I do not understand why people make such a big deal of the "double taxation" argument specifically in the context of capital gains.
If I hire an employee, I have to pay payroll taxes on the salary I pay him or her, and then I also have to pay business taxes on the value that the employee gives to the company in the form of increased revenue. Is this "double taxation" also a cause for moral outrage?
yes. name something good that comes from federal taxes.
all of the things that I associate with good government (schools, firefighting, disaster preparedness, zoning, etc.) are all handled by state and local governments.
the vast majority of federal taxes go towards socialist pyramid schemes or a wasteful military that got so bored it had to attack iraq.
Morally wrong? Like how? Please look up "utilitarianism" and do some reading on ethics, social contracts, etc.
A statement like the one you made really needs further reasoning to back it up. You might even be correct - but just claiming something to be true doesn't make it so.
socialism is ideally utilitarian. in reality the only people who benefit are those who hold the regulatory power to grant or withhold public funding. all you wind up doing is concentrating power in the hands of those who get to decide what is "the greatest good".
I have no problems with double taxation. Just don't compare capital gains vs. Income tax. Which is what the blogger is doing. When in reality the equation is: Actual Tax Paid = (Income Tax + Capital Gains tax).
If you don't tax capital, then only the wealthy will own capital. Eventually the capital starts owning itself and then the people don't even own capital anymore.
Our tax system has to try and fix one of the fundamental flaws of capitalism -- the tendency for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. Without a capital gains tax, this very worst aspect of capitalism becomes even more emphasized, as capital will last forever.
I sort of see what you're saying. But the States' poor now are better off than the States' middle class was in the 1800s. The problem is, this isn't close to true in many other countries.
> fundamental flaws of capitalism -- the tendency for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer
BS. Riches to shirtsleeves abound. Wealth rarely lasts three generations. Now, there are certain subgroups that seem mired in poverty, but that's another matter. The extent to which the rich have been getting richer and the poor getting poorer for the last 30 years in America has everything to do with the explosive growth of government and regulation, NOT capitalism.
Capital gains should be zero. All wealth creation is driven by savings and capital. Maximized capital investment and the incentives to save, maximize growth.
Income taxes should also be zero, by the way. It is entirely feasible to fund a properly scoped government with excise, duties, and user fees.
If I hire an employee, I have to pay payroll taxes on the salary I pay him or her, and then I also have to pay business taxes on the value that the employee gives to the company in the form of increased revenue. Is this "double taxation" also a cause for moral outrage?