Capital gains investments should be taxed at 90%

First off let me start by saying that I don't care about your pension. You should educate yourself and demand that that money be put in YOUR pocket and spend it wisely. In my opinion if we didn't have this safety net line social security people would be forced into a paradigm where they would have to invest wisely and spend their money with intelligence.

Now here's my proposal.

In my opinion all of what capital gains are is investing into the growth of a company at the expense of the individuals working for that company. Now what begins to happen is by the simple act of having money ou get to make a huge ROI off just having it off of the backs of the people working their butt off everyday to create the original value in the first place.

You've done nothing to create a value the people on the ground working hard for 10$ an hour are the ones who actually produce the most.

It's a backwards system that rewards apathy and lazyness.

Now the bulk of consumers are the ones bearing the brunt of this assault in multiple forms. One huge one being taxes on good and trade. Again the majority of the people affected by this are those at the bottom of the pyramid as they consume the most.

So what I think needs to happen is that all capital gains be taxed at 90% and the money be used directly on infrastructure projects and the space program. This will invigorate the economy by providing Mullins of high paying jobs and it will also improve our culture of greed and help us expand our knowing to a universal level.

Problem solved.

One slight problem.. No one would invest in companies with such such a high tax band, therefore a high risk investment. This could then cause companies to close without interested investors and cause major job loses. So would be counter productive to what you are proposing..

BTW.. You need to do a little more research on capital gains, because from your thread I'm not sure you fully understand it.

originally posted by: onequestion

In my opinion all of what capital gains are is investing into the growth of a company at the expense of the individuals working for that company. Now what begins to happen is by the simple act of having money ou get to make a huge ROI off just having it off of the backs of the people working their butt off everyday to create the original value in the first place.

I have no idea, what you mean. This might just be because I am not a native English speaker, so bear with me.

Capital gains are the profit made from sale of real estate, bonds and so on. I fail to see how sale of these equates to "investing into the growth of the company at the expense of individuals working for there company." Could you please elaborate on that?

Also, why do you assume that "you have done nothing to create value"? I know plenty of company owners that work pretty darn hard to keep their companies alive and the jobs of their employees secure. If the shares in their companies rises in value, oftentime it is the result of years and years of incredibly hard work done by the owners - to a salary well below minimum wage.

You are willing to earn next to nothing, hire people and risc financial disaster because of the chance to make it up. However, if you remove (or severely limit) the chance to cash in EVEN if you succeed, then I bet the willingness to take a chance and in the process create jobs will go bye bye.

And much worse than that - you remove ANY chance of getting funding by investment to expand or start up or your business in the first place.

a reply to: DupontDeux

I'm talking about the stock market for the most part.

People will be more intelligent with their money especially if their making more enabling them to invest in the company themselves.

a reply to: DupontDeux

Giving someone money isn't really do anything other than giving someone money.

Yeah it's risky.

So what?

That doesn't mean you get to enslave thousands of people.

I am a working class slob like most of us anymore.

I do have some investments, long and short term.

I do not want to see capital gains taxes increased.

Long term investments provide opportunity for growth both for the investor and investee.

Short term investments provide liquidity for the markets.

Pinching off most of the motivation for profits or investments would destroy from the bottom up.

I'm not sure if you're aware that the general outlook and tone of this post is very much in line with 20th Century Communist philosophy ... as well as stuff that Thomas Paine wrote in the 19th century like "Agrarian Justice" ...

... nothing wrong with that ... just noting it.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I win I used the word communist!

a reply to: smirkley

I get that but it's fundamentally flawed. If people actually had more leverage in today's market they would be getting a higher percentage of their time and labor investment increasing that opportunity for the majority of citizens.

But because we no longer have leverage in the labor market we have a massive and growing class divide due to the fact that simply having money will make you more money.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Gryphon66

I win I used the word communist!

LOL ... sure, you win.

In a way, your plan mirrors the economic engine of the 1950s in the US as well, so, good job!

Keep your flame-retardant gloves near your keyboard as this goes on though, LOL.

a reply to: onequestion

True. And you could relate that to the deflation of employee union strength.

Companies are naturally greedy. And nothing done would cause them to raise everyones standard of living at the loss of corporate growth and profit for the shareholders.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I already know.

