Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Raise the capital gains tax and treat investment earnings like ordinary income (nytimes.com)
27 points by pseudolus 48 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 71 comments



This wouldn't bring in too much money and it would just discourage long term investment. The last thing we need is more short term thinking.


This article declares that a 70% marginal tax rate on income above $10M/year is bad policy, but the only justification it offers for it being bad policy is that adding in NY state/local taxes would raise that number to 82.7%.

So what?

I've seen repeated countless times recently that the marginal tax rate on the rich used to be as high as 91%. Why is a combined tax rate of 82.7% bad policy? And if that's really your only justification, then the fix here is to just make the state/local taxes deductible again.


SALT exemptions should definitely not be restored - I grew up in the north east where those SALT exemptions are fully utilized but they introduce an illogical perverse motivation for state and local governments to spend freely since any taxes they introduce are essentially just that level of government getting a free non-revokable payment from the federal government.

I do acknowledge that areas with SALT exemptions tend to be areas that pay a disproportionate amount of taxes for the benefits they receive but I think this solution to that issue is ludicrous. Investment by the government should ideally try and maximize the benefits given by that investment means that denser population areas should be targeted unequally to receive benefits but SALT exemptions are crazy.

Also, just a note, this portion of their argument seems silly, what is one number compared to another number without context, if 82.7% is just too much for the market to bear than let's talk about 58.3% as a base marginal tax rate on $10M and above - in actuality the utility of assets decreases so steeply that I don't know if 82.7% really is "silly" but all this talk about specific numbers should be decided by people way more specialized than the general public.


> SALT exemptions should definitely not be restored - I grew up in the north east where those SALT exemptions are fully utilized but they introduce an illogical perverse motivation for state and local governments to spend freely since any taxes they introduce are essentially just that level of government getting a free non-revokable payment from the federal government.

You've confused the effect of a deduction with that of a 100% credit.

What SALT deductions do is they avoid creating perverse disincentives for state/local taxpayer-funded programs that create economic benefit for both the state/local taxpayers and the federal treasury.


> they introduce an illogical perverse motivation for state and local governments to spend freely since any taxes they introduce are essentially just that level of government getting a free non-revokable payment from the federal government.

This is just not true. The SALT exemption lets you deduct the SALT taxes from your income, not your tax bill, so this is not just a transfer from the federal government.

I.e. If you had a flat federal rate of 10%, a flat state rate of 10% and an income of 100k, the SALT deduction would reduce your taxes from 20k to 19k. There is some subsidy here since the state gets 10k, whereas you are only paying 9k for those services, but its clearly not free money.

> what is one number compared to another number without context

Economists have studied the topic of most efficient tax rates, in terms of bringing in government revenue, and 82.7% is above the point where you maximize revenue, i.e. you would raise more money with a lower rate.


> Economists have studied the topic of most efficient tax rates, in terms of bringing in government revenue, and 82.7% is above the point where you maximize revenue, i.e. you would raise more money with a lower rate.

I don't think "raise the most money" is the goal we're shooting for though. I mean, it's important, but it's not the only goal.


When you start talking about rates in the 90% range what you're really asking for is for rich people to hire a tax attorney or account to lie to you about how much money the rich person makes. It's the definition of dead weight loss.


Rich people find tax loopholes to exploit. Outright lying can get them thrown in jail.


What is the goal that justifies raising tax rates so high that it starts lowering revenue raised?

That's basically cutting off your nose to spite your face IMO.


Raising taxes on the rich means you can fund the government without raising (and ideally by lowering) taxes on everybody else. This is objectively a social good (the rich can bear the burden of incredibly high tax rates, whereas current tax rates are a very high burden on a large percentage of the population). I am not an economist but I would also assume it would benefit the economy by stimulating spending. I believe this is in fact the basic idea of the tax cuts so favored by Republicans, except it turns out that giving rich people more money doesn't do this (because they already have enough money to cover all the spending they want to do), whereas giving everyone else more money does.

The goal of taxes has never been "raise as much money for the government as possible", it's "raise enough money for the government to fund government operations, hopefully without hurting the economy in the process".


I think we're arguing the same thing, but my point was that at some marginal rate (around 70% give or take 10%), increasing the tax rate causes you to get less money from rich people, which all but the most radical fringes of the left can generally agree is not a desired outcome. And 83% is definitely past that point. So unless your explicit goal is to just stop people having that much money, that combined tax rate is too high.


