Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   "If stock prices rise, we should tax shareholders for their increased wealth, just like capital gains." What if stock prices fall -- do we offer tax breaks or incentives for lost income? "THAT'S CRAZY TALK"   (nytimes.com) divider line 222
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

2674 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 May 2014 at 8:56 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



222 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-06 04:47:38 PM  
If you go to a casino and win over 1,100 dollars, you get taxed. If you lose, you don't get shiat. Oh, I forgot....Casinos are for the poors.
 
2014-05-06 04:56:29 PM  
Here's a fix for everyone who wants corporations to be treated as people: if you move your corporation out of the U.S., you've renounced your citizenship, and you have to get a provisional visa to conduct business in the U.S., just like any other non-citizen.
 
2014-05-06 05:01:20 PM  
Let's tax capital gains at the same rate as labor.  Labor is far more valuable, and should actually be taxed at a lower rate than capital gains.
 
2014-05-06 05:11:14 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Let's tax capital gains at the same rate as labor.  Labor is far more valuable, and should actually be taxed at a lower rate than capital gains.


THIS
 
2014-05-06 05:20:03 PM  
"If stock prices rise, we should tax shareholders for their increased wealth, just like capital gains."

When you sell a stock for profit, it IS capital gains. Not sure what subby's getting at, and the article said nothing remotely like that - so this is probably going green.
 
2014-05-06 05:25:22 PM  
kidakita
If you go to a casino and win over 1,100 dollars, you get taxed. If you lose, you don't get shiat.


That's not correct. You can write off casino losses when winnings are taken into account.
 
2014-05-06 05:30:30 PM  

impaler: "If stock prices rise, we should tax shareholders for their increased wealth, just like capital gains."

When you sell a stock for profit, it IS capital gains. Not sure what subby's getting at, and the article said nothing remotely like that - so this is probably going green.


And you can usually offset losses against gains of the same character. Again, no reference to this issue that sunny plainly misunderstands in te article itself.
 
2014-05-06 05:42:20 PM  
To the main point of the article, companies dodging taxes through moving their headquarters abroad on paper, I have a simple solution - a 50% expatriation tax based on the total value of all of a company's assets without consideration to liabilities.

Do the same for individuals who attempt to shift their citizenship for tax purposes. Sure, you can go, but you give up half of your total assets first.
 
2014-05-06 05:47:32 PM  

kidakita: If you go to a casino and win over 1,100 dollars, you get taxed. If you lose, you don't get shiat. Oh, I forgot....Casinos are for the poors.


Actually, you can (and should) take a tax deduction for gambling losses.
 
2014-05-06 05:50:46 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Let's tax capital gains at the same rate as labor.  Labor is far more valuable, and should actually be taxed at a lower rate than capital gains.


And this is exactly why Wall Street will never elect you to be president, dummy.
 
2014-05-06 06:10:32 PM  

impaler: "If stock prices rise, we should tax shareholders for their increased wealth, just like capital gains."

When you sell a stock for profit, it IS capital gains. Not sure what subby's getting at, and the article said nothing remotely like that - so this is probably going green.


I realise TFA was completely irrelevant, but I thought subby was referring to taxation of marked-to-market unrealised gains and losses.
 
2014-05-06 06:11:29 PM  

kidakita: If you go to a casino and win over 1,100 dollars, you get taxed. If you lose, you don't get shiat. Oh, I forgot....Casinos are for the poors.



you can also write off those wins with losses, but you can never write off more losses than wins... basically it is a zero sum.

also subby is dumb, when I sell stocks for a profit I do get a capital gains tax.
 
2014-05-06 07:27:29 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: kidakita: If you go to a casino and win over 1,100 dollars, you get taxed. If you lose, you don't get shiat. Oh, I forgot....Casinos are for the poors.

Actually, you can (and should) take a tax deduction for gambling losses.


IIRC, there's a cap on it, something like $3K.
 
2014-05-06 08:01:37 PM  

doglover: Marcus Aurelius: Let's tax capital gains at the same rate as labor.  Labor is far more valuable, and should actually be taxed at a lower rate than capital gains.

THIS


THIS
/just to be clear
 
2014-05-06 08:11:58 PM  
If you work, you are guaranteed income. If you invest you take a risk of no income.

Get a real damn job.
 
2014-05-06 09:02:34 PM  
This is probably shocking to subby because living in his parents' basement and all means he doesn't get out much, but if a stock price falls below the price your purchased it and you sell that stock at a loss you get a tax break.
 
