(04-28-2024, 12:44 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(04-28-2024, 08:46 AM)Sneakers Wrote: Should income generated from investments that carry a risk of loss be taxed at the same rate as all other income?

I could lose my job tomorrow and so could you.  That's a risk.

So yes. Absolutely.

You want us to cry over the investor's risk of loss? The investor is blessed to have that extra capital in the first place. I'm certainly not an "eat the rich" guy but I'm not going to lick their boots either.

An at-will employee in the private sector is always at risk of termination with little or no notice, however, that's a completely different level of risk.  Anyone terminated can seek other employment immediately and unemployment benefits are also potentially available to help ease the temporary loss of income. 

You're stereotyping "investors", assuming they're all rich and working with "extra" capital.  They're not all Warren Buffet and some are heavily leveraged.  

When you work an hour, you know you're getting paid the contracted price for that hour.  When you buy a share of stock, you can only speculate on its value the next day (or hour) and factors that can drastically alter the equation are completely out of your control.  New York Community Bank and Spirit Airlines are two excellent ongoing examples.  
Residential property has been a great market over the last several years, but let's not forget what happened in 2008.  Meanwhile office properties are currently tanking all across the country.  Real estate carries its own dangers, not the least of which is interest rates which are controlled by the Federal Reserve. 

You can debate what the tax rate should be, but let's be realistic about the relative risk factors inherent in different types of income.

---