Capital Gains Taxes - Should they be abolished?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
the other member states would feel put out if France (or Switzerland) where to take a chunk of that money for themselves.

It would be like theft.

[Adam Smith]

Roland:

What I was trying to say is that if more porductive labor is paid proportionately more than less productive labor, then companies should be indifferent between the two. Of course this leaves out all those nasty micro complications like benefits costs, retraining costs, job-specific experience, etc.

Chegitz:
I always suspected you were joking when you made your posts. Thanks for the confirmation.

Victor:
You still need to pay capital gains taxes even if you sell short. Selling short is just a quicker way to move capital out of less productive sectors of the economy. However, most of the gain from doing so accrues to individual investors, not to the economy as a whole. Lastly, Amazon.com turned its first quarterly profit in 4Q2001.

RJ:
Enjoy CERN while you are there. When I fininshed grad school I visited a good friend who was working at CERN, living tax-free in a small house in a vineyard overlooking Lake Geneva. Even though he is now a full professor of Physics at a leading US university, and his income is much higher, his standard of living is much less.

[Berzerker]

Rogan -

We seem to have a different definition of 'theft' here.

So if someone broke into your home and stole your computer, you wouldn't call the cops if the thief told you he had a different definition of theft?

I suppose you are one of these loony libertarian types who seem to think that you wouldn't get your head smashed in by a baseball bat if there was no government keeping order.

Having a government to keep order is not the same as having a government to engage in "legalized" stealing to accomodate your "ideology".

9 ECAC -

In the US, the top bracket tax rate was at its highest in the 1940's through the 1960's, the golden age of the US economy.

In the early 60's JFK significantly reduced taxes across the board. And that "Golden Age" was not the result of high taxes, but the US role in rebuilding the west following WWII. Also, people and businesses had many more write-offs to effectively lower those rates...

I can't understand how someone who opposes progressive taxes on ideological grounds can support a flat tax. After all, with a flat tax, a wealthy person still pays more than a poor person.

True.

By the "morality" (sic) argument, why shouldn't everyone have to pay the same amount. The wealthy man and the poor man use the same road -- why should the wealthy man pay any more for its upkeep? They're protected by the same military.

I've found the flat tax idea to be immoral as well as the progressive tax. Stealing equally from people rather than stealing more from the "rich" is still stealing.

Everyone must now fork over $7200. If you have a dependent, you must claim them and pay an additional $7200 (the adult and the child use the same road, military, etc...)

If you have less than $7200, you are committing a felony and will be treated accordingly.

The Ideal State, brought to you by the defenders of property against theft.

This is inaccurate. The primary reason why the budget is so large is because of "entitlements", different groups of people "entitled" to other people's money. If "legalized" stealing was forbidden, the budget would shrink enormously as is required by the Constitution. Also, there would be NO debtor's prisons so people who could not afford to pay taxes would not have that burden. It's ironic to hear many on the left accuse me of being selfish and greedy when they want to force the poor to pay taxes to support their ideology.

Progressive taxation helps the middle class, especially the lower middle, the most.

Handing one group of people money taken from others will obviously enrich them, but that doesn't make it moral or anything but stealing, legal or not.

A strong middle class equals a strong economy. Or perhaps you're going to sell all your goods and services to the 1% who would benefit from a flat tax?

You mean a flat tax would eliminate the middle class? Can you prove this?

Victor -

-Some of us think it is wrong for rich people to be able to live off their money tax free.

Which means you are claiming a "moral" mandate to steal from them to pay for what you want. Does this mean you won't call the cops when someone steals your money because they think it's wrong for you to have something they want?

-And some of us think for ourselves.

It's not about independent thinking, it's about changing the definitions of words to accomodate ideologies. Theft is theft no matter who is committing the act - me, you, or the politician we've "hired" to steal on our behalf.

-Suppose that person is your landlord and the things which don't belong to him are the rent you haven't yet paid him.

You are my landlord?

-Aside from that, there's the no one will maintain the roads problem.

How about the road's owners?

-Then rent, intrest rates, admission fees, etc. are all theft

And some of you think for yourselves?
If you want to use my property, an admission fee or rent is not theft. This is not analogous to taxes because you don't own our property, therefore, government cannot own our property on your behalf.

-True, but they support policies that would bring about anarchy.

Even if this was true, why is anarchy so bad? Would people be running around stealing from others? Oh yeah, that's what government does. Strange, the American Revolution was fought and won without forced taxation. Was that "anarchy"? Most libertarians would be quite happy with a strictly enforced Constitution, hardly an anarchist document.

-The poor man might use it less because he might not have a car.

Which is why the public roads should be maintained via gasoline/car taxes.

pchang -

It's all in the contract.

I guess the government has not been living up to its part of the social contract which provides you the benefit of living in the US and its accompanying society in return for your following the laws of the US.

