funded, except that high earners are forced to take out an extra level of health insurance cover that in many cases they do not need (or receive no further benefits for, over the publicly funded system).

[dividendman]

I didn't say that our (Australian) average tax take was too high - rather that it was too skewed towards the top quintile paying almost all of it.

The American system is also progressive, but not so punishingly so as the Australian. No doubt, the American system is also less efficient, but that's not a function of progressively, rather a function of where the tax money goes.

Australia's health care system is well-funded, except that high earners are forced to take out an extra level of health insurance cover that in many cases they do not need (or receive no further benefits for, over the publicly funded system).

The top quintile pays for almost all government services, this is true. But... they also use the most government services by far, in any country.
Poor people don't travel so they don't use the state department and border security departments,they  don't have commerce departments lobbying for trade deals for companies they own, don't use the legal system for lawsuits, don't use the defense department to protect their assets, don't get bailouts for their banks shares by the treasury, don't have the interior department allocating them government land to mine, don't have agriculture departments subsidizing their farms, don't have police forces and fire departments protecting their businesses and land, etc. Why? Because they simply don't have much capital.

Rich folks need to stop looking at the government just by how much of it they pay for. They should also look at the fact that they consume the vast majority of government services.

[Alchemisst]

Hi guys and girls

I thought I'd create a thread for positivity around investors and investing. I know there is a specific investment board but this thread is not about the mechanics of investment but rather general support.

It seems these days it's quite hard to be an investor who is financially secure. In the US you have the Occupy movement and in my country, Australia, the incoming government is primed to raise taxes by 2% and also remove several investor subsidies in a punitive move.

The general view seems to be that people making a living off passive income (dividends/rent) are privileged and ought to pay even higher taxes just because others are struggling. In my view the two are apples and oranges.

So I thought it would be good to have a positive thread - and people can post positive things about their investments.

I'll start - I got my tenants to renew their lease on mutually happy terms and also got my bank manager to lower my mortgage rate. Four more years till this investment property is paid off and I can move to the next!

I am also from Australia, I don't agree with the proposed removal of capital gains tax discount, I think there should be no cap gains tax at all as it's basically the same as being double taxed since the you have already been taxed on that money when you earn it, some countries eg. New Zealand have no capital gains tax I believe. However I do support the removal of negative gearing, if an investment can't cover it's expenses on it's own then it is not worth what you paid, why should tax paypayers make up the shortfall? How many countries have something simpiliar to negative gearing?

[deborah]

Capital Gains Tax in the OECD - https://taxfoundation.org/us-taxpayers-face-6th-highest-top-marginal-capital-gains-tax-rate-oecd/

There don't appear to be any other countries that have negative gearing that you can use to offset other income that isn't of the same type (eg. offsetting rental income against job income).

[Bloop Bloop]

I didn't say that our (Australian) average tax take was too high - rather that it was too skewed towards the top quintile paying almost all of it.

The American system is also progressive, but not so punishingly so as the Australian. No doubt, the American system is also less efficient, but that's not a function of progressively, rather a function of where the tax money goes.

Australia's health care system is well-funded, except that high earners are forced to take out an extra level of health insurance cover that in many cases they do not need (or receive no further benefits for, over the publicly funded system).

The top quintile pays for almost all government services, this is true. But... they also use the most government services by far, in any country.
Poor people don't travel so they don't use the state department and border security departments,they  don't have commerce departments lobbying for trade deals for companies they own, don't use the legal system for lawsuits, don't use the defense department to protect their assets, don't get bailouts for their banks shares by the treasury, don't have the interior department allocating them government land to mine, don't have agriculture departments subsidizing their farms, don't have police forces and fire departments protecting their businesses and land, etc. Why? Because they simply don't have much capital.

Rich folks need to stop looking at the government just by how much of it they pay for. They should also look at the fact that they consume the vast majority of government services.

I think you make a good point as between the top quintile and, say, the bottom 2 quintiles. No doubt the bottom 1/3 or 2/5 of society is not consuming much government resources, besides medical care and welfare. They don't fully participate in society in the same way others do.

