Quote:
Originally Posted by Warfish
Two Questions:
1. Why not allow the Bush/Obama Tax Cuts to expire for the Top 2%? If it's bad for the economy, as (R) claims, that should make itself rather clear, shouldn't it?
2. Why shouldn't investments be taxed at a higher rate that labor/wages? Doesn't it make sense that money earned through ones own labor should be taxed less than momney earned withotu any labor? The argument that "investors will stop investing" makes me wonder.....what else will they do with that money? Put it under the mattress?
If it's all as bad as (R) claims, if they let both these items occur, the economy will clearly suffer in the short term, and drive voters to fix it in the next mid-terms and next Presidential election. If it's not as bad as (R) claims, or turns out not bad at all, then that means it's good for us as a Country.
Sounds like a win/win.
How many here would pull all their money back and sit on it if investment income (i.e. Capital gains) was taxed at 35% instead of the current rate, and labor income was taxed less than it is now?
|
Investment income is fundamentally different than income earned from employment.
When you are employed, you receive a paycheck, you know what it will be. Once you've completed the work, your payment cannot be taken away from you.
Investing is always a gamble. Your odds are better than at the blackjack table, but even the best investors are constantly at risk. I would argue on principle that investment income shouldn't be taxed at all for those reasons, regardless of whether or not it hurt the economy.
But it does. Higher taxation skews investment towards lower risk ventures. High risk ventures drive innovation and help the economy grow, and evolve. Surely you don't think that money being diverted into bonds, will provide the same economic advantage?
Also why are you expecting that in the invent raising investment income taxes hurts the economy the American voter to logically identify the problem , and vote based upon that?
Incidentally i don't believe you're correct in regards to most hotels being owned by the parent chain. I believe that most hotel's are franchised, or at least most low to mid-range hotels are. I could not find data to back up my opinion though, so if you have the data to prove me wrong please share.
*Edit* for the record i'm opposed to any income tax of any kind, and prefer the consumption tax model.