I've explained a few time why this is so. You're a smart person, when you figure out whether or not you want to lend your money out (to recieve passive income on it), do you decide on the return you need for the risk before or after taxes? In other words would you lend it out if the return was negative after taxes? If you are as smart as I think you are, you figure the after tax return and decide whether this is appropriate to the risk, you hold out until you get that desired return. Now tell me who it is that you think pays the difference, the tax? You, as a lender, are going to hold out until you get the return needed to cover your risk regardless of tax, which means the interest percentage needed to cover the tax is paid by the borrower. Now who are primarily borrowers and who are primarily lenders?
Thats a perfectly fine view to have, and it works in a vacuum. The problem is that the US has huge military expenditures to pay (that support the entire world) as well as massive corporate pork including the building of infrastructure to support corporations, and some very low corporate taxes.
So who is going to pay for all this necessity. We can certainly get rid of the military, I am all for it, it costs too much. And we can dump social security too for all I care. But if we don't do those two things, and at the same time we say passive income is untaxed, and we have low corporate taxes, and we allow offshoring of most every highly skilled position... then within a year or so, we're broke. Kindof like now. |
