In literal translation: Even when dust piles up, it become a mountain.
Actual meaning: Even if you are putting small change aside to save, if you do it consistently it would eventually turn into a large amount of money :-)
i read the post on jacking and was wondering if its possible to distill the alcohol by freezing the water in a freezer and pouring off the alcohol because of the lower freezing temp. it would definatly make it easier than building a still and without the risk of explosion. if you could email me about it that would be great
Um, I suppose so, if they sold it all in a single year, and had lots of other income, and thus made it up into a high enough bracket that year. It seems a lot more likely that people with modest nest eggs would have lower capital gains in any given year and end up in a lower tax bracket where they wouldn't have to worry about the increases...
I just want to say even if a retiree sold that $100k of gains in 2 years, they will still be paying $13000 more overall. The taxes on $100k of gains would be $28k as long as the retiree falls within the 28% capital gains bracket. It's simple math really. Additionally I'd like to make it clear that you don't need a lot of income to fall into the highest capital gains tax bracket. In fact, your top income tax bracket only has to be 25%. For a single retiree, he or she would fall into the 25% bracket if he or she draws more than $31,850 in income for year 2007. I don't think that is "lots of income" like you said especially if the retiree lives in an expensive state like California. So in the case of a retiree with the nest egg in my example, he or she could withdraw that money over 3 to 4 years and still suffer a $13000 penalty under the new proposal. So I stand by my point that it's highly unfair to not just the uber-rich, but normal everyday investors, too.
"I have no idea why Senator Obama thinks this tax increase is fair in any way to all the individual investors like you and me who are by no means super rich."
Really? Don't you think it has something to do with the fact that for those of us with household incomes under $100,000, 1.4% of income on average comes from capital gains and dividends-- while for those with household incomes over $1 million, 31.4% of income comes from capital gains and dividends? (Source: http://www.cbpp.org/1-30-06tax2.htm) And so those households earning millions every year are paying only 15% on a whole third of their income, while the rest of us are paying 25% or 28% on most of ours?
Honestly, I personally would be perfectly fine with people from my or any other tax bracket paying higher capital gains taxes-- yes, it's good and responsible to save and invest, but why should that new income get taxed at a level lower than any other new income? Most of us are paying 25% or 28% on our income from work (more, when you count FICA), 25% or 28% on our interest income from savings accounts... it seems kind of overdramatic to get offended about having to pay that much on investment income too. (Why's it so special?) But that's not even what Obama's talking about anyway! He's talking about raising it some (maybe not even 28%, he just said no more than that) for the very highest-income people-- people making more than $250,000 a year. (http://mediamatters.org/items/200806120006)
"Suppose a retiree saved up a nest egg of $150,000 of which $100,000 is long term capital gains, then this particular retiree will lose $13000 if the capital gains taxes were raised from 15% to 28%."
Um, I suppose so, if they sold it all in a single year, and had lots of other income, and thus made it up into a high enough bracket that year. It seems a lot more likely that people with modest nest eggs would have lower capital gains in any given year and end up in a lower tax bracket where they wouldn't have to worry about the increases...
It seems pretty clear to me that the proposal is about addressing the fact that the highest income people get a disproportionate amount of income from capital gains and dividends, and that they pay a ridiculously low tax rate of 15% on that right now compared to what the rest of us are paying on most of our income. Even without Obama's stated commitment to raising capital gains taxes only on the rich, only a small fraction of upper-middle class folks (let alone average Americans) are paying capital gains taxes and on only a small fraction of their income.
Best YouTube post I'd seen in awhile. I don't think there's anything wrong in calling evil what it is. The reaction reminds me of when I came out as a vegetarian and all the meat eaters in my family would get upset at me when they asked why I went vegetarian and I told them I didn't want to eat dead things. I didn't ask them not to eat dead things but they took offense at me reminding them that their dinner was killed. And hey! They asked me to tell them that! LOL. Sorry you are having such attacks here...
• Top 1% makes 21% of Total AGI but pay 39% of all taxes
• Top 5% makes 36% of Total AGI but pay 60% of all taxes
• Bottom 50% makes 13% of Total AGI but pay only 3% of all taxes (Wow! That means the top 50% paid 97%!)
Also,
• Table 6 shows the shares of AGI for the various income levels. It shows the top 1% consistently paying a larger share of the tax burden- more in 2005 than in any Clinton year.
