Current Events > why don't socialists talk about raising the capital gains tax more often?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I get that the 'free stuff' angle is more attractive from an electoral perspective, but in terms of advocating for the working class, can you get a more obvious and uncomplicated tax to advocate for than cap gains and dividends? literally the antithesis of those who earn, or work, for their income

anyway just kind of pondering the rise of the DSA this morning and what the implications are for politics in the future
---

socialism becomes communism

but our capitalism is turning into fascism

technocracy/scientocracy would solve a lot of problems
---

iHuman posted...

technocracy/scientocracy would solve a lot of problems

Also creates a lot of humanitarian ones, from the sound of it.
---

ZMythos posted...

iHuman posted...

technocracy/scientocracy would solve a lot of problems

Also creates a lot of humanitarian ones, from the sound of it.

Nah, Vanu Sovereignty is the best

The average socialist doesn't even know what capital gains are, because the average socialist is a basement dweller who couldn't even run a lemonade stand.
---

When their only argument for supporting the causes they back is "Europe is doing it so we should too", it's difficult for them to justify raising the capital gains tax when ours is already higher than most European countries'.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

The average socialist doesn't even know what capital gains are, because the average socialist is a basement dweller who couldn't even run a lemonade stand.

Not without a permit.
---

iHuman posted...

socialism becomes communism

but our capitalism is turning into fascism

technocracy/scientocracy would solve a lot of problems

Depends what you mean by socialism and communism.

Communism, as in what is advocated by Marx, can't be done with democracy. It takes a violent revolution.

But you have to place it in context... the communist manifesto was written in the 19th century. Back then a lot of people were literally worked to death.

Marx said of the proletariat "you have nothing to lose but your chains." That might have been true in the 19th century, but not anymore. The working class aren't so poor that they have literally nothing to lose but their chains.

In a way it's kind of too bad that we use the words "democratic socialism" because it's kind of misleading. What we call democratic socialism today is, at least in most cases, just capitalism (albeit with much more "pro worker" regulations than we have now).
---

frozenshock posted...

It takes a violent revolution.

Imagine partaking in a violent revolution with the sole purpose of handing all the power to the thing you are fighting.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

When their only argument for supporting the causes they back is "Europe is doing it so we should too", it's difficult for them to justify raising the capital gains tax when ours is already higher than most European countries'.

There are no socialist countries in Europe.
---

Uncle Choad posted...

frozenshock posted...

It takes a violent revolution.

Imagine partaking in a violent revolution with the sole purpose of handing all the power to the thing you are fighting.

do you really think that or are you just being obtuse
---

probably just because it's way easier to advocate for spending than it is to advocate for paying for spending

same reason the GOP advocates tax breaks as a campaign platform and spending cuts as "oh no we somehow are in a totally not manufactured debt crisis, HEY LOOK OVER THERE"

it's a matter of political capital expenditure. certainly treating cap gains as regular income is an easy way to pay for their desired programs without actually impacting the middle or working class, since the middle class almost exclusively invests through 401ks and ROTH IRAs, which avoid that entirely (401ks' tax on withdrawal is always as income anyway; ROTH IRAs are post-tax and never subject to cap gains tax).
---

averagejoel posted...

Uncle Choad posted...

frozenshock posted...

It takes a violent revolution.

Imagine partaking in a violent revolution with the sole purpose of handing all the power to the thing you are fighting.

do you really think that or are you just being obtuse

Is there any good example of socialism lasting more than 3 or 4 generations?
---

Uncle Choad posted...

averagejoel posted...

Uncle Choad posted...

frozenshock posted...

It takes a violent revolution.

Imagine partaking in a violent revolution with the sole purpose of handing all the power to the thing you are fighting.

do you really think that or are you just being obtuse

Is there any good example of socialism lasting more than 3 or 4 generations?

