@boomzilla said:
Is this because you would prefer less dollars paid into the treasury as a result of these transactions? Because that's what history shows happens.
I suppose some of that matters if your goal is to increase treasury
revenue, but I'm not sure that's a sensible goal in and of itself (yes,
if you have a deficit, then this is a good goal - but so is reducing
expenditures).
@boomzilla said:
In fact, when charged on stocks, I think it's important to note that the taxes on capital gains happen after the corporation has been taxed.
This only applies to dividends. Most capital gains associated with stocks are wholly independent from a company's revenue except by association. Take Apple's recent massive revenue and profit quarter, and the associated increase in stock price. Yes, Apple's income was taxed. But if I held stock and then sold it, the money I gained is not the money that Apple took in. There is no double taxation there. While I could argue for no taxes on dividends though, I think the rates on stock appreciation should be at a much higher rate than 15% purely because they involve a different revenue stream. Consider that a plane-jane interest-bearing account has that interest charged at your marginal income rate rather than at the 15% capital gains rate. Why is this, when the interest on a savings account most surely is the same type of income as that realized from stock appreciation?
@boomzilla said:
Frankly, I'd prefer to get rid of corporate taxes and capital gains taxes altogether. Well, maybe just lower capital gains, but definitely get rid of corporate taxes, since corporations don't actually pay taxes, they just collect them
Again, it depends on your goal. Some people would rather see the opposite: only corporate taxes, and zero personal taxes. Of course, this gets strange anyway, because in the US corporations are considered "persons" for certain legal situations. In general the question you have to ask (and look at past history) is, when companies have to pay less tax, how does this affect profitability, employment, median income, etc.?
Now, I agree that a question that should be asked (that most people don't) is: if a company or person has $X billion, where is that money? It's most surely not sitting idle in a vault somewhere - it is probably "stored" as people's salaries, etc. Similarly, most of people's "wealth" isn't realized anyway (for instance, the value of stock that you've not sold, or the equity you have in real estate).
@boomzilla said:
Like any other transaction, taxing it more reduces the number and value of transactions. I guess you could argue that this isn't worth much, and at least partially contributed to the real estate bubble, but I don't think it did much as far as that goes.
I might argue that perhaps the frequency of real estate trades should be lower, as should the nominal value associated with those trades. What benefit to society is there for people who don't want a house to live in buy it at a low price, then sell it to someone who does need it at a higher price? The answer that most traders give is "liquidity" which to some extent is valid, but there are not many checks and balances on the system - it is far too easy for a trader to start buying things up, then gain a market-making share, and then the market is controlled by a very few who don't actually use the goods they control (this is the main argument against commodities traders - the individual is at the whim of the wholesalers).