Taxes


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Taxes

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next
Author Message
Profile betreger
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 1752
Credit: 3,616,189
RAC: 7,822
United States
Message 1296348 - Posted: 17 Oct 2012, 21:26:10 UTC - in response to Message 1296341.

Gary, we've had this discussion before, a home is not capital.

Actually, it is: privately owned capital.

Definition: Capital is something owned which provides ongoing services. In the national accounts, or to firms, capital is made up of durable investment goods, normally summed in units of money. Broadly: land plus physical structures plus equipment. The idea is used in models and in the national accounts.

http://economics.about.com/cs/economicsglossary/g/capital.htm

Well the text books I studied defined the three factors of production as land, labor and capital. If you gave any other answer you got to redo your freshman year.
____________

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,432,416
RAC: 141
Korea, North
Message 1296355 - Posted: 17 Oct 2012, 21:35:16 UTC - in response to Message 1296310.

lower capital gains taxes on stocks and investments has had no effect on investments in the last 40 years.

One could argue that higher Capital gains taxes encourage continued investments in a stock. Moving the stock would cause one to incur the tax. Leaving in one place reduces ones exposure to the tax.

A lower tax could also be a cause of market volatility as investors see a small tax as less of a burden than losing a money on a stock in the short term.

One can argue anything one wishes, but if lower capital gains taxes have "had no effect on investments in the last 40 years", as you say, then why the explosion of mutual funds and the heavy reliance on equities by pensions? I think that decision makers, individuals and fund managers, put more into equities, in large part, because of the lower tax rate on the investor. This stimulates economic growth. If the capital gains tax is increased, people may go to other investments, which would inhibit expansion by companies (hiring, capital improvements) and negatively impact the economy--how much is open to debate, but in these hard times, do you want to risk such a contraction?

Capital gains taxes is only a part of tax policy. Congress (for the feds) and state and local legislators have put in place tax breaks, as I have outlined, to serve a societal purpose. If any particular tax policy isn't working, it can be changed.

Right i'm not an economist.

they might be
or them
or the Washington post

Its apparent that the capital gains lowered rate only helps the weathiest of us. Again, I bet not one of us fits the top 5% and do not have the investments that the top 5% have. We have been hoodwinked, bamboozled,...lied to time and again. Its those of ust that don't drink the grape flavored drink that get it. I understand the wealthy want cleap easy money and the cheapest easiest way to get it is not being taxed on investments. There's a reason this is called unearned income. That's also why it needs to be taxed higher otherwise we end up having a culture hereditary wealth which the founders did not want
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 11732
Credit: 5,969,877
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1296356 - Posted: 17 Oct 2012, 21:40:34 UTC - in response to Message 1296348.

Gary, we've had this discussion before, a home is not capital.

Actually, it is: privately owned capital.

Definition: Capital is something owned which provides ongoing services. In the national accounts, or to firms, capital is made up of durable investment goods, normally summed in units of money. Broadly: land plus physical structures plus equipment. The idea is used in models and in the national accounts.

http://economics.about.com/cs/economicsglossary/g/capital.htm

Well the text books I studied defined the three factors of production as land, labor and capital. If you gave any other answer you got to redo your freshman year.

http://www.investorwords.com/694/capital.html
The money, property, and other valuables which collectively represent the wealth of an individual or business.

I note the economic definition is only for firms and ignores individuals.

Also I can argue that a building, home, does provide the service of keeping you warm and dry.


However we are discussing the US tax code. It is defined there.
http://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2011_publink100010476
Capital Assets and Noncapital Assets
For the most part, everything you own and use for personal purposes, pleasure, or investment is a capital asset. Some examples are:

Stocks or bonds held in your personal account,

A house owned and used by you and your family,

Household furnishings,

A car used for pleasure or commuting,

Coin or stamp collections,

Gems and jewelry, and

Gold, silver, or any other metal.

____________

Profile betreger
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 1752
Credit: 3,616,189
RAC: 7,822
United States
Message 1296393 - Posted: 17 Oct 2012, 23:24:13 UTC - in response to Message 1296356.

Gary, what that says is that the tax code ignores economics but seriously effects economics.
____________

Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2901
Credit: 6,276,126
RAC: 2,204
United States
Message 1296403 - Posted: 18 Oct 2012, 0:08:17 UTC - in response to Message 1296393.

