Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Kirk's Market Thoughts -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy who wrote (12236)	10/26/2021 1:24:51 PM
From: Kirk ©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26787

Because by holding you lose the use of your money for 10 years and lose value to inflation. If we are going to tax capital gains, why tax them only when sold? If two people hold the same equity position for 10 years and each makes $1 million in capital gains, why punish the investor who wants to sell and buy something else (good for the economy) and reward the holder who doesn't sell, and, well, doesn't do anything at all (doesn't seem too good for the economy)? If you buy a house, you can live there, save on rent and if it goes up in value, pay capital gains on the increase when you sell it. You may have a property tax, but in CA, that is based on the price you buy it and for cars, it depreciates quickly. For businesses that you buy via stock investment, it is complex but they too can depreciate their buildings and equipment but they pay property taxes on this every year. I'd prefer we index capital gains to inflation then pay normal income tax on the gains above inflation if held for 3 years or longer. I am NOT a fan of the feds taxing property like we do in Taxifornia... most of it was voted in by people who want government pensions or government contracts which is a large part of the CA budget.

To: Elroy who wrote (12236)	10/26/2021 1:39:34 PM
From: Sun Tzu	1 Recommendation Recommended By Kirk © Respond to of 26787

I am not objecting to taxation on the whole. I am objecting to asking for payments without providing services. What you are saying in essence is that the government should play Robinhood and take from the rich and give to the poor regardless of that mechanism. And what I am saying is that the government should change its ways. It should clearly articulate who it is taking funds from and to whom it is giving it too and for what purpose and how. It also seems fair that if someone is not interested your services they should be able to opt out. If I decide that I don't need the US government services and I want to live somewhere else, then I should not have to pay. A wealth tax is not a tax for what the government is providing you or will provide you. It is a one-sided "negotiation" on what the two of you had already agreed upon. So if you think it is wrong for Bill Gates or Elon Musk or whoever to be able to pass on their money to some foundation, then by all means write to the congress and make them repeal those laws. PS The solution I proposed would solve this problem. Tax people, not companies and tax when wealth is transferred. So giving it to a foundation would make it taxable - but only once.