Ah yes, the "social" contract we never signed. The fact stealing is "legal" for some private citizens and not for others appears nowhere in the only "contract" the US signed on to, the charter called the US Constitution. My only obligation to "society" is to respect the freedom of other members of that society, not submit to involuntary servitude to enrich other "voters" because they outnumber me. Were slaves bound by this "social" contract simply because they were outnumbered?

[Rogan Josh]

Society is not just a collection of people who watch out for themselves. It is not about profit. It is not about individuals. It is not about rights.

Is about helping one another lead our lives better than if we all lived individually.

Now, of course, one can choose not to be part of that. You can ignore your fellow man and never do anything for anyone but yourself. You can think about money and a new car and a video recorder and a big house and not care what happens to other people.

But that makes you poorer - not richer.

And it makes all of us poorer. Would you really like to live in a world where no-one cares about those less fortunate than themselves? Where someone down on their luck is left to starve on the streets?

I certainly don't! Don't steal that from me.....

[Victor Galis]

"Victor:
You still need to pay capital gains taxes even if you sell short. Selling short is just a quicker way to move capital out of less productive sectors of the economy. However, most of the gain from doing so accrues to individual investors, not to the economy as a whole. Lastly, Amazon.com turned its first quarterly profit in 4Q2001."

-My point exactly. But a company can lose horrible amounts of money, and have people make money off of it by selling short, hence the argument that taxes on corporate profits should make capital gains taxes a second tax on the same money are bull. The two sums of money are related mostly. (Wow, Amazon made money?! I stopped watching the market a long time ago. Lost my money, doing some waiting now.)

"So if someone broke into your home and stole your computer, you wouldn't call the cops if the thief told you he had a different definition of theft?"

-But the thief is breaking into your house and stealing your computer. That's very different from say your landlord saying, you have to pay him a certain amount to live there every year. The landlord knows that you are unlikely to move away and so charges you a rent based on your ability to pay, it makes good business sense, no? (Lack of alternatives lets him set a price that depends on how much money he believes he can get out of you without forcing you to rebel or something.)

"Having a government to keep order is not the same as having a government to engage in "legalized" stealing to accomodate your "ideology"."

-Cry me a river, Libertarian.

"This is inaccurate. The primary reason why the budget is so large is because of "entitlements", different groups of people "entitled" to other people's money. If "legalized" stealing was forbidden, the budget would shrink enormously as is required by the Constitution. Also, there would be NO debtor's prisons so people who could not afford to pay taxes would not have that burden. It's ironic to hear many on the left accuse me of being selfish and greedy when they want to force the poor to pay taxes to support their ideology."

-You want to starve the poor, elderly, and disabled in the name of your ideology. Take your pick, mass murder or "theft."

'Which means you are claiming a "moral" mandate to steal from them to pay for what you want."

-No. I am claiming a non-moral mandate to charge a fee in exchange for services provided for people living within a defined geographic area. Don't like it? Move out.

"Does this mean you won't call the cops when someone steals your money because they think it's wrong for you to have something they want?"

-No. The government has the natural monopoly on tax collection. Individuals have no authority to take such things into their own hands.

"Theft is theft no matter who is committing the act - me, you, or the politician we've "hired" to steal on our behalf."

-Capitalism is all theft then, isn't it?

"You are my landlord?"

-The government is. I haven't personally stolen anything from you, have I?

"How about the road's owners?"

-Can you imagine the costs of transportation then? Internal trade would collapse nearly overnight, the economy would break down, and anarchy would become reality in the first couple years.

"This is not analogous to taxes because you don't own our property, therefore, government cannot own our property on your behalf."

-The government provides services to everyone within a certain geographical area. To live within that area you must pay taxes. The reason you can't opt out without moving out is because it would be impossible for you not to be getting a free ride off other people's money. (If you live in Kansas, it's very hard to claim the army isn't stopping foreign invaders from harming you.) Property ownership is only possible with a government and a code of laws. Without the government your claim on your goods would only be as good as your shotgun/assault rifle.

"Even if this was true, why is anarchy so bad? Would people be running around stealing from others?"

-Yes.

"Strange, the American Revolution was fought and won without forced taxation."

-Barely, and because people all rallied to the cause. There is no cause that would gain as much support nowadays.

"Was that "anarchy"? Most libertarians would be quite happy with a strictly enforced Constitution, hardly an anarchist document."

-Quite on the contrary. The constitution as it was written is an outdated piece of junk. I should not be sorry to see it burnt (well except for the Bill of Rights, I like that.)

"Which is why the public roads should be maintained via gasoline/car taxes."

-Hey, I'm in favor of a dollar a gallon tax on gasoline

[Imran Siddiqui]

Quite on the contrary. The constitution as it was written is an outdated piece of junk. I should not be sorry to see it burnt (well except for the Bill of Rights, I like that.)

