im arguing that your wealth vs income is word play and its a mix bagged of how they are treated. also, that the risk could be computed the same. So the tax rates should be the same in my example because my wealth created income. Stocks or opening a business, again you are splitting hairs because of IRS and congressional designations and not talking about what exactly is right or wrong.
Ok. Then your argument is wrong. It is based in profound misunderstanding of economic principles. From the very onset you are flawed. Wealth =/= income. Read any economics, finance, or accounting text book, or consider a simple example. Who is more wealthy... the man with the $10,000,000 a year income or the man with the positive net worth? Can't answer it? That is the difference between income and wealth, and since wealth has an inflationary component to it taxing accumulation as if it were earned in present dollars would be punitive and dumb.
you're still not getting it. my argument is not wrong i said income gained from wealth, I never said taxing wealth. Again you are splitting hairs. any income gained from money invested. You are assuming im arguing for taxing the basis. the basis has likely already been taxed, so tax the in excess at the same rate.
You think it is a good idea to tax gains as income? If you bought a stock for 10 bucks in 1990 and it is worth 100 today rate what is the effective tax rate on that gain? the answer is much greater than 15%. If you tax it at the normal marginal rate the effective tax rate is greater than the marginal rate. The policies you favor punish the accumulation of wealth. That is not healthy for anyone.
I will answer this when I get home this evening, i have to go, but boy are you wrong. cause you wouldnt have a problem with it the other way. Taxing "income" at cap rates.
So you are both denying that paying less taxes give you more money in your pocket? I guess if the evil rich people paid 70% you would be better off. *Let em hate and watch the money pile up ?
