2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton proposes sharp increase in short-term capital gains taxes
Presidential contender Hillary Clinton will announce a proposal Friday afternoon to raise capital gains taxes for assets that are held for less than six years by top-bracket payers as a way to try and encourage long-term investing, and grow the economy.
Clinton's plan specifically seeks to double the period of time for the 39.6 percent top capital gains rate (from up to a year to up to two years), and then institute a sliding rate scale until assets are held for more than six years.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/24/hillary-clinton-proposes-sharp-increase-in-short-term-capital-gains-taxes.html
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)mmonk
(52,589 posts)I wasn't sure she would see the light. Kudos.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,718 posts)eom
mmonk
(52,589 posts)promoted by talking heads is a drain on the economy (which we know is ridiculous).
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,718 posts)I meant investment income...
Social Security, SSDI, and pensions are technically passive income...I can see treating them and taxing them differently and in many instances at a lower rate.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)I also think doing this helps stabilize pension funds.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)It makes my day.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The theory I've heard is that lowering capital gains taxes encourages investment.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,718 posts)For instance it's easy to lose 3k in the market which is where I believe market losses are capped.
I was wiped out in the Great Recession... I lost my home, car, business, and investments...
I had hundreds of stocks of Lucent that I bought at $20.00 or so and rode all the way up to $80.00 or so and down to $1.00.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)back up you shouldn't have to pay capital gains tax on "getting back to even". But I think that overall, cap gains and income should be taxed at the same rate.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)you haven't gained or lost anything in the market until you sell.
If I bought ZYX at $50, rode it all the way up to $300, down to $1 and sell it at $50...I've not made or lost a dime and there is no tax-impacting gain or loss.
Edit: The problem is a lot of people freak-out when their stock bottoms out and sell. Then when it starts to rise...they want to buy back in. So...they lose money twice.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,718 posts)Some investments never return
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)Dividend income that you receive from the corporation is from post tax profit, therefore, theoretically it has already been taxed at the 39% corporate tax rate. Then you receive the dividend and it is taxed as income.
Corporations pay tax on investment income as if it were ordinary income.
rock
(13,218 posts)Many criticize her for this. Not me. Good going Hill!
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,718 posts)rock
(13,218 posts)P.S. I did not know the word iatrogenic and I had trouble finding an understandable definition for it. After several references came to the conclusion that it is a (usually undesired) side effect from a treatment, or analogically a policy. But what causes don't have possible side effects? Would it be better if Hillary were quick and reckless?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,718 posts)eom
rock
(13,218 posts)Thanks. I am well acquainted with the road to Hell's pavement!
oasis
(49,434 posts)ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)I do not believe she will go to the mat for this.
seveneyes
(4,631 posts)Millionaires can afford it.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... that I think this tax increase proposal is intended to penalize. A transaction tax is far more focused on stopping speculative manipulation and buying by wealthy insiders, etc. or at least making them pay for it a lot more. That kind of activity is not really done by lower or middle class Americans at all, and they for the most part won't even notice a very small transaction tax if they are buying and selling stocks rarely, and using the market to INVEST in stocks and not just to play casino games with these stocks.
The problems with raising short term taxes on stock sales is that often times it hits the middle and lower classes more for the small amounts of stock ownership they might have, as many are forced to sell stocks sooner than they'd like when faced with things like Alternative Minimum taxes if they have that hanging over them on a stock purchase that they can't pay for with other assets they might have, or perhaps they have other big expense from medical issues, etc. that force them to sell stocks or other short term owned assets sooner than they'd like. A wealthy person can sell other assets and then more optimally sell those stocks with alternative minimum tax liability and not get short changed on timing of these sales as a lower class person would.
As a person who paid alternative minimum tax and tax on unemployment benefits the same year back during the dotcom era, I was one of those in the trenches that went through these kind of things.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)Especially since before Reaganomics and fake trade deals which were more about moving jobs over seas, corporations once carried 32% of the tax burden compared to today's 6%.