Gary, what that says is that the tax code ignores economics but seriously effects economics.

That's not what my finance professor and tax law instructors taught me. The tax code has the definition of "capital" correct. But you are right that tax policy, as codified in the tax laws, does, by design, affect the economy.

Profile betreger
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 1752
Credit: 3,616,189
RAC: 7,822
United States
Message 1296415 - Posted: 18 Oct 2012, 0:32:16 UTC - in response to Message 1296403.

Economics is a science not a tax code.
____________

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8219
Credit: 21,809,840
RAC: 11,893
United Kingdom
Message 1296419 - Posted: 18 Oct 2012, 0:41:11 UTC - in response to Message 1296415.

Economics is a science not a tax code.

Is it, I thought it was social philosophy.

Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2901
Credit: 6,276,126
RAC: 2,204
United States
Message 1296420 - Posted: 18 Oct 2012, 0:44:04 UTC - in response to Message 1296415.

Economics is a science not a tax code.

Huh? Who said economics is a tax code? The tax code uses certain economic principles from economic theories that you may not agree with, but as a science, economics is rather too fuzzy for me. It offers no absolute answers before the fact, and answers that are often highly disputed after the fact.

Profile betreger
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 1752
Credit: 3,616,189
RAC: 7,822
United States
Message 1296425 - Posted: 18 Oct 2012, 0:53:22 UTC - in response to Message 1296420.

Gary used the tax code to define economic terms.
____________

musicplayer
Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 1363
Credit: 611,294
RAC: 1,641
Message 1296430 - Posted: 18 Oct 2012, 1:08:48 UTC
Last modified: 18 Oct 2012, 1:31:05 UTC

Not directly related to the way economics is being carried out in the U.S., but at least I know there are several ways in which debt is supposed to be paid back to a loaner of such money.

In any case, such a payback of debt is supposed to be taking time. Such extra time also leads to a higher cost - meaning that in total, more money has to be paid back than was originally loant.

Either the interest rate or the value added tax (VAT) is being included in the amount of money which is supposed to be paid back to the loaner (the one who initially gives you the money for your specific purchase).

In the same way as you may be able to receive money from someone by means of a loan, the same money also constitutes or represents a loss for the one who is loaning you (but not giving you as a gift or perhaps donating) this amount of money.

When using the paperbased system for accounting, I remember there was one account in the proper books for ingoing or inbound VAT and one account for outgoing or outbound VAT. The interest rates for these two different accounts or rates apparently were not the same when it comes to percentage. The last time I came across this, it was around 20 % or less, later going up to 23 or 25 %, or even higher. I really do not know how high this percentage has risen to at the present moment.

This compares with the amount of money you are receiving within a given period of time vs. the amount of money you are spending within the same period. Within the same time period you will have to pay for the necessary expenses to deal with in order to live.

The difference between what you receive (your income) and your expenses leads to either a gain or a possible loss. For some reason (or maybe the same reason) the same principle is being illustrated at a much larger scale by means of inflation (cost increase) vs. deficit (loss of money).

In the end, my best guess is that the difference between these two factors readily are being shown up in the "results". Make a guess about what the name of that difference is.

Profile betreger
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 1752
Credit: 3,616,189
RAC: 7,822
United States
Message 1296436 - Posted: 18 Oct 2012, 1:42:19 UTC - in response to Message 1296430.

Music, I thought this thread was about taxes.
____________

Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2901
Credit: 6,276,126
RAC: 2,204
United States
Message 1296438 - Posted: 18 Oct 2012, 1:44:38 UTC - in response to Message 1296425.

Gary used the tax code to define economic terms.

What he did was quote the definition in the tax code of "capital". The tax code has it right. The code doesn't disagree with the definition I was taught in finance and tax law courses.

Profile betreger
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 1752
Credit: 3,616,189
RAC: 7,822
United States
Message 1296442 - Posted: 18 Oct 2012, 2:05:27 UTC - in response to Message 1296438.
Last modified: 18 Oct 2012, 2:06:18 UTC

Gary used the tax code to define economic terms.

What he did was quote the definition in the tax code of "capital". The tax code has it right. The code doesn't disagree with the definition I was taught in finance and tax law courses.