Probably only Romania, where it lasted a bit longer than elsewhere. Still ended up collapsing though.
---

Taxing the absurdly rich is actually a difficult problem to solve. What people generally mean when they say "tax the rich" they don't mean the people making 500k a year, they mean the people with 10 digit incomes and such. Mostly from capital gains.

The problem with taxing people like that is suddenly their company was "sold" to some idkwtf place in a foreign country and no actual American is making any money, it's just some foreign company that isn't American and doesn't pay American taxes.

People talk about closing loopholes but it's not really that simple. It's better to tax money during the transactions that occur than it is to tax it after it has reached the capital gains stage. If a transaction takes place in America you tax the company conducting the transaction with American tax.
---

Darkman124 posted...

probably just because it's way easier to advocate for spending than it is to advocate for paying for spending

this is my suspicion, too, but I would think that in a post-recession world where you are fighting for the working class, 'soak the rich' would be a good campaign slogan?
---

Spooking posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

because the average socialist is a basement dweller who couldn't even run a lemonade stand.

Would they use their arm to stir the lemonade instead of a spoon?

No because once the bread lines collapse they'd have to eat their other arm in order to stay alive.

I can't link because it's not safe for work, but google "cannibalism in communist russia" and you'll find plenty of horrifying pictures of what people had to do in order to survive.
---

Balrog0 posted...

this is my suspicion, too, but I would think that in a post-recession world where you are fighting for the working class, 'soak the rich' would be a good campaign slogan?

post-recession, or pre-recession?

last recession ended 8-9 years ago, depending on your economic model.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

The problem with taxing people like that is suddenly their company was "sold" to some idkwtf place in a foreign country and no actual American is making any money, it's just some foreign company that isn't American and doesn't pay American taxes.

People talk about closing loopholes but it's not really that simple. It's better to tax money during the transactions that occur than it is to tax it after it has reached the capital gains stage. If a transaction takes place in America you tax the company conducting the transaction with American tax.

How are you gonna close the "loophole" of businesses moving to other countries? Without some serious and worrying abridgement of basic freedoms?
---

i see what you're doing there
---

Uncle Choad posted...

averagejoel posted...

Uncle Choad posted...

frozenshock posted...

It takes a violent revolution.

Imagine partaking in a violent revolution with the sole purpose of handing all the power to the thing you are fighting.

do you really think that or are you just being obtuse

Is there any good example of socialism lasting more than 3 or 4 generations?

first: that is completely irrelevant to the point. I'll clarify now:

your statement was extremely loaded, and operated on the false assumption that the state would be run by the same people after the revolution.

the government, at its heart, is composed of people. the people doing the work pre-revolution and post-revolution are not the same people. the russian revolution did not end with Lenin giving all power back to the Tsar.

second: are there any examples of socialism dying without the US or Britain doing everything in their power to kill it?
---

Balrog0 posted...

i see what you're doing there

gotta have a red team
---

preferential tax treatment is not very well-correlated with firm location decisions, but it is a threat that firms make in order to extract said preferential tax treatment from gutless politicians
---

lol at averagejoel trying to blame the US or Britain yet again
---

Balrog0 posted...

preferential tax treatment is not very well-correlated with firm location decisions, but it is a threat that firms make in order to extract said preferential tax treatment from gutless politicians

this is demonstrably untrue considering that Amazon is specifically targeting a location that is willing to give it preferential tax treatment, which was one of the criticisms of HQ2.

the firms with the means to move will move to where the tax situation is substantially better.
---

I'm not a socialist but I still think capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as other income.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

this is demonstrably untrue considering that Amazon is specifically targeting a location that is willing to give it preferential tax treatment, which was one of the criticisms of HQ2.

lmao you should look into it more closely, you are exactly wrong about how they are making their decision

hint: its gonna be close to DC, just like it was going to before their sham HQ2 bidding war
---

theAteam posted...

I'm not a socialist but I still think capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as other income.