Yes, Victor would rather have a new Constitution, declaring himself dictator. At least it'd be 'new' then. If it ain't broke, fix it now, right?

[Victor Galis]

But it's more broken than that AOL CD my friends slammed into the ground as hard as they could, which shattered into a million pieces (yes, I am really, really tired.)

[Dauphin]

Is about helping one another lead our lives better than if we all lived individually.

Now, of course, one can choose not to be part of that. You can ignore your fellow man and never do anything for anyone but yourself. You can think about money and a new car and a video recorder and a big house and not care what happens to other people.

But that makes you poorer - not richer.

And it makes all of us poorer. Would you really like to live in a world where no-one cares about those less fortunate than themselves? Where someone down on their luck is left to starve on the streets?

I'm all for helping other people, be it through a National Health service, pensions etc.. but having the government adminsitrate and finance them is something I am against.

That is not to say that taxpayers don't put up the dough in one form or another, just that the cash should not be "washed" in the government treasury, and be administered as the government sees fit.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
But it's more broken than that AOL CD my friends slammed into the ground as hard as they could, which shattered into a million pieces (yes, I am really, really tired.)

And it shows... you are also an idiot. The US Constitution is not in the slightest broken. I'm not sure if any cracks can be seen on it.

It is a wonderful document, simple and flexible to provide the backbone of the world's most dominant nation.

[Victor Galis]

Imran give up the patriotic bull****. The constitution has had it's day. It was good then, it's outdated and inflexible. Just look how many liberties have to be taken with it so that this country can be governed.

[DinoDoc]

Imran & Victor: This... err... "debate" might be more productive if both of you actually provided facts to back up your assertions.

[Victor Galis]

That it would But to do that it would have to be one of those days when I don't have so many classes that I'm too lazy to think once I get home.

[9 ECAC Titles]

Berzerker,

Thanks for responding point-by-point.

quote:

> In the early 60's JFK significantly reduced taxes across the board.

I'm not sure of your point. Are you arguing that 60's prosperity doesn't owe anything to a highly progressive tax structure? OK, then you should also consider that the 60's was also a period in which much social assistance and entitlements legislation gained ground. Either way, you have a booming economy helped along in large part because have-nots are being helped out by haves.

> And that "Golden Age" was not the result of high taxes, but the US role in rebuilding the west following WWII.

There's some merit in that argument. I would also say that the boom was created because large numbers of women entered the workforce, giving the private sector a huge pool of efficient, educated, cheap labor to plunder for a generation.

I don't think, BTW, that high taxes are good for the economy. I think (1) taxes should be just as high as they need to balance a budget that includes valid government expenditure, that (2) certain kinds of assistance are valid expenses and (3) a progressive structuring of revenue collection for the revenue that does need to be collected is A Good Thing.

> Also, people and businesses had many more write-offs to effectively lower those rates...

I can't prove it, but I doubt it. I assume that the level of corporate tax evasion has always been some constant.


>> I can't understand how someone who opposes progressive taxes on ideological grounds can support a flat tax. After all, with a flat tax, a wealthy person still pays more than a poor person.

> True.

You do realize that that entire post was meant to be ironic, right? A sort of Swiftian Modest Proposal for the ideal state, where rich and poor alike are prohibited from sleeping under bridges.


> I've found the flat tax idea to be immoral as well as the progressive tax. Stealing equally from people rather than stealing more from the "rich" is still stealing.

No fair, you switched arguments. I was talking about the merits of progressive/regressive taxation -- you seem to be talking about the merits of any taxation at all.


> It's ironic to hear many on the left accuse me of being selfish and greedy when they want to force the poor to pay taxes to support their ideology.

Polls suggest I'm in the center. And while I can't speak for others, I'm not accusing you of any more selfishness than anyone else. Where you stand depends on where you sit. It's just as selfish to seek assistance for the poor if you're poor. I do think that your philosophy ultimately produces a very inefficient economy, as well as a political state that becomes more and more unstable as the number of desperately poor goes through the ceiling.

As for morality -- I'm sure in your quieter moments you'd admit that this is not a question of moral vs. immoral arguments. After all, it's hardly moral to allow people to starve, and it's hardly moral to allow large numbers of children with the misfortune to be born into poor households to grow up with no chance of getting out of poverty.


> Handing one group of people money taken from others will obviously enrich them, but that doesn't make it moral or anything but stealing, legal or not.

See morality arguments above. The ironic thing is that I think a stable economy in which everyone benefits helps the wealthiest and most talented segments of the population the most. More good investment opportunities. Broader education for higher rate of scientific progress. More comfortable people to sell non-necessities to.