But what about the 2nd and 3rd quintiles from the top? Those are the ones - the middle class in effect - that I argue still get most of the benefits in society, but pay very little tax. In Australia, the middle class then gets to retire on a fully funded government pension (regardless of whether they worked or didn't work during their life) with a very generous asset cap in the high 6 figures. And the family home doesn't even count towards the assets cap! So I think the middle class is where you can shave off some of the welfare largesse.

[bigchrisb]

But... they also use the most government services by far, in any country.
Poor people don't travel so they don't use the state department and border security departments,they  don't have commerce departments lobbying for trade deals for companies they own, don't use the legal system for lawsuits, don't use the defense department to protect their assets, don't get bailouts for their banks shares by the treasury, don't have the interior department allocating them government land to mine, don't have agriculture departments subsidizing their farms, don't have police forces and fire departments protecting their businesses and land, etc.

While this is true of some government services, at least for the Australian budget, 60% of expenditure is on health, education and welfare (sourcehttps://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-08/federal-budget-2018-sliced-diced-interactive/9723604#spending/breakdown/2019/social-security-and-welfare)

Given that lower income people generally don't use private health or private education, the Commonwealth oz expenditure is at least 60% focused on areas that are equally targeted or lower income focused.

The remaining 40% is harder to drill down to, as the next biggest category is funding to the states and territories, with their own budget focus.

I'm a believer that government should use progressive taxation and undertake some degree of provision of services and safety net.  However I refute that in Australia at least, the upper quintile use services proportionate to their tax burden.

[bacchi]

Capital Gains Tax in the OECD - https://taxfoundation.org/us-taxpayers-face-6th-highest-top-marginal-capital-gains-tax-rate-oecd/

There don't appear to be any other countries that have negative gearing that you can use to offset other income that isn't of the same type (eg. offsetting rental income against job income).

Landlords in the US can deduct rental losses against earned income to a certain limit ($25k), if their total income is below $150k.

Capital losses can also be used to offset earned income but only up to $3000.

[Xlar]

When something grows large, it loses nimbleness. Change and adaptation becomes slow and difficult.

Precisely.  And this is about the time another competitor that is more nimble and adapt disrupts the complacent/overly bureaucratic players.  Happens all the time.  Complacent inefficient companies eventually die.  Ask me how I know, I've been at this for awhile.  That's the beauty of the free market.  In fact the death of such companies is the most critical part of a healthy free market.  Government will never have that pressure, hence will remain inefficient and complacent.  This is why we should only want government for very limited functions and as lean as possible.   My home state (California) has thrown more money at poverty than any other state.  Yet we remain the state with the highest poverty rate by a significant margin.  Just one example.

This is one of the big differences between companies and governments: The purpose of the government is not to make money and turn a profit! One (of many) goal of the government is to create a stability environment with the necessary resources for corporations to be profitable. Things like laws protecting companies intellectual property, infrastructure like roads, physical defense like the military, etc. For all of these things being large, stable, slow moving, and predictable are huge advantages, not disadvantages.

[Tyson]

All you "Government is bad and wasteful" people, well here's the actual breakout of the spending.  If we just cut Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and Military spending in half, not only will we balance the budget, we'll all get tax cuts too!

My point is this - it's stupid to talk about "waste" in the government when cutting out ALL waste wouldn't even move the needle with a budget as big as this.  The ONLY thing that moves the needle is deeeeeeeppp cuts to the things we spend the most one.  So, batter up:  What are you proposing we cut out?

[EnjoyIt]

@Dabnasty
You mentioned a lot and I will do my best to address it in 1 post:

1) Your grocery store analogy makes no sense.  No business will stay in business if not profitable.  This business does not need your help, the business already knows it needs to cut expenses and maybe raise profits.  Realistically if this is the only grocer in town, it will raise prices as high as possible to whatever the market will bare.  The ideal scenario would be to have prices just high enough where the towns people are not yet willing to drive 1 hour out of town for better prices.

2) Personally I see no reason why we need to raise taxes further. We waste enough money as it is.  I get it, there are a few very very rich people in the US who take advantage of the capital gains tax, but I don't think their actions should be a reason to penalize the rest of us.