This is bull shit, though. Have you ever made any money from capital gains? The only way you get the lower tax rate is if you hold the money in the market for at least a year, which means that you're giving up already-taxed income to bolster the economy and hopefully get a reward. If the tax rate suddenly doubles because of this way of thinking, you can expect the economy to suffer a massive hit.

Balrog0 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

this is demonstrably untrue considering that Amazon is specifically targeting a location that is willing to give it preferential tax treatment, which was one of the criticisms of HQ2.

lmao you should look into it more closely, you are exactly wrong about how they are making their decision

hint: its gonna be close to DC, just like it was going to before their sham HQ2 bidding war

source?
---

Because many cant tell you what a capital gains tax is.

There are also plenty of them that dont even know what socialism is...
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

source?

there have actual been several articles on this, I'll keep looking but this is the first one I could remember:
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/05/the-hypocrisy-of-amazons-hq2-process/560072/

At the end of the day, none of this should surprise us. Like all corporate site selection, the HQ2 process is a rigged game, where the company knows the answer in advance and sets up a fictitious competition to wrest maximum incentives.

Besides the political advantages, there are many signs that Amazons HQ2 is heading to the greater Washington, D.C. regionthe fact that its CEO has a multi-million dollar mansion there (currently undergoing a $12 million renovation, with large public rooms for social events) and already owns the Washington Post; the fact that three area jurisdictions made the shortlist; and the fact that the person running Amazons search previously ran an economic development agency in the region. Perhaps four other metros on the list are serious contendersNew York, Boston, Chicago, and Torontowith Philadelphia, Denver, Atlanta, and Dallas having an outside chance.

I'll keep digging, but in the market urbanism and economic development worlds I don't see many people who think the new HQ will be any where but the DC Metro tbh
---

0TiamaT0 posted...

Because many cant tell you what a capital gains tax is.

There are also plenty of them that dont even know what socialism is...

And once they get jobs and start investing they stop being socialists lol
---

it's really a bidding war between MoCo and some underdeveloped part of NoVA.
---

I'm pretty confident (and a tad hopeful) that Chicago will land Amazon's HQ2. Confident enough that I'd bet this account on it if anyone wants to match me in an account bet.
---

It'd be super fucking awesome if Chicago lands HQ2. I've been eyeballing a few properties that I want to acquire as strategic investments in the Chicago area, and HQ2 would probably double the value of those properties within the first couple of years of it being up and running.
---

There shouldn't be a capital gains tax.
It's just income. Tax it as income.

Questionmarktarius posted...

There shouldn't be a capital gains tax.
It's just income. Tax it as income.

The federal government rewards the investment that keeps the economy going. It's why we can deduct various costs of home ownership, real estate investing, capital gains, etc.

If it's just taxed as income, it'll probably slow down economic growth because less people will spend time building homes, parting with earned income for the long term, etc.

In fact, there might even be more risky trading since people will cash out immediately rather than defer their profit.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

The federal government rewards the investment that keeps the economy going. It's why we can deduct various costs of home ownership, real estate investing, capital gains, etc.

I mean, maybe we shouldn't deduct those things either.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

There shouldn't be a capital gains tax.
It's just income. Tax it as income.

The federal government rewards the investment that keeps the economy going. It's why we can deduct various costs of home ownership, real estate investing, capital gains, etc.

If it's just taxed as income, it'll probably slow down economic growth because less people will spend time building homes, parting with earned income for the long term, etc.

In fact, there might even be more risky trading since people will cash out immediately rather than defer their profit.

Social engineering rarely ends well.

emblem boy posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

The federal government rewards the investment that keeps the economy going. It's why we can deduct various costs of home ownership, real estate investing, capital gains, etc.

I mean, maybe we shouldn't deduct those things either.

Being business-friendly is why America is the superpower that it is. We've always attracted the best and the brightest in every industry and we've generated much more tax revenue by giving these incentives than by not giving them.

