Take, for example, the capital gains tax paid on a pharmaceutical stock. The value of that stock equals the discounted present value of all of the company’s future proceeds. If the company is expected to earn $100,000 a year for the next twenty years, the sales price of the stock will reflect those returns. The “gain” the seller realizes from the sale of the stock will reflect those future returns, and thus the seller will pay capital gains tax on the future stream of income. But the company’s future $100,000 annual returns will also be taxed when they are earned. So the $100,000 in profits is taxed twice—when the owners sell their shares of stock and when the company actually earns the income. That is why many tax analysts argue that the most equitable rate of tax on capital gains is zero.7"
total load of crap. the companies profits are not tied to a stock price as rigidly as your make believe example. the profit from the company and the market for ownership of the company are two entirely separate entities and the price for a share of the company can be far more volatile than the companies profits. stocks are sold by companies to raise capital, and then the stocks are publicly traded on markets which have zero bearing on the company. the company can make tons of money and their stock price can be depressed and vice-versa.
i'll use a real life example. during the bird flu scare a few years back, stocks of chicken producing corporations were knocked down severely by scares of bird flu. the companies profits were not impacted, but fear ruled. if you purchased during the fear you made a profit that was not tied to the companies economic fundamentals at all. the company pays taxes on their profits, which have zero bearing on when and if people sell shares and accrue capital gains.
the market is independent of the corporations when it comes to the price of the stocks.
your comparison is like stating there should be no taxes on casino winnings because the casino pays taxes on their profits.
Previous Topic
Index
