Say Anything Blog

"Fairness” is a weasel word whose definition depends on the author.

Weasel word or not, “fairness” has nothing to do with this.  60% of voters own stock, either directly, or through a mutual fund, IRA, Roth, 401-K, or SEP.

This is a huge mistake by the “not ready for prime time” Barack Obama whose knowledge of basic economic policy is apparently no better than his knowledge of Urdu, Farsi, Aramaic, Klingon, or middle American Christian values.  Worse yet, the more you think about this, the stupider it gets.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Sadly, there are far too ill-informed, do-what-feels-right, melioristic morons out there who will vote for him regardless.

Anyone who heard fellow Chicagoan Rahm Emanuel talk economics from the house steps yesterday would surely contend that a large number of Illinois voters are more interested in “American Idol” and their own entitlements.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

I am not sure what’s more mind-boggling, the class warfare he admits to, or his breath-taking lack of even a basic understanding of how this economy works.

He is so out of his depth, it’s hard to fathom.  Luckily, the public will have plenty of time to see just how empty his suit of “hope/change” is.

I was pessimistic about the GOP’s chances to win the White House until Obama starting talking more.

Now I think he could lose 40+ states…

Will this apply to elected officials? Every penny they are paid is a windfall profit. They produce nothing of value, and yet they are paid vast amounts of tax dollars(in salary and benefits).

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

but says that he’d raise it anyway for the sake of “fairness.” Because hedge fund mangers make too much money.

Some people would say this is a lie.  Because, NO, he did NOT say that he would raise tax because they made too much money.  He said he would raise it because they are paying a lesser rate than those who make less and that is not fair.

If they paid a the same tax rate, and Obama had said he would raise their tax, then you might be able to conclude it is because they made too much money.  But your logic is way, way off here Rob.

Why did you get the facts wrong?  Is this an accident or intentional?

See, Rob? No matter that you post his actual words, sanni will still call you a liar.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

What a great question.  What a ridiculous response.

Why should hedge fund managers income be taxed as capital gains?

What makes their income exempt from personal income taxes?

Why are not bank teller’s or plumber’s deserving of being
allowed in the same boat?

So, because hedge fund operators pay a lower tax rate than their secretary (who by the way isn’t your $20,000/year salaried individual… I have a friend who works in that enviable job), 100,000,000 people should be punished for it by having their capital gains taxes raised?

Explain to me how that works.

Why should hedge fund managers income be taxed as capital gains?

What makes their income exempt from personal income taxes?

WOOF,

Because their “income” isn’t either salary or wages as defined by federal law and the tax code, but capital gains (and capital losses as well, please remember!).  Doh!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

No matter that you post his actual words,

The problem with this statement, of course, is that HE DID NOT POST HIS ACTUAL WORDS. Rob misquoted Obama, either on purpose or by accident.

Which is it Rob?

And I did not call him a liar.  I said some people would call it a lie.  It’s the same fairness Fox News uses when they interview politicians.  Surely you aren’t suggesting Fox News is anything other than honest?

Surely you aren’t suggesting Fox News is anything other than honest?

My! MY! Sounds disparaging to me! Hannitized is off the wagon! 

Barack Obama: All hat and no cattle since 1997!

Some people would say Rob is lying when he misquotes Obama, by writing down things he supposedly said, but actually didn’t say.

Was this mistake intentional Rob?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYA9ufivbDw

We’d all like to write tax code for ourselves.

If Obama wishes to raise taxes on those who, like the aforementioned hedge fund managers, pay at a lower, “unfair” rate, then why has he not endorsed the idea of a flat tax where everyone pays at the same rate?

Fairness… in the true sense of the word… dictates that whether a person earns $25,000, $250,000, or $25,000,000, all personal income, for everyone, should be taxed at the same rate.  Anything else amounts to the same tired, old leftist class warfare ideology of punishing those whose decisions and efforts in life have made them more successful.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Some people would say Rob is lying when he misquotes Obama, by writing down things he supposedly said, but actually didn’t say.