By what mechanism would increasing the tax rate result in getting less money from rich people? I can only imagine the answer is because they reduce their income, though I don't know what your explanation is for rich people reducing their income when the tax rate hits 70% ± 10%. What's more, if rich people are reducing their income, it seems to me that this means they're not taking advantage of as many opportunities to earn money as otherwise, which hopefully means not-so-rich people are now taking advantage of those opportunities (or, more cynically, are not being taken advantage of as much by rich people).

So yes, if taxing rich people more means getting less money from them, and if the reasoning for this leads to not-so-rich people earning more money, then that seems like a win.



I've seen repeated countless times recently that the marginal tax rate on the rich used to be as high as 91%

Between 1950 and 1959, he notes, the highest earning 1 percent of Americans paid an effective tax rate of 42 percent. By 2014, it was only down to 36.4 percent—a substantial but by no means astronomical decline.

<...>

There are a few obvious reasons why the taxes the rich actually paid in the 1950s were so much lower than the confiscatory top rates that sat on the books. For one, the max tax rates on investment income were far lower than on wages and salaries, which gave a lot of wealthy individuals some relief. Tax avoidance may have also been a big problem. Moreover, there simply weren’t that many extraordinarily rich households. Those fabled 90 percent tax rates only bit at incomes over $200,000, the equivalent of more than $2 million in today’s dollars. As Greenberg notes, the tax may have only applied to 10,000 families.

https://slate.com/business/2017/08/the-history-of-tax-rates-...


> Those fabled 90 percent tax rates only bit at incomes over $200,000, the equivalent of more than $2 million in today’s dollars.

And the proposed 70% tax rate only applies to incomes over $10 million in today's dollars.


More importantly, remove all of the many loopholes that are used by the very wealthy to prevent themselves from paying tax at all. I would greatly be in favor of a flat tax for everyone earning $30K and above.


That massively massively penalizes people who are more poor or middle class vs someone that has millions or billions. 30% of a million is 333k, but 30% of 31k is 10.3k. I imagine losing that 10.3k hurts the 30k person far more than losing the 333k does to the person who is now making 667k.

Why would you want a flat tax for everyone above 30k?


It depends on what rate is chosen. I've read that an 8% tax applied this way would reap more tax than the current system. My personal effective federal tax rate has always been between 17-20% on an income of about $100K/yr.


The $30K I noted is arbitrary and only chosen because that is the approximate poverty line currently.


Just so you know the poverty line is $12k-$15k for single people and $25k-$31k for a family of 4.


In the us that's going to effect the middle class more - but maybe moving to a position where most people are on PAYE makes sense longer term.


I disagree, the middle class has slowly been squeezed out of most of their tax exemptions, the ones that remain are regressive and provide more tax relief to the wealthy. It's complex enough that it's probably best to wipe the slate clean and start over.


Or... you tax people that are rich more and it seems to solve your problem. Wiping the slate clean and starting tax law from scratch is not going to happen. It would cripple the economy and would affect every business and many people.


You have a point, it would be disruptive. I believe it's the right move for the long term but there may be a better way to approach introducing it - suddenly cutting out any deductions for charitable giving would likely bankrupt those charities before government subsidization or non-tax deductible giving could pick up the slack, for instance.


Agreed, it would have to be phased in/out over time in a very smart way to not crush businesses and accountants. Doable perhaps over a long span of time if everyone agrees to it but man would it be a longshot. I'd imagine it would still have devastating second and third order consequences that aren't apparent until it's too late.


Taxing investments more than standard labor should be the baseline. Us workers should not be subsidizing the significantly discounted rate that investment earning are taxed at.


"If you want more of something, subsidize it; if you want less of something, tax it."

If you raise taxes on capital gains you'll get less investment. Maybe that's a good thing.

Either way, I'm in favor of tax simplification in all of its forms; Tax law is like that spaghetti legacy codebase that is just dying for a refactor/rewrite.


Genuine question, as I am not well versed in finance:

What else would those with capital do other than invest? That is, it seems like investment is clearly better than holding cash, regardless of the tax rate (with some caveats, e.g. not being in a deflationary economic state).


