Capital Gains Taxes

[Anonymous No.82731]

>love this new board
>started saving money like a week before it was created
>started researching a bunch of different ways to invest and how to have a solid portfolio
>excited to start building my future now while I'm young

>learn about capital gains taxes
>learn I have to pay all this money to the government of what I make from stocks, bonds, commodities, forex, savings accounts, even buying and saving gold
>investing is pointless
>there's no way out of grinding poverty
>become a neet again
>kill myself

W-why?

;.;

[Anonymous No.82803]

>>82731
Unless you live in NZ which has no capital gains.

Suck it up, I live in the UK with 40% income tax and 28% capital gains. I don't think there's any developed country with higher taxes than that.

Although I do plan to move back to NZ after I make big money in the UK, so I'll probably end up avoiding the capital gains.

[Anonymous No.82797]

How much do you make a year total OP

[Anonymous No.82812]

>>82731
>paying taxes

[Anonymous No.82825]

>>82731

Yeah, it sucks, but you have to deal with it like everyone else.

P.S. That's why traders you meet are fanatical about low taxes.

[Bro-ker !!KUYyyJ1towZ No.82848]

>>82731
Because, all those evil investors need to pay their fair share because they are bad and make money off everyone elses work and don't contribute and are a cancer on society.

I know cuz my professor told me so, freshman year is so great

[OP No.82849]

>>82797
Like 35k

>>82803
I live in Canada.

>>82825
>Yeah, it sucks, but you have to deal with it like everyone else
Why did nobody tell me about this shit on here?

[Anonymous No.82857]

>>82849
Did no one tell you about income tax on dividends too?

Just be glad you only live in one country.

[OP No.82867]

>>82857
>Did no one tell you about income tax on dividends too?
Fuuuucccck

[Anonymous No.82860]

Oh it's not that bad you pussy.

[OP No.82874]

>>82860
How much are they where you live?
The tax code is so complex here I have no idea what I'm supposed to be paying and how to report it.

There must be some way to pay less capital gains taxes.

[Anonymous No.82876]

we have double taxation.

Shareholders own the company, which is taxed. This taxation hurts the share price.

Yet a shareholder must also pay taxes on dividends and when they sell shares. it's totally not fair.

Shareholders already bear the cost of taxation when the corporation pays taxes to the government. There should be no capital gains or dividend taxes!

[Anonymous No.82881]

>>82849

Why are you complaining then? You do understand you don't have to pay them right?

[Anonymous No.82896]

>>82876
additionally people are pulling for a corporate tax now.

[OP No.82897]

>>82881
>You do understand you don't have to pay them right?
REALLY?

What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.82902]

>>82876
Most countries have some sort of imputation credit system to stop you from getting taxed twice on dividends.

I never thought about capital gains like that though...

>>82874
It's not even that much for you. At the top tax rate of 43% you'd only pay 21.5% capital gains.
If you're only earning $35k you'd barely have to pay any tax at all.

[OP No.82916]

>>82902
>At the top tax rate of 43% you'd only pay 21.5% capital gains.
Why is it cut in half?
>If you're only earning $35k you'd barely have to pay any tax at all.
Why?

[Anonymous No.82929]

>>82897

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[Anonymous No.82944]

>>82848
sociology majors unite!

[Anonymous No.82956]

>>82916

Capital gains and new income are taxed differently.

>>82929

Dude already said he lived in Snowistan.

[Anonymous No.82960]

>2014

>still using taxable currency

Stupid goyim never learn

[OP No.82970]

>>82960
If the government didn't have legal tender laws everyone would use bitcoins as a currency.

>>82956
>Capital gains and new income are taxed differently.
What's new income and what is capital gains?

[Anonymous No.82976]

>>82916
At 35k per year you'd pay 15% income tax.
Source: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

With 15% income tax rate, you'd pay 7.5% capital gains because that's the law.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax#Canada

Had to use wikipedia because Canada has the worst fucking IRD site I've ever seen.

[Anonymous No.82994]

If you hold onto dollars it loses value over time due to inflation.

If you want to retire, own your own house and car, and never have to work again you HAVE to invest in something besides currency.

Government pension/social security is bullshit and it's not going to be there.

[Anonymous No.83004]

>>82976
Thanks.

But what if I made like 35k ONLY in capital gains.

would it still only be 7.5%?

[Anonymous No.83005]

>>82876
Invest in Master Limited Partnerships then you faggot.

[Anonymous No.82998]

If you don't understand all of the following terms and their associated tax rates, you should probably not be investing.

Ordinary Income (OI)
Non-Qualified Dividends
Qualified Dividends
Short-Term Capital Gains (STCG)
Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG)

[Anonymous No.83030]

So we already tax corporate profits,

Then we tax the distribution of (already taxed) corporate profits to shareholders

And not only that, but since most people invest a portion of their labour income (which has also been taxed) into stocks, that means you see lower returns than you would have seen had you invested a larger portion of your income, but you couldn't invest that larger portion because the government had already taken it away.

So does that mean that for the average middle or working class investor, they are hit three times?

[Anonymous No.83022]

>>83005

>Schedule K-1

[Anonymous No.83048]

>>82994

>If you want to retire, own your own house and car, and never have to work again you HAVE to invest in something besides currency.

Unless, you know, bankers stopped being complete scum and raised interest rates up from 0%.

>tfw they force you to invest in stocks and then they just front-run you and crash the market and take all your money anyway

[Anonymous No.83054]

>>82994
>Government pension/social security is bullshit and it's not going to be there.

Kind of unrelated but I work with pensions and by the time any of us retire, the age is probably going to be between 70-75 years old.

And you'll probably live til about 100.

Start savin' boys.

>>83004
No, 15% is the minimum tax bracket for Canada. I don't know if capital gains pushes you into other income tax brackets though, so I don't know what the rate would be if you made $100k in pure capital gains with no income earned for the year.

[Anonymous No.83056]

>>83022
Taxes are easy to file, only morons have any trouble.

[Anonymous No.83066]

>>83048
>>>/pol/

Antisemitism is not allowed.

[Anonymous No.83082]

>>83056
Bullshit, you obviously don't have diversified assets in multiple countries.

There's a reason tax accountants exist.

[Anonymous No.83089]

>>83048
>Unless, you know, bankers stopped being complete scum and raised interest rates up from 0%.
You know that's never going to happen.
The economy is so unstable, if it did happen it would crash the economy.

>>83054
>Kind of unrelated but I work with pensions and by the time any of us retire, the age is probably going to be between 70-75 years old.
Doubt it, the currency social security is priced in will go to shit leaving you with basically nothing. People don't realize this.
Social security is bankrupt and is already a massive unfunded liability.

[Anonymous No.83094]

>>83082
>Not being an accountant

[Anonymous No.83108]

>>83022

ah yes, my favorite form that COMES WITH ITS OWN BOOK ON TO EXPLAIN IT

[Anonymous No.83114]

>>82970

New income is generally money you earned from labor. Capital gains is generally money you made from investments.

[Anonymous No.83117]

>>82731
>just learning about cap gains taxes
>seriously butthurt at having to pay 15% of earnings in taxes
>is way lower than income tax
So, what, does your income tax currently discourage you from working? You're a fucking retard.

>become neet again
No, you're just a weak faggot who was never going to do it in the first place and was just looking for excuses to bail out anyway and stay yourself.