2014-05-06 09:04:16 PM  
What this country could really use is an 80% estate tax rate. Spawn could be given an option to take out low interest federally funded loans to buy their parents company to allow family farms and companies to stay in the family, but the free ride that's been supporting generations of Bushs, Kennedys, Rockefellers and whoever needs to end.

There are too many royal families in this country and that wealth should be put back into society.

Most of these folks are represented in the executive branch and congress which is why it's the only tax not seriously considered.
 
2014-05-06 09:04:45 PM  

kidakita: If you go to a casino and win over 1,100 dollars, you get taxed. If you lose, you don't get shiat. Oh, I forgot....Casinos are for the poors.


You know how I know you don't know anything about taxes?
 
2014-05-06 09:07:01 PM  

DamnYankees: Gecko Gingrich: kidakita: If you go to a casino and win over 1,100 dollars, you get taxed. If you lose, you don't get shiat. Oh, I forgot....Casinos are for the poors.

Actually, you can (and should) take a tax deduction for gambling losses.

IIRC, there's a cap on it, something like $3K.


Ya, and you can carry over to the next year for over $3k
 
2014-05-06 09:09:00 PM  

ramblinwreck: DamnYankees: Gecko Gingrich: kidakita: If you go to a casino and win over 1,100 dollars, you get taxed. If you lose, you don't get shiat. Oh, I forgot....Casinos are for the poors.

Actually, you can (and should) take a tax deduction for gambling losses.

IIRC, there's a cap on it, something like $3K.

Ya, and you can carry over to the next year for over $3k


I thought you had to be a professional gambler (however you prove that) in order to claim losses, but any gambler had to claim winnings.
 
2014-05-06 09:11:36 PM  
This is a problem that can be easily solved by banning imports from foreign nations.  If they can't ship their services and goods into the country they won't be able to set up HQ overseas to avoid taxes.

Either pay your taxes or you lose the privilege of doing business in America.
 
2014-05-06 09:14:13 PM  

Aarontology: If you work, you are guaranteed income. If you invest you take a risk of no income.

Get a real damn job.


Pretty sure that's sarcasm.. Pretty sure.
 
2014-05-06 09:16:13 PM  
FOR GOD-SAKE, you get NOTHING for making a bad investment!

no risk no reward you 1% moochers/tax-moochers/cheats/ne-erdowells!
 
2014-05-06 09:20:43 PM  

From Philly to Boston: kidakita
If you go to a casino and win over 1,100 dollars, you get taxed. If you lose, you don't get shiat.

That's not correct. You can write off casino losses when winnings are taken into account.


Winnings? At a casino? When? Where? How?
 
2014-05-06 09:20:51 PM  

sobriquet by any other name: FOR GOD-SAKE, you get NOTHING for making a bad investment!

no risk no reward you 1% moochers/tax-moochers/cheats/ne-erdowells!


Right! Yeah! The investors take all the risk, so they get all* the reward!

*Minus however much the government feels is appropriate to redistribute to themselves and others who took no risk.
 
2014-05-06 09:22:05 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: To the main point of the article, companies dodging taxes through moving their headquarters abroad on paper, I have a simple solution - a 50% expatriation tax based on the total value of all of a company's assets without consideration to liabilities.

Do the same for individuals who attempt to shift their citizenship for tax purposes. Sure, you can go, but you give up half of your total assets first.


This, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, THIS!
 
2014-05-06 09:22:18 PM  
International macroeconomic financial activities are very hard to brain.
 
2014-05-06 09:22:46 PM  
Subby got it right.  Currently, when you buy a share of stock no taxable event occurs until the share is sold.  Then you take the gain or loss.  TFA proposes "potentially introducing new concepts, such as taxing gains on investments as stock prices rise rather than when they are sold."
 
2014-05-06 09:24:32 PM  

impaler: "If stock prices rise, we should tax shareholders for their increased wealth, just like capital gains."

When you sell a stock for profit, it IS capital gains. Not sure what subby's getting at, and the article said nothing remotely like that - so this is probably going green.


TFA did, actually.

A more ambitious, and therefore more politically difficult idea, would be to scrap our unworkable corporate tax system altogether and instead tax shareholders, first by eliminating low tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

That would offset only a small portion of the loss of corporate tax revenue (a projected $350 billion in 2015), so we should raise the balance by eliminating loopholes enjoyed by wealthy Americans, increasing rates on their earned income and potentially introducing new concepts, such as taxing gains on investments as stock prices rise rather than when they are sold.


