patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,196,180 comments by 14,059 users - AmericanKulak, GNL, HeadSet, Patrick online now
Why do we have to pay cap gain taxes at all?
invite response
2012 May 14, 5:49am 40,005 views 118 comments
« First « Previous Comments 46 - 85 of 118 Next » Last » Search these comments
The richest families in America are majority inherited wealth not personal achievement.
Dude, either you are ignorant or simply lying. Overwhelmingly, rich people are self-made: people with good incomes (doctors, dentists, veterinarians, managers, engineers, etc.) who have saved all their lives.
1. According to a study of Federal Reserve data, the nation’s richest 1%, inherited wealth accounted for only 9% of their net worth.
2. Less than 10% of today’s multi-millionaires cited “inheritance†as their source of wealth.
3. among millionaires, inherited wealth accounted for just 2% of their total sources of wealth.
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/01/14/the-decline-of-inherited-money/
freak80
2012 May 16, 8:32am
Most "investment" these days does not seek to expand our economy in ways that benefit the common man. They seek to extract rents using finance shenanigans. The richest families in America are majority inherited wealth not personal achievement.
Well said.
The WSJ is just another propaganda arm of NewsCorp.
Right. WSJ data you don't believe... but charts from zillow you do believe. I thought you folks wanted the truth? or only the truth you can stomach?
Someone above said that the death tax should be 50%! That's not only crazy, it's stealing wealth again.
The reason I support an inheritance tax (and I am likely to be affected by it) is because of the concentration of wealth that results from inheritance. I find it hard to maintain faith in the idea that everyone has a fair shot if money is being passed down from one generation to the next. I think flatter income distributions are better for the health of the country than large disparities, and I think policies should encourage things that are better for the country. Confiscating, stealing, taxing or otherwise taking money from rich dead people to combat the disparity is fine by me (again, I'm likely to be materially affected by this) Hopefully it gets used for good things, though, and not just to tilt the tables away from multi-generational wealth accumulation.
my two cents.
Confiscating, stealing, taxing or otherwise taking money from rich dead people to combat the disparity is fine by me (again, I'm likely to be materially affected by this)
Who cares if you are affected? Doesn't make it any more legit. This is america, do you still believe in private property rights? The money was earned by someone, and you want to take half of that money just because the earner died?
What you proposing simply amounts to a cap on how long private property remains private? Wow, if you can't join 'em, tax 'em right?
Patrick
2012 May 16, 8:56am
Two seemingly contradictory facts drive a lot of this debate:
1. Most wealth in inherited, not earned.
2. Most millionaires did not inherit their money.
They are both true, but how can they both be true?
The answer is that a fairly small number of people inherit a VAST amount of wealth. Most people don't inherit very much.
The money was earned by someone
No, not necessarily. The money could have been gained purely by non-productive rent-seeking. And it usually is, for the vast fortunes of the elite.
do you still believe in private property rights?
Would you still be for private property rights if ONE person owned 100% of everything, and everyone else has to be their slaves, forever, because that one person owned all the land and extorted maximum rent from everyone?
The question is, what is the limit of private property, beyond which the situation is simply unfair and harmful to the whole society?
msilenus
2012 May 16, 8:57am
Who cares if you are affected? Doesn't make it any more legit. This is america, do you still believe in private property rights? The money was earned by someone, and you want to take half of that money just because the earner died?
What you proposing simply amounts to a cap on how long private property remains private? Wow, if you can't join 'em, tax 'em right?
Your argument seems to have outlived your memory.
Lots to respond to here
There is no moral explanation for the government stealing my money by force of prison simply because a group of people have the stupid idea that government knows what to do with my money better than I do.
I haven't ever justified taxation with the stupid idea that government knows what to do with the money better than you do. The way I make sense of it is that the government fills a vital role in providing infrastructure, security, and big program spending that private entities would not (or in a way that private entities would not). Think bridges and highways, military, and the 60s space program. I think these are good things that you and I have benefited from, and they have to be paid for somehow. Taxing the people, especially the ones who benefit the most, seems reasonable. Is there a limit? Absolutely. Are we taxing and spending beyond the "reasonable limit"? Perhaps. But it's obvious to me that some amount of tax is necessary, and it seems justified to me.
Obviously this is false. Fannie&Freddie, Solyndra, and other examples abound.