Of corse people will blindly ignore history to support a biased opinion.

originally posted by: smirkley
a reply to: onequestion

True. And you could relate that to the deflation of employee union strength.

Companies are naturally greedy. And nothing done would cause them to raise everyones standard of living at the loss of corporate growth and profit for the shareholders.

Yes exactly. It gives the people with money way to much leverage in he financial markets and creates an untouchable class of wealthy elite.

If you bought some gold a long time ago, and sold it today, would you feel it fair to have 90% of your profits being taken by the government and redistributed? In my experience, the more the government siphons from successful investors and innovators, the worst off the overall economy will be, because the government is absolutely terrible at managing and using that money. Your logic may seem reasonable on the surface, but in practice it produces stagnant economies and stifles innovation.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Funny because during he most prosperous time our country has every seen taxes were at their highest for the ultra wealthy.

Link

Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

So weird how I have a recent historical example to support my position but you have the exact opposite of that happening today and look at what's going on...

Weird isn't it?

Oh great another thread by someone that doesn't understand investing.

Wanna destroy retirement accounts? Tax them at 90%

Because that's what you'll be doing. Capital gains aren't just company profits being invested. A lot of retirement accounts rely on capital gains for growth.

Progressives and their confiscatory tax ideas...What more to say?

So why should i have to give 90% of part of my income, retirement, nest egg whatever... To the government how have they earned the right to take 90 cents and give me a dime?

a reply to: onequestion

I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of higher taxes for higher incomes, clearly Trump's plan to reduce taxes for the highest earners is not a good idea. What I disagree with is the idea of allowing the government to take a huge percentage of wealth generated by private interests. During the period of time you cite, the U.S. national debt was very small, the government was much smaller than it is now, the industrial revolution and war time climate ensured there wasn't any lack of jobs. Those conditions cannot be recreated today and there is no reason to assume what worked then would work just as well today. The U.S. government in today's world is bloated and highly inefficient when it comes to spending money wisely, most of it goes towards paying off debts, defense spending, and paying for entitlement programs.

I am not American so I have an outside perspective and it's very apparent to me that innovators and investors are the driving force behind a successful economy. You may not realize this but the U.S. actually has a very strong economy compared to most nations on Earth. If you travel to another nation you will find yourself amazed at how much higher the prices for general goods and services can be and how much harder it can be to locate those goods and services. You guys have an entire region called Silicon Valley dedicated to technological innovation, you have Wall St dedicated to finance, etc. Here in Australia we don't really have that sort of thing, innovation is lacking and we have more social security programs than you guys. The repercussions of that is a stagnant economy and a weak dollar, similar to the situation in Canada.

A business climate which is not welcoming to innovators and investors will cause businesses to go else where. Our last refrigerator manufacturer recently closed their last factory in Australia and has moved all their operations overseas. That has happened to many Australian manufacturers over the last decade and it will continue to occur as our nation becomes more and more socialist. Have a look at a nation like Hong Kong, they have what is possibly the freest market on Earth with very low taxes, yet they rank in the top 10 nations for GDP per capita and the Hong Kong dollar is the 13th most traded currency in the world. Sure they a very high income inequality, but the average income is very good and the poorest classes are still better off than the poorest classes in other nations.

Furthermore, in the time period you cite, there were much less business and financial regulations, the dollar was pegged to a gold standard instead of being backed by debt, and the government wasn't large enough to carry out highly socialist agendas such as massive bailouts of failing corporations using tax payer dollars. Overall, free market capitalism is superior to extreme socialism or communism, even if there are some people who wont have the best standard of living. It drives technological development and allows society to advance much faster than it would with a nanny state which doesn't leave anyone behind. It's simply the cost of advancement, as the old saying goes, there is no gain without any pain. That's not to say any degree of socialism is undesirable, I believe in a balance between capitalism and socialism, but it's important not to let the socialist aspects get out of hand.

Well, a couple things... first of all the link you showed is showing income tax, not capital gains tax, there is a difference.

Secondly, i wouldn't call the 1950's "the most prosperous time our country has ever seen".

And thirdly, if im not mistake WW2 ended in 1945 so basically your getting a huge boom from a post-war economy, so its not exactly comparable to any other time in America's economy. There were a ton of factors related to the war that were boosting the economy for awhile afterwards.