And holy shit at all the faggots replying to you and riding your dick. Take it from a real finance major (...who works as an accountant, but nonetheless), cap gains are fucking NOTHING compared to the rest of your tax burden. You don't even PAY cap gains taxes and you're complaining about them? Are you seriously retarded, or just 18 years old??

I bet you were looking at day trading, because it would allow you to continue your lifestyle of being a neet. Probably a good thing you bailed out now, because you would have lost whatever money you were going to play with almost immediately.

>investing is point less

Yeah, totally, look at all those billionaires who made their money without ever investing.

Jesus you're a retard. I hope you're not indicative of the quality of this board.

[Anonymous No.83132]

>>83089
>Doubt it, the currency social security is priced in will go to shit leaving you with basically nothing. People don't realize this.
>Social security is bankrupt and is already a massive unfunded liability.

Sorry, that was my point. The retirement ages will go up so we'll be working longer, the pension amount will be minimal so we'll be surviving rather than living, and we'll be living longer as well so we have to make whatever finances we have stretch further.

Not looking good if you were planning to rely on the pension.

[Anonymous No.83122]

>>82849
>Why did nobody tell me about this shit on here?
It's just one of those easter eggs you have to find for yourself.

[Anonymous No.83123]

>>83117
Calm down anon, he's just funposting.

[Anonymous No.83142]

>>82876
yeah but capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate than regular income... plus you'd have very little incentive to work and actually produce something if capital gains were untaxed... you'd just sit on your ass and make free money while contributing nothing to the economy or infrastructure

[OP No.83146]

>>83122
>easter eggs
Easter eggs are supposed to be fun....

[Anonymous No.83135]

>>83048
>>83089
Holy batman you guys have no clue what you're talking about.

These two and the OP post were enough, I'm fucking out of here, this board is worthless if it's filled with people like you

[Anonymous No.83154]

>>83135
Yes, good... The faster the quality of the board hits rock bottom, the better.

Discourage questions! Don't correct mistakes! Mock others! When you do ask questions, make them as loaded as possible!

[Anonymous No.83177]

>>83030
lower and middle income people's capital gains and regular income are taxed at much lower rates than rich people, so no

[OP No.83187]

>>83117
>So, what, does your income tax currently discourage you from working?
When I first found out about income tax when I first started working, I was pissed, then I eventually accepted it.

When I first looked into investing I was happy as fuck and thought this is a way I can save and grow my own money so I could be financially free. Then I found out the government taxes that shit too. Fucking pissed man.

>I bet you were looking at day trading,
Nope, long term investing for my future and financial security.

[Anonymous No.83195]

>>83135
>my point. The retirement ages will go up so we'll be working longer, the pension amount will be minimal so we'll be surviving rather than living, and we'll be living longer as well so we have to make whatever finances we have stretch further.
>Not looking good if you were planning to rely on the pension.

>no argument
Typical for a supporter of these endless poverty creating government "programs".

[Desert Friend !RZyFxFd2Hg No.83205]

your only taxed on 50% of your capital gains, so it aint that bad OP

[Anonymous No.83209]

>>83142
>plus you'd have very little incentive to work and actually produce something if capital gains were untaxed...
Yes because you'd be able to be financially free.
What a fucking retarded argument, it's like saying "but if you weren't a slave you'd have no incentive to work"

People work so they can have leisure time and potentially not have to work in the future.

>you'd just sit on your ass and make free money while contributing nothing to the economy or infrastructure
What the FUCK do you think investing is you massive retard?

[Desert Friend !RZyFxFd2Hg No.83223]

also just use tax shelters bra, what you thinking

[Anonymous No.83226]

>>83154
Fair point.

>>83187
Well then why even worry about the cap gains tax? Trust me, it's only going up from here - maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but by the time you and I retire.

You won't realize gains (for the most part) and get hit with the tax for a long time anyway if you're just building a nest egg.

Just because there's a tax doesn't mean it's not worth it - remember you only pay taxes on gains. And investing still carries a much lower interest rate than just about any other source of income, unless you inherit it (and there's a few ways you can get a few million dollars worth of estate to your heirs nearly tax free)

tl;dr disregard cap gains, acquire capital.

[Anonymous No.83227]

>>83054
>I don't know if capital gains pushes you into other income tax brackets though

Capital gains are just taxed at the standard 1/2 inclusion rate. If you make $100,000 in capital gains then, assuming the simplest possible outcome, you got $50,000 in taxable income for the year.

Now if the assets in question were acquired in a year with a different inclusion rate... get ready to whip out the fucking calculator.

[Anonymous No.83229]

>>83195
er sorry, that greentext wasn't supposed to be there

[Anonymous No.83258]

>>83142
investments can lose value or evaporate into nothing completely.

[Anonymous No.83259]

>>83187
>and thought this is a way I can save and grow my own money so I could be financially free
you thought you could make money out of money without any effort or producing ANYTHING.
the tax is on money you make by sitting and waiting. take your bitch tears somewhere else.

[OP No.83268]

>>83205
>your only taxed on 50% of your capital gains, so it aint that bad OP
What does that even mean?
I'm still confused.

If the tax rate on capital gains is 12% and you only get taxed on half of it, is your tax rate 6% then?

Why don't they just say 6% if that was the case?

>>83226
>You won't realize gains (for the most part) and get hit with the tax for a long time anyway if you're just building a nest egg.
When I finally take the money out the tax is going to be fucking ginormous if I leave it in there for years.

[Anonymous No.83281]

>>83268
So don't take your money all out at once retard.

[Anonymous No.83283]

>>83209
Why are you so angry? They're taxed at a lower rate to encourage investing so you can make your 'free money' but not taxing them means everyone would quit their job or work less which would mean less tax revenue

[Anonymous No.83305]

>>83258
They also have potential to grow a lot more than the original values. The rate of risk-return has nothing to do with taxes.

[Desert Friend !RZyFxFd2Hg No.83297]

>>83268
you get 12% taxed on 50% of your gains

[OP No.83302]

>>83259
>you thought you could make money out of money without any effort or producing ANYTHING.
Are you retarded?
Investing is producing something, you're investing in the economy so companies have more capital to grow and produce. I'm underconsuming.

>the tax is on money you make by sitting and waiting.
Investing isn't just free money, you have to manage it carefully, you could lose it all.

>take your bitch tears somewhere else.
Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.83313]

>>83195
I meant the first part of your post. I agree with you on the 2nd part.

That being said I don't mind funding soc security further if it meant I would keep it.

>>83209
Cap gains should not be free from tax.

Cap gains is overwhelmingly paid by the rich. It's already extremely low - one of the lowest in the world, especially considering we are by far the strongest nation on planet earth.

>>83223
also this. There's already so many ways to avoid being taxed - use of trusts, incorporating, gifting to your heirs, hell even REITs help your tax liability at the end of the day.

Most of these are only available to the rich. Hence why Romney, Buffet, et al usually pay ~14% every year.

[OP No.83330]

>>83281
>So don't take your money all out at once retard.
Oh really?
So I could take smaller amounts out each year and get taxed less?

[Anonymous No.83351]

>>83283
>but not taxing them means everyone would quit their job or work less which would mean less tax revenue
People wouldn't have to work and could finally retire and you sociopaths think this is a BAD thing?
Holy shit.

>muh taxes
>muh debt to the govern- er uh I mean "society"

>>83313
>That being said I don't mind funding soc security further if it meant I would keep it.
But it's impossible to fund, you would destroy the entire economy just trying to fund it.