Good examples, but just anecdotes. The plural of anecdote is not data.
You liberal fools don't seem to be aware. The next target of Reid, Pelosi, Obama and their asshole ilk is your 401K. Oh, you think that rich pot of gold will be left sacrosanct? You're smoking dope.
Indeed if they come after my IRA/401K, I'm going to be livid. I put the money in with certain rules in place, and I expect the "contract" to be honored. I'm saying that it would lead to a guns blazing on the capital steps for me, but yes, I'd be pissed off and I might even join you in the republican/libertarian ranks if that happens.
Confiscating, stealing, taxing or otherwise taking money from rich dead people to combat the disparity is fine by me (again, I'm likely to be materially affected by this)
Who cares if you are affected? Doesn't make it any more legit.
Just preempting the "of course you are in favor of it because it doesn't affect you" argument. You are right, though, it doesn't justify it.
Two seemingly contradictory facts drive a lot of this debate:
1. Most wealth in inherited, not earned.
2. Most millionaires did not inherit their money.They are both true, but how can they both be true?
Both are not facts. NO research supports that most wealth are inherited. All research find that modern wealth are earned, not inherited.
No, not necessarily. The money could have been gained purely by non-productive rent-seeking. And it usually is, for the vast fortunes of the elite.
Who's the judge of non-productive income? Tax patent-income more? Patent royalties sky-rocket. Tax rent-income more? rent increases.
Would you still be for private property rights if ONE person owned 100% of everything, and everyone has to be their slave, forever, because that one person owned all the land and extorted maximum rent from everyone?
Who owns everything? Mathematically, that can't happen. There are laws to prevent biz monopoly; are you suggesting a law to prevent private wealth monopoly? A cap on how rich you can be?
msilenus
2012 May 16, 9:30am
Patrick, what would you think of moving this thread to the Politics forum?
Just floating a suggestion. This topic doesn't seem to be related to investing at all.
OK Swebb,
The infastructure you mention is funded by 1. special taxes on gasoline, etc. 2. money raised by selling Bonds. You may even see them around from time to time, they are like the bonds to build a bridge, etc. Often the revenue bonds are paid by the bridge tolls, etc.
Airports are paid this way. The users of airplanes pay for the airport in the ticket.
Is it necessary to have a military and a space program. Sure. This of course should not grow huge however.
Evidently you weren't even aware that the target of the Democrats IS your retirement investments. There is so much money there they find it almost irresistible.
RE: Wealth inherited v made.
The richest people today didn't inherit their wealth. The richest people however also may seek ways to prevent the grave robbers in Washington from taking it after they are dead.
Both Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are not charitable people. They are getting their money out of the hands of Uncle Sam in their favorite way, rather than letting it be taken after they are dead.
It is true that robber barons existed and still exist. A good example is Carlos Slim, the richest man on earth. Telephones of all kinds are super expensive to use in Mexico and the people are gouged to the benefit of Telmex.
The answer to this problem is not within this discussion. I am talking about not stealing money from Dunross because Pelosi and Reid want to give it to someone in the slums who gets sec 8, food stamps, etc.
The guy bumming from me this afternoon at mcdonalds ($1 smoothies, I'm lovin it) told me about how he gets SSI but the meanie wants him to "narc out some people". The conclusion is this bum is getting SSI but they withhold it when he misses his meetings with the parole guys. So it goes.
Since "baby carries no cash" I had to let him bump off.
Patrick
2012 May 16, 12:51pm
NO research supports that most wealth are inherited. All research find that modern wealth are earned, not inherited.
Really? You don't seem to have researched the subject very well.
Look up the paper by Kotlikoff and Summers "The Role of lntergenerational Transfers in Aggregate Capital". Most wealth is in fact inherited and they proved it.
Who owns everything? Mathematically, that can't happen
Actually, it's mathematically inevitable. Whoever has the most just has to get interest and rent from everyone else without any inheritance taxes. Game over.
Patrick, what would you think of moving this thread to the Politics forum?
OK.
CBOEtrader
2012 May 16, 1:53pm
Why do we have to pay cap gain taxes at all?
Because millions on welfare/food stamps/section 8 housing/etc. depend on you!
honest question: do you vote democrat, republican, either/or, or neither?
I'm not judging either way-- just curious.
