No my point is both people cleared $20 million in two years, one pays $7.3 million in taxes and the other pays $4.0 million because he funneled his money through a shell corporation and deferred taking it for at least 366 days.  I'm not saying the 2nd guy should pay $7.3 million.  I'm saying they should each pay the same amount, and that amount would probably be a number in between, say $5 million or $6 million.

Agreed, as do most of the citizens of America.  Yet the elected officials do see that a flat tax would be beneficial.  I wonder why?

They want the lobbyists to keep coming back.  There is a lobbyist for each little tax break.  There is also a team of lobbyists for making it complicated in general, they're the ones that HR Block and Turbo Tax pay for.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Great, you understand how critical the movement of money is.  Now, do you understand that higher net returns make investors more likely to sell property, thereby moving money (the economy) PLUS those sales not only generate other associated fees and taxes beyond capital gains (doc stamp tax, property transfer tax, recording fees, etc.) but also typically require peripheral actions that also move money (appraisals, inspections, surveys, etc.)?

Yes, but if you're going to lower taxes to stimulate economic activity, lower them on wages as well.  Those wages not only generate good feelings but also generate taxes beyond like sales tax, gas tax, and bed tax when the happy worker spends his extra money and goes on vacation.

Just treat income as income.  That's all I'm saying.

Should income generated from investments that carry a risk of loss be taxed at the same rate as all other income?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

The income tax needs to go.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The income tax needs to go.

At all levels?  I'm all for reducing government spending, but where we will make up the resulting shortfall, assuming all else stays untouched.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

The income tax needs to go.

At all levels?  I'm all for reducing government spending, but where we will make up the resulting shortfall, assuming all else stays untouched.

Oh, 75% of the government needs to go too, but a sales tax is far superior to an income tax for both freedom and fiscal policy reasons. The Fair Tax, long dormant, is the ideal...but that would mean too many people free of the government's clutches, so we can't have that.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Yes, but if you're going to lower taxes to stimulate economic activity, lower them on wages as well.  Those wages not only generate good feelings but also generate taxes beyond like sales tax, gas tax, and bed tax when the happy worker spends his extra money and goes on vacation.

Just treat income as income.  That's all I'm saying.

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.

---

At all levels?  I'm all for reducing government spending, but where we will make up the resulting shortfall, assuming all else stays untouched.

Oh, 75% of the government needs to go too, but a sales tax is far superior to an income tax for both freedom and fiscal policy reasons. The Fair Tax, long dormant, is the ideal...but that would mean too many people free of the government's clutches, so we can't have that.

The "prebate" that is proposed with the "fair tax" would basically be another IRS 1040 form so I don't see the benefit.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

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.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

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.

Put it in the same time frame.  An investor has risk because they can't be sure what their asset's value will be next year.  An at will employee is at risk because they can't be sure if their skills, strength, and mindset will still be marketable to employers next year.  You want to focus on the day to day for a wage earner and the long term for the investor but that's artificial in my opinion.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

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.

---

Oh, 75% of the government needs to go too, but a sales tax is far superior to an income tax for both freedom and fiscal policy reasons. The Fair Tax, long dormant, is the ideal...but that would mean too many people free of the government's clutches, so we can't have that.

The "prebate" that is proposed with the "fair tax" would basically be another IRS 1040 form so I don't see the benefit.

Everyone gets the prebate, it isn't means tested.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Biden is completely [BLEEP] in the head.. Just as much as his voters.

---

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.
see the benefit.

Talk about a wrong stereotype.  I am an investor and there are many like me that weren't "blessed" with the capital to invest.  I worked hard, long hours, sometimes away from my family for over 30 years to earn the capital that I have to invest.  I spent many years saving my money, even if it was "only" $50 or $100 per month.  Remember, $50 or $100 back in the 80's and 90's was a pretty good amount of money.

I wouldn't exactly call myself "rich" or wealthy as far as money, but I was able to retire comfortably at the age of 55.  At this point, my "income" comes from my wife's Social Security (she is older than I am) and my investments.

I also have a close friend who invested in real estate years ago.  Him and his wife acquired roughly 26 properties of their own to the point of starting their own property management business.  They worked long hours to build the business up to the point where they were able to sell for a very large sum of money.  He eventually sold off his rental properties, all but one.  They were certainly not "blessed" to be able to do it, they took a huge risk and put in the work in order to achieve what they did.

To say that "The investor is blessed to have that extra capital in the first place" is up there on your long list of ignorant statements.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Ok, but what if your yearly income was ten million dollars?

