what do you mean by physical risk? football players willfully take physical risk to obtain their higher pay checks...even though that is based on having a large audience of viewers. Physical risk is accounted for in terms of pay check and what someone is willing to accept like a construction job that pays $10 per hour. No one is forcing people to do specific jobs in the USA.
And post-tax money is used for investment in stock for the most part,lol....why should a hard working plastic surgeon be double taxed when he is making investments in a trust fund for his kids or in stocks for himself as a responsible person?!?!?
anyways, IRA and 401k is pre-tax money....therefore it is taxed at ordinary income and rightfully so. And if you take that retirement money for stock investments....why should it be taxed as ordinary income again when a senior citizen is taking on risk to generate some income in addition to social security?!?!? just crap on the elders of society, bruh!
people are being short of sight in this thread. feaking jim cramer lived in his car w/o housing and contributed to the s&p 500 while getting treatment at free clinics. More people than you realize sacrifice to contribute monthly to the market and will forgo luxuries for a better tomorrow. The fact people try to pass off owning stocks as a rich man's game is problematic....some people just have longer vision.
Football players get paid so much because their high level skills are so scarce. Danger of the game is an insignificant factor in their paychecks. And regardless, they get taxed as much as anyone.
Specifically talking about hedge fund people, all their income comes from investment. It's not being double taxed so much as half taxed. The double taxation argument, as an aside, is very weak unless you find everything but income taxes(or sales or whatever tax type you favor as the original) to be a double taxation. And to take the argument to its logical conclusion, why not tax hedge fund managers at 0%?
And stocks are a rich man's game. Yeah there are anecdotes about the little guy making a killing on penny stocks, but that's all that is. By their very nature stocks are a playground of the upper and upper middle classes. Kindly explain how a system based upon having expendable capital and ruled by overly complex jargon isn't a system for the rich?
And back to the risk argument, why would fiscal risk trump physical risk so far as taxation? If fiscal risk plays a factor in how hedge fund managers are taxed, why would a deep sea fishermen be expected to pay the same rate as an insurance salesman?
Though frankly I think that valuing risks faced by profits over that of those faced by people is perfectly in line with our neoliberal religion.