Look up the paper by Kotlikoff and Summers "The Role of lntergenerational Transfers in Aggregate Capital". Most wealth is in fact inherited and they proved it.
We live in 2012. The paper you reference is dated 1981. The WSJ article I dated is 2008 (using 2001 data, latest available). WSJ asserted since 1989 inherited wealth has declined from 23%+ to less than 10% in 2001. Since we like extrapolations on this site, it's not a stretch to see inherited wealth dropping to well below 5% in 2012.
So yes, if we lived back in 1981, you'd be right. But we are discussing "modern" wealth correct?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ideology aside, isn't the definition of rich/wealth to own significantly more than the average? So, as long as wealth is distributed unevenly, there will be rich and poor. Unless you want even distribution of wealth... but that's a different topic, and I hope none of us want that?
What about "fair" distribution of wealth? Unless you are Midas, I don't think anyone can be "fair". Which is what I began arguing... that fairness is a pipe dream, especially a fair tax. Heavily officiated activities, such as the Olympics, with enormous emphasis and motivation to enforce "fairness" see some of the most unfair results. Why do Russians and Chinese dominate gymnastics? Can't be economics... as Africans dominate marathon events. Can it be race? But that can't be; we are all equal; one human race right?
Fairness-anything is a misguided lesson to teach your kids. Asian Americans weren't treated fairly at anytime in US history. Jews certainly weren't treat fairly throughout world history. Yet, as a group, they are performing exceedingly well in modern America. I rarely hear about these groups marching on Washington, or occupying the Man. They simply study, work, emphasis on the family and respect the elderly.
America is still the most upwardly mobile society in history. You only need the drive, work ethic, and a little luck to be extremely successful. Family wealth is not a requirement, and has never been in America.
All this talk of the "rich" is relative. If you make $45k annually in America, that puts you in lower middle class in fly-over states, and barely surviving on the East/West coast. Yet the same salary puts you in the TOP 1.72%
richest people in the world! Maybe we should tax you more? Kids in Africa are starving, and that's not fair!
http://www.globalrichlist.com/
How you be "fair"? Do something with your talents/ideas, accumulate wealth and share the wealth with projects that seek to preserve culture and save lives. It's a never ending effort, as this is the human condition. BUT, seeking fairness by taking (too kind of wording) wealth from others based on perceived "justice" is dangerous.
CBOEtrader
2012 May 16, 3:09pm
BUT, seeking fairness by taking (too kind of wording) wealth from others based on perceived "justice" is dangerous.
Sure. Also, what may be "perceived justice" by the voting public, is actually a bought politician demagoguering for the aristocracy to buy more votes/power.
Obama presents himself as robin hood. This might be accurate if Robin Hood were stealing from his fellow countrymen, giving half to the sheriff of nottingham, using the rest to buy loaves of bread at an inflated price from his brother's bakery, then tossing the bread into the ghetto for the poor to fight over.
The government is not a proper charity, and most here seem to agree.
Wealth disparity, or specifically limiting the political power resulting therof, is thus far the only valid argument for Obama's tax hikes on capital gains.
Is tax policy a valid tool to limit the political influence of the extreme rich? The government itself is owned by these very same extreme rich people. A few hundred or so in the government/aristocracy have convinced the masses that we need to take extra wealth away from the estimated 500k american millionaire tax filers last year. Taking money from the mini-rich, and giving this power to the super rich isn't going to remove private money-fluence from politics.
s it necessary to have a military and a space program. Sure. This of course should not grow huge however.
And it's that question of where to draw the line (what should/shouldn't the government do) that most of the argument (generally) is really about. We probably don't agree on what services the government should provide. I understand why the government taxing you and spending it on things you don't agree with would boil your blood...but we are never all going to agree on where that line should be drawn, so we have to all get comfortable with being uncomfortable. At the end of the day the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, and I believe most of us benefit from the big society (along with the government) that we have built. No, it's not perfect, yes we should strive to improve things, but capital gains taxes and inheritance taxes aren't the battles I'm going to choose -- after all the wealthy have benefited from our great society more than anyone else (notwithstanding their hard work, risk, etc).
Evidently you weren't even aware that the target of the Democrats IS your retirement investments. There is so much money there they find it almost irresistible.
I'm still not aware of it. You have asserted it a few times -- it's something I will have to look into.
Unless you want even distribution of wealth... but that's a different topic, and I hope none of us want that?
