Text 3348, 101 rader
Skriven 2006-07-05 11:35:00 av Robert E Starr JR (3821.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Dennis \(Icarus\) to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * *
*
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <73f97$44ab1b64$18d64cf6$30759@KNOLOGY.NET>
@REPLY: <A-udnRG9z7NAFDvZnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com>

"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cd1ma2983c8m2thu4a99hffnnrg74qtt25@4ax.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.

So no one would have to sell...uhm...except those that may have to do so.

>
> 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.

Uhmm.....traders taking shot term capital gains actually SOLD the items.
That's realized gains or losses.

I'm my accountant, BTW :-)

>
> >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.

Gambling is not investing - a bit less is left to chance, ideally. :-)

Dennis


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