>>83313
>Cap gains is overwhelmingly paid by the rich.
>bawww we are da 99%

>It's already extremely low
You think it should go UP?
Holy shit, get off this board right now.

[Anonymous No.83352]

>>83330
Or just create phantom losses are that are never actualized so your "gains" are minimized.

[Anonymous No.83368]

>>83351
>>>/pol/

[Desert Friend !RZyFxFd2Hg No.83374]

>>83330
listen bro, you're in the great white north right? Put your investments in a TFSA or RRSP and only take out what you need and when you need it. You will only be taxed when you take it out and only on 50% of it (with the RRSP it's best to leave it in long term cause you get 40% tax right away when you take anything out, i think it's 40%). Anyway just talk to a tax planner or something, or research tax shelters/savings

[Anonymous No.83383]

>>83268
Why would you take it out all at once??? The whole point is that when you're retired your income is not nearly what it was when you were working, thus you pay less on your money invested. That's the whole idea behind 401ks - tax benefit now, when you're drawing down your assets in retirement your income is lower and so you pay less to the govt when it's realized as income.


>>83302
>investing is producing

No, it's not. It's INVESTING. Seriously, I'm pretty free market myself (asshole finance major from earlier here) but come on - you yourself aren't producing a fucking thing as an investor. Are you in private equity? Are you an angel investor? Are you a venture capitalist? If you're none of these then you're not producing anything.

>manage carefully
So you've never taken a finance class before I'm assuming, or even have a rudimentary knowledge of investing? Go read some studies on active portfolio management vs passive portfolio management. Passive investing > Active investing in almost ALL scenarios. Unless you've got the cash to buy into a REIT, or a hedge fund, or you practice the shit out of your day trading, your best bet is passive investing in index stocks with a low expense ratio and a good basket of stocks, period.

[Anonymous No.83418]

>>83368
>>>>/pol/
You fucking go to /pol/
You have /pol/ tier opinions.

[OP No.83432]

>>83374
>Put your investments in a TFSA or RRSP
haha oh wait you're serious

I said I wanted to MAKE money.

>>83383
>No, it's not. It's INVESTING.
WHICH GIVES MORE CAPITAL TO FIRMS SO THEY CAN FUCKING PRODUCE MORE, HOLY SHIT

You think it's just gambling? Are you actually that dumb?

>If you're none of these then you're not producing anything.
Every single fucking investment(except federal reserve monopoly money bullshit) is benefiting the economy in some way. There's no way around this.

[Anonymous No.83440]

>>83418
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.83444]

>>83440
You fucking go to /pol/
You have /pol/ tier opinions.

[Anonymous No.83450]

>>83351
I didn't say cap gains should be higher.

I wasn't complaining that the rich aren't taxed enough. Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm just giving the facts - the rich pay cap gains, the poor do not. Period.

If you are poor - hell, even if you're working class or middle class and have a bit of money in 401ks or index funds - cap gains should be somewhere on the bottom of your tax burden. Income taxes, mortgage taxes, sales taxes, soc security - these are your tax burdens. Cap gains means nothing to 80+% of Americans, despite the media bringing it up time and time again.

You gotta stop dickriding the libertarian agenda bro.


It's hilarious when libertarians try and argue with me over tax rates. My 'moonlighting' job on the side is helping families with their tax situations and getting their estate to their kids intact. I live in the real world, not libertarian fantasy land.

[Anonymous No.83454]

>>83444
Actually, /pol/ says all taxation is theft and the best thing to do is murder anyone that tries it, since they are thieves and thieves deserve to be shot.

[Anonymous No.83459]

>>83432
If you buy google stock you arent giving money to google.

Hes right.

unless youre a vc or actually providing startup capital your just buying shit that already exists

[Anonymous No.83479]

>>82731
Really rich people don't pay capital gains.

They just take out a secured loan against their stock, and never sell it. You aren't taxed util you sell.

[Anonymous No.83475]

>>83450
>You gotta stop dickriding the libertarian agenda bro.
Because it's the only thing that makes logical sense.

>My 'moonlighting' job on the side is helping families with their tax situations and getting their estate to their kids intact. I live in the real world, not libertarian fantasy land.
So you agree with libertarianism, yet you hate it.
Cool consistency.

[Anonymous No.83476]

Trading on secondary markets is zero sum gambling. Deal with it. The only contribution you make is providing liquidity for investors in primary markets to use to cash out their investments. Thus giving them a reason to invest since they can cash out at any time.

[Anonymous No.83484]

If investment income wasn't taxed as capital gains, it would be taxed as regular income, and income tax is higher than capital gains tax

we have capital gains tax as a way of giving a break to people who invest their money

we can't have no capital gains tax because all the very rich make their money entirely from capital gains - so it would be no taxes for the very rich

[Anonymous No.83488]

>>83454
>Actually, /pol/ says all taxation is theft
So does /biz/.
I never said it was theft.
You hate everyone here and what they do, that's why you should go to /pol/.

>and the best thing to do is murder anyone that tries it
Lol where are you getting this from?

[Anonymous No.83491]

>>83432
Investing is not the only way to raise capital. Stop being so obtuse.

And you're not giving the company anything if you're not buying an IPO - only the IPO gives the firm cash, you realize that right? If you're trading stocks on the open market you're trading with other individuals or firms, you're not buying directly from the company itself.

So again, unless you're in PE/VC, no, the act of investing isn't miraculously producing something.

I can't tell if you're trolling at this point or just really, really misinformed.

You're pandering hard right now man, and it's pretty bad.

[Anonymous No.83492]

>>83454
And they're right!

You know what OP? Fuck stocks. Put all your money in canned food and ammo.

[OP No.83499]

>>83459
>If you buy google stock you arent giving money to google.
Technically you are.

[Anonymous No.83501]

Taxes are unjust, as it is, but capital gains taxes are seriously fucked.

>Work
>Make money and pay taxes on it
>Put that money into a stock, bond of HYS
>Pay taxes on those gains

Double tax out the ass my negros

[Anonymous No.83505]

>>83488
>So does /biz/.

Oh boy, I didn't know we elected you high king of /biz/ you faggot.

[Anonymous No.83511]

>>83484
>we can't have no capital gains tax because all the very rich make their money entirely from capital gains
This is bad why?

[Anonymous No.83515]

>>83505
>Oh boy, I didn't know we elected you high king of /biz/ you faggot.
Literally everyone in this thread except for you and on /biz/ in general thinks capital gains taxes are too high or should be abolished.

[Anonymous No.83516]

>>83499
How so??

[Anonymous No.83513]

Just put it into a Roth IRA account. Any growth isn't taxed.

[Anonymous No.83522]

>>83475
Where did I say I agree with it? Being a financial advisor and helping people with their estate planning doesn't mean I'm a libertarian.

>>83476
I wouldn't say gambling exactly, but close to it, especially if you're going in blind like OP and that libertarian troll is.

[Anonymous No.83536]

>>83511
because fairness, the rich use society's resources just like everyone else,
also the rich have benefited more from society than the rest of us

they should thus pay for social services and the government just like the rest of us

[Anonymous No.83528]

>>83515
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.83547]

>>83511
Because the poor will rise up and try to kill them again, French Revolution style.

[OP No.83559]

>>83491
>Investing is not the only way to raise capital. Stop being so obtuse.
Yes but it's one way.
By investing in stocks, you are contributing. It's not gambling.

