Dane Allen wrote on 04/23/13 at 17:16:55:What I think you mean is you dislike the progressive tax system and would prefer a flat tax where everyone pays, say, 6%, for example on whatever they earn regardless of whether it is social security, inheritance, life insurance, wages, lotto, disability, unemployment, dividends, find-a-penny-pick-it-up, what ever. Some flat rate where everyone pays the same percentage regardless of income, no deductions or credits or anything.
Would you say that is pretty accurate?
Finally we're getting somewhere ... sort of ...
This is why the sort of ... Our tax system used to be progressive ... it now is regressive.
Flat tax will be fairer than regressive.
Our tax system as concerns the capital gains tax and the proof is - RMoney vs Warren Buffet - 13% and 3 million vs 17.4% and 1 billion - is that you have too much leeway in defining what is capital gains.
RMoney made full use of that.
Warren Buffet did not.
Investment returns within 3 years are considered short term capital gains. Its taxed as income, with the cap @ 35% being reached @ 1/4 million per person.
Investment returns past 3 years are considered long term capital gains and are taxed @ 15%.
Warren buffet classified some of his investment income as short term capital gains.
RMoney did not. I dont think it can be proven as correct or incorrect by anyone other than the internal auditors of the companies that paid RMoney's income Or the IRS. Or RMoney's tax lawyer.
However I think some of that had to be short term capital gains. Warren buffet's 17.4% is the proof I need.
Anyway I would like to roll the capital gains definition back to 1998. Clinton in 99 changed it for real estate.
Bush in 2003 changed it for a lot more investments and related.
And no your views on communism - "everything stole from the owner etc etc was not the norm". Yea people got killed and their assets confiscated. But I have had uncles who studied in the USSR in the 50's and 60's and it was not what you saw in the US - which obviously was the worst they had.
They routinely rewarded corporation heads and executives for increasing productivity with either plum contracts or tax breaks or free use of other govt property or the like. Essentially incentives to work their work force into basically dying at the machine. The classic modern day equivalent to 13% taxes cos its all capital gains, and it actually should be even less point of view that RMoney has cos he's a job creator.
The russian centralised planning didn't stifle productivity. Their need to export to compete with the US and stave their population and tax the working class heavily while keeping the profits in upper management essentially created a whole society of serfs.
Russian stuff was darn good till the 80's, but they exported all their good stuff, they were left starving. Have you seen a russian postal stamp from the 70's and 80's. Have you seen the paintings they had on them ? Have you studied Russian books for math and physics ? IE Irodov and Piskunov ? seriously, their problem was that they killed their workers to export everything and reward management. Seriously the american (resnick and halliday for physics) and british books taught the concepts pretty well. But the russian books were all about problem solving. I have a pretty close history with a lot of the USSR in the 60's and 70's. Communism was bad, and it was bad because they taxed and bled the masses dry while rewarding management - as a general rule. On ocassion they also rewarded politically connected management (AKA Crony capitalism)
Why did they implode. They were oppressed for so long they started to revolt, and then they had a few weak leaders and they collapsed.
Cool.
Srinath.
Pages: 
