The Glade 4.0

That's a textbook view of stock pricing, though, Vind, not really a description of how stocks are actually priced. P/E ratios have been completely whacked for decades. To a large extent, stocks are priced based on speculation not underlying corporate profits. Also, it's worth noting that virtually every time a dollar moves between parties it gets taxed - whether it moves as dividends, wages, sales price, whatever - so in a sense, everything is double-taxed, triple-taxed, quadruple-taxed, and so on, and the price of every single product and service in the entire economy (not just capital gains on stock sales) has all those upstream taxes implicitly built in.

That's fine, but its hard to accept the statement the "Buffett Rule" includes "X" when there is no written description of what exactly is meant by the "Rule" other than "rich people should pay their fair share", even as stupid as that statement is considering reality.

RD:
It is how stocks are actually priced, whether you believe it's accurate or not is another topic. If, as you say, the P/E ratio is "completely whacked" then an investor is either more egregiously double taxed taxed or double taxed to a lesser extent, it doesn't change the fact that it's a double tax. You may not care, or be bothered that it's a double tax, that's fine, it's your prerogative, but it is a fact.

What you have purported to care about is the need for capital investment, and obviously taxing capital investments leads to less capital investment, by the nature of a tax. If people really cared about the economic growth of the country, rather than some nebulous concept of economic justice, those that sought to lift up the "uderpriviledged" would seek to increase capital investment so that more companies would exist to hire people, and those companies that currently exist would be able to hire more people. Those employed people now have income that could purchase goods, all of which would increase the tax income of the Gov't far more than the tax income currently derived from capital gains taxes. Taxing capital investment and personal saving is, undeniably, detrimental to the economic health of every citizen, rich or poor. That should be the concern of those seeking "social justice" - the long term health and wellness of every citizen, not the short term good feelings derived from taking money from those that have more and giving it to those who have less (while the Gov't takes their 40% cut for the privilege of overseeing such good works).

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

No, I don't think you do given your response.


You are correct, the concept of what is taxed as "capital gains" does include more than distributions... it also includes changes in inflationary value of real assets, monetary assets, etc. Of course, not many people consider the governmental sponsored inflation (require more like it) as a tax on real value, but it is a steady downward pressure on your previous work/effort.

As to what the actual percentages of income derived by various means that fall under "capital gains", I don't know, but I suspect you don't either, so "small portion" is likely inaccurate.


Now you are limiting the discussion to a smaller pool of people that is actually affected by the rules. Not sure why, as it has no impact on the reason why capital gains tax is traditionally lower than income tax... because the money is already taxed once.


Again, not related the reasoning on the lower tax rate for capital gains compared to income. Whats more, it sounds as if you think I at some point suggested eliminating one of them. I did not.


If you believe this, I would suspect you support a lower capital gains tax compared to income, as a means to minimize double taxation.

Apparently I hit Submit when I stepped away from the computer, but in following up with my comment RD, there is no issue with your "example" that attempts to create a tax dodge environment.



The money is still taxed under income tax laws at the company level. Yes, the government loses out.. they lose the ability to tax the same pot of money 2x.

I think there is a document someplace... hasn't been seen a while though, that makes that illegal.

To be honest, the best way to get "Buffett" or someone similar to pay their "fair share", assuming no overhauls of the tax system, is to eliminate certain types of interest-paid deductions. The problem, however, is that Buffett doesn't actually have "income" for the most part.

_________________

From an article today in the WSJ on this topic..

The vast majority of labor is absolutely fungible. There is almost always someone who can do your exact job, just as well as you can, if not better.

Not really ...

To be truly fungible, every human being should be able to do your exact job. Every human being ...

_________________

Bolts are fungible. Not every bolt can do exactly the same job. There are different qualities to them, similar to different certifications or training. Do not confuse the individual strengths that a specific person brings to a job with the fact that there are a bunch of other people who could do that same job.

Bolts aren't fungible either. That group is too broad.

1/4 x 2-3/4" CT Grade 8 Bolts are fungible

Raw copper is fungible.

Pork bellies are fungible.

Bolts are not.

_________________

Ok, well if you want to play that game.

An Automotive Assembly Line worker with 2 years of experience with engine builds is fungible.

A stenographer with 5 years of courtroom experience is fungible.

An Audi mechanic with 10 years of experience is fungible.

I think you guys just like saying fungible.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

I know I do.

_________________

It's fun!(gible).

Still untrue. There are things that distinguish one person from another.

_________________
Tangu Matraa

So, are you fungible, Aizle? You can just be swapped out without a hitch in productivity?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Am I replaceable? Absolutely. Everyone is.

Now in all fairness to Khross, people are not really completely fungible, as in a clone of someone else or exactly the same. However, as employees they are absolutely a commodity.



The fact is that employees are today already treated by the market as a commodity. Every single position in every single company that I've worked for was replaceable. In most positions, replaceable without any real noticable decline in performance. (and often with a noticable increase in performance) But even in those specialized positions that require a lot of expertise and specialized skill, those positions are replaceable.

Hell, I'm in the process of transitioning my work to new employees because I'm moving to another company. My customers (the market) spent about 5-15 minutes giving me **** about leaving and then had moved on and got into the groove of working with my replacement.

I'm beginning to think you value some things a lot less than you should, Aizle; namely ... yourself. That said ...

Positions are fungible; people are not. People trained to exist solely for a given position are commoditized to the highest degree and fungible within the narrow scope of that position, but there are precious jobs for which human beings are truly fungible (and that includes foodstuffs).

And, once you pass a certain point, you cease to become a commodity and become an asset ... and that's an entirely different beast indeed.

_________________