3) Here is the link to give the US treasury more money:  https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm#DebtFinance
They have all the information you need.  Looking through the site it appears people donate to the government every year.  in 2012 the treasury received over $7,000,000.  Not too shabby.  You too can practice what you preach and be one of the few who donates.  You even get a tax deduction on your donation allowing you to donate extra.  I would respect you and your arguments more if you lead by example instead of trying to impose your views on me. 

4) Why do you think we need to raise taxes?  How much further do you think we need to raise them?  Is there a limit to your greed to take from others?

[EnjoyIt]

All you "Government is bad and wasteful" people, well here's the actual breakout of the spending.  If we just cut Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and Military spending in half, not only will we balance the budget, we'll all get tax cuts too!

My point is this - it's stupid to talk about "waste" in the government when cutting out ALL waste wouldn't even move the needle with a budget as big as this.  The ONLY thing that moves the needle is deeeeeeeppp cuts to the things we spend the most one.  So, batter up:  What are you proposing we cut out?

I'll start:
1) Military
2) Foreign Aid
3) Decreaseing the cost of healthcare delivery thereby cutting medicare/Medicaid spending
4) alter the social services program to be more of a gradient as opposed to binary yes/no system that incentivizes working.
5) eliminate the department of education and let the states run it themselves
6) Corn subsidies
7) Over time, interest on debt.

[HBFIRE]

All you "Government is bad and wasteful" people, well here's the actual breakout of the spending.  If we just cut Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and Military spending in half, not only will we balance the budget, we'll all get tax cuts too!

My point is this - it's stupid to talk about "waste" in the government when cutting out ALL waste wouldn't even move the needle with a budget as big as this.  The ONLY thing that moves the needle is deeeeeeeppp cuts to the things we spend the most one.  So, batter up:  What are you proposing we cut out?

Chart is pretty useless.  The point is, the government is inefficient in EVERY category.  Looking at the various categories pie chart isn't going to help you find the inefficient spending.  The government is wasteful with everything it does.  It hires too many workers, said workers are totally inefficient as there is no pressure to perform (cant fire them), and they take forever to complete work again due to no external pressures.  So, yeah, pretty much every category.

[bacchi]

When something grows large, it loses nimbleness. Change and adaptation becomes slow and difficult.

Precisely.  And this is about the time another competitor that is more nimble and adapt disrupts the complacent/overly bureaucratic players.  Happens all the time.  Complacent inefficient companies eventually die.  Ask me how I know, I've been at this for awhile.  That's the beauty of the free market.  In fact the death of such companies is the most critical part of a healthy free market.  Government will never have that pressure, hence will remain inefficient and complacent.  This is why we should only want government for very limited functions and as lean as possible.   My home state (California) has thrown more money at poverty than any other state.  Yet we remain the state with the highest poverty rate by a significant margin.  Just one example.

This is one of the big differences between companies and governments: The purpose of the government is not to make money and turn a profit! One (of many) goal of the government is to create a stability environment with the necessary resources for corporations to be profitable. Things like laws protecting companies intellectual property, infrastructure like roads, physical defense like the military, etc. For all of these things being large, stable, slow moving, and predictable are huge advantages, not disadvantages.

Indeed. They do different things and different things are expected. Thinking that a government should be run like a business is a fallacy.

[Tyson]

When something grows large, it loses nimbleness. Change and adaptation becomes slow and difficult.

Precisely.  And this is about the time another competitor that is more nimble and adapt disrupts the complacent/overly bureaucratic players.  Happens all the time.  Complacent inefficient companies eventually die.  Ask me how I know, I've been at this for awhile.  That's the beauty of the free market.  In fact the death of such companies is the most critical part of a healthy free market.  Government will never have that pressure, hence will remain inefficient and complacent.  This is why we should only want government for very limited functions and as lean as possible.   My home state (California) has thrown more money at poverty than any other state.  Yet we remain the state with the highest poverty rate by a significant margin.  Just one example.

This is one of the big differences between companies and governments: The purpose of the government is not to make money and turn a profit! One (of many) goal of the government is to create a stability environment with the necessary resources for corporations to be profitable. Things like laws protecting companies intellectual property, infrastructure like roads, physical defense like the military, etc. For all of these things being large, stable, slow moving, and predictable are huge advantages, not disadvantages.

Indeed. They do different things and different things are expected. Thinking that a government should be run like a business is a fallacy.