Those with capital would still be best off investing in some manner. Tax loop holes in other countries may cause some expatriation of that investment but if those are closed then investment will continue but most money will be taken out of the economy during the investment cycle. Assuming this doesn't just lead to the government taking in massive amounts of money and not using it this would allow income tax rates to be reduced and spur consumer spending.

It's a pretty simple issue of a high pressure leaky container, jam a wedge in one leak and the other leaks need to contribute more if you want to maintain the same amount of water coming out. Simplify the tax code and we even end up losing less money to trying to remember where all the leaks are.


They would indeed invest it, but they would demand dividends be paid in natura. There would be a type of business where, you invest 5%, you become a director there. With free use of a yacht, private plane, car (these businesses come in all sizes, you essentially get 5% from what would be dividends to be spent as you wish as long as accounting can make it work), a hotel/travel budget, ... all these would no longer be personal expenditures, but business expenses.

In actuality these businesses exist (even much more dirty: in practice, bank employees on occasion demand they be offered this, in trade for not sabotaging a loan. This is pretty common practice). But even "fairly", with actual investments, these businesses exist.

And no, this is not illegal, nor do you want to make this illegal.


I do want to make it illegal, if you get a company car it is considered a benefit and you will be taxed on the value (either lump sum or by accrued value depending on things) and I believe this is fair and correct.

These sorts of soft benefits should be taxed at their value as their value is being incorporated into the decision to purchase or continue to hold. And, bonus thing, most people at the lower end of the income scale have no access to these soft benefits so excluding them from taxation is a regressive policy.

It'd be nice if everyone came to the realization that the easiest way to exchange a gained/earned asset would be money and then companies just rented out use of a yacht at the market appropriate price. This can cause a bit of craziness for things like "family discounts" but those, again, are discretionary benefits which are being offered to tip the ideal price point, and things of that class come with the added benefit that they usually will fall foul of discrimination laws under any casual examination.


Okay, now explain how cars that are necessary (such as for a director, that needs to meet with partners, customers, ...) should be taxed. Or how about for a cleaning company that sends out cleaners in cars, there's a lot of those. Would you seriously tax the poor cleaner for the value of the car ? How should Elon Musk be taxed if he bought a bed for sleeping at his megafactory ?

How about the office in which you work ? Should you be taxed on the value of the office building in which you work ? How about the value of the machines ? How about the coffee machine (which you may or may not use) ? How do you intend to check this ?

Even that is the very tip of the iceberg in terms of problems with this policy. Will you be able to catch abuses at the extreme ? Sure. Will you be able to prevent this from becoming a widespread alternative to paying out dividends using policy ? No.


Doesn't the IRS require reporting and tax payment for these non-cash fringe benefits?


Sure but they're never 100% fringe benefits. A director "has" to drive around meeting people. Customers/partners, hell even IRS representatives. So the car is taxed at 10%, because only 10% is used privately.

Even that doesn't help because "taxed" in this case is a big word for "taken out of what the company pays the person". Which means the company pays in situations where the person controls the company, for obvious reasons.


They invest in lower risk securities which leads to a bull market in bonds and guilts which has its own problems.

It also stifles innovation and messes up pensioners as their income is based on gilt yields.


I don't understand why investors would do this, it seems like an unnatural response. If all capital gains are being taxes as income these investors would just voluntarily be choosing to make less money if they picked this strategy.

Their strategy selection would equalize to being about what it is now but each cycle would yield them less money to reinvest and yield the government more money to invest. It can be your opinion that private investors are more efficient than the government but funding our "necessary services" (i.e. having an army, what not) is so deprived of income that it is being extracted through a regressive income tax.

FYI, I'm all for cutting pork, but the income stream and what we end up spending that money on are two different issues.


> They invest in lower risk securities

That's still investing and the idea that higher taxes on capital income would reduce yield targets for capital investments is backwards.


Seems like they’d need a higher return due to higher tax.


So tax the poor, and subsidize the rich?


Reality is pretty much the reverse in at least one important way:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldurkheimer/2018/03/01/0-...


I agree with the sentiment here but would be interested to see what portion of US tax revenue is coming from the same people who are benefiting from the discounted rate for investment earnings. Basically, is the "subsidy" essentially coming from the beneficiaries and ultimately just undermining the progressive tax structure rather than the poor paying to subsidize lower tax rates for the investments of the rich.


If you did that you’d screw many retirees living off investment income. That’s no good for anyone.


