ERD50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
True, using this as an example would show less taxes... but both would not be earning a million dollars... also, how long can someone spend $1 million per year without earning something I would bet that this is an extreme example and not like the vast majority of rich folks... I also do not think we should make tax policy to try and 'get' the few who can do what your example shows...
Yes, I made those rather extreme to illustrate the point. But where I was going was, over the long run, couldn't someone keep selling assets each year that average ~ 10% gains, and only pay pay cap gains on 10% of what they spend? Balance losses against gains. 10%/year seems sustainable for quite a while, no?
I'm actually not trying to 'get' anyone - I'm trying to be fairer. Like my earlier post - someone might have a plan that would take considerable effort/risk but may payoff big for a few years, but they realize this is only good for a few years - so they live relatively modestly and amortize the big pay-off over their lifetime. Is it really 'fair' to tax them the same as someone who makes that money every year for 30 years? I do think, that on average, what a person spends is a better measure of what they should be asked to pay in taxes.
I screwed up a tax move one year and got hit with big taxes (wiping out credits deductions makes for a VERY steep curve, far steeper than what those marginal tax brackets indicate - almost a brick wall!). I wasn't any 'richer' because of this, I just ended up with a lot of realized gains in one year. But I was taxed like I made that kind of money every year, which would be nice, but it wasn't the case. My spending is much more level-loaded than that kind of income. That might be good for the Country too - a more stable source of revenue?
-ERD50