1) Right but that's because you are an admitted communist who doesn't care about the Constitution and the legitimate role of government as established by those who founded THIS country. Like I was saying the other day, the EU just seems way more in line with your type of ideology. 2) that's.. not believable.
1) I care about the Constitution, very much. But I'm not a literalist. Neither are you, or you'd be satisfied with a flintlock, powder and shot. 2) No, seriously! For the good of the country. : )
Umm pardon the silly question but isn't paying the highest capital gain rate EVERY dec31 on your whole portfolio regardless of whether realized or not a SUBSIDY to the govt? I mean what could be better for them than compound annual taxation at nearly 2x the LTG rates. Maybe I'm stupid but the only advantage I see in electing mark to market is to do it only in the year you blow up.( and get NOL carry back refunds on trading losses). Because unlimited business expense deductions are allowed by business traders regardless of accounting method. The only one that allows for NOL is business traders who correctly file the M2M election with the IRS. Then close your trading entity and start a fresh one , since once you elect M2M you will be taxed that way from then on. PS:I'd really appreciate Maverick's input, thoughts on this especially if I've got some key concepts wrong. I suppose I need to add that getting exempt from the wash sales rule isn't a big deal with me.
OK, a couple of things here. That 3k deduction is for retail traders, not professional traders. Second, professional traders can actually write off all their losses if they are setup properly. THAT I don't have an issue with and I will tell you why. For traders who risk THEIR capital and pay taxes on their capital, if they lose all their money, they get ZERO benefits from the government. ZERO. They CANNOT collect unemployment, and in many cases, they can actually owe money to the government with a zero net worth. I have always believed that ANYONE who risks THEIR own money, not other's people's money as in a hedge fund, but their own money, they should not pay ANY taxes. If they ARE going to pay taxes, then they should be able to recover their losses from future earnings. I have mixed feelings on letting corporations getting away with this mostly because they are not risking THEIR money. They have stock holders, bond holders, and loans from the bank. I don't think corporations should be able to use debt and losses to manipulate the system for personal benefit which many corporations do., But you asked about traders. And for professional traders, giving them a "clawback" does not constitute a subsidy. The reason for this is that the taxes they pay in are coming from risks they are taking. In other words, they own the downside along with the upside. They should be able to offset losses with gains and vice versa. The bigger macro problem are the too big to fail banks who get to own all the upside and lay of the downside on taxpayers. With regards to Tesla or Solyndra, they are getting taxpayer money in which THEY reap all the upside and the taxpayer gets nothing. That is unless they go bankrupt, in which the tax payer pays the entire bill. Now, let's try this. Say if Tesla was going to be owned by the gov't entirely. And the profits from Tesla go straight back to the taxpayer instead of to Elon Musk, then you have a different argument. You have now balanced both sides of the ledger. The taxpayer gets the upside and the downside. Then the argument shifts to fairness and cronyism. For example, are we nationalizing Tesla because Elon Musk was a large donor to the Obama Campaign? Are we going to siphon tax dollars from middle class Americans and line the pockets of people inside the company and then claim the company is not profitable therefore no income is going back to the tax payer? See how complicated this can get. This is why the easiest solution is to make the game fair and let the best man win. Simplicity adds value. We keep the gov't honest, we keep the system honest and we provide an incentive for others to try and take risks knowing they have a fair shot instead of not taking a risk because they know the crony who donates to the white house is going to get the contract.
1) wrong sir, it literally doesn't say anything about flintlocks in the Constitution. I do read it literally, and I try to keep it in the context of the time it was written when determining how it should apply today. There is no mysticism involved so I don't see how you can read it any other way. There are definitely areas where ambiguity is involved but what we are talking about just isn't one of them. The fed govt, according to the Constitution, has no power that can be construed in any way that allows them to be invested in business, not solyndra, not tesla, not GM, not the TBTF banks and on and on. 2) if you say so.
You fail to note that this bill also has the support of most of the Democrats in the state legislature who have also been provided with campaign donations from the North Carolina Auto Dealers Association. Trying to make this a 'Republican issue' when the reality Tesla is fighting the same exact battle in other states where Democrats hold a majority smacks of politicization of a non-partisan car dealers vs. Tesla lobbying battle.
Apparently the individual who started this thread is quite ignorant and doesn't understand that. This is one of the few bills in NC that when through with support of all the members of both parties during the past year.