|
realcoolhand -> RE: Imagine there's no stock market... (6/4/2010 5:01:59 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:
ORIGINAL: realcoolhand
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:
ORIGINAL: servantforuse
You should do some research on the history of the stock market before making a dumb post. Without a market to invest in companies, there would be no companies. Money doesn't grow on trees.
Evidently you've read a fantasy posing as a history of the stock market. There have been and there currently are as we type, several million companies that have never had and will never have anything to do with stocks or their market.
The stock market does not serve society at large as we've seen. It never existed to obtain debt free financing of start-ups but for the original investors to get rich once one has gone public. From its beginning to the late 1890's the market had been made up of brokers who were predominantly 'market makers' who underwrote (original agreement to purchase and resell) stock offerings.
All of it including going public was almost totally among businessmen and without any real public money involved. When wall street lost money...it was their money. Little of the losses in 1929 was from the general public and even now the poorest 50% of the public own only 1% of all stocks. In fact, the general public didn't get into the stock market at any significant level until after WWII and really started with profit-sharing in the form of stock and profited only if it went up.
Now they leverage and lose our money...big time and wouldn't be nearly as valuable without it. I say make everybody go public over the net like Google did and fuck the NYSE.
Few get rich in the stock market without our retirement savings involved. Our retirement savings are very cleverly drawn by a tax incentive. The stock market as of its establishment has done nothing to serve the country but serves only insiders and the corporation with management greedily awarding themselves immense stock options.
What tax incentive? The capital gains rate? The same one that applies to young folks who invest in stocks? Read the IRC.
Man, you can't be serious. When it comes to this stuff, I practically know it forward and backward. First, the tax incentive is obvious. 401K, Keogh, IRA and ROTH money go into funds/stocks before withholding for income tax of wages, tips & salaries. As we speak, $Billions every week are sent to the big funds.
Long term [sic] capital gains which is what you are talking about I am sure which is the gain on the sale of ANYTHING at a profit after ONLY 1 year of ownership. This enjoys a 15% federal tax rate on gross minus all capital improvement and costs, yielding what is called the basis. ALL stock dividends are also taxed at 15% without further condition.
This long term capital gains [sic] tax rate of 15% is available on the gain on the sale of anything and to...anybody of age.
This long term capital gains tax rate of 15% is also in my opinion, the singularly most immoral aspect of our tax regime when compared to the most productive of workers truly working and producing something, earning very good money, are paying more than 15% and up to 35%. There is no reason for this at all...in a real free market.
Dude, you keep [sic]ing the phrase "long term capital gains" as if it's an error. Chill. You're right to distinguish between long- and short-term capital gains. Anyone who doesn't know WTF we're talking about can see http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc409.html for a brief explanation.
As explained through the link above, however, you cannot avail yourself of the long-term capital gains rate on the sale of anything to anyone at any age. Only capital assets held for more than a year, and because assets are characterized as "capital assets" (rather than inventory or business assets) based on how they're used rather than what they are, even gain from the sale stocks held for more than a year could be taxed at the ordinary rate. The availability of the rate definitely is definitely intended to have certain consequences, and whether you like those consequences is a matter for debate.
As for the specialized retirement accounts, how funds invested in them are taxed varies by type. Some before deposit, some upon withdrawal. Regardless, its probably a mistake to lump them together and say they all share the same tax characteristics. While I agree that they're anomalies in the tax code, which I don't like, whether the intent behind them, or their effect, is nefarious really isn't all so clear.
|
|
|
|