I fail to see how this is a tool used in production yet the US tax code calls it capital, "A car used for pleasure or commuting". It is referred to as a capital asset. I agree it is an asset but it is not capital.
This arcane stuff does help determine who is taxed and how much they pay.
____________

musicplayer
Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 1363
Credit: 611,294
RAC: 1,641
Message 1296443 - Posted: 18 Oct 2012, 2:12:05 UTC - in response to Message 1296436.
Last modified: 18 Oct 2012, 2:22:44 UTC

betreger - Taxes are being paid (or even refunded at some times) because there is as mentioned always a difference between income and outcome when it comes to a given amount of money.

Meaning that if you receive 2 dollars from your mother and next pay 1 dollar for a chocolate, you are left with 1 dollar.

Similarly, if you receive 2 dollars from your mother, next get a bill in your mailbox from someone who asks you to pay him or her 4 dollars for 4 chocolates you earlier received but which was meant you should be paying for, that means that you owe that person 2 dollars.

The same goes with taxes. In most cases unfortunately, it ends up in a "tax burden" because you may have ended up having a debt with someone who once gave you money for your specific needs. Meaning with that a loan which generally should be tax deductible and therefore leads to or arises even more cost than the original amount which was offered you.

Guess what the opposite of this is and you are supposed to be paying back money which there is no account for. In such a case, who is getting rich and who is losing money?

Anyone there better able to explain the exact purpose of "taxes"? Is it just paperflow, perhaps?

Or do I rather have to read through all of what is written about it here?

musicplayer
Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 1363
Credit: 611,294
RAC: 1,641
Message 1296454 - Posted: 18 Oct 2012, 4:29:09 UTC

Outcome - perhaps expenses is a better word.

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 11732
Credit: 5,969,877
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1296477 - Posted: 18 Oct 2012, 7:00:13 UTC - in response to Message 1296393.

Gary, what that says is that the tax code ignores economics but seriously effects economics.

So does the dictionary. And the 99% of the people who are not economic academics. I did not know that economic academics had purchased the word capital and the right to its definition. I would like to see who owned the rights and therefore could sell it to them. Otherwise you might want to have a talk with some academics in the English department about how definitions of words are placed into the language.

Of course I know when you listen to a lawyer you need a copy of Black's Law dictionary to understand what was meant, but lawyers are special bottom feeding scum. :)

____________

Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2901
Credit: 6,276,126
RAC: 2,204
United States
Message 1296485 - Posted: 18 Oct 2012, 7:35:40 UTC - in response to Message 1296477.

. . . but lawyers are special bottom feeding scum. :)

Thanks. That's a promotion from ambulance chasing blood-sucker.

Profile betreger
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 1752
Credit: 3,616,189
RAC: 7,822
United States
Message 1296501 - Posted: 18 Oct 2012, 11:50:20 UTC - in response to Message 1296477.
Last modified: 18 Oct 2012, 11:50:47 UTC

Gary, what that says is that the tax code ignores economics but seriously effects economics.

So does the dictionary. And the 99% of the people who are not economic academics. I did not know that economic academics had purchased the word capital and the right to its definition. I would like to see who owned the rights and therefore could sell it to them. Otherwise you might want to have a talk with some academics in the English department about how definitions of words are placed into the language.

Of course I know when you listen to a lawyer you need a copy of Black's Law dictionary to understand what was meant, but lawyers are special bottom feeding scum. :)

Gary, in this context I think you can blame it on Adam Smith.
____________

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 11732
Credit: 5,969,877
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1296654 - Posted: 18 Oct 2012, 19:15:46 UTC - in response to Message 1296485.

. . . but lawyers are special bottom feeding scum. :)

Thanks. That's a promotion from ambulance chasing blood-sucker.

And I ate dinner with a tax lawyer for a fortune 500 company last night. For those of you who wonder that company has 10 offices just for IRS persons who are there year round. Your tax dollars at work.

____________

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,432,416
RAC: 141
Korea, North
Message 1296655 - Posted: 18 Oct 2012, 19:17:53 UTC - in response to Message 1296654.

or the companies finances are so complicated and diverse it takes that many IRS personel to weed through all the filings
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Taxes

Copyright © 2014 University of California