Investment income is taxed at a higher rate then wages. The investment income was earned as wages at some point and taxed that taxed money that is invested and actually earns a profit will be taxed at the corporate level currently 35% and it is going to be taxed as a capital gain or dividend when distributed all the while being eatin up by inflation just like the person he decided to put their's under a mattress.
Additionally the losses are restricted. Cap gains are taxed at a much higher rate then wages or money that's spent that doesn't get taxed at all since we don't have a federal sales tax.
So I don't agree with your premise that income from investments or losses from investments are the same as wages.
Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 11-15-2012 at 02:28 PM.
If that's the case, this would be considered a man's job... and similar to a salesman, he will have good months and bad months. Yet the investor pays a significant'y lower tax rate because he's making his money differently.
Holy Christ, the same old dusty and crusty "I'm being Double Taxed" argument, with an added bonus of the new and improved "I'm actually being triple taxed"?Investment income is taxed at a higher rate then wages. The investment income was earned as wages at some point and taxed that taxed money that is invested and actually earns a profit will be taxed at the corporate level currently 35% and it is going to be taxed as a capital gain or dividend when distributed all the while being eatin up by inflation just like the person he decided to put their's under a mattress.
Best of luck with your investments Winston.
This is a clasic example of someone who doesn't understand risk and investing. Words do have meaning and because you don't understand them doesn't change that.=Warfish;4685693]Again, just because you choose to call putting money under your mattress to devalue over time an investment, does not make it an investment. Words have meanings Winston, and that action is not an investment.
The same old everyone chooses to spend and not save there is no upward mobility in saving let’s keep taxing to encourage people to take on debt and spend and wonder why so many people aren't prepared for their own rainy day.Holy Christ, the same old dusty and crusty "I'm being Double Taxed" argument, with an added bonus of the new and improved "I'm actually being triple taxed"?
Guess what there are tons of millionaires in this country who never made more than 50K in any year and there are tons of people in this country who made millions and are flat broke because they don't know when to put their cash under the mattress.
I'm not worried about my investments or my taxes. I know that if I have it I'm getting taxed for it because other people don't have it to tax. All this nonesense is just that. People who have wages, savings, investments and earnings who save money are going to pay for those who don't have, squandered or simple pissed it away on toys. There's no fair about it savers will be punished and spenders will be bailed out.
You allready are willing to screw me out of the SS and Medicare beni's I paid into just like you now you want to take my savings. Don't get me wrong I'm willing to pay more and understand I will but don't give me your BS argument because it's BS.
I'm more a finance guy, and hence use that oft-used definition (which I believe mirrors the common laymans definition as well.Investment has different meanings in finance and economics.
In finance, investment is putting money into something with the expectation of gain, usually over a longer term.
In economics, investment is related to saving and deferring consumption.
But strictly speaking, in economics, putting your money is a box full of dog**** and used tampons would, in fact, be considered "investment".
Hence I must admit that while I am not, in fact, incorrect in my use of the term, neither are you.
I'm glad to hear that Winston. The rest of your wargarbl is too wargarbley for my tastes at this point. Perhaps we can exchange again down the road when you're feeling more reasonable and less "Angry Wargarbl taxes!!!!". As it is, I fit squarely in your "paying for it" group myself, although as a laboror, not an investor.I'm not worried about my investments or my taxes.
Last edited by Warfish; 11-15-2012 at 05:41 PM.
Sorry fish you have failed the basic sell high and buy low. Like most people they buy high and sell low. There are times in life the mattress is most certainly a great investment and we just went through a short period where that was proven out and may well go through it again.
You fail to understand that investing has risk and risk tollerance is part of investing. If Banks aren't safe and we are seeing a full boat deflation like we just went through a few short years ago when you were most certainly an adult with some cognitive recognition, you would get it. You aren't as dumb as you are acting here for the sole purpose of being argumentative.
Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 11-15-2012 at 05:53 PM.
Under literally every circusmtance, "under mattress" is a poor investment, as the value of that money dimished over time.
The only exception would be a severe and long-lasting period of monetary deflation, so string that it overcome the inherant loss in the time value of money for money not invested in a vehichle that offered some form of return. The Financial Crisis of 2007/2010 did indeed have deflationary effects, primary due to enegery costs falling, but it was not long lasting enough or strong enough to overcome the loss incurred by a conscious non-investment of funds into a safe investment vehicle over the same period.
I too am sorry, but thats simply not correct. "Under Mattress" may have been a better decision than say, shoving it down stripped panties or buying Enron stock, but it was not and is not a good investment, and it has nothing to do with buy/sell high/low.Sorry fish you have failed the basic sell high and buy low. Like most people they buy high and sell low. There are times in life the mattress is most certainly a great investment and we just went through a short period where that was proven out and may well go through it again.
Money under mattress is an almost 100% losing decision. While it may be a safer decision that strippers or stocks, it's still a net loser outside of very breifs period in U.S. financial history. There is no shortage of safer and safe options that exist. It is not a two-option-only scenario.
I'm well aware of the fact, which is why I do not personally waste my own money in investing. As you've seen with most of my predictions over the years, I'm quite poor at it, and would lose money.You fail to understand that investing has risk and risk tollerance is part of investing.
This is not, IMO, relevant to the question of taxation on investment income.
Banks were never "not safe". Not a single person lost money from an FDIA insured bank. And your era of deflation was not long enough or strong enough to warrant a "sit on your money" investing tactic.If Banks aren't safe and we are seeing a full boat deflation like we just went through a few short years ago when you were most certainly an adult with some cognitive recognition, you would get it. You aren't as dumb as you are acting here for the sole purpose of being argumentative.
I'm not trying to be argumentative with you Winston, you're clearly VERY angry about something at current, and think you need to put me in my place to vent it. But you're simply incorrect with your under the mattress analogy. It does not meet the common finance definition fo an investment, and over almost any period it is a net loser when many net winner investments existed.
In any event, we're well derailed from a moral question of taxation principles and if/why labor income should/should not be taxed at a different rate (and if so what rates) from investment/capital gains income.
By all means, if all of you wish to "invest" by sticking your money under your pillow, by all means do so. If you think thats the ebst investment, who am I to tell you otherwise.
Last edited by Warfish; 11-15-2012 at 06:34 PM.
Not trying to argumentative (that would never be me) but money under the pillow or mattress CAN be a sound investment policy in certain cases.
I have a fairly substantial monthly investment income. I have not invested one penny over the past 5 months anticipating an Obama (unffortunately) win. Rather I have allowed the monies to accumulate at essentaiily zero return.
With the stock market in an almost free fall, I am now in a position to strike and invest at what will be favorable prices on stocks with outstanding dividend yields. A positive strategy. There are many solid strategies in which to invest. It depends on one's goals and objectives.
However, this is somewhat irrelevant to topic of the thread. I think Warfish's preference to argue semantics is indicative of the weakness of his position on the issue as a whole.
With that said, when taxes rise on the top 2% of income earners, and the tax rate rises on capital gains/investment income, I'm not going to shed many tears either.
Aha, there you are incorrect. I have now amassed substantial capital to be executed reurning a much higher rate of return than say five months ago. Amassing capital IS an investment strategy.
Also, had I invested on a continuing basis rather than accumulate I would have had a negative YTD return on those funds. When I execute it will be positive (probably - there are never definites).
Warfish is ok btw- he likes to argue. Not that he needs my endorsement - LOL
Here are a couple of your opinions that i have a hard time with.
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.
Example: I shift funds from stock A to stock B
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.