No. When the government taxes the accumulated loss of currency value upon the sale of an asset, it affects all such sales.
It affects all such sales, but if tax were redone so that taxes on inflationary gains were removed, and taxes on real gains were increased, it would have little affect on those that achieve returns on equity that significantly exceed inflation.
What is "no big difference" to you has been significant to me, where phantom gain has been half of the 'profit'. Having lived thru times of double digit inflation, when even sales of primary residences were taxed, I have a different perspective. But all that aside, you would give the government the power to create currency devaluation, & then impose income tax upon the attendant false gain? If so, you're very trusting in authority compared to me. That is a very corrupting incentive for a country addicted to spending. And to argue that it affects only this group or that group is tacit admission that injustice is OK, provided it affects a small population....& someone else.
And why should they pay tax on currency devaluation? Why should anyone pay tax on it?
In what way has it been significant to you? Your investments have had long term rates of return that barely exceed inflation?
Or are you talking about your real estate as a landlord? In that case, this would go back to the example of the factory, where if we isolate the factory and say that it's unfair to tax it, it seems reasonable. But if you consider the factory's purpose of generating cash flows, it's a very different story. Assuming you get tenants, your rental cash flows are a major part of your investments, rather than simply the purchase of assets and a later resale at a gain.
It's not a matter of trusting the government. It's a matter of asset class- some asset classes are naturally fairly well indexed towards inflation. And it's a matter of complexity rather than injustice. No tax code can reasonably be configured towards every single scenario, and you've argued in favor of a simpler tax code. But more specifically, what you've been arguing is for a simpler tax code, except to add nuances that you explain would disproportionally benefit your particular lines of business.
If only we could all do that- have a simple tax code except for nuances that are perfectly designed for what we do. But in reality, we have to have a tax code that blends both simplicity and fairness, to strive for an optimal point. Like I said, I'm not completely against the concept of indexing capital gains to inflation, but I haven't seen any compelling reason why it should be implemented, or that the benefits would outweigh the disadvantages of a more complex tax code that is based on a number (the inflation calculation) which people would probably argue about how to fairly calculate.
And how would it handle trading? Suppose individuals or corporations buy and sell assets rapidly, as many do. If you use the (1 + i) value for that year, you would erase a lot of taxable gain, since many people make many small trades that each have a small increase, perhaps lower than i. So for this to work, we'd have to implement a minimum holding time so that they don't get the benefit of excluding i from their capital gains over and over.
Domestic investors in foreign companies pay US income tax. Foreign investors in domestic companies pay their income tax. It all works.
Because double taxation creates inequities, as we discussed earlier.
And I've argued how a lack of double taxation creates larger inequalities.
I see single taxation as simpler.
I see it as more complex. Every investor out there would have to file the equivalent of a K-1 form for every investment owned, every year. That's tens or hundreds of millions of additional forms every year.
Perhaps you've forgotten that my reason is that the corporate rate does not take into account the tax rate of the stockholder. A poor person who owns GE stock should pay their marginal rate on dividends. But under the double taxation system you prefer, the poor stockholder's rate is adjusted upwards by the higher corporate tax rate. You may call this ideological, but your position seems to run counter to both my ideology & yours. It makes no sense.
It makes sense if you remember that my position is that business taxes should be low. Not nonexistent, but low. Reducing corporate taxation and increasing individual taxation allows it to be more progressive.
If I saw an easy and fair way for all businesses to be pass through entities, I'd be for it, but so far I have not. Tax revenue would be more volatile, areas could be more easily exploited, and every investor would have significantly more complicated tax filing every year. Therefore, I argue for a more optimal approach, where we keep the current system but shift it so that businesses pay less taxes and investors pay more. It keeps the complex tax part at the corporate level, and keeps the simple tax part on the individual level, and yet makes the whole thing more tax progressive.
I had no intent to change anything. I just pointed out a possible factor for differences between American & European tax policy effects. You're free to disagree, but to link a source without culling the relevant figures from it, & then using them to explain your position is not a cogent argument. Essentially, you're saying, "I'm right...read this link to see why." You can do better than that.
That's not what I did- I provided the link and then pointed out two figures: hours worked and GDP per hour worked.
It's just an opinion about what I believe could be a factor. I'm not arguing about it.
I merely ventured an opinion about this possibility. I've no intention to research it.
I note that you present neither research nor reasoned argument either, so that's a bit much to request of me.
I've already answered it to the extent I can. "Dodges" is a tad impolite.
It seems that several of your claims are rather definitive, but when sources are put forth, they turn into opinions about possibilities.
What I'm getting at is this- strong correlation can be demonstrated between robust wealth redistribution systems and a population that has less wealth inequality and a higher standard of living. You have argued for other explanations, but when I present quantitative evidence, you do not seem to consider it, and instead speculate that the evidence is inaccurate.
As income grows in relation to the basic minimum fixed costs of living, savings potential grows rapidly. In order to prevent a scenario where those that have capital are free to endlessly compound it, and those that lack capital are stuck at the bottom, a progressive tax system that supplements education, health care, workers rights, environmental responsibility, and so forth, can keep the society stable. It preserves the ability for individuals to be considerably more wealthy than others, but can produce a more ethical framework, and one that would prevent inevitable revolution or collapse.
What has been true, won't necessarily always be so. I'm not referring to the current level of technology. Rather, I'm speculating about what will happen when it rises to a level where devices can replace maids, call center workers, clerks, & even CPAs. We already see research on even robots to provide in-home personal care services. Revolutionary changes are afoot!
It is a real possibility that there will be people who cannot find any employment because anything they can do, a device can do cheaper.
What is to be done about them?
I agree that in the future, this will become more and more of an issue.
The benefits could be that the total costs of producing all basic necessities for life are significantly cheaper, meaning it's less of a difficulty to freely share them. The disadvantages could be that a majority of people have no ability to work.
I advocate social democracy and certain forms of socialism because they can address these problems by helping to ensure that the less privileged and the less fortunate are always kept in mind.