That would reduce the capital for companies and / or make it more expensive - know what happens when companies run out of capital "workers" get made redundant.

I don't mean to be harsh but your user name indicates you haven't actually entered the work force yet.


Companies do not create jobs. Consumer demand for products and services creates jobs. As long as the tax structure nourishes a strong middle class we will be a prosperous and stable society, and capital will flow just fine.


And how do you do that when they are out of work ?

And I have had to chair a meeting of a worker coop when we had to restructure due to running out of capital in the last dot.com crash so I have some idea what I am talking about.


Their idea has merit whether they've entered the work force or not. And, they could be anything that relates to students and yet not a student, like a teacher. I wouldn't infer much if anything from usernames... else you might assume that I'm a monkey and my thoughts on taxes should be ignored because I live in a jungle.


Just prior to reading this article I left the kitchen table where my wife and I were going over tax forms.

I work for a tech company that has done well, we're getting acquired. I've accumulated a little bonus stock, I'll be forced to sell when the acquisition happens.

I wouldn't like an increase in capital gains. As it is, it's already taking a sizeable bite out of what was a nice bonus. If the government was well-run and spent money efficiently, I might feel differently. A quick Google search for 'porkbarrel spending' reveals that there's room for budget trimming that could leave my bonus (and yours) intact. I'd like that economic plan better.

A wise man once noted that if we paid taxes weekly by writing a check for a man who came to the door, we'd kill that man in anger. I can understand the sentiment.


> But the 2017 tax cut legislation reduced the tax rate on corporate profits to 21 percent, from 35 percent. So if taxes on capital gains and dividends were raised by those 14 percentage points, we capitalists would be no worse off — and American companies would still be more competitive globally, the theory behind reducing the corporate tax rate.

Right. So when someone gives a handout to big corporations then we should squeeze the last drop of blood from pension funds and small investors? Brilliant idea for reducing income inequality!

I don't expect wealthy investors to rely on dividend stocks too much. Those are the scraps left from common people after the vultures have already picked the carcass clean.

Also, dividend stocks might be "safe"-er than some other stocks but it's still a relatively risky investment (the markets are crazy). If dividend taxes were 40% percent I would simply not bother. Too risky!

Here's an idea for making life easier for a lot of people: MAKE RENT DEDUCIBLE FROM SALARY BEFORE TAX


In supply-constrained markets, wouldn't any benefit from this eventually accrue to landlords rather than renters? Put another way, if landlords are charging what the market can bear, and the market can suddenly bear 25% more, won't they just raise prices over a few years to eat up that new wealth?


You are correct, all of this benefit would end up being taken by landlords due to their ability to dictate prices - btw government subsidized housing can be a different situation and the government can be an intentionally inefficient market actor to benefit the renters. I think there are still more accurate way to subsidize the lower class though, a reduced income tax is more likely to directly translate into a higher savings rate and more consumer power - and that last bit benefits us all by increasing the velocity of money.


Would be an incentive for the city or state to enact policies for making housing more affordable. From what I've seen a lot of housing issues are coming from not-in-my-backyard-ism and zoning.


I disagree, we shouldn't subsidize renting as it encourages a bad economic behavior. But! Any deductions or tax credits for home ownership/property taxes should be removed.

Some of the specialized property tax reductions (like urban agriculture) can stay, but ideally we'll be pretty selective and get rid of the silly religious property tax exemptions.


Huh? Renting is bad economic behavior?

What's your alternative? Become a slave for 30 years to maybe afford to buy a house?

If you could deduce rent (or mortgage for that matter) then more money would stay in the hands of ordinary people. It would also encourage cities to make housing affordable. If housing costs get too high then tax revenue would drop. I think that's a good incentive overall.


The person renting out property is exploiting a market inefficiency to the loss of the renter. The cost of renting property is, by definition, slightly higher than the cost of getting a mortgage on the same property and gaining value in the property, otherwise the renter has no motivation to enter into a contract, there is a bit of fuzziness in that owners are responsible for the lion's share of the maintenance but in general we can assume most owners price their property so that they can cover maintenance comfortably. The only thing that drives the cost of renting below the cost of mortgage + maintenance is the fact that the owner is investing their time owning the asset in subsidizing the price of having purchased the asset - a renter is always going to pay more money (barring crazy stuff like living in an area with frequent natural disasters, but the market will adjust to that)

It is a good life choice to try and recoup some of the money you're paying into housing as an accrued asset, if you're currently renting I'd suggest looking at the numbers in greater detail - if you move frequently the tax your government levies on selling properties may tip this equation the other way but generally property ownership is a good idea.

