Which has what to do with what?
So?Yeah, but that's an intentional (lobbied) advantage for capital investors over labour income. That's my point.
Come again?The mentioned compensation isn't a good justification for those tax rates, as financial math calculations of 1st semester quality reveal (and actually, a quick look at the different tax rates shows it as well).
How do you figure? There's a 15 to 35 percent tax rate on corporate income on top of the capital gains tax, so the effective rate is at least 30 percent.The effect is of course regressive, i.e. lower income groups are being disadvantaged (kinda 'trickle down economics' again).
I don't think "regressive" means what you think it means. You'll forgive me if I don't waste time on the superfluous abuse of jargon in the remainder of your post.The long-term capital gains tax rate is clearly regressive in comparison to the short-term one (a difference that cannot to be justified with in both cases identical corporate income tax or inflation!).
Bookmarks