Indeed.  The purpose of a business is to make as much profit as possible.  If the government were run like a business, it would keep all the tax revenue and eliminate all spending (ie, get rid of all services).  PROFIT!!!!

[bacchi]

I'll start:
1) Military
2) Foreign Aid
3) Decreaseing the cost of healthcare delivery thereby cutting medicare/Medicaid spending
4) alter the social services program to be more of a gradient as opposed to binary yes/no system that incentivizes working.
5) eliminate the department of education and let the states run it themselves
6) Corn subsidies
7) Over time, interest on debt.

Foreign Aid is tiny but there are probably some cuts to be made. Military aid to Israel, for one.

I'd swap your Dept of Education for Transportation. It'd shave off another 19B.

Of course, unless you cut military to $0, the US would still run a deficit. More cuts are needed!

[Davnasty]

@Dabnasty
You mentioned a lot and I will do my best to address it in 1 post:

1) Your grocery store analogy makes no sense.  No business will stay in business if not profitable.  This business does not need your help, the business already knows it needs to cut expenses and maybe raise profits.  Realistically if this is the only grocer in town, it will raise prices as high as possible to whatever the market will bare.  The ideal scenario would be to have prices just high enough where the towns people are not yet willing to drive 1 hour out of town for better prices.

2) Personally I see no reason why we need to raise taxes further. We waste enough money as it is.  I get it, there are a few very very rich people in the US who take advantage of the capital gains tax, but I don't think their actions should be a reason to penalize the rest of us.

3) Here is the link to give the US treasury more money:  https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm#DebtFinance
They have all the information you need.  Looking through the site it appears people donate to the government every year.  in 2012 the treasury received over $7,000,000.  Not too shabby.  You too can practice what you preach and be one of the few who donates.  You even get a tax deduction on your donation allowing you to donate extra.  I would respect you and your arguments more if you lead by example instead of trying to impose your views on me. 

4) Why do you think we need to raise taxes?  How much further do you think we need to raise them?  Is there a limit to your greed to take from others?

The point of the analogy was to ask, does it make sense to overpay for groceries in this scenario if the grocer refuses to charge rational prices... that's it. Of course there are significant differences between the government and a privately owned store. Of course in the real world they would go out of business. That's why I set hypothetical parameters.

I think it's difficult to come up with a good analogy because this situation really shouldn't need one. Someone has the opinion that investors should pay higher taxes on their income and gives an explanation as to why they feel that way. If someone disagrees they should offer some reasons why. Saying "you go ahead and pay more if you want" is a cop out, it doesn't address the situation. A proper argument would look a bit more like "It makes sense to tax investment income at a lower rate than earned income because x, y, & z."

To your next three points, you're making lot of assumptions. I don't believe I've made any arguments in favor of raising taxes here, I've only countered some of the blanket arguments against raising taxes. Even if I was in favor of increased taxes on investment income, that doesn't necessarily mean I'm in favor of increasing taxes overall. Perhaps an increased tax on investment income paired with a decreased tax on earned income is in order. If someone has an argument for shifting rather than raising the tax burden, would you be willing to talk about that?

My only goal in this conversation was to encourage logical arguments. Arguing against increased taxes because "you can pay more if you want" and "the government is inefficient" don't make the cut for me. It's not that they aren't true, it's that they aren't relevant.

Is there a limit to your greed to take from others?

Come on now, I don't even know what you're basing "my greed" on. Rule #2.

[HBFIRE]

Indeed.  The purpose of a business is to make as much profit as possible.  If the government were run like a business, it would keep all the tax revenue and eliminate all spending (ie, get rid of all services).  PROFIT!!!!

Strawman.  No one is saying the government should run at a profit.  We're saying it should be efficiently run like the private sector is.  "profits" would be reduced cost and less taxation.  Any savings go towards future expenses.  Non-profit companies can be extremely efficient.  The problem starts when there are no pressures to do so.

[Tyson]

Indeed.  The purpose of a business is to make as much profit as possible.  If the government were run like a business, it would keep all the tax revenue and eliminate all spending (ie, get rid of all services).  PROFIT!!!!

