Capital gains tax is too high

KomradeBishop

FernandoTorres wrote: »

How is it some people 'paying the way' for others? You talk about inequality as if there's some kind of limitation on only rich people being allowed to invest. There is nothing stopping anyone going out and buying a few cheap books and learning the basics of investing. Some of the most successful investors of all time started out with pocket change.

You're talking about capital gains being the same as any other type of income. Do you honestly not see the difference between someone earning a guaranteed wage or rental income and someone risking their post-tax savings on investing in shares? I'll give you a clue. One of them you are risking 100% of your capital. Of course there should be less tax on it otherwise why would anyone do it?

You're telling me to look at it on a macroeconomic/societal scale but that's what I'm doing. Your fairytale world where nobody invests or tries to get ahead in life sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. I'm no rampant capitalist and can see many flaws in the system but curtailing investment is certainly not the answer.

If you gave a toss about inequality at all, you wouldn't advocate for a blanket reduction on CGT, you'd advocate for a progressive taxation system for CGT, which specifically progressively targets its potential as a source for expanding accelerated inequality.

A persons risk is their own choice - they don't deserve special treatment because they took a risk... - and unearned income is unearned income, and should be taxed as such...

I don't give a toss if you took a risk - if you gain an income, especially an unearned one, you pay taxes on it - in line with everyone else.

Neither you or anyone else, has any kind of evidence saying that people would not invest if they had to pay a proper tax on it - that's bullshít propaganda, that self-interested investors and the powerful/wealthy promote, in order to create political agitation against any challenge, to one of their primary inequality-accelerating sources of favourable treatment.

You have no macroeconomic argument here, you're talking in an individual/micro "that's not fair!" toys-out-of-pram manner; there is no macroeconomic evidence to substantiate your or anyone elses scaremongering on this topic.

robp

KomradeBishop wrote: »

No actually, I don't accept the theory, I was pointing out how it's internally inconsistent. If real world results can show the Laffer Curve going up instead of down, that actually disproves the entire idea.

Economies are dynamic systems, with very unpredictable elements within them - and the idea of the Laffer Curve, actually barely rises the to point of being labelled a 'theory', as it's so simplistic and unsupported, that it's pretty much impossible to use it for predicting the economic outcome of policy decisions - and it has the track record to suit.

When theories make predictions and fail, they are done. Except in the field of economics, where propagandists will just zombify dead theories, and keep on sending them back into public debate - purely because they are useful rhetorical tools.

All social science research produces variable results. Nothing is any different in other social sciences because humans are complex and unpredictable but it does not follow that social sciences are useless. Of course it is extremely hard to predict outcomes. Social science theory is not like a law in a hard science but they are useful and if you throw them away you have literally nothing to guide policy.

Aspiring to reduce inequality is a admirable idea, but its not the goal of tax system. It is designed to grow the pie by encouraging prosperity while reducing poverty. The US has a high amount of economic inequality and it not the best place in the world to be poor but the US poor have measurably higher living standards than poor in many countries including some European countries.

OttoPilot

I weep for this country when 33% isn't considered "a proper tax".

FURET

Komrade wants to confiscate your money on pain of jail presumably. What a surprise. At what point does personal responsibility for one's own financial status kick in, for those with no physical or intellectual disability?

On topic, yes, it's too high. My preferred rate is zero. I'd grudgingly pay 15% if I had to. Otherwise, I'd simply live somewhere where there's little to no compulsory taxes. I am not my brother's keeper.

KomradeBishop

robp wrote: »

All social science research produces variable results. Nothing is any different in other social sciences because humans are complex and unpredictable but it does not follow that social sciences are useless. Of course it is extremely hard to predict outcomes. Social science theory is not like a law in a hard science but they are useful and if you throw them away you have literally nothing to guide policy.

Aspiring to reduce inequality is a admirable idea, but its not the goal of tax system. It is designed to grow the pie by encouraging prosperity while reducing poverty. The US has a high amount of economic inequality and it not the best place in the world to be poor but the US poor have measurably higher living standards than poor in many countries including some European countries.

