[If you made a profit even if it’s unpaved, you’re paying taxes.]

[If you made a profit even if it’s unpaved, you’re paying taxes.]

Rep. Lee So-young of the Democratic Party had an interview with Sampro TV, which is famous for its stock YouTube. I read an article that reported it without watching the broadcast, but I would like to share my opinion on this.

I fully agree with the argument that our stock market should be advanced by revising the Commercial Act to prevent the tyranny of controlling shareholders and guarantee the rights of minority shareholders. It is true that politicians have been passive in revising the commercial law, and I agree with the argument that it should be revised quickly through active discussion.

However, I do not quickly sympathize with the argument that the financial investment tax should be suspended, the commercial law should be revised, and then the financial investment tax should be implemented again when the Korean stock market is healthy. Rep. Lee So-young likened the traffic tax on unpaved roads to not be collected, but to walking after wrapping it neatly.

Even if it’s inconvenient to travel, I think it’s right to pay taxes if you use the road to see benefits such as shorter travel time. This is because income tax is a tax that is levied on the income itself. This is because income tax is not levied based on whether you earned it comfortably or hard. (I think it is correct to impose financial investment income tax gradually according to the size of your income, such as earned income tax, but this issue will be discussed later.)

It sounds strange to me to argue that it should not be overlooked that 1% of large wealth earners own 53% of all stocks. Although it is a very small number, they have a significant impact on the stock market as they own a lot of stocks, so we need to be careful about taxation. In other words, it is argued that the gold investment tax should be abolished because if large investors leave our stock market because of the gold investment tax, stock prices will plunge and small investors will lose money from it.

It is no different from the argument that Samsung should not be taxed because if Samsung leaves Korea because it is afraid of taxes, our economy will be hit hard.

It is undeniable that the ‘physical strength’ of our stock market is poor. We need to advance the market and build physical strength through amendments to the commercial law. However, even in such a weak market, there are big hands who make profits, and they have enough ability to pay taxes. Isn’t it only up to 27.5% of the excess income of 50 million won?

It sounds plausible that it is the tax base of our stock market, but isn’t taxes borne by individuals who earn income from the market and not by the stock market? Does taxing those who have to pay and can pay taxes make the market more backward?

In our society, the polarization of income and assets, and the gap between the rich and the poor are widening day by day. The vicious cycle of the rich and the poor is becoming a drag on our economy and the future. I think the function of tax redistribution of income and assets should be further strengthened. Only then can we solve the problem of opportunity inequality due to the presence or absence of assets and excessive income.