Some people would say that Hannitized is a lying hypocrite, when he accuses Rob of saying things he clearly didn’t say!

Han-job: It was just nine o’clock last night that I linked (for the benefit of the ADD impaired) a post where you were mind numbingly stupid or mind numbingly dishonest or both.
I know you can’t remember twenty minutes ago. Do you remember last night? The month of March???

Barack Obama: All hat and no cattle since 1997!

And by the way, is there now a cap now on the acceptable amount of money that an American can make?  What’s the limit?  A billion dollars?

I believe this has already been answered, people making $75,000 and over are rich.  Of course, just making over $75,000 (in other words, making too much) doesn’t preclude you from getting government handouts like S-CHIP in Democrat world.

"If this is the best the Dems have this campaign season, they are in deep trouble.”

Considering the brief glimpse at McCain’s economic acumen this pre-season, I’m not sure that the Dem conglomerate is shaking.  Hell, he’s said so himself.

Some people would say that Hannitized is a lying hypocrite, when he accuses Rob of saying things he clearly didn’t say!

So, your excuse for someone lying is that someone else lied too?

H,

Do the hedge fund managers BO mentioned make too much money?

HG,

No.  They pay a lesser tax rate, as Obama mentioned and to him he thinks that their secretaries, who pay a higher tax rate, is unfair.

Where are you going?

Just trying you a little, that’s all.

Do you think it is unfair?

That secretary’s tax rate is likely not over 15% and if so is no reason to punish the manager.  Given the fact that revenues increase from lower tax rates, wouldn’t the obvious approach be to lower the secretary’s rate to no more than 15%?  And if tax rates are only fair if equal why do we have a tax brackets?

The point is fairness is defined arbitrarily depending on the one calling for fairness and quite often contradicts other so called fair policies.

I like the idea of taxing Wealth instead of Income.  I don’t know how difficult it would be to both implement and carry out such a system, but this would reduce Work and Earnings taxes to Zero.  Converting Income to wealth would then become taxable when the wealth was measured for taxation.

Sven,

Care to elaborate?

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

Sven,

Define “wealth”?  That word is almost as fuzzy as “fair”.  After all, if you compare even the poorest in the country to the middle class in most third-world countries, then our poor would look very wealthy indeed.

Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

I think it is unfair for people who make a ton more money, to pay less percentage in taxes, yes.  How could it be anything other than unfair?

Given the fact that revenues increase from lower tax rates, wouldn’t the obvious approach be to lower the secretary’s rate to no more than 15%?  And if tax rates are only fair if equal why do we have a tax brackets?

Making them equal in terms of percentage to income is fair as well, as long as you equal them.  Tax brackets are designed to ensure people are paying an appropriate percentages to earned income, I believe.  Isn’t it designed to be fair?

Flat tax is giving people who earn more a break.  I am not totally against it, as I would benefit, but it doesn’t mean I think it is fair.

I know I pay more taxes that people who make less than me.  I am not crying about it, but I don’t care if I were to keep a little bit more either.

All this discussion and no solutions.
Simple solution to a complex problem:

A Flat Tax.

H, we have a flat capital gains tax rate—15%.  We have a graduated income tax with three brackets.  By your measure, how is one fair and not the other?  Then BO goes and conflates the two seperate taxes and says 15% ain’t fair because someone who he assumes to know, pays 28% income tax and therefore we should raise the CG tax to 28% to make it “fair”.  Now, does that make any sense at all?

Sven,
Care to elaborate?

Sven,
Define “wealth”?  That word is almost as fuzzy as “fair”.  After all, if you compare even the poorest in the country to the middle class in most third-world countries, then our poor would look very wealthy indeed.
kbiel on April 17, 2008 at 12:13 pm

I think the simple way to start out is that every person (as well as how every corporation does now) keeps a balance sheet.  Assets - Liabilites = Equity.

I think the staring point for wealth is this Equity.  For instance a person living paycheck to paycheck would pay no taxes, because she has no wealth or Equity.  Everything goes to food, rent, clothing, etc.  But there would have to be limits on some expenses I would imagine - No $5,000/month rent, or $1000/month food expenses, for instance.  These are arbitrary figures.  Things like a new flatscreen TV would have to be classified as an Asset, or entertainment expense, for instance.  Perhaps the worth of the TV determines its classification.