You're arguing with a straw-man, as nobody said social sciences are useless.

Either a theory is testable and falsifiable - or it is not. If it is not, then it's as good as pseudoscience.

In a field like economics, it's better for an economist to admit their ignorance about the possible outcomes of a policy change, rather than to make definite claims based upon a false theory, which doesn't actually apply to reality at all.

If more economists had this kind of humility, the field might not be stuck in its current mired state - and might actually progress.


The goal of a progressive tax system, is precisely to help prevent and reduce accelerating inequality - that is one of the defining justifications for it - as it should be.

KomradeBishop

FURET wrote: »

Komrade wants to confiscate your money on pain of jail presumably. What a surprise. At what point does personal responsibility for one's own financial status kick in, for those with no physical or intellectual disability?

On topic, yes, it's too high. My preferred rate is zero. I'd grudgingly pay 15% if I had to. Otherwise, I'd simply live somewhere where there's little to no compulsory taxes. I am not my brother's keeper.

There isn't a country on earth, that won't 'confiscate' i.e. tax your money, on the pain of jail - you don't get to parasitically benefit from all of the public infrastructure and services that states provide, without paying your way (without which, the very markets and companies you want to profit from, could not exist - given that they require a state-funded legal system to function).

You want to benefit from what states provide, then you owe them taxes in return for this.

FURET

Almost nobody objects to paying some measure of tax (usually in the form of sales and moderate income tax) to fund the running and infrastructure of the state. You seem to regard the wealthy as parasitical – yet how do you feel about the substantial number of Irish people who pay practically no tax at all but receive plenty in return? Essentially, you want to confiscate even more of my money and prohibit me from retaining my full profit. The consequence is that you are denying me the opportunity to live my life the way I want to live it.

Well, how about we agree to confiscate cigarettes and alcohol from those who rely on social welfare? How about we prohibit people from becoming parents until they demonstrate that they are reliable and responsible enough to actually be parents? How about we do away with no-questions-asked blanket childrens’ allowance and just give income tax cuts to women who become mothers instead (15% for the first child, 30% for the second, and 60% for the third. That way, only people who contribute in the first place are incentivized to reproduce.)

I know, you’re probably horrified by the above. You think it’s an affront and tyrannical. Well, some of us think that you trying to confiscate ever-increasing percentages of the fruits of our efforts is pretty grotesque as well.
You want equality. We are already equal before the law. No one in Ireland starves or need be homeless. Beyond that, for those who aren’t stricken with a physical or intellectual disability, life is what you make of it. The pursuit of “equality” beyond the above is basically just a form of control and oppression by resentful and sour-minded control freaks.

KomradeBishop

Don't put words in my mouth FURET. If you want unlimited tax-free income, even when that can lead to macroeconomic effects, that cause accelerating inequality, then that's parasitical on the rest of society.

You don't get to have special treatment - you pay your way, just like everyone else. Economics and tax policy are judged on wide-scale/macroeconomic effects, not individual/microeconomic "that's not fair" toys-out-of-pram moralizing.

I'm against accelerating inequality - because if you allow that, inequality only ever increases, until a relatively small group of people have enough power to subvert democracy itself.

I'm not going to engage with any of your farcical whataboutery.

FURET

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Don't put words in my mouth FURET. If you want unlimited tax-free income, even when that can lead to macroeconomic effects, that cause accelerating inequality, then that's parasitical on the rest of society.

What about the part of society that pays no tax at all?

You don't get to have special treatment - you pay your way, just like everyone else.

Everyone else? What about those who pay no tax at all? When do they get to pay their way?

Economics and tax policy are judged on wide-scale/macroeconomic effects, not individual/microeconomic "that's not fair" toys-out-of-pram moralizing.

But you are implicitly moralizing about the importance of some form of equality and agitating for higher taxes to bring about your ideal society. You have no problem with moralizing about the lack of fairness. That's your intellectual bedrock.

I'm against accelerating inequality - because if you allow that, inequality only ever increases, until a relatively small group of people have enough power to subvert democracy itself.