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/03/020703.asp

It's a good thing people are able to retire off things like dividends, are you saying this is bad?

[Anonymous No.83564]

>>83515
No, I think they're fine. I just want to avoid them personally because I want better terms than the rest of people.

[Anonymous No.83575]

>>83522
>Where did I say I agree with it?
You try to help people avoid taxes, you think they should be lower.

[Anonymous No.83586]

>>83564
Taxes aren't high enough. People who shouldn't be paying taxes already know the loophole to avoid them, so raising taxes won't hurt anyone important. In fact, it will benefit us.

[Anonymous No.83592]

>>83528
>>>/pol/
Literally everyone in this thread except for you and on /biz/ in general thinks capital gains taxes are too high or should be abolished.

[Anonymous No.83598]

>>83499
>technically you are

Technically, literally, figuratively, you're not. You're buying it from someone who bought the stock from someone who bought the stock from someone who bought the stock.

The capital went to the firm a long long time ago at the time the shares were issued. They have not received any money since then.

>>83511
Seriously? Because America is not a land of aristocracy. You can't just pass on your wealth generation after generation while your heirs grow fat off of your great grandfathers money because he bought x acres of land somewhere 200 years ago.

That being said, your average person does not have to worry about estate taxes. The current exemption is $5.34m per individual, again, this is a tax that only the rich pay.

I'm never unamused by the fact that the people that argue against taxes the hardest are often the people most unaffected by them.

[Anonymous No.83611]

>>83592
I think they should be abolished.

[Anonymous No.83605]

>>83536
>the rich use society's resources just like everyone else,
>the rich use society's resources just like everyone else,
I know, that's why they are rewarded with their income.

They save capital and money which benefits everyone else.
The money they save raises the value of the money everyone else has.

>they should thus pay for social services and the government just like the rest of us
But government "programs" only cause poverty, also the war governments want only causes very bad things.

If you take rich people's money you're taking away money that could have been spent on economic production to lower prices for everyone in society including the poor.

>>83547
>Because the poor will rise up and try to kill them again, French Revolution style.
/pol/ pls go

[Anonymous No.83606]

>>83586
>>People who shouldn't be paying taxes already know the loophole to avoid them,

reported . . . to the IRS, enjoy your cold, dank prison cell faggot

[Anonymous No.83608]

>>83592
Saying that doesn't make it true anon.

[Anonymous No.83617]

>>83586
>so raising taxes won't hurt anyone important
Except you know, anyone trying to get ahead.

>>83608
No, but looking at the posts in this thread and on /biz/ in general does.
Why are you here if you want to tax everyone on this board?

[Anonymous No.83614]

Stupid goys.

Set up a corporation and pay corporation tax. Then withdraw all the companies funds.

[Anonymous No.83620]

>>83606
Loopholes means it is all legal son.

Reported to the cops for submitting a false report.

[Anonymous No.83621]

>>83606
The IRS logo is so cool. I want a shirt with that printed on it big.

[Anonymous No.83631]

>>83617
>anyone trying to get ahead.

How are they important? You sound like a faggot.

[OP No.83633]

>>83598
>Technically, literally, figuratively, you're not
By buying the stock you are contributing to the company from the ways listed on that link.

>>83614
>Set up a corporation and pay corporation tax. Then withdraw all the companies funds.
I was thinking of starting a company, is this possible?

[Anonymous No.83643]

>>83633
Actually, a company can build their stock up without helping the company.

[Anonymous No.83644]

>>83633
Depends. I have no idea on wheter or not Canada is a low tax enviornment, but if your really thinking of making money and shit maybe consider moving to Ireland or Netherlands or other tax havens where the corporation tax is 12.5% and the CGT is 33%.

[Anonymous No.83645]

>>83598

yes rich people produce for the economy, so does the working man, everyone contributes

and government programs include things like roads, schools, etc. which everyone, rich and poor use, in fact the rich benefit from infrastructure and education the most (from educated labor and good transport for their goods)

and rich people sure seem to beg the government for money and subsidies and every opportunity, muh too large to fail

[Anonymous No.83658]

>>83598
>Because America is not a land of aristocracy.
How the fuck would that turn us into an aristocracy? How would lowing the cost of capital allowing more and more middle and lower class people to start businesses and compete create an aristocracy? How would increasing economic production create an aristocracy?

You're an idiot, holy shit.

>You can't just pass on your wealth generation after generation
You should be fucking able to, that's what this country used to do. That's how the middle class thrived, families saved money over time and started businesses. People weren't poor as fuck due to inflation and taxes.

[Anonymous No.83661]

>>83645
>everyone contributes
>Not being a NEET

[Anonymous No.83669]

>>83575
>help people pay less in taxes
>obviously I think they should be lower

If anything, shouldn't I want them to be higher? If they go lower there's less of an incentive to hire someone like me to lower their taxes. Low taxes means people don't need me. If we lowered the exemption to pre bush era or increased cap gains more people would see the value in my service, and so I would get more money.

Just stop posting. You're an embarrassment and I hope no one is taking your arguments seriously.

>>83559
>you are contributing
Nope, me and one other person have already refuted you on that, try again.

>is it a good thing to retire blah blah
Stop asking loaded questions. Of course I have no problem with people retiring on passive income, or even that people are able to get passive income at all. Zero qualms.

You're the one that keeps bitching and moaning about cap gains taxes and how they shouldn't exist. I'm saying that they should. I'm not saying they should be higher or that they should be lower, just that they should exist.

>>83586
This is the point most people don't get.

The rich farmers in my area already know about trusts, REITs, and how to expense everything away to lower net income. They have people like me to help them do these things.

Nominal tax rate != effective tax rate.

>>83592
Yeah, and unless this thread is populated entirely by trust fundie millionaires, them arguing to abolish or lower the cap gains tax further is completely against their own economic interest and pretty stupid.

[Anonymous No.83670]

>>83645
>reaganomics was never tried
You're beating down a retarded strawman argument you read on huffingtonpost.
http://mises.org/daily/1544

>and government programs include things like roads, schools, etc. which everyone, rich and poor use, in fact the rich benefit from infrastructure and education the most (from educated labor and good transport for their goods)
If these things were privatized they would be even cheaper and more efficient.

[Anonymous No.83671]

>>83658
He's wrong, America is an aristocracy.

And that's a good thing.

[Anonymous No.83675]

>>83661
by everyone, I didn't mean 4chan users . . . I thought that went without saying, I just meant everyone as in rich and working class people, everyone has their role to play

[Anonymous No.83688]

>>83671
The only people who would argue it isn't a good thing aren't anything you should be concerned with, they're barely people in the first place.

[Anonymous No.83707]

>>83669
>If we lowered the exemption to pre bush era or increased cap gains more people would see the value in my service, and so I would get more money.
So you want to raise taxes on these people so they will give you more money to make their taxes lower? lol

>Just stop posting. You're an embarrassment and I hope no one is taking your arguments seriously.
Coming from the faggot posting 420 WEED EBIC pictures.

>Yeah, and unless this thread is populated entirely by trust fundie millionaires
No, this is /biz/ if you don't like it you can leave.
We don't want to pay fucking capital gains taxes, deal with it shithead.

>is completely against their own economic interest
>THE GOVERNMENT STEALING LESS MONEY FROM YOU IS AGAINST YOUR INTEREST
Holy fuck you're psycho.

[Anonymous No.83714]

>>83707
>Stealing

Slow down there chaim.

[Anonymous No.83726]

>>83670
>If these things were privatized they would be even cheaper and more efficient.

How would that even work, would a contractor have to knock on every door in a city and ask for donations to build the next freeway? How do you do business with abstract entities like "the people" - you need a representative for the people, ie. the government

[Anonymous No.83722]

>>83669
>Nope, me and one other person have already refuted you on that, try again.
Except you didn't refute that link.

>Of course I have no problem with people retiring on passive income
They should retire on any fucking income. Who are you to say what people should retire on?
Just stop posting.

[Anonymous No.83731]

>>83714
>Slow down there chaim.

>PAY YOUR TAXES GOY

[Anonymous No.83738]

>>83731
>>>/pol/

Stop being antisemitic, it's against the rules.

[Anonymous No.83739]

>>83726
>m-muh roads
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=202

[Anonymous No.83752]

>>83738
>calls me chiam
>>>/pol/

Stop being antisemitic, it's against the rules.

[SomeRandomGuy !hbcAHPqqpg No.83758]

If you're NEET, then you likely will only have to pay like 10% on capital gains -- that is if you hold for more than a year. If you hold for less than a year and sell, then it's not capital gains tax, it's just standard income tax.

[Anonymous No.83760]

>>83633
No, you're not. Period. You're now just flat out ignoring what everyone else said about how IPOs work. 2ndary market trading contributes nothing to the company.

>>83645
Yes, everyone contributes, thus everyone should pay their fair share. I don't have too much of a problem with the way the tax system works currently, although I wish we were able to fund more blue sky research directly with our taxes. And maybe if it were a bit more simplified, but then that would be bad for business. Conundrum.

>>83658
>How?

First of all, I was talking about the estate tax, not the cap gains tax. The cap gains has very little to do with passing wealth onto the next generation.

Because, being able to pass along massive estates to your heirs with 0 tax would mean a significant amount of wealth would go permanently untaxed for generations at a time. You know how 401ks work? Well, imagine being able to put off taxes from those accounts indefinitely, while still being able to draw a passive income out of them at a low low rate of taxation. From generation to generation.

It would only take a few generations from 0 estate tax to create a massive (even more so) disparity between rich and poor, with a few owning all the capital and everyone else being renters with no choice but to comply or finding themselves left out of the market entirely.

If you can't see how this would negatively effect America, I really can't help you any further.

Also, like I said before, the current exemption on passing your estate is over 5m per PERSON. A family can pass over 10m of assets to their children with zero tax burden - zero.

But hey, keep against a tax that you will never have to pay.

[Anonymous No.83763]

>>83752
>>83714
>>>/pol/

There, better?

Both of you need to go to /pol/

[OP No.83766]

So uh guys can we get back on topic?

[Anonymous No.83774]

>>83066
There's nothing anti-semetic in that post.
>>>/JIDF/

[OP No.83782]

>>83760
>No, you're not. Period.
>continues to ignore the link
>actually believes there's no point to the stock market whatsoever

Even if you believe it doesn't help the company, it still helps people retire on dividends and save money in general, you're contributing.

[Anonymous No.83785]

>>83766
>>>/co/

[Anonymous No.83795]

>>83782
We already have Roths for that.

[Anonymous No.83811]

>>83760
>thus everyone should pay their fair share. I
>using the fair share fallacy
No.

>The cap gains has very little to do with passing wealth onto the next generation.
Yes it does. If there was no cap gains tax you could pass more onto the next generation.

>Because, being able to pass along massive estates to your heirs with 0 tax would mean a significant amount of wealth would go permanently untaxed for generations at a time
Good. More money saved means the value of the currency increases and prices go down. Also that's more money to invest in large humanity changing projects.

>You know how 401ks work? Well, imagine being able to put off taxes from those accounts indefinitely, while still being able to draw a passive income out of them at a low low rate of taxation
If everyone was able to do that, that would be awesome.

>It would only take a few generations from 0 estate tax to create a massive (even more so) disparity between rich and poor
Lol WHY?
The poor would be middle class, the middle class would be rich.
You base this on absolute nothing.

>with a few owning all the capital
How are you involved with finance whatsoever and still believe in the zero sum game fallacy? Seriously.

[Anonymous No.83815]

>>83774
We don't have that board.

[Anonymous No.83821]

>>82867
bruh reinvest your dividends, you save in the long run via taxes.

[Anonymous No.83830]

>>83811
>zero sum game fallacy


Oh god, don't get started on economics, that shit is just a huge laugh.

[Anonymous No.83839]

>>83821
>Getting stocks that have dividends

IT'S LIKE YOU LIKE LOSING MONEY

[Anonymous No.83871]

>>83598
>Seriously? Because America is not a land of aristocracy. You can't just pass on your wealth generation after generation while your heirs grow fat off of your great grandfathers money because he bought x acres of land somewhere 200 years ago.

Not him, but why would I as a poor to middle class person have to pay fucking capital gains taxes if I'm just trying to get by?

This is a load of bullshit, you are the one keeping the rich richer.

Fuck off faggot.

[Anonymous No.83867]

>>83707
>raise taxes
I have no strong opinions one way or the other about the tax burden of the rich honestly. It could be lower. It could be higher. It doesn't effect me as I still make <100k a year.

>420
I like to garden, not trying to be edgy, it helps identify posts on here also.

>u can git out
Haha. I'm just giving you the perspective of someone who actually, you know, has an economic interest in these things. Sorry, I'm not going to join the anti cap gains / estate tax circle jerk on here.

And again, unless you actually have money in the market - lots of money, really, or are day trading, you really have very little to complain about, because you never even see these taxes realized.

I mean, do you actually have any money in the market right now? That you're going to be pulling out within the next 20-30 years? Cause you haven't mentioned of any specific burden on YOU, just about the idea in general.


>>83671
No, it's really not. Not yet anyway. Yes wealth is heavily concentrated, but we're not nearly the situation liberals try and make it seem like "21st century feudalism".

In an aristocracy participation in feudalism would be compulsory. As of yet this is not the case in America.

I do not think us getting to that point is a good thing.

>>83722
The article agrees with everything I've said. The company receives no financial compensation from 2ndary market trading. Stock prices are used a barometer for company health which can have an effect on availability of credit. That's not producing anything, a high stock price is simply evidence of good management (at least in theory it should be)

Again, investing doesn't create anything.

[Anonymous No.83885]

>>83867
>I do not think us getting to that point is a good thing.

Get out you fucking bleeding heart liberal.

[Anonymous No.83887]

>>83739
toll roads everywhere and on every side street? That's your solution?

so would that mean

1 every road would be a monopoly and lack of competition would mean there would be price gouging and no impetus for good service and maintenance

2 we waste resources and space by putting several competing roads one next to another all going to the same place

you know why we keep using the muh road against you an-caps - because you crazy pie in the sky theories can't answer even that

[Anonymous No.83895]

>>83830
>actually believes the economy is a zero sum game
Why do you even post here?

>>83867

>That you're going to be pulling out within the next 20-30 years?
If I did by that time when I take it out I would have to pay a fuckload of taxes.

[Anonymous No.83905]

>>83867
>Yes wealth is heavily concentrated
Actually no it's not.
We've already refuted this fallacy in the other threads.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp6dolWDIvQ

[Anonymous No.83915]

>>83867
>Again, investing doesn't create anything.
>investing serves no purpose whatsoever

I.... What?