Strawman.  No one is saying the government should run at a profit.  We're saying it should be efficiently run like the private sector is.  "profits" would be reduced cost and less taxation.  Any savings go towards future expenses.  Non-profit companies can be extremely efficient.  The problem starts when there are no pressures to do so.

If you don't think government should be run "like a business" then you should stop saying that it should.  Running the government "like a non-profit" is NOT the same thing.  And I have never, ever, ever heard anyone say a business should be run "like a non-profit". 

The real issue, IMO, that people have is not how much we tax, but rather on what we spend that tax money.  Taxes are neutral, they just create a slush fund that we then pay for our services out of.

Anyway, I'm curious - people that think there's waste in government, how much waste do you think there is?  5%?  20%  50%?  Please justify your answer.  And please show how we can "eliminate waste".  Especially if we can eliminate waste while still keeping all the cool stuff we pay for (ie, the services the government provides). 

And saying things like "make medical expenses less" does not count.  That's just magical thinking right there.  And saying "incentivize work" for social programs doesn't do a damn thing for our largest (by far) expense of Social Security, who will never ever get a job because they are retired. 

[HBFIRE]

And I have never, ever, ever heard anyone say a business should be run "like a non-profit". 

Then you must not be that involved in businesses.  I have.  In both profit and non-profits.  Many many non-profits are run precisely like for-profits by CEO's who had experience in for-profit businesses.  The only difference is, the "profits" become reduced costs that go towards future expenses.  Girl Scouts is one of the premier examples.  The non-profits that struggle generally don't think like a for-profit business, that's their issue  -- lots of inefficiencies.

Look, I accept the government is going to always be inefficient.  This is why I'm for reduced government function.  Let it only do that which we absolutely require it to do, and minimize its size and function.  Also, let's start by making it much easier to fire poor performing gov workers.

[bacchi]

And I have never, ever, ever heard anyone say a business should be run "like a non-profit". 

 Girl Scouts is one of the premier examples.  The non-profits that struggle generally don't think like a for-profit business, that's their issue  -- lots of inefficiencies.

Girl Scouts? Poor choice. They're horribly run and their pension is way underfunded. They handed out early retirements like candy, which created a lot of their problems. Central administration costs have doubled in less than a decade.

[HBFIRE]

Girl Scouts? Poor choice. They're horribly run and their pension is way underfunded. They handed out early retirements like candy, which created a lot of their problems. Central administration costs have doubled in less than a decade.

Their financials are strong, membership is strong, unlike BSA which is on verge of collapse.

[Tyson]

And I have never, ever, ever heard anyone say a business should be run "like a non-profit". 

Then you must not be that involved in businesses.  I have.  In both profit and non-profits.  Many many non-profits are run precisely like for-profits by CEO's who had experience in for-profit businesses.  The only difference is, the "profits" become reduced costs that go towards future expenses.  Girl Scouts is one of the premier examples.  The non-profits that struggle generally don't think like a for-profit business, that's their issue  -- lots of inefficiencies.

Look, I accept the government is going to always be inefficient.  This is why I'm for reduced government function.  Let it only do that which we absolutely require it to do, and minimize its size and function.  Also, let's start by making it much easier to fire poor performing gov workers.

Heck, maybe we should eliminate all core government functions and just let people pay for what they need, when they need it.  Oh wait, we tried that in the past with things like the fire department and it was a disaster. 

And inefficiencies with your money is not a good reason to let children (or anyone) starve.

[Bloop Bloop]

I think most people would agree that taxes are justified insofar as they prevent a descent into anarchy, and insofar as they prevent people from going without food or shelter.

But taxation if often seen as having a broader redistributive element, i.e., not just protecting those who are impoverished, but actually lifting up those who are merely working class or middle class.

It is the second category of taxation/redistribution that I object to, as it results in punitive taxes on successful investors who could otherwise retire months or perhaps years earlier.

[EnjoyIt]

@Dabnasty
You mentioned a lot and I will do my best to address it in 1 post:

1) Your grocery store analogy makes no sense.  No business will stay in business if not profitable.  This business does not need your help, the business already knows it needs to cut expenses and maybe raise profits.  Realistically if this is the only grocer in town, it will raise prices as high as possible to whatever the market will bare.  The ideal scenario would be to have prices just high enough where the towns people are not yet willing to drive 1 hour out of town for better prices.