Fourthly, today the wealthy are in the best position to avoid taxes due to loopholes, so realistically even though at some point the tax is so high on income tax, chances are most really wealthy people are/were simple not paying it.

Fifthly, Today is very different then the 1950's(potentially more then 60 years ago), we are a more global economy and often times if a company(or individual) feels to much pressure preventing his progress from a certain country, they just pick up and leave....if you create such a high tax the companies will just move where the taxes are lower and where the labour is likely cheaper, and those places will welcome them with open arms.

The economy can seem really simple if you take it at face value, and its tempting to simple react to unpleasent things in life with knee-jerk reactions, but the economy is alot more complicated then most of the population will ever realize, and even people who spend their whole career's studying it still have problems. Sometimes what seems like the obvious solution infact causes the opposite effect of what you wanted. In this case trying to tax wealthy people more because they are increasing their wealth exponentially due partly to power and monopoly their wealth often brings them creating an uneven playing field, but this will very likely lead to a loss of jobs and innovation and a lose of spreading the wealthy to lower classes.

Nothing is black and white and I"m not saying its a completely bad idea, i understand the sentiment and having higher taxes could potentially help in some ways but I think the negatives would ultimately be far greater then the positives.

Certain people will always possess more power then others, whether it be by wealth or by politics and influence, its part of what makes us human and it can't be avoided, even in the systems that are meant to spread that power around we have always ended up with people that had way more then others. This is the way it is for most life forms, the individuals who risk the most and survive are the ones most likely to have reaped the rewards of that risk, which is power in a number of different forms even if on a simple level it just means you have plenty of food while everyone else around you is barely getting by.

I feel like your attitude is that people investing money into something are providing no value and shouldnt be rewarded based on the risk they are taking that they could lose all of it.

Giving someone money isn't really do anything other than giving someone money. Yeah it's risky. So what? That doesn't mean you get to enslave thousands of people.

Out of all your comments this one makes the least sense and seems the most biased, just doesn't seem very reasonable at all.

Why isn't investing money into a business that needs that money to grow and/or sustain itself, "not really doing anything", your providing something thats necessary, a business could go out of business if it doesnt get an investment in alot of cases, or it can't grow fast enough to meet the demand it has for its products/services, thus losing out on a ton of revenue(all of which would likely be creating jobs in order to get that). Put yourself in the shoes of an investor, what incentive do you have to invest your money if there is no payoff? none, the only time in life anyone takes a risk, is if the reward outweighs the possible risk of lose, this isn't just an idea wealthy people came up with, this is the way most biological systems work.

Also I'm not sure you understand the idea of slavery, I think i understand the sentiment but I think its an exaggeration of the power employer's have over the employee's. If you as an employee don't think your getting paid enough for the work you do, then by all means either find another job that does appreciate you more, or make a business yourself. But all your doing is taking on the risk of a business and the potential rewards that come with it(or potential lose).

Yes its true as an employee you will NEVER get paid for the full value of the work you do, if your getting paid 10$ an hour your employer/boss could be making 20$ an hour from your work, but again he's also taking the risk that he could lose everything... not just money either but time.... if after 2 years the company goes belly up, he loses everything, whereas you as an employee just lose your job, you don't have to invest money to get a job that will disappear should things not go as you hoped. Except for a handful of people, most of the people who invest in a business got that money by hard work, it isn't just dropped in their lap no strings attached.

I could keep going on but I think my comment is already large enough(sorry about that).

a reply to: onequestion

So your plan is to have a total of 1 corporation in the USA?

Which would be the government I guess.

Which would mean goods and services costs would skyrocket and nobody would have any money to do anything since there would be no actual good paying jobs.

No investors either, which means the stock market would just crash....banks would fold, the Fortune 500 would collapse.

Cause at 90% capital gains tax that's what would happen. And excuse me, but as somebody who has build businesses from the ground up, I most certainly deserved every penny I made while running it.

Not every corporation or business are a bunch of lying thieves who take advantage of their employees for their profit margins.

Sure it's broken the way it is now, but taxing people at 90% is not the answer. Doesn't matter where you funnel the money.

~Tenth