To return to your original question, a subsidy on renting allows property owners to shift the price point on their rentals in their favor and ends up going into the owner's pockets, they can reinvest and grow their assets faster while people who are in the rental market will find it harder to escape due to an increased growth in property values - also a rental subsidy is great for anyone who already owns but I don't really think that's a section of the population we need to actively subsidize.


Keep in mind that not everywhere has Bay Area real estate prices.

I bought my place for 150k back in 2002. I paid it off in less than 7 years, and have been mortgage free for over a decade now. I know another guy who did something similar, paying off his place is less than 6 years.

I realize this is very uncommon. Most people I know are perpetually refi-ing, and have no desire to ever pay off their mortgage.


Here's a simplified and better plan.

1. There's no normal 'filing', instead you just submit a statement of previous year earnings from all sources.

2. Institute a tiered GBI as follows:

0-25k = 100%

25-50k = 66%

50-100k = 33%

3. Then get rid of income tax and institute flat sales tax that can be easily modified by congressional approval, but no more than 1-2% per year up or down.

This tax should be applied across the board. If money changes hands, tax is taken out, kind of like crypto transaction fees, in fact if we moved to all electronic currency it'd be easier to just do that from the get go. So if you're getting money back from capital gains -- that money loses the transaction tax before you get it in your account.

Stop worrying about border control, and illegals stealing jobs, instead make the transaction tax higher if you aren't a citizen. If we have only electronic currency, it can also cut down on paying people under the table with cash, since cash doesn't exist. Furthermore, if cash doesn't exist - we can save a mint, by getting rid of the whole minting process. By making tax more for immigrants, we can stop saying they don't 'contribute', and only citizens would receive GBI, and healthcare.

Worried about whether it's even stevens or not? Everyone is a taxpayer, no refunds, loopholes, etc. You buy real estate, property, pay rent, pay a commercial lease, pay an employee the money is automatically taxed in transit. It's all programmatically controlled and simple, easy for everyone to understand, and doesn't require an entire industry of professionals just to figure it out. (Sorry CPA's).

Benefits: Get rid of most of IRS, CPA's, Fed, Welfare, Housing Assistance, etc... Save a ton GDP-wise, and get more money in the hands of the people to keep the wheels of industry spinning.


Treating capital gains differently from general income is a policy move designed to increase investment by making the profits larger.

Eventually, a large portion of employment compensation got pushed through to look like capital gains -- for example, by issuing stock options or actual shares as part of overall compensation.

It's perfectly fair to kill that loophole by modifying the capital gains tax. One option would be to make it progressive and marginal like the income tax: E.g. if you make under $20,000 in capital gains in a year, you pay no tax on that; then 10% on the next 10K, then 20% on the next 10K, 30% on the next 10K, and so on.

The structure of startup corporations might change as a result. An LLC might be much more attractive, and profitability a more attractive goal.


> Treating capital gains differently from general income is a policy move designed to increase investment by making the profits larger.

Surplus wealth is largely going to be invested unless you actively prevent it, you don't need to tax favor capital income to get that result. Tax favoring capital income (i.e., tax penalizing other, most notably labor, income) just means that those that already have significant capital accumulate more faster while other people have a drag force applied preventing them from accumulating signficant capital.


Stock options or actual shares are taxed as income, not as capital gains.


I'm not an economist.

I understand the theory that capital gains being taxed at a lower rate is that we want to encourage investment - putting capital where it will grow more jobs/more needs being met by companies.

I also understand the theory that this is nice in theory but isn't describing the actual results.

And while I _believe_ that's a problem, what I don't have is an understanding of the data. Like with HFT, I can react with my gut, but I'd be happier if I could understand a bit more about whether the system is working or not, and if not, where does it bend? What's the equivalent of the Laffer Curve for capital gains?

Are there any explanations that aren't overly preachy of one way or another that can explain to someone without the econ background?


As a general rule, taxation of returns on savings is always double taxation. Money today is not worth the same as an equal amount of money five years from now, or an equal amount of money after it has been invested in a risky venture with a substantial chance of losses. Returns from capital are, in expectation, a compensating differential for such differences in value.

