Pensions are almost all underfunded, so a rising market at least makes the fund managers' lives easier and in some cases might keep a marginal pension from going broke. Most younger people now are not in structured pensions but various IRAs. The stock market gets most of that money, so the gyrations of the market induce constant anxiety in the workers.
It would still leave them up around 30% for the year on what we New Dealers used to call the 'unearned increment,' so they would have to contemplate the future in smaller yachts.
Your second one is more briefly stated as: tax capital gains as ordinary income.
This makes every kind of sense, inasmuch as there is waaaay too much capital looking for reasonable places to invest -- that explains Bitcoin.
There have been proposals to do that but also index capital gains to inflation. This would to some extent protect the capital gains of ordinary working people, who, at the end of their lives, have most capital in the form of home equity.
I myself think a lagged index would be best. It would encourage home ownership, allow some transfer of assets between generations and avoid pulses of dumping of assets nased on nothing more than market panics. Most of all, it might temper the anxiety of the voters who are going to be most fretted by any changes, and policies need voters.
By lagged, I mean either 1) indexing starts only after the asset has been held 5 or 10 years; or 2) indexing applies only to the last 5 or 10 years of ownership.
Sort of what I was getting at... here in Mexico, the facilities NOT specifically for the upkeep and maintenence of the church and its direct employees (i.e. the clergy and the people maintaining the church building) are separate businesses, and their books are audited. Those like hospitals and nursing homes are equivalent to US "not for profit" institutions, with the same rules and regulations as any other.. .and the same tax rates.
A lot of tax fear mongering is based on crying how the rich will leave, and take their trickle money.
Ha ha. No. It's usually an accounting trick, using off-shore banking.
Just look at what Europe is doing to hold down Apple and Facebook trying to slither away. Sooner or later their mega-yachts need to dock for gas, so they can sit down and pay the bill they tried to pass off on the have-nots.
Not self-fulfilling. It takes 2 sides to make a market. The problem comes when there is only 1 side -- all sellers and no buyers as in 1929.
In a world with too much capital, there will be buyers long after the point where, in a capital-short world, the buyers disappear. In 2008-9, there were buyers aplenty. Stock prices went down, but not down 92% as they did 1929-32.
There are certainly bubbles in the equity market now, but I do not yet judge that the market as a whole is inflated beyond hope.
I approach from the historical viewpoint (which might be silly).
In 1929, RCA hit 1,000, say 15,000 today. Apple might be way overvalued but nobody thinks it is worth (really) only 21.
Even Tesla, which I think is wildly overvalued, is not as inflated as so many stocks were in '29.
You could do the time thing that Gore proposed. If you make money from an investment, defined as one held for at least five years, you pay much less. If you make money in seconds, you pay egregious taxes.
Pensions are almost all underfunded, so a rising market at least makes the fund managers' lives easier and in some cases might keep a marginal pension from going broke. Most younger people now are not in structured pensions but various IRAs. The stock market gets most of that money, so the gyrations of the market induce constant anxiety in the workers.
It would still leave them up around 30% for the year on what we New Dealers used to call the 'unearned increment,' so they would have to contemplate the future in smaller yachts.
Your second one is more briefly stated as: tax capital gains as ordinary income.
This makes every kind of sense, inasmuch as there is waaaay too much capital looking for reasonable places to invest -- that explains Bitcoin.
There have been proposals to do that but also index capital gains to inflation. This would to some extent protect the capital gains of ordinary working people, who, at the end of their lives, have most capital in the form of home equity.
I myself think a lagged index would be best. It would encourage home ownership, allow some transfer of assets between generations and avoid pulses of dumping of assets nased on nothing more than market panics. Most of all, it might temper the anxiety of the voters who are going to be most fretted by any changes, and policies need voters.
By lagged, I mean either 1) indexing starts only after the asset has been held 5 or 10 years; or 2) indexing applies only to the last 5 or 10 years of ownership.
Sort of what I was getting at... here in Mexico, the facilities NOT specifically for the upkeep and maintenence of the church and its direct employees (i.e. the clergy and the people maintaining the church building) are separate businesses, and their books are audited. Those like hospitals and nursing homes are equivalent to US "not for profit" institutions, with the same rules and regulations as any other.. .and the same tax rates.
DC Cab > AMZN Women
At least the church of scientology
So you say. What I hear is, "blah, blah, blah, blah'.
ETC
I like this.
That Milken guy Dumpty pardoned fought the IRS for eight years.
A lot of tax fear mongering is based on crying how the rich will leave, and take their trickle money.
Ha ha. No. It's usually an accounting trick, using off-shore banking.
Just look at what Europe is doing to hold down Apple and Facebook trying to slither away. Sooner or later their mega-yachts need to dock for gas, so they can sit down and pay the bill they tried to pass off on the have-nots.
They ain't going no where.
Lots of hedge funds hedging their bets on a market swan dive these days.
Self fulfilling prophesy?
Especially since this will in no way stop the rich continuing to get richer.
Not self-fulfilling. It takes 2 sides to make a market. The problem comes when there is only 1 side -- all sellers and no buyers as in 1929.
In a world with too much capital, there will be buyers long after the point where, in a capital-short world, the buyers disappear. In 2008-9, there were buyers aplenty. Stock prices went down, but not down 92% as they did 1929-32.
There are certainly bubbles in the equity market now, but I do not yet judge that the market as a whole is inflated beyond hope.
I approach from the historical viewpoint (which might be silly).
In 1929, RCA hit 1,000, say 15,000 today. Apple might be way overvalued but nobody thinks it is worth (really) only 21.
Even Tesla, which I think is wildly overvalued, is not as inflated as so many stocks were in '29.
You could do the time thing that Gore proposed. If you make money from an investment, defined as one held for at least five years, you pay much less. If you make money in seconds, you pay egregious taxes.
I saw this on Reddit during a budget zoom call and laughed so hard I had to "accidentally" leave the meeting less someone ask me a question.
Nail a few of the high profile ones and then tell the rest they have until X date to make nice and pay their share or they WILL be next.