What does unsubverted democracy look like? Do you not think that a small percentage of people paying for a large percentage of people has no subversion of its own? What does equality look like to you?

I'm not going to engage with any of your farcical whataboutery.

Of course you're not. Because for you, those who are doing well are the only ones to be held to account. In your world, only the providers (i.e. the high earners) can be parasitical; the recipients are just hard done by.

KomradeBishop

FURET wrote: »

What about the part of society that pays no tax at all?

I'm not going to let you engage in whataboutery, and try to redirect discussion - this is about CGT, and the effects it has on inequality from the top.

FURET wrote: »

But you are implicitly moralizing about the importance of some form of equality and agitating for higher taxes to bring about your ideal society. You have no problem with moralizing about the lack of fairness. That's your intellectual bedrock.

The morals of the greater good - in this case, not allowing democracy to be subverted by accelerating inequality - outweigh selfish individualistic morals.

Don't bother trying to straw-man that, into representing support for other things.

FURET wrote: »

What does unsubverted democracy look like? Do you not think that a small percentage of people paying for a large percentage of people has no subversion of its own? What does equality look like to you?

More whataboutery. You don't get to redirect discussion, away from parasites at the top.

Are you denying that constantly accelerating inequality can lead to private power growing so large, that it can subvert democracy? (granting undemocratic levels of influence over government/society/economies, to private powers)

Either you believe that or you don't - and your arguments seem to edge towards denial of this, and encouraging the allowance of unrestricted growth of private power.

FURET

Komrade doesn't like "whataboutery" because conveniently for him, ignoring uncomfortable questions allows him to focus only on what he wants to talk about rather than on the realities that undermine his whole philosophy. It's OK. It's clear what you are.

phantom_lord

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Eh, no - it's a new income...and an unearned income too. Investing is not analogous to gambling in a casino (which is kind of its own tax on the stupid, given that the bad odds aren't exactly a secret).

It's funny the optics people use to try and present some taxes as unjust - pretty much every single economic transaction and source of income in the economy is taxed, yet in the one area of general taxes that most greatly contributes to growing inequality, people want special treatment in a way that guarantees the further accelerated growth of inequality.

I've already paid 50%+ tax on my income, now if I risk it the gov wants 33% of the upside and none of the downside. Doesn't seem like a good deal to me.

KomradeBishop

No you haven't paid 50% tax on Capital Gains income - that's why there's a separate tax on it...

Taxation is a subject where peoples intelligence and ability to judge what counts as a new 'income', suddenly drops to zero whenever it suits their argument - where people deliberately play dumb, just to make a rhetorical point.

We've already had someone pull a variation of the 'tax is theft!' idiocy here and everything...

phantom_lord

KomradeBishop wrote: »

No you haven't paid 50% tax on Capital Gains income - that's why there's a separate tax on it...

I had to earn the money, and pay income tax on it.

KomradeBishop

No, you don't pay income tax on capital gains income...you pay capital gains tax on it...

The income from capital gains, is the income from your investment - it is not the income, that provided you with the money you used to invest...they are separate incomes, thus they are taxed separately...

This is really basic stuff. The only reason to 'play dumb' about this, is to deliberately obstruct debate.

phantom_lord

Sigh. Where do think I got the capital in the first place?

For ever odd

Komrade - could you please state what your ideal capital gains tax % would be?

barneystinson

phantom_lord wrote: »

I've already paid 50%+ tax on my income, now if I risk it the gov wants 33% of the upside and none of the downside. Doesn't seem like a good deal to me.

Except that losses are allowed to be set against gains in the same or any subsequent year... :rolleyes:

airmech

So, a year later nothing has changed. When Michael Noonan retires soon are we likely to see a reform in this unfair system?

Merowig

airmech wrote: »

So, a year later nothing has changed. When Michael Noonan retires soon are we likely to see a reform in this unfair system?

No

Pawwed Rig

airmech wrote: »

So, a year later nothing has changed. When Michael Noonan retires soon are we likely to see a reform in this unfair system?

Reform? - I doubt it.
A change in rates? Maybe