It might be all well and good to say naive things like "we need to stop with the real estate deductions! and we need to increase capital gains tax!" but you might find that you end up with less tax revenue and slower growth because of it, which is the opposite of what those laws would be trying to achieve in the first place.

If we stopped being friendly to business, I personally would pack up my sizable and growing net worth and skills and take them to Romania.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

There shouldn't be a capital gains tax.
It's just income. Tax it as income.

The federal government rewards the investment that keeps the economy going. It's why we can deduct various costs of home ownership, real estate investing, capital gains, etc.

If it's just taxed as income, it'll probably slow down economic growth because less people will spend time building homes, parting with earned income for the long term, etc.

In fact, there might even be more risky trading since people will cash out immediately rather than defer their profit.

You make it sound like the capital gains tax is the only reason people invest in the market and people would forget about the high returns the market historically gives just because gains become taxed as income. These people are still getting the benefits of being in the market. They are still getting gains.
---

Socialism is not a singular philosophy, so it seems disingenuous to always bring up the failures of communism.

Not everyone who supports socialist ideas is calling for straight Marxism evolving as it did in Soviet Russia.

That's like assuming everyone who says they support capitalism is an ancap or a fascist.

The capitalism/communism dichotomy is stupid.
---

emblem boy posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

There shouldn't be a capital gains tax.
It's just income. Tax it as income.

The federal government rewards the investment that keeps the economy going. It's why we can deduct various costs of home ownership, real estate investing, capital gains, etc.

If it's just taxed as income, it'll probably slow down economic growth because less people will spend time building homes, parting with earned income for the long term, etc.

In fact, there might even be more risky trading since people will cash out immediately rather than defer their profit.

You make it sound like the capital gains tax is the only reason people invest in the market and people would forget about the high returns the market historically gives just because gains become taxed as income. These people are still getting the benefits of being in the market. They are still getting gains.

For a lot of people you'd basically be doubling the tax rate if you taxed it at the income rate. That would substantially reduce the over-all returns, especially during bear markets. And it would incentivize short-term trading since there'd be no reason to hold for at least a year anymore, especially in volatile and unpredictable bear markets.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Socialism is not a singular philosophy, so it seems disingenuous to always bring up the failures of communism.

Not everyone who supports socialist ideas is calling for straight Marxism evolving as it did in Soviet Russia.

That's like assuming everyone who says they support capitalism is an ancap or a fascist.

The capitalism/communism dichotomy is stupid.

if someone supports capitalism, they are not a socialist
---

averagejoel posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Socialism is not a singular philosophy, so it seems disingenuous to always bring up the failures of communism.

Not everyone who supports socialist ideas is calling for straight Marxism evolving as it did in Soviet Russia.

That's like assuming everyone who says they support capitalism is an ancap or a fascist.

The capitalism/communism dichotomy is stupid.

if someone supports capitalism, they are not a socialist

To clarify what averagejoel means, based on his recent posts: If you're not, like averagejoel and other communist CEmen, publicly advocating for the murder of everyone who is successful, you're part of the problem.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

emblem boy posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

There shouldn't be a capital gains tax.
It's just income. Tax it as income.

The federal government rewards the investment that keeps the economy going. It's why we can deduct various costs of home ownership, real estate investing, capital gains, etc.

If it's just taxed as income, it'll probably slow down economic growth because less people will spend time building homes, parting with earned income for the long term, etc.

In fact, there might even be more risky trading since people will cash out immediately rather than defer their profit.

You make it sound like the capital gains tax is the only reason people invest in the market and people would forget about the high returns the market historically gives just because gains become taxed as income. These people are still getting the benefits of being in the market. They are still getting gains.

For a lot of people you'd basically be doubling the tax rate if you taxed it at the income rate. That would substantially reduce the over-all returns, especially during bear markets. And it would incentivize short-term trading since there'd be no reason to hold for at least a year anymore, especially in volatile and unpredictable bear markets.

Ehh, the first point doesn't really refute what I said. The second point, I could maybe agree with it.
---