Text 3341, 89 rader
Skriven 2006-07-05 11:27:00 av Robert E Starr JR (3814.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Josh Hill to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <cd1ma2983c8m2thu4a99hffnnrg74qtt25@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <A-udnRG9z7NAFDvZnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com>
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 22:34:29 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:ktjja2hq3bek0gp2erohfnu2tjkil5t8ss@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 20:32:16 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:nirga2tp1p6kdmlte99skc72948qcg1ea8@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 19:34:51 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
>>>> <ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> They do: no one is suggesting confiscatory taxation. And I don't see
>>>>>> how a comparison to the average person is valid here: the average
>>>>>> person gets taxed on the money he earns. Why should a rich heir not
>>>>>> get taxed on the money he gets but did nothing to earn? Apart from
>>>>>> clipping coupons, that is. I don't see even a hint of fairness here.
>>>>>
>>>>>Because gains in stock do not happen until they're sold.
>>>>>The gains in bonds do not happen until they're redeemed.
>>>>>Money in banks accrue interest, which is taxed.
>>>>>Dividends gained through stocks are taxed.
>>>>
>>>> Which is another problem: the working stiff pays money on what he
>>>> earns, while the rich guy has no liability until he cashes in. There
>>>> are economic arguments for that, but I don't think they're in play
>>>> right now.
>>>
>>>There aren't any profits or losses until he cashes in.  It's all 
>>>theoretical
>>>until then.
>>
>>>You want to tax a theoretical value?
>>
>> Why not? Withholding, for example, is theoretical, in that it's based
>> on an assumption regarding one's income. And so are the property taxes
>> levied on your house, which are based on its assessed value (and not
>> infrequently aren't all that closely based on that).
>
>Because it's not income.  Withholding is taking taxes from an existing check 
>(actual income) at a logically extrapolated rate.
>
>Try taxing theoretical profits on stocks that someone owns would probably 
>require many instances in which the stockholder is forced to sell their 
>stocks specifically to pay the taxes.

Since the liability would be a percentage of gains, no one would have
to sell their holdings -- at worst, a tiny percentage of them, unless
their profit was an outlandish windfall.

Note that while you're making a big issue of this, traders who take
short-term capital gains deal with this all the time. It just isn't
that big an issue, just another boring detail for your accountant to
deal with.

>Are you going to tax pension and mutual finds yearly too?  Are you going to 
>give money back (like the IRS does if they withhold too much) if you have a 
>loss the next year?

Why? AFAIK, the way it works now is that you can deduct your loss from
earnings and carry it forward to offset future earnings if necessary.
Seems reasonable, unlike the gambling law, which IIRC imposes taxes on
gambling winnings but doesn't allow one to deduct losses.

-- 
Josh

"I love it when I'm around the country club, and I hear people talking about
the debilitating
effects of a welfare society. At the same time, they leave their kids a
lifetime and beyond
of food stamps. Instead of having a welfare officer, they have a trust officer.
And instead
of food stamps, they have stocks and bonds."

- Warren Buffett
                                                                          
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)