Also, things like Home Ownership, Car Ownership, etc. would have to have some exclusions.  For instance a 70 year old man with only Social Security Income couldn’t pay taxes on his $300,000 home.  So perhaps 1 home and 1 car, etc. are exempt from wealth taxes.

This is a simplified explanation, but with some thought you get the idea.

I didn’t do a good job of explaing the utter foolishness of our current tax rates and the ignorance and unfairness of BO’s comment.

If a flat tax is fair for capital gains, why isn’t it fair for income?

If it is said that income is different and therefore subject to bracketing then why is it that the capital gains rate must equal one of the three income brackets in order to be fair?

Simple solution to a complex problem:
A Flat Tax.

Not as simple as you might think. You would need to do away with all other taxes, otherwise they become doubly regressive.

In a perfect system, (one devoid of entitlements) the very rich should pay a higher rate of tax on income.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

If we are going to draft tax policy based on a hypothetical secratary’s income tax rate, shouldn’t we know the facts first.

It seems only fair.

Sven,

What you are describing is socialism.  After all, if the government decide what we are allowed to own and what constitutes wealth, then we may as well let it handle all of our money for us.  BTW, how will this mythical bureaucracy determine that owning a Chevy Malibu is just normal expenses but owning a Impala is “wealth” and therefore taxable?  What about my situation where I have 5 children?  Would having the 4th and 5th child be considered “wealth” and therefore all expenses paid toward the rearing of those children taxable?  After all, my van and house costs more than what a family making only $30,000 per year will be able to afford.  What about items the government really doesn’t want us to own, like guns.  Will they use this new tax code where bureaucrats arbitrarily define what we can spend our money on to make gun ownership more expensive?

I think you need to think through this a little more.  What you’re proposing is antithetical to property rights (among other things), something that is part of the foundation of this country.

Sven Hussein Olsen - I like the idea of taxing Wealth instead of Income.

So in essence, only the successful will be taxed. This carries on the status quo by rewarding negative economic actions that produce no wealth.

You may want to rethink the incentive structure.

But then again, maybe you’re one of those people who believe that the successful are given “a break” when they are treated equally. At that point, we are at an impossible to pass impasse because your economic incentive is a negative punishment on the successful, rather than reward or equality.

These are the problems we run into when you try to define an “appropriate” level of taxation for different people.

Is there anything wrong with economic equality? And by that I mean, the government taxes everybody the same rate. No “brackets”.

Allowing un-named bureaucrats decide what is a “fair” rate of taxation, at any level, is insane. And exactly how we have gotten into the socialist mess we find ourselves. And pretending that people elected to office, at any level, decide rates of taxation is equally insane.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

After all, if the government decide what we are allowed to own

Who said they are allowed to decide what we own?  All they are gonna decide is what is taxed.

BTW, how will this mythical bureaucracy determine that owning a Chevy Malibu is just normal expenses but owning a Impala is “wealth” and therefore taxable

I’m not sure.  Our elected officials will decide I suppose, just as they do now on various tax exemptions and policies.

What about my situation where I have 5 children?  Would having the 4th and 5th child be considered “wealth” and therefore all expenses paid toward the rearing of those children taxable

I’m guessing having children would allow you higher expense rates for your household food/rent/clothing rates.  Like now, with exemptions on your 1040 Returns.  Our tax policy tends to reward families with more children and I don’t see that changing under a Wealth tax.

What about items the government really doesn’t want us to own, like guns.  Will they use this new tax code where bureaucrats arbitrarily define what we can spend our money on to make gun ownership more expensive?

Its entirely possible that the government could form policy about what is taxed and what isn’t.  There are already consumption taxes on alcohol and tobacco and gasoline for instance.

