(08-01-2012 10:17 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I'm not sure about how to handle the capitol gains tax, it's a weird issue but there shouldn't be that simplistic of a tax shelter almost exclusively available, at least to a meaningful extent, to such a minute and already wealthy segment of society.

Why not?

Your comment reflects a shocking lack of awareness of the importance of risk capital. If I am going to tie up a significant amount of capital in a risky venture, then one factor that will definitely impact my decision is how any return on that investment will be taxed. I would have thought that anyone with the real estate background you claim to have would have a good grasp of that concept.

Almost every developed country allows some sort of favorable tax treatment to attract capital. Most extend favorable treatment to dividends as well, but we do not. Germany had zero capital gains tax until recently. Their economy grew quite strongly during that period, and it remains to be seen how well they'll do after changing that.

If I'm a middle-class blue-collar person, I want the capital gains tax to be as low as possible. Why? Because that increases the possibility that a new factory will come here and offer me a better job.

Raising the capital gains tax is an attempt to reduce income inequality by making the rich poorer; lowering the capital gains tax is a way to reduce income inequality by making the poor richer.

As for the "rich," they're going to make it one way or the other, and if you raise their taxes on capital gains they will just invest elsewhere--and create jobs elsewhere--that the tax treatment is more favorable. And remember--the "rich" guy gets the chalk last.

(08-01-2012 11:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-01-2012 10:17 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I'm not sure about how to handle the capitol gains tax, it's a weird issue but there shouldn't be that simplistic of a tax shelter almost exclusively available, at least to a meaningful extent, to such a minute and already wealthy segment of society.

Why not?

Your comment reflects a shocking lack of awareness of the importance of risk capital. If I am going to tie up a significant amount of capital in a risky venture, then one factor that will definitely impact my decision is how any return on that investment will be taxed. I would have thought that anyone with the real estate background you claim to have would have a good grasp of that concept.

Almost every developed country allows some sort of favorable tax treatment to attract capital. Most extend favorable treatment to dividends as well, but we do not. Germany had zero capital gains tax until recently. Their economy grew quite strongly during that period, and it remains to be seen how well they'll do after changing that.

If I'm a middle-class blue-collar person, I want the capital gains tax to be as low as possible. Why? Because that increases the possibility that a new factory will come here and offer me a better job.

Raising the capital gains tax is an attempt to reduce income inequality by making the rich poorer; lowering the capital gains tax is a way to reduce income inequality by making the poor richer.

As for the "rich," they're going to make it one way or the other, and if you raise their taxes on capital gains they will just invest elsewhere--and create jobs elsewhere--that the tax treatment is more favorable. And remember--the "rich" guy gets the chalk last.

You really should change the wording from "risk capital" to gambling because that is essentially what it is.

(08-01-2012 11:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-01-2012 10:17 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I'm not sure about how to handle the capitol gains tax, it's a weird issue but there shouldn't be that simplistic of a tax shelter almost exclusively available, at least to a meaningful extent, to such a minute and already wealthy segment of society.

Why not?

Your comment reflects a shocking lack of awareness of the importance of risk capital. If I am going to tie up a significant amount of capital in a risky venture, then one factor that will definitely impact my decision is how any return on that investment will be taxed. I would have thought that anyone with the real estate background you claim to have would have a good grasp of that concept.

Almost every developed country allows some sort of favorable tax treatment to attract capital. Most extend favorable treatment to dividends as well, but we do not. Germany had zero capital gains tax until recently. Their economy grew quite strongly during that period, and it remains to be seen how well they'll do after changing that.

If I'm a middle-class blue-collar person, I want the capital gains tax to be as low as possible. Why? Because that increases the possibility that a new factory will come here and offer me a better job.

Raising the capital gains tax is an attempt to reduce income inequality by making the rich poorer; lowering the capital gains tax is a way to reduce income inequality by making the poor richer.

As for the "rich," they're going to make it one way or the other, and if you raise their taxes on capital gains they will just invest elsewhere--and create jobs elsewhere--that the tax treatment is more favorable. And remember--the "rich" guy gets the chalk last.

You really should change the wording from "risk capital" to gambling because that is essentially what it is.

One other thing to remember--if I take a capital loss, my ability to deduct it for taxes is severely limited.

(08-01-2012 11:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One other thing to remember--if I take a capital loss, my ability to deduct it for taxes is severely limited.

So?

Owl69 totally schooled UCF08. Honestly, that had to leave a mark.

Yes, liberals, let's just totally ABOLISH the concept of risk capital investment tax deductions. The wealthy should of course risk their money on these ventures and get ZERO tax benefit.



Please wake the f&<!( up and get a clue how investments work. Damn.

(08-01-2012 12:12 PM)boss man Wrote:  Owl69 totally schooled UCF08. Honestly, that had to leave a mark.

Yes, liberals, let's just totally ABOLISH the concept of risk capital investment tax deductions. The wealthy should of course risk their money on these ventures and get ZERO tax benefit.



Please wake the f&<!( up and get a clue how investments work. Damn.

It is called "gamble". Why can't you guys ever get it right? Also, Owl 69 couldn't school anyone.

The current tax code currently favors Wall Streeters over Main Street.

To illustrate, take two examples. Both have 5,000,000 to invest.

1) Person one - invests in foreign equities in NYC. She makes 400,000 after two years. When she sells her investment, she will have to pay 15% in taxes. Virtually no jobs in the USA are created by this investment.

2) Person two - invests in a business in the USA. He builds a building hires employees etc. He makes 400,000 in year two. He pays 31% in taxes. He has created jobs in the USA etc.

Jus' sayin'

(08-01-2012 12:22 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The current tax code currently favors Wall Streeters over Main Street.

To illustrate, take two examples. Both have 5,000,000 to invest.

1) Person one - invests in foreign equities in NYC. She makes 400,000 after two years. When she sells her investment, she will have to pay 15% in taxes. Virtually no jobs in the USA are created by this investment.

2) Person two - invests in a business in the USA. He builds a building hires employees etc. He makes 400,000 in year two. He pays 31% in taxes. He has created jobs in the USA etc.

Jus' sayin'

Better question. Why would they invest in foreign equities?

(08-01-2012 12:27 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(08-01-2012 12:22 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The current tax code currently favors Wall Streeters over Main Street.

To illustrate, take two examples. Both have 5,000,000 to invest.

1) Person one - invests in foreign equities in NYC. She makes 400,000 after two years. When she sells her investment, she will have to pay 15% in taxes. Virtually no jobs in the USA are created by this investment.

2) Person two - invests in a business in the USA. He builds a building hires employees etc. He makes 400,000 in year two. He pays 31% in taxes. He has created jobs in the USA etc.

Jus' sayin'

Better question. Why would they invest in foreign equities?

Because they hate America?

(08-01-2012 12:22 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The current tax code currently favors Wall Streeters over Main Street.

To illustrate, take two examples. Both have 5,000,000 to invest.

1) Person one - invests in foreign equities in NYC. She makes 400,000 after two years. When she sells her investment, she will have to pay 15% in taxes. Virtually no jobs in the USA are created by this investment.

2) Person two - invests in a business in the USA. He builds a building hires employees etc. He makes 400,000 in year two. He pays 31% in taxes. He has created jobs in the USA etc.

Jus' sayin'

You've made the case that small businesses are overtaxed, not that all investment should be taxed more.

(08-01-2012 11:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One other thing to remember--if I take a capital loss, my ability to deduct it for taxes is severely limited.

One other thing to remember--unused capital losses are carried over.

(08-01-2012 12:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-01-2012 11:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One other thing to remember--if I take a capital loss, my ability to deduct it for taxes is severely limited.

One other thing to remember--unused capital losses are carried over.

Yeah, you can them to offset capital gains and take any excess at a whopping $3,000 a year. That's a great benefit--NOT.

(08-01-2012 12:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-01-2012 12:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-01-2012 11:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One other thing to remember--if I take a capital loss, my ability to deduct it for taxes is severely limited.

One other thing to remember--unused capital losses are carried over.

Yeah, you can them to offset capital gains and take any excess at a whopping $3,000 a year. That's a great benefit--NOT.

Benefit? Why should that be a benefit? Regardless...you get the deduction eventually as long as you aren't the world's worst investor. That's the price you pay for sometimes getting a lower tax rate on them.

(08-01-2012 12:22 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The current tax code currently favors Wall Streeters over Main Street.

To illustrate, take two examples. Both have 5,000,000 to invest.

1) Person one - invests in foreign equities in NYC. She makes 400,000 after two years. When she sells her investment, she will have to pay 15% in taxes. Virtually no jobs in the USA are created by this investment.