How often and when would you levy taxes on the unrealized gain?  Annually?  Quarterly?  Daily?  Do you get to use valuation losses of holdings within your portfolio to offset gains?

I'm not sure what the author is getting at, but I think he's proposing elimination of corporate taxes - which induce companies to engage in bizarre strategies to avoid/evade them, and nations to compete in a "global tax race to the bottom" - and replacing them with taxation of capital gains and dividends at the level of the end user, along with tweaks such as eliminating preferential tax treatment of income derived from investments rather than labor.
 
2014-05-06 09:28:15 PM  

Warlordtrooper: This is a problem that can be easily solved by banning imports from foreign nations.  If they can't ship their services and goods into the country they won't be able to set up HQ overseas to avoid taxes.


Right, so you want foreign nations to immediately retaliate by banning American exports.  Got it.
 
2014-05-06 09:30:13 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Let's tax capital gains at the same rate as labor.  Labor is far more valuable, and should actually be taxed at a lower rate than capital gains.


California does not tax labor, which makes invoicing in the trades kind of a biatch.
 
2014-05-06 09:30:31 PM  

IamKaiserSoze!!!: What this country could really use is an 80% estate tax rate.


Why?  The estate subject to this has already paid a lifetime of taxes on the income to build said estate.  It's been taxed once already.  Why do you believe that someone else's money first belongs to the government, and only then do we decide what portion heirs get to keep?
 
2014-05-06 09:31:47 PM  

DamnYankees: Gecko Gingrich: kidakita: If you go to a casino and win over 1,100 dollars, you get taxed. If you lose, you don't get shiat. Oh, I forgot....Casinos are for the poors.

Actually, you can (and should) take a tax deduction for gambling losses.

IIRC, there's a cap on it, something like $3K.


3K per year, but you can carry over losses to following years.
 
2014-05-06 09:31:49 PM  
How about we lower the tax rate the same as England ? Then the companies might stay here ?
 
2014-05-06 09:32:16 PM  
Let's start with getting the first bit done, then the second idea won't sound so much like another "tax berks fer jerb creters" whine about how unfair it is to be crazy f*cking rich.
 
2014-05-06 09:32:21 PM  

Sensei Can You See: sobriquet by any other name: FOR GOD-SAKE, you get NOTHING for making a bad investment!

no risk no reward you 1% moochers/tax-moochers/cheats/ne-erdowells!

Right! Yeah! The investors take all the risk, so they get all* the reward!

*Minus however much the government feels is appropriate to redistribute to themselves and others who took no risk.


how in the HECK can you say "others" didn't take risk on educating the children that became investors, who used public infrastructure to stay alive and grow their busienss.

Society invested in YOU, YES YOU, to give you a better chance to be productive and as Calvin's father (of Calvin and Hobbes) once observed.. do you think that was a gift.. or a LOAN?

Now go take out the trash, kid.
 
2014-05-06 09:33:41 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: Subby got it right.  Currently, when you buy a share of stock no taxable event occurs until the share is sold.  Then you take the gain or loss.  TFA proposes "potentially introducing new concepts, such as taxing gains on investments as stock prices rise rather than when they are sold."


and when I see a unrealized gain with a taxable load greater than my current liquid holdings?
 
2014-05-06 09:34:24 PM  
Don't tax investments based on their value-tax the trades. A flat fee for institutional investors like pension funds, and a percentage for all others. Then, when and how much the tax would be is completely in control of the investor. And it would go a long way towards curbing high speed trading and similar market distortions.
 
2014-05-06 09:39:50 PM  

mrmopar5287: IamKaiserSoze!!!: What this country could really use is an 80% estate tax rate.

Why?  The estate subject to this has already paid a lifetime of taxes on the income to build said estate.  It's been taxed once already.  Why do you believe that someone else's money first belongs to the government, and only then do we decide what portion heirs get to keep?


Because I don't believe the money should be out of circulation waiting for heirs who never contributed any value to society (yeah, I know I'm painting with a broad brush here) to inherit it over the next 100+ years. I'm one of the most anti tax guys you'll find on this board but I do have issues with American royalty.

Ideally, the individual who built the wealth could earmark recipients (in the form of 501c3 type organizations) of the funds so they wouldn'r necessarily go back to the feds, but the money should not stay in the family imho.
 
