They may. Or maybe de-incitivizing investment results in down turn of markets.
You saw what happened today, for example
Today was a small blip. There are many other factors that cause downturns like this. Long term this will have limited impact to market performance.
But again, the example provided was two periods on the opposite side of the market cycle. I can’t with good conscious think you don’t believe that was the primary factor in cumulative gains and losses.
Not only is there no evidence it raises revenue... it also punishes the majority of investors in your last to punish a few rich people.
When you're not fired from Verizon and manage lots of investments, you will understand
So I guess I shouldn't work harder because then I'll have to pay more taxes and I should just work less. That's what you're basically advocating.
Ooof!
For the slower people who get fired from part time jobs...
There is no RISK in earning more income at your job.
There is plenty of risk in investing. And when the reward shrinks, the risk becomes a much bigger part of the equation
The federal income tax was originally passed with the understanding that it would only impact the very richest. I think it's a reasonable assumption that the people who voted for it would be appalled at what it has become. I'm generally in favor of almost anything that gets closer to that standard.
Like thethe, I believe that something can have both a negative effect on the bottom line and a positive effect on the economy and the country.
Our President is wisely wearing his mask despite being vaccinated, on a Zoom call. Clearly he's concerned about giving his computer a virus.
[tw]1385572138485231617[/tw]
They were probably all laughing at him as soon as they signed off.
Our President is wisely wearing his mask despite being vaccinated, on a Zoom call. Clearly he's concerned about giving his computer a virus.
[tw]1385572138485231617[/tw]