= 7,358,163 in TOTAL TAXES owed for the two year period.

Not as egregious as the earlier example, but still about 40,000 more than my taxes

Holy crap, you paid $7,318,163 in taxes? 

---

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.
see the benefit.

Talk about a wrong stereotype.  I am an investor and there are many like me that weren't "blessed" with the capital to invest.  I worked hard, long hours, sometimes away from my family for over 30 years to earn the capital that I have to invest.  I spent many years saving my money, even if it was "only" $50 or $100 per month.  Remember, $50 or $100 back in the 80's and 90's was a pretty good amount of money.

I wouldn't exactly call myself "rich" or wealthy as far as money, but I was able to retire comfortably at the age of 55.  At this point, my "income" comes from my wife's Social Security (she is older than I am) and my investments.

I also have a close friend who invested in real estate years ago.  Him and his wife acquired roughly 26 properties of their own to the point of starting their own property management business.  They worked long hours to build the business up to the point where they were able to sell for a very large sum of money.  He eventually sold off his rental properties, all but one.  They were certainly not "blessed" to be able to do it, they took a huge risk and put in the work in order to achieve what they did.

To say that "The investor is blessed to have that extra capital in the first place" is up there on your long list of ignorant statements.

Arguing the meaning of blessing is inherently a religious discussion.  You say you worked hard for it, and I'm sure you did, but it not everyone who works hard at something gets that kind of reward.  There is nobody on earth working harder than African subsistence farmers, I don't think.  Something beyond ourselves is always a factor in the reward we get.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

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.

Put it in the same time frame.  An investor has risk because they can't be sure what their asset's value will be next year.  An at will employee is at risk because they can't be sure if their skills, strength, and mindset will still be marketable to employers next year.  You want to focus on the day to day for a wage earner and the long term for the investor but that's artificial in my opinion.

It doesn't matter if the investment is long term or short term, the risks associated with at-will employment are not at all the same.  Stock prices are far more volatile than employment statistics.  Tesla jumped 15% today, while AMC dropped 11%.  How many company workforces fluctuated so drastically?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Put it in the same time frame.  An investor has risk because they can't be sure what their asset's value will be next year.  An at will employee is at risk because they can't be sure if their skills, strength, and mindset will still be marketable to employers next year.  You want to focus on the day to day for a wage earner and the long term for the investor but that's artificial in my opinion.

It doesn't matter if the investment is long term or short term, the risks associated with at-will employment are not at all the same.  Stock prices are far more volatile than employment statistics.  Tesla jumped 15% today, while AMC dropped 11%.  How many company workforces fluctuated so drastically?

Hourly workers can easily see their earnings fluctuate that much week to week.  And that's real to them.  Stock price fluctuations do not affect the owner of the stock unless they intend to sell soon.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

It doesn't matter if the investment is long term or short term, the risks associated with at-will employment are not at all the same.  Stock prices are far more volatile than employment statistics.  Tesla jumped 15% today, while AMC dropped 11%.  How many company workforces fluctuated so drastically?

Hourly workers can easily see their earnings fluctuate that much week to week.  And that's real to them.  Stock price fluctuations do not affect the owner of the stock unless they intend to sell soon.

There's no risk to principal with employment.  You either have a job or you don't for a temporary period of time.  You are not additionally financially penalized for losing your job.  Your obligations are still there and your income is not, but there's no reaching into your bank account by your now former employer.  And as has been stated previously, there are unemployment benefits available to those that go an extended period of time while looking for new employment.

There is risk to principal with investment.  You can lose every dime you put in depending on the nature of the investment.  If you use leverage, (investor is solely responsible for this) you could lose more than you put in.

Although I see the logic behind your stance, I think you are ignoring the greater benefit that comes from lower investment tax rates.  You would be disincentivizing investment, which the government does not want, by taxing cap gains at generally higher ordinary income rates.  The Feds want a strong economy as should the citizenry.  A strong economy is helped significantly by investment.  Secondly, that corporation you invested in is taxed to death by the government as well which gets baked into the price of their goods and services.  That corporation or many like it don't exist without access to capital which dries up with slower economies as does demand for products and services.

At the end of the day, the end consumer pays all taxes.  Corporate taxes get passed on to the consumer in higher prices.  It's all a tax shell game.  Your effective tax rate is actually much higher than what you calculate when filing your taxes once these things are understood.  The current system should be abolished in favor of a consumption tax like the Fair Tax.  No more shell games.  A consumption tax would also entice more capital around the world to come here.  There would be a ginormous boost to the economy if/when implemented.  It would, unfortunately for politicians, take power away from them and so it will be hard for true dyed in the wool leftists to ever get on board with that.