Even, as in everyone has the same amount? No, of course not. More even? Flatter? Yes! I think it's better for the country. Scary things happen when the wealth disparity grows too severe.
America is still the most upwardly mobile society in history.
I don't believe this is true, or at least not generally accepted as such.
http://moneyland.time.com/2012/01/05/the-loss-of-upward-mobility-in-the-u-s/
"Both pieces cite numbers from the Pew Charitable Trusts’ Economic Mobility Project and other studies that found that 42% of American men with fathers who were in the bottom fifth of the earning curve stay there. Meanwhile, only a quarter of Danes and Swedes and 30% of Britons born into the lower-income bracket will die in that same bracket."
zzyzzx
2012 May 17, 1:33am
Whatever bracket I'm in, it torques me that capital gains is taxed at 15%. It should be higher. I hold dividend-paying and some long equities I would not be unaffected myself.
Anything to prevent people for saving for their retirement, right?
Just trying to understand your line of thinking.
MisdemeanorRebel
2012 May 17, 1:35am
Left out from this conversation is not only income tax, but the de facto regressive tax on wages and salaries paid by workers:
Social Security and Medi- care/caid withholding.
Someone working and being paid ~$100k is paying a marginal rate of ~40%.
I think it bizarre that somebody could make ten times more by NOT working, but rather off dividends, and pay far lower tax rate.
Our tax code seems to say:
"Productive endeavors bad, laying on beach collecting dividends good."
Patrick
2012 May 17, 1:40am
Look up the paper by Kotlikoff and Summers "The Role of lntergenerational Transfers in Aggregate Capital". Most wealth is in fact inherited and they proved it.
Next time, you give a dollar to your son or daugher ..
I want the Govt to be there to take half of it !
Wow, are you determined to misunderstand or what?
Not talking about a dollar. We're talking about VAST UNEARNED HEREDITARY wealth. Meaning permanent ruling class whose ownership of all resources (especially land) makes everyone else into a permanent servant class with no escape no matter how hard they work.
Can't happen? Hmmm....
French revolution
Russian revolution
Chinese revolution
and 1,000 other examples
Why did those people revolt?
GUAB
2012 May 17, 1:50am
Go get hired by Goldman and join the squids. Go work for stupid B of A or their other ilk.
No thanks, I just want to see these vermin taxed at LEAST the same rate I am. Why should I have to pay anything north of 30% when they pay 15%?
One founding principle is that "all men are created equal" and thus they should be treated equally before the law. Giving special tax privileges to "squids" should be a no-brainer even for no-brainers.
“Eagles are dandified vultures†- Teddy Roosevelt
How is % they pay even relative? You're saying your tax situations are identical?
Vicente
2012 May 17, 1:51am
Anything to prevent people for saving for their retirement, right?
Well the line we've been sold the last few decades, is that your HOUSE is your retirement nest egg. Because pensions all had to be kicked to the curb in the name of cost-savings. Oh right, or your 401K and Roth are going to take care of you. How is that corporate/banking promise working out? Me I mostly see people praying that their Fidelity fund will return to what it was a few years ago otherwise they'll be eating cat food.
If we extended copyright and enhanced IP laws back 5000 years, the airs to the English language could own the copyright on it and license it to us. Of course there would be hefty fines and prison sentences for using it without a license. We could all pay royalties to them.
At the same time you could write a check to some dudes in Persia every time you fire up your car, to pay your royalties on Algebra. Just think how Newton's airs would be making out right around now.
Why should you get to use language and math for free, for without these, it would be near impossible to acquire tremendous wealth.
zzyzzx
2012 May 17, 3:08am
Kids in Africa are starving, and that's not fair!
Of course it's fair! It's the only form of birth control they have there!
zzyzzx
2012 May 17, 3:09am
Well the line we've been sold the last few decades, is that your HOUSE is your retirement nest egg
The haven't seen my rather low end house. Houses don't generate dividends like stocks do, which is why I buy stocks.
freak80
2012 May 17, 5:56am
Because pensions all had to be kicked to the curb in the name of cost-savings. Oh right, or your 401K and Roth are going to take care of you. How is that corporate/banking promise working out? Me I mostly see people praying that their Fidelity fund will return to what it was a few years ago otherwise they'll be eating cat food.
God Bless America.
