The post that was quoted here has been removed

Yes, it's pretty outrageous.

Though they could probably do the same running non-profit schools or social clubs.

As far as I can tell, the dichotomy is what is currently done or cut tax exempt status to most non-profits other than true charities.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Back of the envelope number crunching:

Military budget 2015: $756.4 billion - $65.3 billion for the VA = $691.1 billion/2 = $345.5 billion http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalbudget/p/military_budget.htm

Cost of capital gains preference: $120 billion per year
http://crfb.org/blogs/tax-break-down-preferential-rates-capital-gains

Harder to get ...[text shortened]... eficit-fell-big-time/

That's without even considering taxing inheritances as ordinary income.

Wouldn't treating capital gains as ordinary income depress stock prices, thereby decreasing the amount of capital gain actually realized and thereby the amount of tax due on those gains? How much of a correction does that require?

Originally posted by sh76
Wouldn't treating capital gains as ordinary income depress stock prices, thereby decreasing the amount of capital gain actually realized and thereby the amount of tax due on those gains? How much of a correction does that require?

None based on historical evidence.

At worst, rather than waste their money on financial speculation, rich people might actually have to do something productive with their cash.

Originally posted by sh76
Wouldn't treating capital gains as ordinary income depress stock prices, thereby decreasing the amount of capital gain actually realized and thereby the amount of tax due on those gains? How much of a correction does that require?

The ACA imposed a 3.8% investment tax on high earners starting on January 1, 2013. http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Net-Investment-Income-Tax-FAQs

It was claimed that this would case stock prices to fall sharply by the laissez faire pundits.

The market has risen 30% in the last two years instead.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Cut the military budget in half and tax dividends, capital gains and inheritances like other income.

Goodbye budget deficit + we'd have money left over to improve our infrastructure and thus improve our long run balance sheet.

So you are saying that spending does indeed need to be cut?

Originally posted by sh76
Because religious organizations are non-profits and other non-profits also get tax exempt status. If you cut religious organizations as tax exempt orgs, they'll just reorganize as non-profit social clubs or charities or educational institutions, which also get tax exempt status.

Why not end the exemption for non-profits?

Originally posted by sh76
Wouldn't treating capital gains as ordinary income depress stock prices, thereby decreasing the amount of capital gain actually realized and thereby the amount of tax due on those gains? How much of a correction does that require?

Of course raising taxes on capital would decrease the profitability of an investment and therefore prevent activity. To think otherwise is clearly absurd. If you want to impose tax burdens on one group, I believe it is completely unfair, but to deny that it will have an effect is simply dishonest.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Why not end the exemption for non-profits?

We certainly should. Universities, religious groups etc look more and more like for profit businesses and if others are forced to pay taxes they should too.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Why not end the exemption for non-profits?

Charities as well?

Originally posted by no1marauder
The ACA imposed a 3.8% investment tax on high earners starting on January 1, 2013. http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Net-Investment-Income-Tax-FAQs

It was claimed that this would case stock prices to fall sharply by the laissez faire pundits.

The market has risen 30% in the last two years instead.

There are too many variables in the stock market to be able to assert causation out of that correlation. Someone would need to find a convincing way to correct for all other variables to support an assertion that raising the capital gains tax would not depress stock prices as that assertion is counterintuitive. I'd still be in favor of it though, even if it does depress stock prices.

Originally posted by sh76
Charities as well?

We probably have too broad a definition of what a charity is. For example if you give money to the poor but mix it with a religious anti-abortion message are you a charity. If part of the money you raised is used to pay salaries, if you pay rent to your buddy, if your mom gets paid to do the books... I'd just say its a noble cause but so are most business and you pay taxes too.

Originally posted by sh76
Charities as well?

Absolutely. Why should I subsidize what someone else deems a charitable cause? Why should the government be in the business of determining what's a charitable cause and what isn't?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Absolutely. Why should I subsidize what someone else deems a charitable cause? Why should the government be in the business of determining what's a charitable cause and what isn't?

To encourage charitable giving. Tax policy is used as a means to engineer social policy all the time. While you may not like that idea, virtually no government agrees with you.

Originally posted by sh76
To encourage charitable giving. Tax policy is used as a means to engineer social policy all the time. While you may not like that idea, virtually no government agrees with you.

Of course the government likes expansive tax policy. We all like to get paid and we all like to have power to promote the causes we like and pay back our friends.

Originally posted by quackquack
Of course raising taxes on capital would decrease the profitability of an investment and therefore prevent activity. To think otherwise is clearly absurd. If you want to impose tax burdens on one group, I believe it is completely unfair, but to deny that it will have an effect is simply dishonest.

Decreasing the amount of money spent on financial speculation would be a good thing. The money isn't going to disappear and would have to be used on other hopefully more productive things. If it was, that would increase useful economic activity and spur growth.

EDIT: "Of course it would" but in fact the Net Investment Tax of the ACA didn't.

EDIT2: What exactly is "unfair" about taxing capital gains and dividends the same as other income?