As it is now, Income is taxed, and under this hypothetical proposal Equity is taxed.  I understand your argument about how this may affect people’s choices about purchasing Assets instead of trying to expense all their income.  Allowable rates for various living expenses that society (elected officials in a democracy) would be determined.  Income in excess of these amounts could be used to purchase Assets or one could donate to charities or contribute to qualified retirement plans that may be exempt or so on.

What you are describing is socialism

I don’t think its fundamentally different from now.  As it is now, we are taxing Income which to some is taxing Work.  Instead of taxing work I propose taxing Wealth.  By arguing, although I don’t totally disagree with you, that taxing Wealth will cause us not to purchase hard assets for production and economic growth, I would argue as it is now we are taxing Work, causing us not to Work.

What you’re proposing is antithetical to property rights (among other things), something that is part of the foundation of this country.

I don’t think this is antithetical to property rights any more than our current system is antithetical to Work.

I like the idea of taxing Wealth instead of Income.

I like the idea of taxing consumption.

Who said they are allowed to decide what we own?  All they are gonna decide is what is taxed.

With Barack Obama talking about people making too much money it’s not much of a leap to a situation where the government decides how much we can have.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

So in essence, only the successful will be taxed.

Much like our current system.  Your argument is analagous to Doctors and Lawyers being taxed higher (higher marginal rates anyway) than blue collar workers earning $12/hour. 

Under my system neither would be taxed for Income.  This should give people incentive to work harder and earn more income, correct?

But then again, maybe you’re one of those people who believe that the successful are given “a break” when they are treated equally.

Define success.  If its someone who is paid more income for having more skill doing their work, then my proposal does not penalize people for being successful.  They still pay no Income tax.  The successful, as you put it, may have more income to choose what to do with.  They can donate, or they can accumulate wealth, or they can do any number of things that our elected officials would deem pro-economic growth.

Allowing un-named bureaucrats decide what is a “fair” rate of taxation, at any level, is insane. And exactly how we have gotten into the socialist mess we find ourselves. And pretending that people elected to office, at any level, decide rates of taxation is equally insane.

Why are they un-named bureaucrats?  They are elected officials in a democratic society.  It could even be you, if you wanted to run for office.  And yes, it is precisely our elected officials and their staffs that determine tax rates.  Some of you talk like beaurocrats are Martians or something.

Much like our current system.

No kidding.

Under my system neither would be taxed for Income.  This should give people incentive to work harder and earn more income, correct?

Income to be used for what?

Wealth that will be taxed.

Define success.

Economic success AKA wealth.

We are talking economics and taxes here, aren’t we? What other kind of success would it be?

...or they can do any number of things that our elected officials would deem pro-economic growth.

Which has worked so well in other planned economies.

Are you kidding?

Unlike Hillary and Bill, Obama has no idea of how essential private enterprise is our economy. If we don’t have a working economy, we can can’t fund all the socialist programs he wants to create.

As liberal as Hillary is, she’s much more of a moderate than Obama. I don’t think she believes any less in socialist programs, but at least she understands that you have to have a private sector in order to fund the public sector.

I like the idea of taxing Wealth instead of Income.

Then all the power will reside with who gets to define “wealth”, won’t it?  Central control.

Your argument is analagous to Doctors and Lawyers being taxed higher (higher marginal rates anyway) than blue collar workers earning $12/hour.

Wrong.  People are taxed according to their taxable income, not their job classification.  Class envy politics?
People who choose to learn usefull skills and who strive to excel at them should be rewarded for that effort, and in our present system, they are.  They also get robbed to pay for useless social programs that promise to raise the income of people who don’t make good choices, but somehow only people who work smarter and harder actually move up in life, so that money would be better left in the hands of those who earned it, not lining the pockets of pandering politicians.

They can donate, or they can accumulate wealth, or they can do any number of things that our elected officials would deem pro-economic growth.

You really don’t understand what economic growth is, do you, Sven?  Basically, it’s wealth-producing activity.  If you penalize people for engaging in that type of activity, you inhibit it, and thus, you inhibit economic growth.  That would explain why socialist economies are not only stagnant, but totally dependent on a more vibrant economy, like that of the US, for their marketplace.  Somebody has to replenish the system.  Not everyone can be a parasite.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

You really don’t understand what economic growth is, do you, Sven?  Basically, it’s wealth-producing activity.