• Table 5 shows that from Clinton’s last full year in office through 2005 that the AGI share by income group has changed very little; in fact, it went up in Bush’s first couple of years for the lower 50%.
People should quit being selfish and voting which for whichever candidate is going to buy their vote- which is the essential point of this article. It's amazing how many have said- "Oh, I'll vote for Obama because he'll put more money in my pocket!". What's happened to America? Vote for the candidate who's going to uphold the constitution of our country. That's ALL that matters.
Have a similar problem except the problem here is that she died and has nothing. We are getting a great deal of horrific calls and we keep telling them that both Mr and Mrs are dead. They don't want to hear that they only want their money due.
Good luck on your end. I know that I have a lawyer at my end.
Have a similar problem except the problem here is that she died and has nothing. We are getting a great deal of horrific calls and we keep telling them that both Mr and Mrs are dead. They don't want to hear that they only want their money due.
Good luck on your end. I know that I have a lawyer at my end.
Have a similar problem except the problem here is that she died and has nothing. We are getting a great deal of horrific calls and we keep telling them that both Mr and Mrs are dead. They don't want to hear that they only want their money due.
Good luck on your end. I know that I have a lawyer at my end.
Have a similar problem except the problem here is that she died and has nothing. We are getting a great deal of horrific calls and we keep telling them that both Mr and Mrs are dead. They don't want to hear that they only want their money due.
Good luck on your end. I know that I have a lawyer at my end.
Paul, you haven't done your research. If you're going to write a post like this, you need to look at both sides of the spectrum and stop reading liberal blogs. "The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer" is a liberal democratic slogan to manipulate poor, uneducated people to vote for Democrats.
Barack Obama is NOT in support of making the 2001 Bush tax cuts permanent. The Bush tax cuts lowered the lowest tax bracket from 15% to 10%, a 33% decrease.
If Obama does not make that permanent, he will be effectively agreeing to increase the middle class tax bracket by 50%
Obama will increase capital gains taxes from 15% to 28%, almost a 100% increase. There are millions of lower-middle class Americans with stock and real property investments that will be effected by this. The rhetoric about the 50 hedge fund managers who made billions of dollars in the past few years is just a dumb argument. They represent .00001% of the population with stock investments.
I also agree with the other commenters on here that when you have a tax plan that only penalizes the rich, you are penalizing the very people that create jobs for poor people. Why would you want to hurt businesses and corporations that ACTUALLY add value to this country. The government doesn't produce any good or service. They just take money. Obama wants more government and more bureaucracy so that he can have more power and more control over our lives. I definitely won't be voting for him.
To the Guest that earned 34205.89 and paid more than $7,000 in taxes. You must have included ALL of your taxes to get to that number. For Federal taxes last year, if you took the standard deduction you should have paid only a little over $4000. Additionally, there was a tax rebate of $600 for this year. Furthermore, if you have children and contributed money into a 401k your taxable income is even lower. The only way you would pay more than $7000 is if you live in a very high tax state and you added your Social Security and Medicare taxes and you included those taxes in your $7000 figure. I highly suspect that you are paying more than you should, but anyway I'm not a professional tax consultant.
No wonder you write this worthless, sensationalist tripe...you get more hits. I mean, the title couldn't be more indicative of that fact. I certainly feel foolish now that I realize I've been bested. All along I thought you were serious. Silly me.
I'm just surprised you managed to convince Wisebread to tarnish their own reputation with your screed.
Personally, I try pretty hard not to be evil. As a practical matter, of course, it's impossible to make sure that the people who get the profits are the ones who bear the costs associated with producing them, but I think it's the right thing to do--and I support public policies that try to address the issue, even when it costs me money.
As for working, these days I'm doing exactly the sort of work that I most enjoy. Since it's what I want to do, I've got no problem getting myself to put in the hours.
I can identify with some of the other posts. It was very clear to myself and my sister that we were poor growing up, but it was also very clear that our father's needs were more important then many other things. We would be told that we couldn't have certain things "because we can't afford it", but we were also the first family on the block to have whatever the latest technical gadget was. All while bills went unpaid. This is something I was aware of at a very young age.
I love my parents and for the most part they were good parents, they were, however, terrible with money. Thankfully, I was able to see this. Although, my husband and I are by no means perfect with our money, we are both aware of problem areas and we actively seek to improve our habits.
I do think it is important to be honest with your children about finances (within reason of course), but I also feel you should back that up by being a good example.