Now, this is not to say that some taxation on savings isn't sometimes appropriate; for instance, some forms of investment are non-transparent and might be used to shield earned income from taxes that should bear on it; also, higher-income folks tend to save more and to choose riskier investments that yield higher expected returns; so returns correlate with ability to pay in a way that's worthy of note because it doesn't impact incentives too much. Taxes that bear on some peculiar assets, such as the land-value of urban real estate, EM spectrum rights, or investment into highly-polluting industries, also don't adversely affect incentives. However, existing taxation on capital appears broadly appropriate to take advantage of these things; the bulk of taxes should still fall on tax bases other than savings and investment, such as the portion of income that's not saved but spent on non-baseline consumption of goods and services.


> As a general rule, taxation of returns on savings is always double taxation.

Not any more than any other taxation.

> Money today is not worth the same as an equal amount of money five years from now

That's a good reason for inflation adjusting basis values when computing gains, but it's not a good argument for not taxing them, or for taxing them at a preferential rate.

> an equal amount of money after it has been invested in a risky venture with a substantial chance of losses.

The loss either happens or it doesn't, once it has or hasn't, what is left is the same as the same amount of money acquired by other means.


Taxes raise revenue to pay for things, but we've been debt financing on the strength and stability of the country forever, and unlike the oft-cited comparisons to individual households, it doesn't seem like there will be any serious collections from our debt holders both foreign and domestic any time soon. The US deficit in 2019 is going to come pretty close to $1 trillion, but the general outlook seems fine, bond yields are low, etc.

Is there even an incentive at that point to find ways to earn more revenue?


Yeah, we live on cheap debt for now, but interest rates will rise eventually, there will eventually be another downturn, and the interest payments are stacking up. If we end up in a position where all discretionary spend is displaced by servicing the debt, we’ll be in real trouble.

We’ve never been able to pull in more than 18% of GDP in tax receipts for more than a short time period. We’re currently collecting ~17%, so we have a tiny bit of head room based on historical precedents. Beyond that, I don’t know what we can do other than cut some spending. Auditing the DoD and means testing Medicare might pick up some low hanging fruit. Hard to say what’s most likely to work, IMO.


Taxes raise revenue to pay for things -- that's true for households, cities and states. It's even true for many countries. It's not true for the US Federal Government: as you can see, the debt that we send out is a representation of the value we add to the world economy.

US Federal taxes are not primarily paying for things. They are to encourage use of the dollar; to redistribute wealth; to act as tools of policy. The government needs to issue debt in quantities similar to the expansion rate of the economy: when less is issued, the economy will suffer, and when more is issued, inflation begins.


Raising the capital gains tax level to match the level imposed on ordinary income might be too extreme but the tax code should definitely be modified so that the various schemes and loopholes created to disguise income as capital gains can be ended.


Or at a minimum, increase the "long-term capital gains" holding period from 1 year to somewhere around 3 to 5 years. This maintains the lower rate for people genuinely investing for retirement.


> This maintains the lower rate for people genuinely investing for retirement.

Insofar as we need tax favored retirement vehicles, we have plenty—general taxation of capital income need not be concerned with that. There are two legitimate interests I see addressed by special consideration of long term capital gains (but the current “jist give it a lower rate” approach is suboptimal for addressing them.)

(1) Gains over >1 year taxed as current income in the year realized, when this is not repeatable (that is, when the owner doesn't have a large pool of long term investments to liquidate some of each year) is unfair in a progressive tax system because you will get high taxes in the realization year because of a high bracket, but you need to use the income across multiple years.

This can be simply addressed by allowing taxpayers to recognize income for tax purposes before realizing it (and/or allowing deferring some of the income received in a spike year.) I prefer combining both.

(2) Because of inflation, the real net gain from capital may be much lower than the nominal gains for assets held for a long time. (If appreciation is less than inflation, you may have a real loss with a nominal gains.) This is best dealt with by inflation-adjusting basis values when computing capital gains.


What makes you think the optimal holding period is around 3 to 5 years?


I’d be very happy if my investment income was taxed at the same rate as my salary income.

I’d be even happier if it was taxed higher. My time (labor) should be worth more than my money (capital).


This is a great way to cause another combined housing and fixed income bubble.




Applications are open for YC Summer 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: