Either/Or

[umair127]

Do you feel...

Capital gains and dividend income should be taxed at an earned income rate....

or

Stay at 15% so that more people will invest?


After answering the above question, post your own either/or question and the next person answers it.

[1714776350]

1714776350

[Erdogan]

Do you feel...

Capital gains and dividend income should be taxed at an earned income rate....

or

Stay at 15% so that more people will invest?


After answering the above question, post your own either/or question and the next person answers it.

No taxes.

[noviapriani]

I think all taxes on all income should be replaced with the fair. What you earn is yours and the government has no right to decide how much they'll let you keep. No corp taxes, no hidden taxes and every citizen is allowed the exact same basic deduction which is truly fair. Those who have will buy and pay the tax and the more they buy the more they pay. In the meantime those who can't afford to buy much will be able to buy more once the hidden taxes are removed from the price of goods we pay state sales tax on.

[luigi1111]

I think all taxes on all income should be replaced with the fair. What you earn is yours and the government has no right to decide how much they'll let you keep. No corp taxes, no hidden taxes and every citizen is allowed the exact same basic deduction which is truly fair. Those who have will buy and pay the tax and the more they buy the more they pay. In the meantime those who can't afford to buy much will be able to buy more once the hidden taxes are removed from the price of goods we pay state sales tax on.

I agree, remove all taxes on income. Repeal the 16th Amendment.

However (the US at least), while we have a taxing problem for sure, we have more of a spending problem. No tax reform can really do that much to help us while we're spending more than we can possibly hope to make by any method.

[zolace]

My answer - I think that income is income, and should all be taxed using the same tables. I take serious issue at the thought that income earned from the work of one's brow should be taxed at a higher rate than income earned at the sweat of someone else's brow. I do believe, however, in a graduated scale.



Now, a question - Do you believe that all persons in America should have equal protection under the law,

-OR-

Do you believe that majorities should set the standards of rights and privileges that are restricted to minority groups?

[noviapriani]

My answer - I think that income is income, and should all be taxed using the same tables. I take serious issue at the thought that income earned from the work of one's brow should be taxed at a higher rate than income earned at the sweat of someone else's brow. I do believe, however, in a graduated scale.



Now, a question - Do you believe that all persons in America should have equal protection under the law,

-OR-

Do you believe that majorities should set the standards of rights and privileges that are restricted to minority groups?

Equal protection under the law.Do you wash your own car or take it to the car wash?See all the questions don't have to be political.

[Rigon]

I think all taxes on all income should be replaced with the fair. What you earn is yours and the government has no right to decide how much they'll let you keep. No corp taxes, no hidden taxes and every citizen is allowed the exact same basic deduction which is truly fair. Those who have will buy and pay the tax and the more they buy the more they pay. In the meantime those who can't afford to buy much will be able to buy more once the hidden taxes are removed from the price of goods we pay state sales tax on.

I see your point.  A tax on productivity is a punishment for being productive.  Why discriminate against Labor and then reward Land and Capital for creating jobs for Labor that you just killed with your tax on Labor?

[Rigon]

All income should be taxed at the same rate. i say that knowing it would increase my own taxes...but it is just fair.

[polynesia]

Do you feel...

Capital gains and dividend income should be taxed at an earned income rate....

or

Stay at 15% so that more people will invest?

Taxing dividend income is double taxation. Companies already pay income tax on profits and then distribute the remaining as dividends. So there should be no tax on dividends.

[odolvlobo]

Do you feel...
Capital gains and dividend income should be taxed at an earned income rate....
or
Stay at 15% so that more people will invest?
After answering the above question, post your own either/or question and the next person answers it.

The purpose of the 15% rate on interest is to encourage lending. It is also a tax break for old people. I feel that this reduced tax is unnecessary and it favors the wealthy.

The tax on dividends is a double tax. The corporation already pays taxes on its income, and the money left over after taxes shouldn't be taxed again when it is distributed.

What about long term capital gains?

[dothebeats]

All income/profit/gains should have a fair tax. The government should really be fair on putting tax to those who worked hard for it. In our country (the Philippines),those who doesn't have a job has some taxes to pay. I can't see a good reason why the government declares tax to those who doesn't have the money to pay for it. Taxes are good, imo, as long as people could see where does their taxes go. But if it's used by the officials of the government for their own personal gains, then fck it.

Oh btw, here is the recent scam in our country involving some serious funds that came from the taxes of the people: http://www.rappler.com/nation/59826-enrile-jpe-jinggoy-charged-plunder-pdaf-scam

[CoinsCoinsEverywhere]

All income should be taxed at the same rate. i say that knowing it would increase my own taxes...but it is just fair.

I disagree.  I think everyone should be taxed something, but the more you make, the higher your tax rate should be.  I think a progressive system is both fair and better economically.  The rich benefit more from a capitalistic society than the poor, so it seems fair for them to contribute more to it in taxes.  Additionally, taking more money from the poor and middle class hurts the economy.  They spend most or all of what they make.  Whereas taking more money from the rich just decreases the amount that they can invest in stocks, real estate, etc.

Of course the flip side is that tax rates should be reasonable, and the government should spend money wisely.

[odolvlobo]

All income should be taxed at the same rate. i say that knowing it would increase my own taxes...but it is just fair.

I disagree.  I think everyone should be taxed something, but the more you make, the higher your tax rate should be.  I think a progressive system is both fair and better economically.  The rich benefit more from a capitalistic society than the poor, so it seems fair for them to contribute more to it in taxes.

I agree with that view, but, the rest of what you wrote is flawed.

...  Additionally, taking more money from the poor and middle class hurts the economy.  They spend most or all of what they make.  Whereas taking more money from the rich just decreases the amount that they can invest in stocks, real estate, etc.

Both spending and investing help grow the economy, but investing helps more.

[CoinsCoinsEverywhere]

All income should be taxed at the same rate. i say that knowing it would increase my own taxes...but it is just fair.

I disagree.  I think everyone should be taxed something, but the more you make, the higher your tax rate should be.  I think a progressive system is both fair and better economically.  The rich benefit more from a capitalistic society than the poor, so it seems fair for them to contribute more to it in taxes.

I agree with that view, but, the rest of what you wrote is flawed.

...  Additionally, taking more money from the poor and middle class hurts the economy.  They spend most or all of what they make.  Whereas taking more money from the rich just decreases the amount that they can invest in stocks, real estate, etc.

Both spending and investing help grow the economy, but investing helps more.

How do you figure that investing helps the economy more than spending?  I agree that investment money is very important, but you only need so much of it, which is dependent on how much demand there is for it.  Let's say you have to figure out where to get $100B in extra tax money.  If you take it from the rich, then the poor and middle class get to keep $100B, most of which will be spent soon thereafter, which drives the economy.  If you take it from the poor and middle class, then the rich get to keep that $100B.  They already have plenty of money, so most of that goes into the stock market and real estate.  That increases stock prices, which mostly helps the rich get richer, and it increases real estate prices, which makes it even harder for the poor and middle class to afford it (e.g., houses).

[odolvlobo]

Both spending and investing help grow the economy, but investing helps more.

How do you figure that investing helps the economy more than spending?  I agree that investment money is very important, but you only need so much of it, which is dependent on how much demand there is for it.  Let's say you have to figure out where to get $100B in extra tax money.  If you take it from the rich, then the poor and middle class get to keep $100B, most of which will be spent soon thereafter, which drives the economy.  If you take it from the poor and middle class, then the rich get to keep that $100B.  They already have plenty of money, so most of that goes into the stock market and real estate.  That increases stock prices, which mostly helps the rich get richer, and it increases real estate prices, which makes it even harder for the poor and middle class to afford it (e.g., houses).

Your examples of spending money on stocks or on real estate are not great because they are really no different from spending money on cars or on groceries. Besides, giving out money to spend on cars and groceries drives up those prices just as much as stocks and real estate.

So, let's talk about core investing, giving money to people to build or create things. You know, companies, infrastructure, houses, farms, etc. -- the stuff that creates jobs and increases everyone's standard of living. The economy grows through production, not consumption. Investment increases production.

[CoinsCoinsEverywhere]

Both spending and investing help grow the economy, but investing helps more.

How do you figure that investing helps the economy more than spending?  I agree that investment money is very important, but you only need so much of it, which is dependent on how much demand there is for it.  Let's say you have to figure out where to get $100B in extra tax money.  If you take it from the rich, then the poor and middle class get to keep $100B, most of which will be spent soon thereafter, which drives the economy.  If you take it from the poor and middle class, then the rich get to keep that $100B.  They already have plenty of money, so most of that goes into the stock market and real estate.  That increases stock prices, which mostly helps the rich get richer, and it increases real estate prices, which makes it even harder for the poor and middle class to afford it (e.g., houses).

Your examples of spending money on stocks or on real estate are not great because they are really no different from spending money on cars or on groceries. Besides, giving out money to spend on cars and groceries drives up those prices just as much as stocks and real estate.

Having more money to spend on cars and groceries doesn't necessarily mean prices will go up over the longer term (although they may in the short term).  Yes, one way for a market to balance when demand increases is for prices to increase (short-term effect).  But the other way for it to balance is to increase supply (long-term effect).  If demand steadily increases, that drives industry expansion and increased production, which creates more jobs and economic growth.

So you're right that real estate may not be the best example because supply will eventually respond to demand.  However, such rebalancing happens much slower in real estate that most other industries.

So, let's talk about core investing, giving money to people to build or create things. You know, companies, infrastructure, houses, farms, etc. -- the stuff that creates jobs and increases everyone's standard of living. The economy grows through production, not consumption. Investment increases production.

I agree that investment increases production, but over the long term, increased production means nothing without increased consumption.

I think we're basically getting into the classical debate here between supply-side and demand-side economics.  First, let me say that I think the ideal situation is when the two are balanced.  If demand greatly outweighs supply or vice-versa, you have all kinds of problems.  I think it's best if production proactively keeps up with anticipated future demand so that you get efficient markets with few price fluctuations.

That said, I prefer demand-side to supply-side because, IMO, focusing on increasing demand before supply leads to a more guaranteed and predictable rate of growth.  The drawback is that it can lead to higher prices.

My basic argument here is that you can increase production all you want, but if typical consumers don't have money to buy your products because it was taken away by taxes, then it makes no difference.  I understand that the idea behind what you're saying is that investing money in, say, factories will create more jobs, thus putting more money in the hands of consumers, which will drive demand.  In theory, that sounds good.  But who, other than venture capitalists, invests in more factories when the demand doesn't exist yet, and they're unsure if or when it will?  Now, if the economy is chugging along and there are clear indications of increasing demand, then sure--that would help to achieve the ideal balance I was talking about before.  But if it's not, why would you increase supply?

Reading through what I've written, I realized that my take on things is probably very colored by the 2008-09 financial crisis.  Most of what I said is based on unhealthy, uncertain economic times when you don't know when demand is going to increase again.

[DhaniBoy]

should, if capital gains are already taxed, then the dividend income should not be taxable, I guess if both taxable, it creates inequities in the payment of taxes, so many people's income subject to tax, so how else they will invest
meanwhile, we can see the results of the tax results are not widely perceived by many people, it means a tax allocation for development has not been well targeted
This should be of concern by the government, hopefully ...