I agree. Parents should teach their childeren about money that is how they learn. They should also talk to them about what they did right and wrong with money.
This way the kids can learn from the parents and hopefully have better lives.
I started giving my daughter an allowance when she was 3 years old. One of the main reasons was to make my life easier -- I didn't have to decide to indulge or deny her when she wanted this thing or that. I would tell her that she could buy what she wanted, but that she had to use her own money (and there were no advances). Of course, I kept track of it for her at first. When she wanted candy, sure she could buy it (it went into her candy basket to be doled out as dessert). When she wanted a toy (and it wasn't Christmas or birthday) she was welcome to purchase it after she had saved up. The begging stopped almost immediately, because I had a consistent answer! (She also has to put a set amount of her allowance away for long-term savings and for charity). Now, at 11, she always keeps $100 in ready cash, just because it feels good. She also offers to pay for things for our family (like movie rentals) which shows she understands that we are all in this together.
We all had better care about the .01 -- under any plan, they put alot of money into our system. The moment we start "doing away" with any portion of our population by taxing them to death, we are in essence punishing them for their behaviour. This, in my opinion, is against the spirit of capitalism. But I think we all knew that already. :)
The law in CA states that you have a duty to turn in the found money to the police and let them handle the lost & found duties. If after a specified time has elapsed (I think 30 days), then the money belongs to the finder.
I don't know people that obey the law or even know the law, but then again, it's not like anyone has enforced this law either to my knowledge...
I had the same problem with change accumulating in my car door pocket. Everytime I have change, I throw it in there and then it got so full, I emptied it out and dumped in my desk caddy and that got full eventually too.
One day I bought a coin sorter on sale and just dumped the change in there and got $60 worth of quarters, not including dimes, nickels and pennies. I'm doing that on a regular basis now and I'm easily back up to $60+ again within a few months but now it's getting longer to save that much change since I shop with credit cards more.
I used it to buy my office staff (I have 11 staffers) lunch. They appreciated it, I used up my change that was just taking up space. The best part is I made my assistant call and order the food and pay for it so she dealt with the delivery boy with the $60 of quarters and not me! Teehee!
One of my staffers says she saves her change with her husband and they use the money towards their yearly vacations.
Pls share the rest of your classical Chinese proverbs. The ancient Chinese were so wise - the more things change, the more things remain the same.
Recently I have been thinking about the saying that the character for danger also means opportunity. (I may have mangled that a bit - but the idea still is there.)
The moral behind the Midas touch is that even his food turned to gold, so he couldn't EAT it and he STARVED!! I have had the good fortune to have an millionaire relative who made his small fortune by cutting ethical corners and doing things that were quasi-illegal - Luckily for him he didn't get caught! But at the same time the cold manipulations extended to his family whom he put on the payroll and essentially BOUGHT. No one really loved him. And his life wasn't very enviable. A good lesson for ME - as I prefer a RICH life of love and adventure!
Yep, give someone something for free and there will be throngs in waiting to jump on it and abuse it. I have no problem charging people if they need the service. In LA we have the Metropolitan Freeway Patrol which is a roaming service that goes around the highways looking for stranded motorists to help.
I ran out of gas once on my motorcycle because it only has a low gas light but no gauge. I called the dealer and they sent their guy to bring me some gas to get to the closest station. You bet I gave him $10 for his troubles and I only took .5 gallon of super unleaded. It's called doing the right thing.
In a bigger context, this also goes for welfare abuse, and consumer fraud where people use something then try to return it to the store and stick the rest of us honest folks with higher prices at the store because they have to recoup the costs.
If you're being taxed on cap gains, you should be glad to have the gains in the first place! Plenty of investments lose money, and you're allowed to deduct them from taxes. The government feels your pain. Taxing gains and writing off losses even out the risk of owning capital.
If you want lower, or less cap gains tax, I suggest we also get rid of or reduce deductions for losses. That will be more dynamic and exciting for everyone, including "non-investors".
塵も積もれば山となる.
In literal translation: Even when dust piles up, it become a mountain.
Actual meaning: Even if you are putting small change aside to save, if you do it consistently it would eventually turn into a large amount of money :-)
Very true.
i read the post on jacking and was wondering if its possible to distill the alcohol by freezing the water in a freezer and pouring off the alcohol because of the lower freezing temp. it would definatly make it easier than building a still and without the risk of explosion. if you could email me about it that would be great
Um, I suppose so, if they sold it all in a single year, and had lots of other income, and thus made it up into a high enough bracket that year. It seems a lot more likely that people with modest nest eggs would have lower capital gains in any given year and end up in a lower tax bracket where they wouldn't have to worry about the increases...
