|
Not sure that's the reining definition of "Republican" or not.
However, while the question's snarkily simple, the answer isn't. Or perhaps I just can't be concise.
In the last decade government jobs have increased. So have private sector jobs. However, in the private sector most job growth has come from start-ups, not GM and such firms. Most of those are either mom-and-pop companies that might hire another person but usually stop there unless the businesses are wildly successful; or, if they immediately start with 10 or more employees either get a lot of government help or -- ta-da! -- investment capital. Moreover, the more manufacturing/high-tech the firm, the more essential investment capital is.
Of course, far more start-ups failed than succeeded. Since investors aren't all that altruistic--they're not likely to want to lose a lot of money on failed businesses than they make on winning businesses, in this they're like you or I would be--they expect those that succeed to not only reimburse them for the lost gambles but provide a bit of change in addition. Most of that change comes in the form of capital gains.
Now let's play a game. Imagine a 100% capital gains tax. There'd be only charity as capital investment. You'd have no reason apart from altruism to invest your savings, because the most you'd get back is what you put in (minus inflation), and the greater the risk of the business the less likely it is you'd see your money again. Now imagine a zero capital gains rate. If 1 out of 10 business you invest in fail, then the 1 business has to reimburse you for the 9 failed businesses plus a little. Over some period of time--not at once, of course. That rate of return might not be all that incredibly high, so a lot of risky businesses would be attempted and a lot fail. Now imagine a 50% capital gains tax. It's in-between, isn't it? The rate of return would have to double, more or less. Some of the riskier business simply couldn't provide that much of a return and so they wouldn't get funding; even safe businesses would have to double their rate of return. It reduces investment, it reduces the number of startups to just those that are safest, and it reduces job creation and economic innovation. The goal is to find a balance.
Now remember that most of the private sector jobs in the last decade come from start-ups, and those either employed few people, got government funding, or were started with private capital. Less investment --> less private capital --> fewer start-ups --> less innovation. Unless the government steps in, but then the problem is that government is partisan and has blinders on.
So either get used to having investment tied to the capital gains tax *or* get used to government starting up a lot of businesses, of which most fail. Then either government has to expect to be reimbursed at rates not dissimilar to what private investors wanted (state capitalism, sort of) or we expect the businesses to be owned and run by the state (socialism)--and the government will take a bath on failed business OR keep inefficient, sluggish, unprofitable businesses around because it needs voter support. Of course, if the companies are owned by the state then the state will almost certainly defend them, since corporate interests would then not only identical to but would actually be the state's interests; eventually the companies will be run politically.
Now, my argument doesn't always follow in every circumstance. A lot of capital gains are from speculation, not investment (even vicariously and distantly) in start-ups. But I don't know how to distinguish them legally. Consider the housing bubble--how much appreciation of a house should be taxed when you sell it? (Is the depreciation reimbursed?) They're the same problem because there the capital gains isn't because of economic activity done by the participants; the owners are merely by-standers.
However, there's still the working joe making $100k/year for his 60 hours of week. Let's assume he's just an employee. His risk is screwing up so badly that he's fired. It's not like he's hoping that the one job will cover the losses he's incurred working in 9 other jobs. However, similar to investors he expects his earnings to recoup at least some of his investments--his education and training, the cost of living and transportation. He expects profit from his investment of time and energy, and the greater the investment the greater his displeasure at receiving just enough money to survive. He's leveraged his capital and assets, but most the risk he could commit to was at the beginning of his career, in most cases; after that he relies on others to manage his risks, by and large. Moreover, his investment hasn't necessarily created a new job except to the extent his wages, when he spends them, increases demand--and if it did it's likely because he was assigned the project or his project was funded by his employer (making him a kind of startup and the employer the investor expecting capital gains). However, the same economic principles work: If his tax rate is suddenly 99%, the difference between being a corporate lawyer, microbiologist, and a backhoe operator suddenly becomes not worth it OR the rate of return has to zoom. (Of course, working conditions factor in more than it would if you're an investor.)
I like the idea of innovation and job creation, and think that having the government decide on what startups should be on its own stifles diversity and innovation. I may not like wealthy investors, but they provide a service, either directly or through banks. That you can make capital gains via speculation is equivalent to egregious things in the court system--the guilty go free because the civil liberties intended to protect the innocent provide enough cover and doubt. Speculation and letting the guilty go free are both bad things; but to sentence the innocent or stifle job creation are both bad things, as well.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