Like working?  Or sitting on your ass and picking stocks like horses?  I’m not saying that all wealth is derived form workers, I know there are plenty of financing effeciencies and also inherent pluses to free trade and free markets.

There are plenty of reward opportunities for useless spoiled shits who inherit businesses, stocks, houses, cars and more.  Are they productive?

The Right likes to point out the welfare and entitlement programs and how its such a cancer on our society.  But I can think of just as many worthless peices of crap who contribute nothing at all to our society other than spending.  You can give that money to a poor person and he’s gonna spend it too.  I have no problem with rewarding productivity and pro-growth policy or non-policy (freedom), but I do have a problem in defending the rich that are worthless.

Sven, exactly where are you coming from with all this socialism? Obviously not America. Socialism is an abject failure. Not just once, not just twice, every single time it is forced upon humans. IT. FAILS. Period. Full stop.

What you advocate is exactly what Robert Mugabe has done in Zimbabwe. Why don’t you take a few moments and research how that has turned out?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

There are plenty of reward opportunities for useless spoiled shits who inherit businesses, stocks, houses, cars and more.  Are they productive?

If they’re not, they lose their wealth.

The Right likes to point out the welfare and entitlement programs and how its such a cancer on our society.  But I can think of just as many worthless peices of crap who contribute nothing at all to our society other than spending.

They don’t compare. One has their hand in your back pocket and negatively affects you. The other one doesn’t affect you in any negative way. If anything, those “worthless peices of crap who contribute nothing at all to our society other than spending” could be a potential benefit to you.

I have no problem with rewarding productivity and pro-growth policy or non-policy (freedom), but I do have a problem in defending the rich that are worthless.

Why don’t you just mind your own business and stop being such an elitist prick?

Or sitting on your ass and picking stocks like horses?

Is that the way you do it?
No wonder you’re bitter!

There are plenty of reward opportunities for useless spoiled shits who inherit businesses, stocks, houses, cars and more. Are they productive?

Jealousy and envy of those who are wealthier than you; classic Marxism.  Yes, any activity that legally produces prosperity is productive.  I know this is way too nuanced for you, Sven, but it’s all about cost/benefit.  If I want to invest my money in hedge funds, it’s risky, but the reward is great(as is the penalty for getting it wrong); if I want more security and less return, I put my money in a savings account or a money market account.  Either way, that money becomes available for capital investment that magnifies the productivity of labor, and leads to employment of those who choose to depend on investors for their living.  Without capitalization, everybody works at a subsistence level.  Think about it.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Maybe that last bit wasn’t fair.

But then again, when calls for economic tax rate equality are referred to as “defending the rich”, it stands to reason that the elitist prick label stands.

Tax wealth, not income? Uuh- let me see if I have this right- you work, get paid, don’t spend it all, put some away, invest, whatever. That becomes wealth (Assets- liabilities= equity), oops! Gotta tax that! Sorry!

Who said they are allowed to decide what we own?  All they are gonna decide is what is taxed

Just like they do now, I guess? From deciding WHAT they will tax, they will soon make the leap to deciding what they will leave us to keep. 

I’m not sure.  Our elected officials will decide I suppose, just as they do now on various tax exemptions and policies

Why bother then, if its the same mucked-up fess we have now? Or are you for “Change”?
I’m not kidding myself that there will be any real reform any time soon, but if I’m gonna dream, I’m gonna dream about meaningful reform, thank you very much.

I don’t think its fundamentally different from now.  As it is now, we are taxing Income which to some is taxing Work.  Instead of taxing work I propose taxing Wealth.  By arguing, although I don’t totally disagree with you, that taxing Wealth will cause us not to purchase hard assets for production and economic growth, I would argue as it is now we are taxing Work, causing us not to Work.

Yes, any activity that legally produces prosperity is productive

We are talking about someone buying his 3rd Porche for his collection.  Why is that more productive than giving it to another person to buy his first Porche?  Neither is any more productive than the first.  Arguably giving it to someone who doesn’t have a car could be actually more productive.  Or maybe 10 Geo’s instead.

If you are saying, instead he puts that money in the bank to compete in the finance system, I would agree that that is productive, but that isn’t what I was getting at.  I made the point about “spending,” not investing.

Jealousy and envy of those who are wealthier than you; classic Marxism.

Its about productivity not jealousy.  A rich person spending money is the same production as a poor person spending money.  A rich person investing money is different.  I don’t disagree with that.

If anything, those “worthless peices of crap who contribute nothing at all to our society other than spending” could be a potential benefit to you.

No more than a poor person spending that same money.  In fact its worse.  Someone with a vast amount of capital that doesn’t know how to invest it, but only spend it, is hurting our society, not helping it.  A monkey could spend the money, it takes skill to invest the money.  Just because he has the money (by inheritance for instance) doesn’t mean he is skilled or talented.

Why don’t you just mind your own business and stop being such an elitist prick?

Sure, I’ll leave you guys alone.  I’m gone for the weekend anyway.  Have a good one folks. 

Of course its taxing work. That’s how wealth is created.

Carefull Good ‘Ol Boy.  r108 will call you a Marxist for saying that.  haha.  Thats one of the beginning assumptions of Karl Marx that lead him to conclude as a scientific socialist, that Communism is inevitable.

Sven, you are spewing class envy. And jealousy. You are not as motivated, or intelligent, or whatever, as people who have what you don’t have. And you want the “government” to take what they have and give it to you.

Barack Hussein Obama is right! You Democrats are bitter and clingy.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Of course Barry supports it: how much you want to bet he doesn’t make a significant amount of his income from capital gains? It’s political gold for a leftist populist politician - an issue that allows them to harp on leveling the playing field, while not leveling their playing field.

Thats one of the beginning assumptions of Karl Marx that lead him to conclude as a scientific socialist, that Communism is inevitable.

History has proven Marx wrong in every way.  Putting the word “scientific” in front of Marx’s utopian fairy tale does not make it so.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

We are talking about someone buying his 3rd Porche for his collection.

No, “we” are not; that’s your Marxist straw man.  Like Marx, you preach pure class envy, when the reality of the free enterprise system is that prosperity is available to everyone who is willing to work for it.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Carefull Good ‘Ol Boy.  r108 will call you a Marxist for saying that.  haha.  Thats one of the beginning assumptions of Karl Marx that lead him to conclude as a scientific socialist, that Communism is inevitable.

I don’t think anyone who reads my comments on this blog or any other will confuse me anytime soon with a Marxist. I knew as soon as I hit send that you or someone like you would not make the connection between my comment and what you said. You:

we are taxing Income which to some is taxing Work.

To which I replied:

Of course its taxing work. That’s how wealth is created.

What I meant was wealth is created by work.
It is puzzling how you so easily brag of making other people rich and growing a company, yet have hissy fits over how or what trust fund babies spend their money on.

Why do you even give a shit about their money or its origins? Go make some of your own, big man. Invent a new widget or offer a new service. Fight with the tax laws we have in this country, fight with zoning laws, struggle with worker’s issues. Pay taxes, pay worker’s comp, pay liability insurance. Make a business plan, court investors, convince a banker, make a budget. Find suppliers, find a market, figure out advertising. Do all that, make a big pile of money, then go enjoy it. I doubt any conservative on this blog will berate you for doing so, if it was done honestly. And we sure aren’t going to ask you to pay more taxes than you absolutely have to. So lighten up a little. And quit banging your spoon on your high chair.

Of course Barry supports it: how much you want to bet he doesn’t make a significant amount of his income from capital gains?

Barry doesn’t have to worry about accumulating a nest egg for the future; he has state and federal income for the rest of his life like Nd’s three stooges in congress do!

Sven,

I’ve been attending to other matters here, and just now getting into this discussion, so forgive me if I’m revisiting old ground…

I see an enormous disadvantage to your suggestion about taxing wealth instead of taxing income.  The obvious answer would be for smart individuals to stay leveraged to the hilt and thus avoid paying any taxes at all.  A home equity line of credit to draw down at tax time, a similarly timely margin account at my broker, credit cards maxed out come tax time, and what equity I choose to protect buried in unrealized capital gains.

Too easy.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Heh heh… I miss Good ol Boy when he takes time off and doesn’t comment.

Bat, you succinctly summed up what many of us were thinking, but you have to admit (however verbose) that Good ol Boy’s comment was enjoyably on target.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

Far more important than Barack Obama’s pitiful ignorance of economic policy issues is the fact that it is now firmly established that cuts in tax rates DO NOT mean a de facto drop in federal tax revenues.

Three times capital gains tax rates were cut and three times the revenues generated from that tax increased.  One time the rate was raised, and just like Art Laffer said it would, the revenue raised from that tax diminished as a consequence.

So… if cutting tax rates doesn’t necessarily reduce revenues, as the Left has been insisting, and raising tax rates results in lower revenue collections, why are economics ignorant liberals still calling for increased taxes, and why aren’t the Bush tax cuts being made permanent?

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

...why are economics ignorant liberals still calling for increased taxes, and why aren’t the Bush tax cuts being made permanent?

Because Marxist ideology demands income redistribution, administered by the political elites.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Unlike Hillary and Bill, Obama has no idea of how essential private enterprise is our economy. If we don’t have a working economy, we can can’t fund all the socialist programs he wants to create.

The problem with the democrats is they think Government is the answer to all problems and that the more people that are dependant on Government the better. The only answer they have is to tax the rich at 50-60% of their income, I don’t think they realise the damage they will do to the economy.

The left believe that they can just tax the nation into prosperity. That is because they are out of touch with the mainstream and because they have an ivy league education they think they are better than everyone else.

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

I think the question you proposed was more rhetorical in nature; an answer to which you surely know. (But I’ll throw in a wild guess.)

While a bad economy is terrible news for a republican administration it is not necessarily so for the democrats.

It might be an apt analogy to consider the parents who allocate certain monies for their children’s allowances. If a family is having financial difficulty due to the over indulgence of their offspring, then the parents are to blame. On the other hand if the child foolishly squanders their stipend it is, by all, to be expected; and the parents should have known better.

You could point to partisan bickering; that is, no matter what the conservative view the liberals will argue against it. However it still holds true that America (the family) will suffer hardships from the ignorance of their children (the Democrats) and in the end the parents (Conservatives) will shoulder the blame.

I wouldn’t have it any other way. Someone has to be the grown-up.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

Someone has to be the grown-up.

Sally,

Talk about succinct!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

It’s late and I’m almost through for the day.

Sometimes the mere acknowledgment by a respected mentor is all that is required to enable a student a restful nights sleep.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

While a bad economy is terrible news for a republican administration it is not necessarily so for the democrats.

Exactly, LDS.  The Dems want the govt to run the economy anyway, so a bad economy(or even a slight downturn) gives them an excuse to make a lot of empty promises to “fix” things with more taxpayer money.  When that doesn’t work, they blame it on “corporate America” and “foreign trade”.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Economist/pundit Larry Kudlow had an interesting statistic about capital gains taxes on both his show and his website.  According to Kudlow, whose info comes from the IRS,

Someone ought to point out to Sen. Obama that of the 8.5 million tax filers who declared capital gains in 2005, 79 percent had incomes under $100,000. 79 percent!

The unfortunate fact is that Wall Street won’t be the only one hard hit by Obama’s populism, Main Street would be hit even harder.

To call this “populism” is generous to a fault.  The practice of punishing all for the “sins” of a few individuals was made into a grisly art form under Stalin, Mao, and later Pol Pot.  The only difference is Obama’s relatively light form of punishment.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Roosevelt:

Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.

Great quote.  Reminds me of another one:

From each according to his need, to each according to his ability.

Whoever said that the Roosevelt brand of socialism isn’t a soft form of communism?

And WOOF obviously favors it.

H:

I think it is unfair for people who make a ton more money, to pay less percentage in taxes, yes.

Lets see a ton of money… that’s about $10,000,000 in $20 bills, right?

I can’t give you that number, but the top 1% by income pays 40% of all revenue as has the highest average tax rate (23%) of any group.  The bottom 50% by income pays only 3% of all taxes.

How much more progressive do you need our tax system to be?

What is unfair is for Obama to demand that capital gains taxes be increase, which would affect everybody at all income levels, because a few people aren’t paying their “fair share”.

Carrick,

My point exactly.  I’ll ask you liberals again:

Why is a flat capital gains tax “fair” and a graduated income tax “fair”?  How can both be fair seeing they are two opposite approaches to taxing the various income levels? 

And, if you somehow reason these two to be “fair”, then why is it not “unfair” that the capital gains tax proposed by BO is only fair if it is equal to one of the three income tax brackets? 

Finally, if the two are not “fair”, how or why is conflating the two and proposing a CGT of 28% more fair?

Liberals do more musing than living.  Maybe that’s partly why they get so bent out of shape when they see others success and happiness.

Why is a flat capital gains tax “fair” and a graduated income tax “fair”?

I find it hard to understand why any taxation of capital gains is “fair” in any meaning of the word. This seems to be totally Marxist in nature, penalizing capital.  Capital gains represents the creative use of otherwise non-working money.  That money makes money because it’s used to provide jobs and capital equipment that creates and supports jobs for the “workers”, so why is that activity penalized?
Seems utterly stupid to me.  Besides, the invested money represents income that has already been taxed; what is “fair” about double taxation?

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Good point R108.  I agree.  But, what never ceases to disgust me is the arrogance of these liberals and thier arbitrary but authoritative take on tax “fairness” and its many contradictions.  I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would elect these folks to public office.

HG,

You might just as well be speaking Latin to a deaf mute.  To most liberals, capital gains means the legislature voted to raise its own pay.

Those on the Left are willfully ignorant on economic and tax policy questions.  Just look who their candidate for president is for heaven sakes!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would elect these folks to public office.

Unfortunately, I do.  It’s the dumbed-down educational level of the general populace, due to the dominance of govt schools(leftie indoctrination centers), plus a very active propaganda campaign by the MSM that spreads leftie lies(like “tax cuts will cause a recession”, to use but one example), combined with allowing the leftie politicians to lie about their real core values.
Look at the shock and disgust exhibited when the Dem candidates were asked real questions in the last debate.  Even so, depite numerous Marxist-like public utterances, neither of them was ever asked why their economic ideas meshed so closely with those of the author of “The Communist Manifesto”.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Bat One,

I hear you. 

I’ve resolved that there is no understanding these liberal policies and positions because these are completely void of understanding. 

Take the idea that a secretary of a fund manager is in a higher tax bracket than the CGT rate.  No thought is given to the direct relationship between the secretary’s compensation and the success of the manager.  No thought is given to the direct relationship to the bonuses the secretary likely receives and the net profit realized by the fund and the likelihood of a bonus reduction if another 13% is removed from the net gain.  BO simply assumes that every fund manager is profiting unfairly because every secretary is stuck in a 28% tax bracket (which would mean she is generously compensated btw).  Then he makes policy decisions based on this one imagined circumstance he generally applies to fund managers.  This single industry is then the wieght balanced against all capital gains and all must conform to this single imagined circumstance.  That sounds “fair” to me.

HG,

There is also the question of capital at risk and potential loss… a question totally ignored by the ignoramuses on the Left.  As any rookie trader can attest, there is far more opportunity for loss in the market than there is for success.  If a PE partner is successful, those on the illiterate Left would penalize him, treating his knowledge, skill, and guts with the same ignorant disdain they do the secretary.  But if he loses...?

Look, this is nothing less than political extortion, shaking down the private equity industry for campaign contributions.  The irony is that the hedge fund/PE industry grew because of the rules, regulations, and taxes put in place by the same ignorant politicians now trying to get their “cut” of the success of others.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”