I sympathize -- in a few minutes I'll go home and argue the centrist side with my girlfriend, who is as far left as you are right. I know that arguing for keeping the money you have rightfully earned is not greed. But I do think that assistance to those who need it is an entirely valid governmental function, and that its benefit is a very wise investment for the wealthy and upper middle class, in the same way that funding military and police is.

Because of the free rider problem, the only workable mechanism so far for that sort of revenue collection is taxation. The poor do not have the money to pay user fees on their own services, obviously. May you be the brilliant economist who comes up with a better way.

[Berzerker]

Rogan -

Society is not just a collection of people who watch out for themselves. It is not about profit. It is not about individuals. It is not about rights.

Is about helping one another lead our lives better than if we all lived individually.

Helping others must be voluntary or it's not "help", it's involuntary servitude.

Now, of course, one can choose not to be part of that.

Great!

You can ignore your fellow man and never do anything for anyone but yourself. You can think about money and a new car and a video recorder and a big house and not care what happens to other people.

And the only alternative is allowing you and others who view the world as you do to steal from us to pay for what you want?

But that makes you poorer - not richer.

If you say so.

And it makes all of us poorer.

Hmm...I never thought of freedom as making us all poorer.

Would you really like to live in a world where no-one cares about those less fortunate than themselves? Where someone down on their luck is left to starve on the streets?

I have no problem "helping" others, I just oppose threatening others with violence to compel them to fulfill my sense of compassion.

I certainly don't!

You're free to help others, just not free to force others to do your bidding.

Don't steal that from me.....

Can you offer the quote to which this applies?

Victor -

-But the thief is breaking into your house and stealing your computer. That's very different from say your landlord saying, you have to pay him a certain amount to live there every year.

The US government under the Constitution is not communistic where government owns everything and allows us to live on it's land. It was not "government" that paid for my house, it was me.

The landlord knows that you are unlikely to move away and so charges you a rent based on your ability to pay, it makes good business sense, no?

"Government" is not a business with title to our homes.

-Cry me a river, Libertarian.

Quite a rebuttal.

-You want to starve the poor, elderly, and disabled in the name of your ideology. Take your pick, mass murder or "theft."

How many people actually starved to death before all these welfare programs?

-No. I am claiming a non-moral mandate to charge a fee in exchange for services provided for people living within a defined geographic area. Don't like it? Move out.

"Non-moral"? Forcing others to "buy" a service they don't want is no different that a protection racket run by the Mafia. Btw, it is hypocritical to tell people to move if they don't like certain government policies since you are still living here.

-No. The government has the natural monopoly on tax collection.

Not a "natural" monopoly, a "legal" monopoly.

Individuals have no authority to take such things into their own hands.

But they do "collectively"? That makes no sense...

-Capitalism is all theft then, isn't it?

You need to explain that "analogy".

-The government is. I haven't personally stolen anything from you, have I?

And it is entirely possible that Hitler never murdered anyone, that doesn't mean he wasn't a mass murderer. And you are using your vote (assuming you vote) to make decisions about other people's property, that means you're acting as a "co-landlord".

-Can you imagine the costs of transportation then?

Why would the costs be any different than the costs now? The public owns the public roads so it's up to the public to maintain them.

Internal trade would collapse nearly overnight, the economy would break down, and anarchy would become reality in the first couple years.

What are you talking about?

-The government provides services to everyone within a certain geographical area. To live within that area you must pay taxes. The reason you can't opt out without moving out is because it would be impossible for you not to be getting a free ride off other people's money.

No one here ever said we shouldn't pay taxes, some of us just happen to oppose using taxes to enrich some people at the expense of others.

(If you live in Kansas, it's very hard to claim the army isn't stopping foreign invaders from harming you.)

And I don't oppose taxes to support an army as long as they are voluntary.

Property ownership is only possible with a government and a code of laws. Without the government your claim on your goods would only be as good as your shotgun/assault rifle.

Which is why government should be limited to protecting property rights.

-Barely, and because people all rallied to the cause. There is no cause that would gain as much support nowadays.

I just refuted your argument and now you want to debate whether or not we would come together for a common cause? How about another war?

-Quite on the contrary.

The Constitution is an anarchist document?

The constitution as it was written is an outdated piece of junk. I should not be sorry to see it burnt (well except for the Bill of Rights, I like that.)

Then change it through the amendment process.

-Hey, I'm in favor of a dollar a gallon tax on gasoline

If that's what it takes to maintain the road system.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
Imran give up the patriotic bull****. The constitution has had it's day. It was good then, it's outdated and inflexible. Just look how many liberties have to be taken with it so that this country can be governed.

As Dino said, proof? After all, you made the contention that it was outdated. Back it up .

You can give up your anti-American bull**** in the meanwhile. The Constitution is still a wonderful document that is amazing in the spine it has provided for the American system and culture.