Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

The wage earner is not given a year to pay taxes on their incomes, why should the investor?

---

The whole point is to give asset owners an incentive to leave their capital invested in productive assets instead of consuming it. This incentive works partly through the lower tax rate on realized capital gains, and partly by giving investors a way to transfer their wealth between similar assets without having to pay tax on the increase until they finally do sell the assets without reinvesting the money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

The argument that is an incentive doesn’t wash.

---

This statement is inconsistent with your three previous ones. Did you change your mind?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

you darn well better reinvest the money before a year is up, or you will certainly pay more in tax’s than if you reinvest.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Try and tell them that the one year wait is not a threat of punishment forcing reinvestment of the funds.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

the government under threat of punishment forces a reinvestment of the funds

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Let the investor pay the tax when they receive the income, just like the wage earner.

---

So you don't object to having a lower tax rate on capital gains than on ordinary income, but you think that capital gains should be taxed every time an asset changes hands, regardless of whether the seller reinvests the proceeds or not, is that right?

I'm finding it hard to decipher what you are objecting to and what you're arguing for in your comments here. You've gone from labor markets, to globalisation, to capital gains taxes, to capital reinvestment rules, and every time I respond, you shift topics and head off in another direction. What's up with that?