[Anonymous No.83925]

>>83887
>toll roads everywhere and on every side street? That's your solution?
>so would that mean
>1 every road would be a monopoly and lack of competition would mean there would be price gouging and no impetus for good service and maintenance
>2 we waste resources and space by putting several competing roads one next to another all going to the same place
>you know why we keep using the muh road against you an-caps - because you crazy pie in the sky theories can't answer even that


sigh

The article already refutes those fallacies if you took 5-10 minutes to read it.
You won't though.

[Anonymous No.83928]

>>83905
>Some random video

Yeah, that seems reasonable enough. I'll put all my faith in that.

[Anonymous No.83939]

>>83925
>sigh

Stop shitposting.

[Anonymous No.83951]

>>83782
Buying stock does nothing for dividends. Dividends are paid out by the company after expenses and taxes. Since buying on the secondary market doesn't give the company any money (only IPOs do that), you yourself aren't paying other people's dividends.

Try again.

>>83811
>with no estate taxes and no capital gains taxes the poor would become middle class and middle class would get rich

You can't seriously be stupid enough to believe that.

You're saying, if we magically removed the taxes that are almost exclusively paid by the rich (and a bit by the middle class, but really a drop in the bucket compared to the rich's share), people would suddenly get richer and the poor working class would just disappear?

Seriously think about what you're saying right now.

>value of currency increases
Huh? What's the magical mechanism where lower taxes results in an overvalued dollar??

>zero sum fallacy
I didn't say there wouldn't still be growth in the economy, of course there would be.

But when one class of people owns the ENTIRE capital of a nation, who does the growth benefit?

Does growth benefit the renter or the landlord?

All gains would be captured by those that have the capital in the first place, wealth becomes even more concentrated, an even bigger poor class emerges.

[Anonymous No.83953]

>>83895
To correct faggots like you. Someone needs to keep you grounded.

[Anonymous No.83962]

>>83925
no it didn't

if you disagree, either copy and paste the portion of the article that addresses difficulties of having several competing private roads . . . . or better yet. . . .think for yourself and make your own arguments instead of parroting the Mises institute

[Anonymous No.83966]

>>83895
Oh... you must be new.

I guess there's a sucker born every minute, as the cliche goes.

[Anonymous No.83983]

As has been pointed out, taxes are good. They benefit us and we know how to avoid having to pay in as much by knowing the law, as is intended.

[Anonymous No.84008]

>>83915
I didn't say it served no purpose, again, stop putting words in my mouth.

All I'm saying is that contrary to what people in this thread think, a company does not get money from secondary market trading. They can raise money from IPOs, yes, which are sold only to institutional investors, who then act as the middle man, mark up the stock, and sell it to the retail investors.

Obviously raising capital is a good thing if it pays off. But IPOs aren't the only way. Hell, they're not even the most popular way.

>>83885
I'm pretty centrist IMO. Opposing greater wealth concentration in the United States doesn't necessarily have to be a liberal thing, you know.

>>83895
You don't pull out everything at once, that doesn't make sense. You draw down on your 401k during retirement as you need it, generally at a lower rate than what your income was when you were working, because your cost of living is a lot lower in retirement (assuming you've already done the smart things like pay off your house, etc etc)

>>83905
>random youtube

Haha alright then, should we start pulling in tumblr as a source now too?

[Anonymous No.84029]

>>83871
>keeping the rich richer

Not really, most of the people I work with are families trying to keep their dairies and farms within their families. Not 'rich', but well off I'd say.

That's my point though - if you're just getting by like you say, when exactly are you in a position to pay taxes on gains on stocks that you don't own?

[Anonymous No.84041]

>the gubbmint taking my hard earned money

but seriously, a week's savings aint shit

and also, leave your "portfolio" to the experts

[Anonymous No.84049]

>>83928
>Yeah, that seems reasonable enough
No, the thread was what refuted that incredible wrong and retarded fallacy.
The video is just the short form for people like you with short attention spans

>>83951
>people would suddenly get richer
Not suddenly, but in about 6 months yeah, and even more in the years to follow.

More economic production means much higher living standards for everyone in the economy, the middle class would actually be able to save, and capital goods would be so cheap it would be easy to compete with larger firms.

>What's the magical mechanism where lower taxes results in an overvalued dollar??
More money held by rich people, they save money which increases the value of the currency held by everyone else.
Supply and demand?

>But when one class of people
>classes
Lol take your class goggles off holy shit

>ENTIRE capital of a natio
That's LITERALLY impossible.
I already told you it would put capital in the hands of middle class and poor. Can you refute me or not?

>wealth becomes even more concentrated, an even bigger poor class emerges.
That makes no fucking sense at all and there's zero correlation between wealth concentration and poverty, in fact it's the opposite.

The more money people are saving and not spending, the value of the currency the poor actually use increases.
If you want income equality, go to the congo, they have some of the highest income equality in the world.

[Anonymous No.84061]

>>83966
>Oh... you must be new.
You're not even from here.

>>83962
>no it didn't
because you didnt read it

[Anonymous No.84068]

>>84008
>I didn't say it served no purpose,
So it has a purpose, as in it does benefit society.

Ah, I understand now.

[Anonymous No.84078]

>>84008
>Haha alright then, should we start pulling in tumblr as a source now too?

See this entire thread:
>>74547

The wealth/income inequality argument is beyond retarded and has no foundation.

Watch the video though and check the sources you may learn something.

[Anonymous No.84081]

>>84061
>You're not even from here.

Just because you aren't doesn't mean everyone is. Lurk more.

[Anonymous No.84086]

>>84029
>Not really, most of the people I work with are families trying to keep their dairies and farms within their families.
Then fucking let them do that.

>if you're just getting by like you say, when exactly are you in a position to pay taxes on gains on stocks that you don't own?
Eventually I am going to invest and now I I'm going to get fucked in the ass by taxes when I do.

[Anonymous No.84102]

>>84049
>it would put capital in the hands of middle class and poor

Again, how? What is this magical mechanism, that when the rich stop paying the majority of their taxes, this somehow makes the poor and middle class better off??

I can't refute it because you're not arguing anything, you're just saying this happens and not explaining how.

>when wealth becomes more concentrated, the poor get richer

Ok, come on, seriously just be honest with me - are you trolling right now? You have to be trolling me. I refuse to believe someone could really believe that as the rich get richer, the poor are suddenly richer too.

Supply side economics doesn't work. It's not even solid economic theory. It was a movement largely by authors in the late 70s and early 80s largely in response to liberal policies of the time. It has no basis in reality.

[Anonymous No.84113]

>>84061

believe it or not, I actually did, it addressed the problem of having private roads compete with government roads

but it never addressed the problem of how you would set up several competing private roads in a single locale, as I said before, if you disagree, you might try actually copying and pasting the relevant portions instead of sitting around whining, or even just making an arguement explaining how that is possible

[Anonymous No.84124]

>>83142

You are a fucking idiot. Let me mansplain to you how investing works. You see, it starts when someone wants to consume something now (it could be a man starting up a business, or someone buying a house, or an already established business expanding, etc), but doesn't have the money to pay for it. So this man, Bob, gets the money from an investor. Either he takes out a loan, or sells some bonds, or sells some stock, or some such, to get the money to pay for whatever it is. The guy who gave the money, Bill, is not doing this for the pleasure of a lighter wallet. He's either charging for the service of providing the money in the form of interest on the loan or bonds, or a share of the business's distributed profits, if he bought stock.