2) Personally I see no reason why we need to raise taxes further. We waste enough money as it is.  I get it, there are a few very very rich people in the US who take advantage of the capital gains tax, but I don't think their actions should be a reason to penalize the rest of us.

3) Here is the link to give the US treasury more money:  https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm#DebtFinance
They have all the information you need.  Looking through the site it appears people donate to the government every year.  in 2012 the treasury received over $7,000,000.  Not too shabby.  You too can practice what you preach and be one of the few who donates.  You even get a tax deduction on your donation allowing you to donate extra.  I would respect you and your arguments more if you lead by example instead of trying to impose your views on me. 

4) Why do you think we need to raise taxes?  How much further do you think we need to raise them?  Is there a limit to your greed to take from others?

The point of the analogy was to ask, does it make sense to overpay for groceries in this scenario if the grocer refuses to charge rational prices... that's it. Of course there are significant differences between the government and a privately owned store. Of course in the real world they would go out of business. That's why I set hypothetical parameters.

I think it's difficult to come up with a good analogy because this situation really shouldn't need one. Someone has the opinion that investors should pay higher taxes on their income and gives an explanation as to why they feel that way. If someone disagrees they should offer some reasons why. Saying "you go ahead and pay more if you want" is a cop out, it doesn't address the situation. A proper argument would look a bit more like "It makes sense to tax investment income at a lower rate than earned income because x, y, & z."

To your next three points, you're making lot of assumptions. I don't believe I've made any arguments in favor of raising taxes here, I've only countered some of the blanket arguments against raising taxes. Even if I was in favor of increased taxes on investment income, that doesn't necessarily mean I'm in favor of increasing taxes overall. Perhaps an increased tax on investment income paired with a decreased tax on earned income is in order. If someone has an argument for shifting rather than raising the tax burden, would you be willing to talk about that?

My only goal in this conversation was to encourage logical arguments. Arguing against increased taxes because "you can pay more if you want" and "the government is inefficient" don't make the cut for me. It's not that they aren't true, it's that they aren't relevant.

Is there a limit to your greed to take from others?

Come on now, I don't even know what you're basing "my greed" on. Rule #2.

Exactly, your grocery store analogy is pointless because this scenario could never exist.  Lucky for us grocery stores look for profits instead of social equality.

Why do we need to discuss increasing taxes on investments? Who wants to increase them?  I don't, and plenty of other people don't either.  Just because someone is interested in the proposition does not go and make it law especially when there are plenty of people who have no interest in that endeavor. Plus, let's be honest with ourselves.  Those who want to increase taxes on investment income and are willing to pay more themselves are actually talking about taxing people who make a lot of money via capital gains in non tax protected accounts.  I would wager that most of the people here who think capital gains should be taxed higher have 6 figures or less in taxable accounts and will likely pay very little if anything at all in those taxes.  Frankly this is just one more self serving act of taxing those who have more.  Therefore, on behalf of all people with large taxable accounts I proudly extend my middle finger to them.  Unless those people are willing to pay similar taxes on their tax deferred accounts and prove so by actually cutting a check, I don't have a shred of respect for any of them.

My point stands to anyone who is so eager to make the guy above you pay more in taxes, why not go and pay more yourself and then come and talk as a leader. One who commands respect because they lead by example. Until then, keep your grubby fingers out of my pockets.

I think most people would agree that taxes are justified insofar as they prevent a descent into anarchy, and insofar as they prevent people from going without food or shelter.

But taxation if often seen as having a broader redistributive element, i.e., not just protecting those who are impoverished, but actually lifting up those who are merely working class or middle class.

It is the second category of taxation/redistribution that I object to, as it results in punitive taxes on successful investors who could otherwise retire months or perhaps years earlier.

You bring up the right point. I do not believe in taxation to redistribute wealth and vehemently against the notion of doing so.  It is immoral, and harms a population.  Unearned wealth is often times squandered just as fast as it was received. 

Let's have a system where we protect our citizens from hunger, and being out in the elements.  Let's provide the tools and infrastructure they need to learn skills and be able to find gainful employment.  But please don't enslave the country to the government paycheck by providing luxuries and amenities outside of basic necessities.  Let us help people help themselves to be the best that they can be.