2014-05-06 09:42:05 PM  

Parthenogenetic: TFA did, actually.
...
How often and when would you levy taxes on the unrealized gain?  Annually?  Quarterly?  Daily?  Do you get to use valuation losses of holdings within your portfolio to offset gains?


Well OK then. Dumb idea.
 
2014-05-06 09:44:26 PM  

Saiga410: 4tehsnowflakes: Subby got it right.  Currently, when you buy a share of stock no taxable event occurs until the share is sold.  Then you take the gain or loss.  TFA proposes "potentially introducing new concepts, such as taxing gains on investments as stock prices rise rather than when they are sold."

and when I see a unrealized gain with a taxable load greater than my current liquid holdings?


Then you have to sell. Who cares if you're in an up-and-coming company, no more gains for you. Only those that have enough liquid assets get to keep it.

Yeah, this is really going to help the little guy.
 
2014-05-06 09:45:53 PM  

IamKaiserSoze!!!: mrmopar5287: IamKaiserSoze!!!: What this country could really use is an 80% estate tax rate.

Why?  The estate subject to this has already paid a lifetime of taxes on the income to build said estate.  It's been taxed once already.  Why do you believe that someone else's money first belongs to the government, and only then do we decide what portion heirs get to keep?


Because I don't believe the money should be out of circulation waiting for heirs who never contributed any value to society (yeah, I know I'm painting with a broad brush here) to inherit it over the next 100+ years. I'm one of the most anti tax guys you'll find on this board but I do have issues with American royalty.

Ideally, the individual who built the wealth could earmark recipients (in the form of 501c3 type organizations) of the funds so they wouldn'r necessarily go back to the feds, but the money should not stay in the family imho.


THIS. I can't believe, after only 250 years, the GOP has forgotten almost everything related to the actual concerns behind the founding of our country. They're aimed straight at creating the same over-class europe had before the US, and I think that's nigh traitorous, certainly ill-patriotic,  and completely regressive.
 
2014-05-06 09:45:58 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Let's tax capital gains at the same rate as labor.  Labor is far more valuable, and should actually be taxed at a lower rate than capital gains.


Ah No, Capital, goods, fixed assets, land and buildings, and intellectual property are valuable and even more valuable and important than labor... try digging the Panama Canal with your hands; we 10,000 laborers here, but no shovels... oh, and no design.

Try making a good ( hard or soft ) without machinery, a building, a truck to transport it... ah hah! We got 10,000 union joes standing around outside the gates of acme inc... but they produce nothing if there is no capital assets/ fixed plant/ raw and semi finished supply goods flowing in... So, no, you fail macro and micro econ 101/102...

and of course, no small businesses without someone to come forward and risk their $50,000.00 life savings ( and the money of their family members, 2nd mort on their house, etc); to found a small business. Let alone grow enough in order to hire a couple of people in the first year or two...
 
2014-05-06 09:48:45 PM  

mrmopar5287: IamKaiserSoze!!!: What this country could really use is an 80% estate tax rate.

Why?  The estate subject to this has already paid a lifetime of taxes on the income to build said estate.  It's been taxed once already.  Why do you believe that someone else's money first belongs to the government, and only then do we decide what portion heirs get to keep?


The estate is dead. To the recipient is UNEARNED income. Why should they pay less than I do on my EARNED income (which was already taxed by the person giving it to me).
 
2014-05-06 09:49:01 PM  

Swampmaster: Marcus Aurelius: Let's tax capital gains at the same rate as labor.  Labor is far more valuable, and should actually be taxed at a lower rate than capital gains.

Ah No, Capital, goods, fixed assets, land and buildings, and intellectual property are valuable and even more valuable and important than labor... try digging the Panama Canal with your hands; we 10,000 laborers here, but no shovels... oh, and no design.

Try making a good ( hard or soft ) without machinery, a building, a truck to transport it... ah hah! We got 10,000 union joes standing around outside the gates of acme inc... but they produce nothing if there is no capital assets/ fixed plant/ raw and semi finished supply goods flowing in... So, no, you fail macro and micro econ 101/102...

and of course, no small businesses without someone to come forward and risk their $50,000.00 life savings ( and the money of their family members, 2nd mort on their house, etc); to found a small business. Let alone grow enough in order to hire a couple of people in the first year or two...


except how many times do you think you can charge the same price for technology a century old? You're going to have to come to terms with the fact that intellectual property (esp. in regards to 3D printing) is going to devalue the living crap out of these things that are SO important to you. Ideas are becoming cheaper by the day! What's left? The cost of human attention to customize and direct..  labor.
 