---

Talk about a wrong stereotype.  I am an investor and there are many like me that weren't "blessed" with the capital to invest.  I worked hard, long hours, sometimes away from my family for over 30 years to earn the capital that I have to invest.  I spent many years saving my money, even if it was "only" $50 or $100 per month.  Remember, $50 or $100 back in the 80's and 90's was a pretty good amount of money.

I wouldn't exactly call myself "rich" or wealthy as far as money, but I was able to retire comfortably at the age of 55.  At this point, my "income" comes from my wife's Social Security (she is older than I am) and my investments.

I also have a close friend who invested in real estate years ago.  Him and his wife acquired roughly 26 properties of their own to the point of starting their own property management business.  They worked long hours to build the business up to the point where they were able to sell for a very large sum of money.  He eventually sold off his rental properties, all but one.  They were certainly not "blessed" to be able to do it, they took a huge risk and put in the work in order to achieve what they did.

To say that "The investor is blessed to have that extra capital in the first place" is up there on your long list of ignorant statements.

Arguing the meaning of blessing is inherently a religious discussion.  You say you worked hard for it, and I'm sure you did, but it not everyone who works hard at something gets that kind of reward.  There is nobody on earth working harder than African subsistence farmers, I don't think.  Something beyond ourselves is always a factor in the reward we get.

There is nothing religious about it.

Your ignorant statement implies that investors get their capital from being "lucky" or having it given to them.  I am simply pointing out that thousands if not millions of investors earn their capital to invest through hard work.

Your ignorant statement just screams of wealth envy.  There are some in your party like Elizabeth "Pocahontas" Warren that wants to tax unrealized gains.

your other ignorant statement:

not everyone who works hard at something gets that kind of reward. 

Anyone that works hard and saves some money can achieve the same thing.  It doesn't matter if the hard work is a waitress or perhaps a construction worker.  That's part of the "American Dream".

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Arguing the meaning of blessing is inherently a religious discussion.  You say you worked hard for it, and I'm sure you did, but it not everyone who works hard at something gets that kind of reward.  There is nobody on earth working harder than African subsistence farmers, I don't think.  Something beyond ourselves is always a factor in the reward we get.

There is nothing religious about it.

Your ignorant statement implies that investors get their capital from being "lucky" or having it given to them.  I am simply pointing out that thousands if not millions of investors earn their capital to invest through hard work.

Your ignorant statement just screams of wealth envy.  There are some in your party like Elizabeth "Pocahontas" Warren that wants to tax unrealized gains.

your other ignorant statement:

not everyone who works hard at something gets that kind of reward. 

Anyone that works hard and saves some money can achieve the same thing.  It doesn't matter if the hard work is a waitress or perhaps a construction worker.  That's part of the "American Dream".

Working hard and saving money is not possible for everyone, especially outside of America.  That's why I mentioned the African subsistence farmer. It is a unique blessing of living in a stable society.  Therefore it is fair for that stable society to tax your capital gains.

If you want to reply to me, please only respond to what I say and not what Elizabeth Warren says.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

There is nothing religious about it.

Your ignorant statement implies that investors get their capital from being "lucky" or having it given to them.  I am simply pointing out that thousands if not millions of investors earn their capital to invest through hard work.

Your ignorant statement just screams of wealth envy.  There are some in your party like Elizabeth "Pocahontas" Warren that wants to tax unrealized gains.

your other ignorant statement:

Anyone that works hard and saves some money can achieve the same thing.  It doesn't matter if the hard work is a waitress or perhaps a construction worker.  That's part of the "American Dream".

Working hard and saving money is not possible for everyone, especially outside of America.  That's why I mentioned the African subsistence farmer. It is a unique blessing of living in a stable society.  Therefore it is fair for that stable society to tax your capital gains.

If you want to reply to me, please only respond to what I say and not what Elizabeth Warren says.

I couldn't care less about African subsistence farmers.

As I said, anyone here in the great USA can work hard, save money and achieve the American Dream.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Working hard and saving money is not possible for everyone, especially outside of America.  That's why I mentioned the African subsistence farmer. It is a unique blessing of living in a stable society.  Therefore it is fair for that stable society to tax your capital gains.

If you want to reply to me, please only respond to what I say and not what Elizabeth Warren says.

I couldn't care less about African subsistence farmers.

As I said, anyone here in the great USA can work hard, save money and achieve the American Dream.

And there is nothing wrong with taxing their capital gains as income when they do those things.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.