I just want to say even if a retiree sold that $100k of gains in 2 years, they will still be paying $13000 more overall. The taxes on $100k of gains would be $28k as long as the retiree falls within the 28% capital gains bracket. It's simple math really. Additionally I'd like to make it clear that you don't need a lot of income to fall into the highest capital gains tax bracket. In fact, your top income tax bracket only has to be 25%. For a single retiree, he or she would fall into the 25% bracket if he or she draws more than $31,850 in income for year 2007. I don't think that is "lots of income" like you said especially if the retiree lives in an expensive state like California. So in the case of a retiree with the nest egg in my example, he or she could withdraw that money over 3 to 4 years and still suffer a $13000 penalty under the new proposal. So I stand by my point that it's highly unfair to not just the uber-rich, but normal everyday investors, too.
"I have no idea why Senator Obama thinks this tax increase is fair in any way to all the individual investors like you and me who are by no means super rich."
Really? Don't you think it has something to do with the fact that for those of us with household incomes under $100,000, 1.4% of income on average comes from capital gains and dividends-- while for those with household incomes over $1 million, 31.4% of income comes from capital gains and dividends? (Source: http://www.cbpp.org/1-30-06tax2.htm) And so those households earning millions every year are paying only 15% on a whole third of their income, while the rest of us are paying 25% or 28% on most of ours?
Honestly, I personally would be perfectly fine with people from my or any other tax bracket paying higher capital gains taxes-- yes, it's good and responsible to save and invest, but why should that new income get taxed at a level lower than any other new income? Most of us are paying 25% or 28% on our income from work (more, when you count FICA), 25% or 28% on our interest income from savings accounts... it seems kind of overdramatic to get offended about having to pay that much on investment income too. (Why's it so special?) But that's not even what Obama's talking about anyway! He's talking about raising it some (maybe not even 28%, he just said no more than that) for the very highest-income people-- people making more than $250,000 a year. (http://mediamatters.org/items/200806120006)
"Suppose a retiree saved up a nest egg of $150,000 of which $100,000 is long term capital gains, then this particular retiree will lose $13000 if the capital gains taxes were raised from 15% to 28%."
Um, I suppose so, if they sold it all in a single year, and had lots of other income, and thus made it up into a high enough bracket that year. It seems a lot more likely that people with modest nest eggs would have lower capital gains in any given year and end up in a lower tax bracket where they wouldn't have to worry about the increases...
It seems pretty clear to me that the proposal is about addressing the fact that the highest income people get a disproportionate amount of income from capital gains and dividends, and that they pay a ridiculously low tax rate of 15% on that right now compared to what the rest of us are paying on most of our income. Even without Obama's stated commitment to raising capital gains taxes only on the rich, only a small fraction of upper-middle class folks (let alone average Americans) are paying capital gains taxes and on only a small fraction of their income.
It reminded me of the email I just received from more than a few friends: www.imvotingrepublican.com
Best YouTube post I'd seen in awhile. I don't think there's anything wrong in calling evil what it is. The reaction reminds me of when I came out as a vegetarian and all the meat eaters in my family would get upset at me when they asked why I went vegetarian and I told them I didn't want to eat dead things. I didn't ask them not to eat dead things but they took offense at me reminding them that their dinner was killed. And hey! They asked me to tell them that! LOL. Sorry you are having such attacks here...
Margaret Garcia-Couoh
I'm confused. The "rich" already pay a huge share of the taxes- certainly more than their share. See this link if you don't believe it... http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
Real quick-
• Top 1% makes 21% of Total AGI but pay 39% of all taxes
• Top 5% makes 36% of Total AGI but pay 60% of all taxes
• Bottom 50% makes 13% of Total AGI but pay only 3% of all taxes (Wow! That means the top 50% paid 97%!)
Also,
• Table 6 shows the shares of AGI for the various income levels. It shows the top 1% consistently paying a larger share of the tax burden- more in 2005 than in any Clinton year.
• Table 5 shows that from Clinton’s last full year in office through 2005 that the AGI share by income group has changed very little; in fact, it went up in Bush’s first couple of years for the lower 50%.