[dividendman]

I do not believe in taxation to redistribute wealth and vehemently against the notion of doing so.  It is immoral, and harms a population.  Unearned wealth is often times squandered just as fast as it was received. 

Let's have a system where we protect our citizens from hunger, and being out in the elements.  Let's provide the tools and infrastructure they need to learn skills and be able to find gainful employment.  But please don't enslave the country to the government paycheck by providing luxuries and amenities outside of basic necessities.  Let us help people help themselves to be the best that they can be.

I actually agree with all of this. I wish there was some way that you could only keep money you have earned (or earned through your investments, etc.). What I mean is, I wish that rich people couldn't just give their kids everything. Then I think what you propose is perfect.

But, the current system is rich people give their kids everything so they don't have to "learn skills and be able to find gainful employment" or have them "help themselves."

I also haven't heard many people here saying taxes should provide folks with luxuries. That's why I'm for a UBI . Scrap all this pick and choose shit on who gets what. Everyone gets $x that is enough for very rudimentary housing (think roomates, etc), basic food (beans+rice) and health care, and there are no other programs! I really think it should be ~$12k per person per year (which coincidentally adds up to the federal budget). I think if we scrapped all other social welfare programs including social security we could easily pay for this and get rid of a lot of bureaucracy and people who try to scam that bureaucracy.

[Bloop Bloop]

I do not believe in taxation to redistribute wealth and vehemently against the notion of doing so.  It is immoral, and harms a population.  Unearned wealth is often times squandered just as fast as it was received. 

Let's have a system where we protect our citizens from hunger, and being out in the elements.  Let's provide the tools and infrastructure they need to learn skills and be able to find gainful employment.  But please don't enslave the country to the government paycheck by providing luxuries and amenities outside of basic necessities.  Let us help people help themselves to be the best that they can be.

I actually agree with all of this. I wish there was some way that you could only keep money you have earned (or earned through your investments, etc.). What I mean is, I wish that rich people couldn't just give their kids everything. Then I think what you propose is perfect.

But, the current system is rich people give their kids everything so they don't have to "learn skills and be able to find gainful employment" or have them "help themselves."

I also haven't heard many people here saying taxes should provide folks with luxuries. That's why I'm for a UBI . Scrap all this pick and choose shit on who gets what. Everyone gets $x that is enough for very rudimentary housing (think roomates, etc), basic food (beans+rice) and health care, and there are no other programs! I really think it should be ~$12k per person per year (which coincidentally adds up to the federal budget). I think if we scrapped all other social welfare programs including social security we could easily pay for this and get rid of a lot of bureaucracy and people who try to scam that bureaucracy.

If the UBI was set at subsistence levels e.g. $12k USD I would have no issues with it at all. I think most proponents of a UBI actually see it as a way to provide a "living wage" or a form of redistributive justice which is something I oppose. Everyone certainly has the right to shelter, food, etc but I'm not sure that a "living wage", which in modern parlance entails plenty of discretionary enjoyment and fat on top, is something that ought to be guaranteed. I mean I basically live off a "living wage" except that I have to earn it, and stash away the rest!

I also would prefer MUCH lower income taxes but MUCH higher estate taxes. I don't believe it's fair for individuals to bequeath huge sums to their descendants.

[EnjoyIt]

I do not believe in taxation to redistribute wealth and vehemently against the notion of doing so.  It is immoral, and harms a population.  Unearned wealth is often times squandered just as fast as it was received. 

Let's have a system where we protect our citizens from hunger, and being out in the elements.  Let's provide the tools and infrastructure they need to learn skills and be able to find gainful employment.  But please don't enslave the country to the government paycheck by providing luxuries and amenities outside of basic necessities.  Let us help people help themselves to be the best that they can be.

I actually agree with all of this. I wish there was some way that you could only keep money you have earned (or earned through your investments, etc.). What I mean is, I wish that rich people couldn't just give their kids everything. Then I think what you propose is perfect.

But, the current system is rich people give their kids everything so they don't have to "learn skills and be able to find gainful employment" or have them "help themselves."