You see, the act of investing is producing a service to those who need financing for stuff. It is VITALLY important to the creation and growth of business, as most start ups and many expansions need money forwarded to them that they'll pay back (with that "Thanks For Providing Me Capital" interest) or otherwise compensate the investor for. Taxing it discourages it, which stunts economic growth, as all taxes do.

Whether the cost of this tax in the form of lower GDP is worth the revenue for the government to be able to do Stuff is up for debate, but please don't walk around being so goddamn fucking ignorant of basic economic functions.

[Anonymous No.84174]

>>84068
Society as a whole? Not necessarily. Like I've been saying, it helps one part of society - those that can afford to have them in the first place. Most people don't have to worry about the (already lower) tax on passive income because they have no passive income. Lowering or raising these taxes would only effect maybe 20% of the population, and only the top few %s would be effected in a meaningful way if the cap gains went from lets say 15->20%.

Again, not arguing for it to be raised or lowered. It is largely irrelevant to me as my day trading is pretty limited. Just going by demographics, you likely also have little economic baggage in this.

>>84086
>let them
Well, I do. And since the exemption is for your avg family is 10m, it's generally pretty easy to make it happen.

Remember - 10m is exempt. This will be even higher in the future - I can guarantee, maybe ONE person in this entire thread might, one day, possibly have to worry about paying some kind of estate tax. 90%+ it will be of no consequence.

>fucked by taxes
15% on passive income is nothing. It's been higher before. It probably will be higher again at some point.

>someday
lol, yeah I'm totally sure some day some money will fall into your lap and you'll totally start investing. Someday.

[Anonymous No.84180]

>>84102
>What is this magical mechanism,
I JUST told you.

>that when the rich stop paying the majority of their taxes
Buddy, their taxes don't fucking benefit me.
-Social security and medicare? Please, that shit's not going to be there and only makes everyone poorer and raises the cost of medicine.
-Wars, fuck off
-War on drugs, fuck that noise
-PBS and NPR, I've never watched or listened to that shit

The only thing I could think about is courts and judges, which retires an extremely small amount of tax compared to what they're paying today.

Back to my main point, people's living standards come from what they're able to purchase in the market. If the price of consumer goods come down people can buy more food, housing, clothing, healthcare, and entertainment and would be able to work less hours because it wouldn't be necessary for them to work as long to get what they want.

If the price of capital goods comes down dramatically any fucking guy who's saved a bit of money could compete MUCH easier with the big guys.

This is all possible because of economic production, more economic production is possible because there are less taxes and regulations for people and firms to comply with so there is more money and capital to produce.

Do you even economy?

>Ok, come on, seriously just be honest with me - are you trolling right now
You got your knowledge of economics from msnbc, seriously, nobody believed this zero sum game nonsense until very recently.

>I refuse to believe someone could really believe that as the rich get richer, the poor are suddenly richer too.
Not suddenly, but holy shit, if this wasn't true, there would be no middle class and everyone would still be living in horrible poverty on farms barely able to survive. But instead, a middle class was created.

>Supply side economics doesn't work
Well we have had keynesian economics for the past few decades and nixon got us off the gold standard back in 1971 so you have no basis for saying that.

[Anonymous No.84201]

>>84113
>believe it or not, I actually did,
I don't believe it.

[OP No.84214]

>>84174
>Society as a whole? Not necessarily.
Uh yes.
see:
>>84124

>those that can afford to have them in the first place.
Good then.

>you likely also have little economic baggage in this.
I have 5000 dollars in savings.

[Anonymous No.84221]

>>84174
>15% on passive income is nothing.
It IS something, it shouldn't exist at all asshole. You're putting me down whiling making the rich richer.

[Anonymous No.84224]

basic
income

[Anonymous No.84236]

>>84201

well, tell you what, I have this article here, it proves that everything you said is wrong, that all ancaps are going the hell and that your mother is a hoe

but I won't actually point out which parts or provide you with it's arguements, and if you say you read it and that it doesnt say any of what I claimed it did, I will disagree with you and claim that you have not read it, and if you only would, you would see why you are entirely wrong and why you should check your mother into rehab thereby allowing me to claim victory in this argument

go on now, read it

http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html

[Anonymous No.84278]

>>83283

>They're taxed at a lower rate to encourage investing so you can make your 'free money' but not taxing them means everyone would quit their job

No, they wouldn't, you clod. Then there would be no production, therefore no good investments (though the government might inflate the value of investments by pumping newly created money into the market, making it look like gains when there are no real gains), and therefore no investing.

We get richer through production of something. Investing transfers capital to those who produce things, with a return on the investor's money to compensate for them not having access to the capital for a time and to offset the risk of losing their investment.

You people really are idiots.

[Anonymous No.84312]

>>84236
>http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html
>that massive strawman article that has been refuted a thousand times

>it proves that everything you said is wrong, that all ancaps are going the hell and that your mother is a hoe
Oh, you were just joking and making a point that that is what I was doing, right...
...right?

You're not actually dumb enough to believe that webpage right?

[Anonymous No.84315]

>>83330

"Realize" your gains in years where you have losses to offset them. Though I'm pretty sure you can carry losses forward for a certain period to count against future gains for tax purposes.

The point is, make goddamn sure you offset those losses before they "expire" and you can't "get credit" for them.

[Anonymous No.84319]

>Nobody pointing out your capital gains tax is 0% if your earnings are below $47,000

[Anonymous No.84340]

>>84312

I dont believe you read the article, read it again and youll see why Im write about the flaws of anarcho-capitalism as well as why your mother is a woman of loose morals

[Anonymous No.84418]

>>83476

>Thus giving them a reason to invest since they can cash out at any time

So you're providing a service to the primary investors. This service that the secondary market provides makes investments in the primary market more attractive, thereby encouraging more investing in that market. Otherwise, one would be stuck with bonds until they matured or stocks until they matured (hint: FOREVER).

And once again, people are giving up their nice, useful, liquid cash for the hell of it. They expect a return on this investment to reward them for the service of making the primary market more attractive than it otherwise would be. Obviously, it doesn't always work, just like the primary market doesn't always return as planned. So they're also being compensated for the risk of getting less than they put into providing this service.

[Anonymous No.84425]

>>84340
>read it again and youll see why Im write about the flaws of anarcho-capitalism as well as why your mother is a woman of loose morals
>write
>mother
>loose morals

Okay, I'm glad you're not stupid enough to believe the article.

[Anonymous No.84438]

>>84425

you definitely didnt read the article

[OP No.84456]

>>84319
>>Nobody pointing out your capital gains tax is 0% if your earnings are below $47,000
Is that seriously true?
Is that true in Canada as well?

Why couldn't I just take this money out at the end of every year and put it back in a week after tax day.

Then if I ever end up making 47000+ in capital gains I wouldn't have lost any money over the years.

>>84315
>The point is, make goddamn sure you offset those losses before they "expire"
How long do they take to expire?

[Anonymous No.84476]

>>84456
How long do they take to expire?

not positive but I vaguely remember it being either 5 or 20 years

but Im not sure how this loophole could be used to avoid taxes altogether without actually generating some significant losses, which doesnt seem worth it - you be better off investing in gains and just paying taxes on it

[Anonymous No.84480]

>>84438
>you definitely didnt read the article
So glad you're just a troll.