People should quit being selfish and voting which for whichever candidate is going to buy their vote- which is the essential point of this article. It's amazing how many have said- "Oh, I'll vote for Obama because he'll put more money in my pocket!". What's happened to America? Vote for the candidate who's going to uphold the constitution of our country. That's ALL that matters.
Hi
Have a similar problem except the problem here is that she died and has nothing. We are getting a great deal of horrific calls and we keep telling them that both Mr and Mrs are dead. They don't want to hear that they only want their money due.
Good luck on your end. I know that I have a lawyer at my end.
Hi
Have a similar problem except the problem here is that she died and has nothing. We are getting a great deal of horrific calls and we keep telling them that both Mr and Mrs are dead. They don't want to hear that they only want their money due.
Good luck on your end. I know that I have a lawyer at my end.
Hi
Have a similar problem except the problem here is that she died and has nothing. We are getting a great deal of horrific calls and we keep telling them that both Mr and Mrs are dead. They don't want to hear that they only want their money due.
Good luck on your end. I know that I have a lawyer at my end.
Hi
Have a similar problem except the problem here is that she died and has nothing. We are getting a great deal of horrific calls and we keep telling them that both Mr and Mrs are dead. They don't want to hear that they only want their money due.
Good luck on your end. I know that I have a lawyer at my end.
Paul, you haven't done your research. If you're going to write a post like this, you need to look at both sides of the spectrum and stop reading liberal blogs. "The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer" is a liberal democratic slogan to manipulate poor, uneducated people to vote for Democrats.
Barack Obama is NOT in support of making the 2001 Bush tax cuts permanent. The Bush tax cuts lowered the lowest tax bracket from 15% to 10%, a 33% decrease.
If Obama does not make that permanent, he will be effectively agreeing to increase the middle class tax bracket by 50%
Obama will increase capital gains taxes from 15% to 28%, almost a 100% increase. There are millions of lower-middle class Americans with stock and real property investments that will be effected by this. The rhetoric about the 50 hedge fund managers who made billions of dollars in the past few years is just a dumb argument. They represent .00001% of the population with stock investments.
I also agree with the other commenters on here that when you have a tax plan that only penalizes the rich, you are penalizing the very people that create jobs for poor people. Why would you want to hurt businesses and corporations that ACTUALLY add value to this country. The government doesn't produce any good or service. They just take money. Obama wants more government and more bureaucracy so that he can have more power and more control over our lives. I definitely won't be voting for him.
To the Guest that earned 34205.89 and paid more than $7,000 in taxes. You must have included ALL of your taxes to get to that number. For Federal taxes last year, if you took the standard deduction you should have paid only a little over $4000. Additionally, there was a tax rebate of $600 for this year. Furthermore, if you have children and contributed money into a 401k your taxable income is even lower. The only way you would pay more than $7000 is if you live in a very high tax state and you added your Social Security and Medicare taxes and you included those taxes in your $7000 figure. I highly suspect that you are paying more than you should, but anyway I'm not a professional tax consultant.
No wonder you write this worthless, sensationalist tripe...you get more hits. I mean, the title couldn't be more indicative of that fact. I certainly feel foolish now that I realize I've been bested. All along I thought you were serious. Silly me.
I'm just surprised you managed to convince Wisebread to tarnish their own reputation with your screed.
Brilliant.
I misjudged you...you are an astute businessman.
Oh wait...businessman = EVIL...
HOW VERY SINISTER!!!!!
@E.T.Cook:
The details of how the Wise Bread writers get paid aren't secret; you can take a look here:
http://www.wisebread.com/make-money-writing-for-wise-bread
Personally, I try pretty hard not to be evil. As a practical matter, of course, it's impossible to make sure that the people who get the profits are the ones who bear the costs associated with producing them, but I think it's the right thing to do--and I support public policies that try to address the issue, even when it costs me money.
As for working, these days I'm doing exactly the sort of work that I most enjoy. Since it's what I want to do, I've got no problem getting myself to put in the hours.
@Ed:
Don't worry about me--I'm doing fine.
I can identify with some of the other posts. It was very clear to myself and my sister that we were poor growing up, but it was also very clear that our father's needs were more important then many other things. We would be told that we couldn't have certain things "because we can't afford it", but we were also the first family on the block to have whatever the latest technical gadget was. All while bills went unpaid. This is something I was aware of at a very young age.