2) Person two - invests in a business in the USA. He builds a building hires employees etc. He makes 400,000 in year two. He pays 31% in taxes. He has created jobs in the USA etc.

Jus' sayin'

Your example is flawed, but rather than discuss the flaws I will take it in a different direction. You have given an example where our tax code favors investing overseas. Should we fault the tax code for creating the situation or fault the investor for taking perfectly legal advantage? And if it's the tax code at fault, how do you fix it? Keep in mind that whatever you do, the investor gets the chalk last.

(08-01-2012 12:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-01-2012 12:22 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The current tax code currently favors Wall Streeters over Main Street.

To illustrate, take two examples. Both have 5,000,000 to invest.

1) Person one - invests in foreign equities in NYC. She makes 400,000 after two years. When she sells her investment, she will have to pay 15% in taxes. Virtually no jobs in the USA are created by this investment.

2) Person two - invests in a business in the USA. He builds a building hires employees etc. He makes 400,000 in year two. He pays 31% in taxes. He has created jobs in the USA etc.

Jus' sayin'

Your example is flawed, but rather than discuss the flaws I will take it in a different direction. You have given an example where our tax code favors investing overseas. Should we fault the tax code for creating the situation or fault the investor for taking perfectly legal advantage? And if it's the tax code at fault, how do you fix it? Keep in mind that whatever you do, the investor gets the chalk last.

Why is it that you believe everyone who you disagree with has flawed reasoning? Just wondering if you have ever read a response by someone you don't agree with and it changed your position?

He is correct. You just don't understand why.

(08-01-2012 12:22 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The current tax code currently favors Wall Streeters over Main Street.

To illustrate, take two examples. Both have 5,000,000 to invest.

1) Person one - invests in foreign equities in NYC. She makes 400,000 after two years. When she sells her investment, she will have to pay 15% in taxes. Virtually no jobs in the USA are created by this investment.

2) Person two - invests in a business in the USA. He builds a building hires employees etc. He makes 400,000 in year two. He pays 31% in taxes. He has created jobs in the USA etc.

Jus' sayin'

I thought person 2 didn't build that. And he made over 250,000. Don't you want more?

(08-01-2012 10:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I will gladly put my intellect up against yours any day there pal, sorry but it wouldn't end well for you. As for this statement, it has absolutely no bearing on the topic at hand and is nothing but a 'well i don't have anything of substance to say so I'll throw some sh*t against the wall and see if it sticks' approach. Nothing is sticking.

Not exactly true. You're stuck. On stu.........

(08-01-2012 01:18 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-01-2012 12:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-01-2012 12:22 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The current tax code currently favors Wall Streeters over Main Street.

To illustrate, take two examples. Both have 5,000,000 to invest.

1) Person one - invests in foreign equities in NYC. She makes 400,000 after two years. When she sells her investment, she will have to pay 15% in taxes. Virtually no jobs in the USA are created by this investment.

2) Person two - invests in a business in the USA. He builds a building hires employees etc. He makes 400,000 in year two. He pays 31% in taxes. He has created jobs in the USA etc.

Jus' sayin'

Your example is flawed, but rather than discuss the flaws I will take it in a different direction. You have given an example where our tax code favors investing overseas. Should we fault the tax code for creating the situation or fault the investor for taking perfectly legal advantage? And if it's the tax code at fault, how do you fix it? Keep in mind that whatever you do, the investor gets the chalk last.

Why is it that you believe everyone who you disagree with has flawed reasoning? Just wondering if you have ever read a response by someone you don't agree with and it changed your position?

Have you ever answered a question?

In simplest terms... The examples given assume that investor 2 is stupid and doesn't deduct his capital investments or depreciate his assets. Further, if He's taken 400k out in year two, then the business has appreciated... and guess what?? When he sells it, he will pay 15% gains just like investor 1. Further, as capital gaisnare capital gains... what wouldd make investor 1 invest overseas if he can do as well/better here? Shouldn't the argument be that if he is investing overseas rather than here, and clearly it's not for tax purposes in your example... maybe we should as why?

If you're willing to suspend reality to make a point, you don't deserve an explanation as to why your example is flawed.

Back to Owl's question... because you've got plenty of opinions, Robert, but never any answers to direct questions...

If you don't like the rules, why aren't you taking steps to address the rules rather than just pointing fingers at the "evil" people who are smarter and more savvy than you?