In case you're not.
A reply from the most famous anarcho-capitalist living today.

Milton Friedman's son.

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/response_to_huben.html

[Anonymous No.84516]

>>84480
look Im not reading any more of your stupid articles,

the point still stands that you cant feasibly have privatized competiting utilities without haivng incredible waste - several sets of waterpipes going to one house, several sets of electric wires going to a house, and several sets of roads along the same neighborhood.

And without this competition you'd have a monopoly

you need government for roads and other utilities,

unless youre going to post a real argument about it, Im not going to bother reading any of the ridiculous articles you post, because if you had a real retort or anything worthwhile to say, youd just say it instead of referencing it to someone else

tl;dr either just make your argument or GTFO

[Anonymous No.84526]

>>83760

>fair share

Stop saying this. It's a nonsense term marketed by corrupt politicians invested in keeping you stupid.

[Anonymous No.84527]

>>84456
Yes its true. Who cares about canada.

You have all your earnings (capital gains and wages and anything else). You subtract your deductions (knowing this is /biz/ it will just be your personal exemption of $3,900 and your standard deduction of $6,100 or $10,000).

This is your taxable income. If it is below $36,250, you are in the 15% ordinary income bracket. Income in the 15 or 10% ordinary income brackets have a capital gains income tax rate of 0%.

Between $36,250 and $400,000 you have tax brackets from 20-35%. In these your capital gains rates are 15% (ignoring the ACA tax). Above $400,000, your capital gains rate is 20%

[Anonymous No.84530]

#donttreadonme

[Anonymous No.84533]

>>84516
>look Im not reading any more of your stupid articles,
It was a rebuttal to the article you posted.

[Anonymous No.84539]

>>83839

Explain please. I'm genuinely interested to see if you're just another nonsensical moron or if you know something I don't.

[OP No.84547]

>>84527
Thanks for the information

>(ignoring the ACA tax)
I'm not from murrica, but I heard that's going to suck fucking ass.

[Anonymous No.84550]

Friendly warning

Do not try the Habanero Ranch sauce from McDonalds.

It tastes like Tobasco mixed with your grandmother slobber.

I am getting sick again just thinking about it.

[Anonymous No.84560]

>>84539

Old timers particularly like dividend stocks. So they buy them up even if they are overvalued just so they can get that yield. Dividend stocks are more expensive as a result. That and dividends are taxed to you (after being taxed at the corporations level).

[Anonymous No.84566]

>>84533
nigga that was just a random article I posted to mock you for referencing articles that didnt address the point being argued and then saying that anyone who pointed that out hadnt read the article

now you still havent answered the point of competing roads, so Im going to take this as good evidence that you dont have an answer, and you just dont want to let go of your ancap garbage because youve elevated it to the level of a faith immune from real rational analysis

[Anonymous No.84575]

>>84550
Just searched a review and this guy came up.

Captcha: millsock ranch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBz01mdtwTQ

[Anonymous No.84584]

>>84547
>I'm not from murrica, but I heard that's going to suck fucking ass.

It's 3.8% on net investment income (pretty much passive unearned income including dividends and interest) above $200,000. So if you have pure dividends as all your income, you'll get this tax before you are in the $400,000 tax bracket.

[Anonymous No.84585]

>>84566
>nigga that was just a random article I posted to mock you for referencing articles that didnt address the point being argued and then saying that anyone who pointed that out hadnt read the article
Oh so I was right.
THE ENTIRE TIME

[Anonymous No.84601]

>>84585
yeah thats one thing you were right about, now if only I could say the same for your ludicrous economic views

[Anonymous No.84699]

>>84601
>now if only I could say the same for your ludicrous economic views
I don't even support private roads.

[Anonymous No.84737]

>>83645
>>83670
>>83726
>>83739
>>83887
>>83925
>>83962

You idiots are missing the more important point. How much of the total amount of taxes paid in this country goes to roads and elementary and secondary schools?

The vast majority goes into some bureaucrat's pocket, some politician's pocket, into defense (some of it necessary, some of it stupid), into foreign aid, into asinine pork designed to buy the votes of stupid people, and asinine handouts designed to buy the votes of stupid people.

[Anonymous No.84752]

>>84737
This.

If you support taxation you support corporate welfare and the wars.

It's simply your fault.

There's nothing "patriotic" about paying taxes.

[Anonymous No.84803]

>>84456

Wait, you said you were Canadian, didn't you? I'm American, I only have a very basic knowledge of the US Tax Code (despite being an Accounting graduate with a 3.7 GPA, two tax classes are not enough to learn 60,000+ pages of legalese bullshit). I have zero knowledge of Canada's.

Either Google it up or consult a Canadian accountant. Also, take whatever losses you can as soon as you can. Only let them carry over if there are no gains with which to offset them.

That's even IF Canadian tax codes allow offsetting gains with losses (I'd imagine they do, it'd be retarded not to).

[Anonymous No.84839]

>>84737
>>84752
yeah government can be bad, and tax dollars can be misused, but you guys are throwing the baby out with the bathwater

at a fundamental level capitalism needs government we need it to provide for natural monopolies like utilities and roads, capitalism needs government to enforce contracts through the courts, just because some aspects are bad, doesnt mean that we should get rid of all of it, and it certainly doesnt mean you dont have to pay taxes . . . . espcially under current conditions where no one has really put forward a workable alternative model

[Anonymous No.84858]

>>84560

Interesting theory.

Might one be able to notice which stocks are about to start paying good dividends and buy some in order to benefit from the resulting Geezer Boom?

[Anonymous No.84924]

So what are capital gains exactly?

If I buy a stock for $100 and sell it for $110 does that make my "capital gain" $10?

So a capital gains tax of 20% would tax me $2.00? Is that how that works?

[Anonymous No.84929]

>>84839

Jesus Christ. Libertarian =/= Anarchist

Libertarians want basic law and order, after all, you have to have some way to enforce contracts. They also want drastically less spending on frivolous shit and drastically less taxes to support that frivolous spending. Although taxes would probably need to be kept higher than expenditures for a while in order to pay off all of our national debt without monetizing it.

[Anonymous No.84935]

>>83005

>MLP

get out of here brony faggot

[Anonymous No.84941]

>>84924

Basically. Although under US Tax nonsense, the asset you bought had to have been held for a year before any gain from its sale counts as a capital gain. Otherwise it counts as ordinary income and is taxed at whatever rate your ordinary income is taxed.

[Anonymous No.84996]

>>84941
Can you tell me what a stock/share is? Is it a part of the company?

If I buy a share of Target does that mean I own several of their products or what?

[Anonymous No.85209]

>>84550
My grandmother's dead how do you know what her slobber tastes like you filthy necrophiliac?!

[Anonymous No.85211]

>>84996

Owning a share of common stock allows you to vote on the direction of the company, as weighted by the number of shares you own compared to the total number outstanding. It also entitles you to a share of the companies distributions (read: dividends), once again, as weighted by the number of shares you own compared to the total number outstanding.

If a company distributes $10,000 as a dividend, and there are 10,000 shares of common stock outstanding (assuming no preferred stock to keep things simple), each share will get $1. If you own 100 shares, you get $100 dollars.

[Anonymous No.87796]

>>84924
Yes

[Anonymous No.92115]

test post am I banned