I love my parents and for the most part they were good parents, they were, however, terrible with money. Thankfully, I was able to see this. Although, my husband and I are by no means perfect with our money, we are both aware of problem areas and we actively seek to improve our habits.
I do think it is important to be honest with your children about finances (within reason of course), but I also feel you should back that up by being a good example.
I agree. Parents should teach their childeren about money that is how they learn. They should also talk to them about what they did right and wrong with money.
This way the kids can learn from the parents and hopefully have better lives.
http://www.stocks-simplified.com
I started giving my daughter an allowance when she was 3 years old. One of the main reasons was to make my life easier -- I didn't have to decide to indulge or deny her when she wanted this thing or that. I would tell her that she could buy what she wanted, but that she had to use her own money (and there were no advances). Of course, I kept track of it for her at first. When she wanted candy, sure she could buy it (it went into her candy basket to be doled out as dessert). When she wanted a toy (and it wasn't Christmas or birthday) she was welcome to purchase it after she had saved up. The begging stopped almost immediately, because I had a consistent answer! (She also has to put a set amount of her allowance away for long-term savings and for charity). Now, at 11, she always keeps $100 in ready cash, just because it feels good. She also offers to pay for things for our family (like movie rentals) which shows she understands that we are all in this together.
We all had better care about the .01 -- under any plan, they put alot of money into our system. The moment we start "doing away" with any portion of our population by taxing them to death, we are in essence punishing them for their behaviour. This, in my opinion, is against the spirit of capitalism. But I think we all knew that already. :)
The law in CA states that you have a duty to turn in the found money to the police and let them handle the lost & found duties. If after a specified time has elapsed (I think 30 days), then the money belongs to the finder.
I don't know people that obey the law or even know the law, but then again, it's not like anyone has enforced this law either to my knowledge...
I had the same problem with change accumulating in my car door pocket. Everytime I have change, I throw it in there and then it got so full, I emptied it out and dumped in my desk caddy and that got full eventually too.
One day I bought a coin sorter on sale and just dumped the change in there and got $60 worth of quarters, not including dimes, nickels and pennies. I'm doing that on a regular basis now and I'm easily back up to $60+ again within a few months but now it's getting longer to save that much change since I shop with credit cards more.
I used it to buy my office staff (I have 11 staffers) lunch. They appreciated it, I used up my change that was just taking up space. The best part is I made my assistant call and order the food and pay for it so she dealt with the delivery boy with the $60 of quarters and not me! Teehee!
One of my staffers says she saves her change with her husband and they use the money towards their yearly vacations.
Pls share the rest of your classical Chinese proverbs. The ancient Chinese were so wise - the more things change, the more things remain the same.
Recently I have been thinking about the saying that the character for danger also means opportunity. (I may have mangled that a bit - but the idea still is there.)
The moral behind the Midas touch is that even his food turned to gold, so he couldn't EAT it and he STARVED!! I have had the good fortune to have an millionaire relative who made his small fortune by cutting ethical corners and doing things that were quasi-illegal - Luckily for him he didn't get caught! But at the same time the cold manipulations extended to his family whom he put on the payroll and essentially BOUGHT. No one really loved him. And his life wasn't very enviable. A good lesson for ME - as I prefer a RICH life of love and adventure!
Help for the 99.99% just seems so .... SIMPLE. Yep, no brainer.
Yep, give someone something for free and there will be throngs in waiting to jump on it and abuse it. I have no problem charging people if they need the service. In LA we have the Metropolitan Freeway Patrol which is a roaming service that goes around the highways looking for stranded motorists to help.
I ran out of gas once on my motorcycle because it only has a low gas light but no gauge. I called the dealer and they sent their guy to bring me some gas to get to the closest station. You bet I gave him $10 for his troubles and I only took .5 gallon of super unleaded. It's called doing the right thing.
In a bigger context, this also goes for welfare abuse, and consumer fraud where people use something then try to return it to the store and stick the rest of us honest folks with higher prices at the store because they have to recoup the costs.
If you're being taxed on cap gains, you should be glad to have the gains in the first place! Plenty of investments lose money, and you're allowed to deduct them from taxes. The government feels your pain. Taxing gains and writing off losses even out the risk of owning capital.
If you want lower, or less cap gains tax, I suggest we also get rid of or reduce deductions for losses. That will be more dynamic and exciting for everyone, including "non-investors".