2014-05-06 09:49:48 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: Marcus Aurelius: Let's tax capital gains at the same rate as labor.  Labor is far more valuable, and should actually be taxed at a lower rate than capital gains.

And this is exactly why Wall Street will never elect you to be president, dummy.


you have been reading a book haven't you...
 
2014-05-06 09:49:58 PM  

sobriquet by any other name: IamKaiserSoze!!!: mrmopar5287: IamKaiserSoze!!!: What this country could really use is an 80% estate tax rate.

Why?  The estate subject to this has already paid a lifetime of taxes on the income to build said estate.  It's been taxed once already.  Why do you believe that someone else's money first belongs to the government, and only then do we decide what portion heirs get to keep?

Because I don't believe the money should be out of circulation waiting for heirs who never contributed any value to society (yeah, I know I'm painting with a broad brush here) to inherit it over the next 100+ years. I'm one of the most anti tax guys you'll find on this board but I do have issues with American royalty.

Ideally, the individual who built the wealth could earmark recipients (in the form of 501c3 type organizations) of the funds so they wouldn'r necessarily go back to the feds, but the money should not stay in the family imho.

THIS. I can't believe, after only 250 years, the GOP has forgotten almost everything related to the actual concerns behind the founding of our country. They're aimed straight at creating the same over-class europe had before the US, and I think that's nigh traitorous, certainly ill-patriotic,  and completely regressive.


Seriously? You think this is a partisan issue?

It's the one part of tax policy where there is bi partisan agreement.
 
2014-05-06 09:51:05 PM  

IamKaiserSoze!!!: What this country could really use is an 80% estate tax rate. Spawn could be given an option to take out low interest federally funded loans to buy their parents company to allow family farms and companies to stay in the family, but the free ride that's been supporting generations of Bushs, Kennedys, Rockefellers and whoever needs to end.

There are too many royal families in this country and that wealth should be put back into society.

Most of these folks are represented in the executive branch and congress which is why it's the only tax not seriously considered.


this
 
2014-05-06 09:51:34 PM  

IamKaiserSoze!!!: Ideally, the individual who built the wealth could earmark recipients (in the form of 501c3 type organizations) of the funds so they wouldn'r necessarily go back to the feds, but the money should not stay in the family imho.


In relation to family businesses/farms I wholly disagree with this.

Your previous suggestion was for low-interest loans so that heirs could keep the business in the family but I just don't see any reason that they should be forced to "buy back" something that they presumably were involved in running for many years (assuming it is a true family business with heirs involved a good length of time before the point of death of the original owner).

There just isn't any reason for an heir to help run a business and then be forced to pay a chunk of the business income (in addition to taxes already paid) to the government for years as a form of Tribute that allows them to keep the business.
 
2014-05-06 09:51:38 PM  

IamKaiserSoze!!!: sobriquet by any other name: IamKaiserSoze!!!: mrmopar5287: IamKaiserSoze!!!: What this country could really use is an 80% estate tax rate.

Why?  The estate subject to this has already paid a lifetime of taxes on the income to build said estate.  It's been taxed once already.  Why do you believe that someone else's money first belongs to the government, and only then do we decide what portion heirs get to keep?

Because I don't believe the money should be out of circulation waiting for heirs who never contributed any value to society (yeah, I know I'm painting with a broad brush here) to inherit it over the next 100+ years. I'm one of the most anti tax guys you'll find on this board but I do have issues with American royalty.

Ideally, the individual who built the wealth could earmark recipients (in the form of 501c3 type organizations) of the funds so they wouldn'r necessarily go back to the feds, but the money should not stay in the family imho.

THIS. I can't believe, after only 250 years, the GOP has forgotten almost everything related to the actual concerns behind the founding of our country. They're aimed straight at creating the same over-class europe had before the US, and I think that's nigh traitorous, certainly ill-patriotic,  and completely regressive.

Seriously? You think this is a partisan issue?

It's the one part of tax policy where there is bi partisan agreement.


I do. you might have agreement that children should inherit  something but to equate the 40K i got from my parents to the Walton family... HINT: not the same thing. You're talking about creating royalty, and worse, from those that did nothing to earn it save pop out the right chute. That's "royalty" in my book.
 
Displayed 50 of 222 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report