I also haven't heard many people here saying taxes should provide folks with luxuries. That's why I'm for a UBI . Scrap all this pick and choose shit on who gets what. Everyone gets $x that is enough for very rudimentary housing (think roomates, etc), basic food (beans+rice) and health care, and there are no other programs! I really think it should be ~$12k per person per year (which coincidentally adds up to the federal budget). I think if we scrapped all other social welfare programs including social security we could easily pay for this and get rid of a lot of bureaucracy and people who try to scam that bureaucracy.

Don’t worry, when rich people lash down substantiale wealth to their kids it takes about 3 generations for the family to squander the money. We don’t need hard rules for that. People are inherintely lazy and waste all that wealth they never earned.

Also, UBI is another bullshit pansy ass construct that provides non sustainable benefit as opposed to tools to better themselves. UBI is no different than giving kids awards just for showing up. Now we have a bunch of cry babies in the work force that feel like they deserve accolades just by showing up on time.

[bacchi]

Also, UBI is another bullshit pansy ass construct that provides non sustainable benefit as opposed to tools to better themselves. UBI is no different than giving kids awards just for showing up. Now we have a bunch of cry babies in the work force that feel like they deserve accolades just by showing up on time.

UBI will become reality in the future. No one, even super successful people like yourself, wants to walk through hordes of beggars from the parking lot to work.

What tools do you suggest? Is there any evidence that these tools work or do we need to experiment on the municipal or state level first to see if they actually do work?

[Davnasty]

...snip

Why do we need to discuss increasing taxes on investments? Who wants to increase them?  I don't, and plenty of other people don't either.  Just because someone is interested in the proposition does not go and make it law especially when there are plenty of people who have no interest in that endeavor. Plus, let's be honest with ourselves.  Those who want to increase taxes on investment income and are willing to pay more themselves are actually talking about taxing people who make a lot of money via capital gains in non tax protected accounts.  I would wager that most of the people here who think capital gains should be taxed higher have 6 figures or less in taxable accounts and will likely pay very little if anything at all in those taxes.  Frankly this is just one more self serving act of taxing those who have more.  Therefore, on behalf of all people with large taxable accounts I proudly extend my middle finger to them.  Unless those people are willing to pay similar taxes on their tax deferred accounts and prove so by actually cutting a check, I don't have a shred of respect for any of them.

My point stands to anyone who is so eager to make the guy above you pay more in taxes, why not go and pay more yourself and then come and talk as a leader. One who commands respect because they lead by example. Until then, keep your grubby fingers out of my pockets.

I don't know what your point is here and I don't see how most of this is a response to what I've said. I said quite clearly that I'm not arguing for or against raising taxes on investment income.

I'm only trying to argue one point - that "pay more if you think you should" is not a rebuttal to an argument, it's a cop out. I'm yet to see a substantive defense for this claim. What if someone were to overpay on their taxes? Would their argument suddenly be more true? No, because it's the same argument, their actions have nothing to do with it.

If you'd like to address my position, feel free to respond. If you're only interested in ranting about how everyone wants to steal your money, please don't quote me.

[mm1970]

I'll start:
1) Military
2) Foreign Aid
3) Decreaseing the cost of healthcare delivery thereby cutting medicare/Medicaid spending
4) alter the social services program to be more of a gradient as opposed to binary yes/no system that incentivizes working.
5) eliminate the department of education and let the states run it themselves
6) Corn subsidies
7) Over time, interest on debt.

Foreign Aid is tiny but there are probably some cuts to be made. Military aid to Israel, for one.

I'd swap your Dept of Education for Transportation. It'd shave off another 19B.

Of course, unless you cut military to $0, the US would still run a deficit. More cuts are needed!

I'd argue that we don't want to decrease Foreign Aid at all, but maybe move it around a bit.  That's only because of some books I've been reading. 

Many countries rely heavily on Foreign Aid.  (Of course, it's often used badly - wrong places, on the wrong things, and the money is spread out among too many different groups in a highly inefficient manner.)  When I refer to foreign aid, I am thinking about countries in poverty and their lack of infrastructure - agriculture, roads, electricity, sanitation.  Money can go a long way there and if done correctly - can make huge differences in the long term health of those countries.