Taxes

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Axil

While investment income and income earned as a wage are both income, that is all they have in common. I do not believe they ought to be taxed the same as they are not the same. I have laid out my reasons in previous posts. I do not believe the "income is income" argument is very compelling.

And I don't believe your argument is compelling either, so we agree to disagree. I'm actually a bit offended that an investor would feel comfotable feeling they should pay a lower rate on his/her income than a man working for a living.

You are correct, they are not the same. Investment, if anything, should be taxed higher, not lower, than labor income, if we're not going to have an equal rate.

But of course there is a "deserve" in a tax system. Voters vote for many reasons.

And they just handed Obama a landsilde electoral victory and what he has taken as a mandate.

I believe at one point we discussed tax reform previously, and i mentioned my support for the consumption tax, and far less enthusiasm for a "flat tax". This is one of the major reasons i believe a consumption tax is vastly superior than a flat tax. Every issue discussed in this thread magically disappears when a consumption tax system is utilized.

I think we could find mcuh to agree upon in this section however.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by Axil

As i mentioned in my previous post, i agree. Amassing capital is part of an investment strategy. It is just not an investment.

Example: I shift funds from stock A to stock B

Methodology:

I own stock A: my funds are invested.

I sell stock A: Those funds cease to be invested.

I but stock B: Those funds are once again invested.

Yes this is semantics. I like semantics. I interact with computers a lot. Computers are really interested in semantics. Drives my wife nuts.



Warfish is one of my favorite posters. I have to antagnoize him a little bit now and again to get his attention.

Semantics. No problem. I define (for myself) ALL activity which is in financial instruments or INTENDED for financial instruments as investments.
All my monies are "compartmentalized" in defined areas. Different accounts for different concepts i.e. stocks, munis, corporate bonds, annuities, etc. And my wife and I have separate accounts under an umbrella trust. The sign of a overorganized sick mind. LOL

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by Axil

As i mentioned in my previous post, i agree. Amassing capital is part of an investment strategy. It is just not an investment.

Example: I shift funds from stock A to stock B

Methodology:

I own stock A: my funds are invested.

I sell stock A: Those funds cease to be invested.

I but stock B: Those funds are once again invested.

Yes this is semantics. I like semantics. I interact with computers a lot. Computers are really interested in semantics. Drives my wife nuts.



Warfish is one of my favorite posters. I have to antagnoize him a little bit now and again to get his attention.

No they are no longer invested in the instrument you had them in. Accumulating cash is most certainly an investment by the person accumulating it.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

Semantics. No problem. I define (for myself) ALL activity which is in financial instruments or INTENDED for financial instruments as investments.
All my monies are "compartmentalized" in defined areas. Different accounts for different concepts i.e. stocks, munis, corporate bonds, annuities, etc. And my wife and I have separate accounts under an umbrella trust. The sign of a overorganized sick mind. LOL

Given your definition, you are correct. I tend to cringe at definitions that depend upon intentions, rather than objectively defined parameters. Again, shows my bias towards thinking of things in a way in which they can be conveyed to a machine.

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

No they are no longer invested in the instrument you had them in. Accumulating cash is most certainly an investment by the person accumulating it.

Under Palmetto's definition. Yes. Under the more abstract definition Warfish found on wikipedia. Yes. Under the dictionary defition. No.


Invest:
1.
to put (money) to use, by purchase or expenditure, in something offering potential profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value.
2.
to use (money), as in accumulating something: to invest large sums in books.

Defining terms is important. It is perhaps the most important component of meaningful debate.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Axil

Under Palmetto's definition. Yes. Under the more abstract definition Warfish found on wikipedia. Yes. Under the dictionary defition. No.


Invest:
1.
to put (money) to use, by purchase or expenditure, in something offering potential profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value.
2.
to use (money), as in accumulating something: to invest large sums in books.

Defining terms is important. It is perhaps the most important component of meaningful debate.

Agreed.

For me, the difference is very clear.

Put money under a mattress, that is not an investment.

Put that money in even a low-yield saving account (no risk of any kind), and it becomes an investment.

Both would more appropriately be described as SAVINGS however. While some savings can be an investment, not all savings can.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by Warfish

And I don't believe your argument is compelling either, so we agree to disagree.

If you wish, however i am genuinely interested in why you feel the way you do. I can reiterate my reasoning if you like. I've been unable to find yours.

Originally Posted by Warfish

I'm actually a bit offended that an investor would feel comfotable feeling they should pay a lower rate on his/her income than a man working for a living.

Why?

Originally Posted by Warfish

You are correct, they are not the same. Investment, if anything, should be taxed higher, not lower, than labor income, if we're not going to have an equal rate.

Why?

Originally Posted by Warfish

And they just handed Obama a landsilde electoral victory and what he has taken as a mandate.

Absolutely. I feel this proves taxation is as much a political weapon as it is a tool to raise income in our country. This is obviously not ideal, however i do not expect it will change.

Originally Posted by Warfish

I think we could find mcuh to agree upon in this section however.

I suspect you are right, however consensus is much less intellectually stimulating than debate, no?

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Agreed.

For me, the difference is very clear.

Put money under a mattress, that is not an investment.

Put that money in even a low-yield saving account (no risk of any kind), and it becomes an investment.

Both would more appropriately be described as SAVINGS however. While some savings can be an investment, not all savings can.

To be clearer on my part ( I was obtuse), my expression of putting money under the mattress or pillow was a euphemism. Only a moron would have unsecured money.
My meaning was money placed in a protected account or accounts which at a point would be committed to specific investments. Such accounts currently (and for awhile) have virtually no yield.
I have almost no cash in my house or on my person, ever. All secured someplace. A phobia.