CBOEtrader
2012 May 17, 10:02am
I'm sure Richie Rich likes best the state of affairs where they get to enjoy all the trappings of a first-world country, no bloody street riots, National Parks, first-class military, etc. they just don't want to pay for any of it. And it has to be paid for, so in a sensible tax policy we don't leave them an out. Worst of all, it really messes with the American sense of fair play when Mittens is paying a lower tax rate than you and I.
I don't disagree with your concept.
The maybe 1000 super rich and well connected that control our government are the problem. It isn't your neighborhood millionaire (think Nomo), who is the problem.
I simply don't see how taking wealth and power from the 500k or so upstarters earning over a million per year helps anyone but those same powerful 1000 that control our government.
I simply don't see how taking wealth and power from the 500k or so upstarters earning over a million per year helps anyone but those same powerful 1000 that control our government.
The problem is many of these 500K are not providing as much value to society as they think they are. For example, many are "small" businessmen. They scream bloody murder about providing health insurance for their employees. But someone pays for their health care. They are just shifting this cost onto other people. So much of their profit is illusory.
While this will get Thomas Wong (our local proclaimed tax expert) worked into a frenzy, people who are busy creating real jobs typically have low taxable income. Hence a tax hike doesn't really affect their behavior. People pulling out $1 million a year are usually living the good life and less focused on creating jobs.
marcus
2012 May 17, 2:55pm
I simply don't see how taking wealth and power from the 500k or so upstarters earning over a million per year helps anyone but those same powerful 1000 that control our government.
You've heard my argument before.
I think the over 1million group is just a start. It has to be more progressive down to 250 or 300K. We're not talking anything huge. Maybe someone who makes 400k per year would pay 6 to 10K more than they do now.
Or maybe raise it even a bit higher. We aren't talking about forced equality or anything remotely close to that. A big part of it is just the principal of paying for our government. Even if a lot of it is what you call charity. I assume that's what you call it when a lot of what a high income person pays is going toward social programs that benefit the poor.
My bigger issue is that only when we actually pay for what we spend will be get spending under control. And if this is done with progressive taxes, I believe that the high income decision makers will have a much harder time getting backing from their pals for corrupt policies.
zzyzzx
2012 May 17, 10:46pm
I think the over 1million group is just a start. It has to be more progressive down to 250 or 300K. We're not talking anything huge. Maybe someone who makes 400k per year would pay 6 to 10K more than they do now.
In Maryland you only have to make 100K to get hit with "rich people" state income taxes.
freak80
2012 May 17, 11:36pm
In Maryland you only have to make 100K to get hit with "rich people" state income taxes.
That's why I don't live in Maryland. Not that New York is any better.
Patrick is mentioning all the places where people LEFT to come have the ability to create their OWN wealth, the USA.
Of course those miserable places in Europe and Asia who had hereditary rulers and serfdom ingrained for centuries had a giant poor class which supported the wealth of a privileged few.
The notion of their revolutions having any relation to the situation of taxes confiscating wealth in the USA is completely wrong.
Ted Turner is a nutcase but he made his money and he BOUGHT his land, he did not inherit it.
The cases abound.
Not to worry, I know of a few cases where the rich entrust their businesses to their adult children to avoid eventual death taxes. So, as the adult child mismanages the business they end up losing plenty of money and assets are sold to pay to keep the business alive.
The reason that Europe is having difficulties is that the place has essentially tried to raise the standard of living beyond their actual production and wealth of natural resources.
The exeptions are of course the smart, productive, or resource rich among them.
Patrick
2012 Jun 17, 8:06am
death taxes
The use of that term immediate identifies you as a brainwashed supporter of hereditary aristocracy in America. It's OK if you want your descendants to be the permanent slaves of the artistocracy, but it's not OK for my descendents. I want them to have a real chance to succeed based on their own merits in spite of your efforts to prevent that.
If you spend even ten minutes looking it up, you'll see that social mobility in Europe is far higher than in America.
You personally embody everything that is wrong with this country.
« First « Previous Comments 46 - 85 of 118 Next » Last » Search these comments
The FED is royally screwing an average citizen of this country. They create inflation, and the only way to fight it is to take risks, and buy inflation-safe securities. Yet, as soon as you sell them, you have to pay taxes on your gains. Why do we have to pay taxes on something we buy to protect ourselves from the FED, in the first place?