Seems you like using class warfare for the rich. And before you try another tired post suggesting I don't pay my fair share, I pay more than that but I'm not complaining like some whining ass baby like the right are.
We live in the greatest country in the world, even with the tax rates the way they are now, if you feel otherwise maybe you and others should consider moving to a more "fair" country. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out!
When the IRS gives money back to investors for capital losses, then we'll negotiate.
Look at it like this: capital gains are essentially taxed at 15%, and capital losses are taxed at 100% rate.
Seems fair to me. Anyone against that has probably never heard of the term "risk assessment".
Nothing yet, but at least you tried....Look, what would you ascribe to this statement...
What's fair is fair, we are supposed to be "equal under the law".... A progressive taxation system doesn't do this....When you start looking at income and taxes from the point of view of how it affects a person's life rather than a static number of dollars, then you will better understand the tax code.
I find that hard to believe.
I think that you might be confused or otherwise in error.
I may be wrong.
I was being facetious. I'm saying that capital losses, from a firsthand perspective, are the same as paying a 100% tax insofar that you have nothing (other than a write-off).
This is why I invoked risk. It's a lower rate because capital gains can easily be capital losses, meaning that it's a reflection of risk premiums (on a macro level). If you go to work for 40 hours a week at an establishment, the likelihood of you receiving a paycheck for that work is around 100%. For income subjected to CGT, there is a chance that anything you invest could magically disappear. It seems foolish to apply the same tax rate for both types of income when there is a huge risk disparity.
Risk always makes a difference. This is why portfolios are diverse, and you won't see them based mostly on investments that are volatile. A good portfolio should be 50% stable securities at the very least. High profit investment tools should be the tip of an iceberg. Why do you think that municipal bonds tend to have lower rates? They're tax exempt. Makes sense, don't you agree?Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon