>>
>>If you take away the thrill factor, gambling is ultimately a series of risk-reward decisions. That's what makes craps or blackjack a silly gamble (you CAN'T beat the math in the long haul) whereas poker and sports betting are games of skill where you can actually put yourself in a position of positive expectation by analyzing the risks/rewards better than the other players in the game. I put stock trading in that same category. Your analysis as to the future value of the stock may be better than mine and you deserve your profit.
>
>
>I'll concede that most people cannot beat the math. However, how about a fun aside before going back to taxes:
>I include blackjack in the skill category when you're playing the best strategy and counting cards. As long as you're not obvious about it you can make the game profitable without trouble.

Everything I've read about playing "Basic Strategy" indicates that it reduces the house advantage significantly (IIRC to about 1.5%) but does not eliminate it. Accurate card counting can turn that into a player's advantage of the same amount and I agree that you can make money out of it provided that the casino lets you get away with it. They don't even have to prevent you from playing though. More frequent shuffling and larger shoes will negate the advantage of card-counting. But your basic point is accurate.


With craps, I've seen some interesting results with precision shooting. Its a pain to learn, but I've seen enough verifiable results to determine that an edge can be gained when betting properly with a precision shooter. Of course finding one or learning to become one is the key.
>

When I played craps it was for the thrill. It's the fastest game in the house and you can win or lose more money more quickly than at any other game (with equivalent sized bets, of course). I'm not sure about precision shooting. The few things I've seen about it indicate that it can't be done with any significant degree of accuracy. If it can, that of course changes the odds.



>Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion.
>
>
>>>Lets say the company holds 200,000,000 public shares of itself and the price skyrockets to 2x what I sold it for. Do you really think the value of those 200,000,000 shares is not important to the company's bottom line? To its lendors? Shareholders? Fund managers?
>>>
>>Sure it's important. But the price didn't skyrocket because you bought the stock. It went up for any number of reasons (perhaps even involving good management). The fact that is that you exercised good judgement in buying the stock.
>
>>But why should that good judgement be rewarded with a different tax rate?
>
>
>I agree that it shouldn't and I like the idea of a flat tax. I would also apply that logic to our current progressive tax system. Why should someone pay more in taxes when they've worked harder, made better choices, invested well and increased their earning power more than others?
>
>
The arguement about progressive taxation is, to my mind, different from what I'm trying to discuss. I happen to believe in it but I understand your arguements in this area. Others here are far better able than I to "defend" progressive taxation. My minimal attempt is that those who benefit more (from luck, skill, whatever) should contribute more. As long as the rates are not intended as a way of re-distributing the wealth I believe that progressive taxation provides a social benefit.



>>Putting it another way......If I buy a car from GM, a refrigerator from Maytag, or a box of cookies from Nabisco I have contributed in a more concrete way to their bottom lines than if I buy their stock. At least they receive the revenue from the sale. When you buy the stock they get nothing.
>When you sell the stock they get nothing.
>
>
>I already explained that every transaction affects them. While they get no profit/loss from the transaction itself the change in price has direct and indirect effects on the underlying company.
>
Gad-----I can't express this well. Sure there's an impact. Their treasury stock increases in value. I don't find that society benefits from that in any way which make YOUR profit on the sale worthy of a tax break.


>
>>Why do you deserve a tax break for them when they get nothing out of it?
>Your profit came from being able to analyze better than I did. Not all that difficult and hardly worthy of a tax break.
>
>
>Why do you get a tax break when:
>- You chose to have children? Just because you did what comes naturally you should be rewarded?
>- You bought a house? Why don't renters get a break? Why is the biggest break only for the 1st home?
>- You gave to charity? You made a choice to help a cause you believe in. Wouldn't your donation be more noble without the personal gain?
>
>All have the same answer...to encourage beneficial behavior.
>
We are in agreement here. The tax code is being used exactly as you indicate. Strangely enough, we probably even agree that this is not a valid basis for defining the tax code. Where we disagree is that my actions in increasing the value of a company's treasury stock are worthy of a tax break.




>
>>>>Why should the profit from the second transaction be treated differently than from the first?
>>>
>>>I agree, we should lower or get rid of the income tax.
>>
>>Come on......that's ingenuous at best. Getting rid of the tax entirely is a different question. Given that there is a tax, what's the justification for a different tax rate?
>
>
>I'm being honest. There should be no difference. I believe that if there must be an income tax, then it should be the same for all income. Corporate, investment, personal, interest, all.
>
>I also believe that taxes should only be paid once :
>-either at the corporate or investor level, not both
>-personal gain or death, not both (or in the case of investments 3x)
>-sales tax is a 3-4x tax (sales, profit, income or capital gain, and possible investment)