- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 25,566
- Reaction score
- 36,346
- Location
- American Refugee in Europe
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
This might be one of the most incorrect economic statements that I've ever read. The stock market is not a zero sum game.Nothing could be further from the truth. It is a capital GAINS tax, not a capital tax (which DOES exist in some countries - heck even some states). You only pay capital gains tax on money that was given to you because your asset was sold for more than you paid. Problem is, when that happens, someone else had a corresponding loss (either in cash or value) and zero wealth is created - it is merely being redistributed.
Double taxation happens on DIVIDEND income - in which case the company pays its tax on earnings and then you pay again on your share of the tax paid profits of the company shared with you by paying a dividend.
An intelligent tax system would tax the living crap out of capital gains - because when a capital gain occurs, there is zero wealth created. 99% of what Wall Street does is just that - capital gains in the world of Casino Capitalism - where everything is run for a capital gain and nobody is INVESTING any money into productive ventures. Of course, the balance is that dividend income should NEVER be taxed - driving money into productive assets.
Now you know how I voted and why. Tax capital gains to death and kill of Wall Street's Casino Capitalism the creates zilch and bring CAPITALISM back into the world by leaving the field open for actual investment in businesses that make things and actually DO something. Most of the really wealthy people make very little of their money from wealth that is created - they instead live on capital gains from wealth that is re-distributed. No harm in taxing that back to discourage such horrid use of capital.
Meanwhile, do I think it will make any difference to the debt crisis? Hell no! The US makes Greece look like a truly conservative country. It is spending far, far beyond its diminished means and is doing nothing to make the money it will need in the future to fund even a modest portion of that largess.
Let's imagine a scenario for an instant. You want to form a company, you'll call it "Cannuck's High Quality Tables". You how ever don't have the start up resources for all the woodworking equipment you need, so you go to the market to look for investors. Mr. Romney comes along and says "I will give you $2 million dollars for a 40% stake in your company". (Kind of like the show 'Shark Tank', if you've ever seen it) Considering you'll never even get the business off the ground without him, you think that's a great deal, so you agree. Romney is taking a risk on you, he's risking $2 million on you, an investment that may or may not come to fruition.
You then go on to make the world's finest quality tables and sell each for thousands, and people far and wide travel to spend their money on your tables. You make massive profits, which you pay 40% to your investor, Romney, who helped get your business off the ground. Now, explain to me again where the victim is in this situation.
You've so clearly deemed Romney a leach, I want to know how he's boning you in this situation, and who's being robbed?