Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I don't think there is anything per se wrong with wanting to keep what you have. My objection is the people who pay $20,000 a year to put a kid in private school, but vote against a $250 increase in their property tax bill to pay for building a public school.

IMHO you don't have to explain this at all. I took it as you criticizing folks who see things only as "me, me, me, mine, mine, mine" taxwise. Hopefully, Sebby is on board with the idea that to be a municipality, state or country that functions well, then everyone has to ante up (in whatever way makes most sense) for not just schools but to rush your drunken ass to the hospital when your liver goes early. Spread out the risk. If someone truly wants to "keep" all of what he/she earned, that someone better move to Lancaster and grow a long beard where you can "opt out" and keep all your wood carved piggies to yourself.** Or you can go the illegal opt-out route and become a Hassidim (own schools/even private docs). Same long beard, but closer to the City and Yiddish is easier than German (plus you get speedy Lubuvitcher ambulance drivers instead of those damn slow horses). Until then, people who bitch about taxes in general are better served coming up with specific ways to make levying them "more fair."

**Of course, an opt out would never work or even a line-item tax bill since most would "opt out" of things like First Aid squad and other shit but then they'd cry foul when left 1/2 dead on the side of the road. It already happens with health care insurance opt-outs who show up in ER and demand free care anyway.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
IMHO you don't have to explain this at all. I took it as you criticizing folks who see things only as "me, me, me, mine, mine, mine" taxwise. Hopefully, Sebby is on board with the idea that to be a municipality, state or country that functions well, then everyone has to ante up (in whatever way makes most sense) for not just schools but to rush your drunken ass to the hospital when your liver goes early. Spread out the risk. If someone truly wants to "keep" all of what he/she earned, that someone better move to Lancaster and grow a long beard where you can "opt out" and keep all your wood carved piggies to yourself.** Or you can go the illegal opt-out route and become a Hassidim (own schools/even private docs). Same long beard, but closer to the City and Yiddish is easier than German (plus you get speedy Lubuvitcher ambulance drivers instead of those damn slow horses). Until then, people who bitch about taxes in general are better served coming up with specific ways to make levying them "more fair."

**Of course, an opt out would never work or even a line-item tax bill since most would "opt out" of things like First Aid squad and other shit but then they'd cry foul when left 1/2 dead on the side of the road. It already happens with health care insurance opt-outs who show up in ER and demand free care anyway.

Nova Lox is one of my favorite foods, I know a bit of Yiddish and don't like shaving too much...

But seriously, I don't have a problem with paying a fair share of taxes. I don't know how the debate got warped into that.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
It's largely the fact that I've given the nuanced, detailed explanations a million times already. I'm not in favor of wealth redistribution. I'm opposed to people who don't deserve them getting tax breaks.

I don't think that CSX dividends (earned by someone else's grandaprents maybe, mine ran a drugstore) should be taxed at a lower rate than the salary I earn or the hourly wage a stockboy earns at Wa-Mart.

I also think it's bullshit to try and characterize capital gains as money that has already been taxed. You don't get taxed on what you put in, that's called basis and you recover it before teh first penny is taxed as capital gain. I don't think we need to provide an incentive for people to make money. And I think that if we do, then we should provide me an incentive to show up every day and earn my paycheck.

The last point, by the way, is one of the things we agree on. Steve Schwartzmann, Henry Kravis, and Leon Black are getting a break on their paychecks. We both think that's wrong.

You were right, there are a lot of things we agree on and a lot we disagree on. You've seen me say all this before. You should know better than to lump me in with somebody who thinks that every family in America with an income over $250,000 should be forced to buy a car and a color tv for a Mom on welfare with 15 kids.

Taking away the lower capital gains rate is an unfair wealth redistribution. No matter how you slice it, it is penalizing success, killing the margins for people who have accumulated capital, and for what? To what glorious end? To fuck up Wall Street and hand the money to the government to waste?

It's also insanely reckless considering our country's awful savings rate. Are you really suggesting we should force more older people back into the work force? Are you really suggesting we should carve more money for our "government" out of retirees' hides? The last thing we need to be doing in this country is taking money AWAY from people who have diligently planned and saved in part based on the knowledge that a large part of their reitrement income would be taxed at a discounted rate. You're hurting the older members of the middle class. I don't see how you can say that is fair.

BTW, I did not lump you into the group of people desiring HDTV for welfare mothers. You've debated with me enough to know that. Your appetite for progressive taxation is far from that, but I still say its a form of wealth redistribution.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by LessinSF
It's hard to warm to a screamer, particularly if you have ever worked in a law firm.

Dissent. Screamers are wonderful. It's the moaners who are disturbing.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
But seriously, I don't have a problem with paying a fair share of taxes. I don't know how the debate got warped into that.

I thought someone was talking about protesting the payment of taxes (not just a portion). Oh nevermind.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Hell no. Ain't much use for tax planning and lawyering in a Socialist system.

Nor, I would note, in a Libertarian one.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I've said that before. Forget about ethanol, just take farm subsidies period. I don't think we should be paying farmers not to grow food while people are starving.

obesity is a bigger problem in the states than starvation.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Taking away the lower capital gains rate is an unfair wealth redistribution. No matter how you slice it, it is penalizing success, killing the margins for people who have accumulated capital, and for what? To what glorious end? To fuck up Wall Street and hand the money to the government to waste?

It's also insanely reckless considering our country's awful savings rate. Are you really suggesting we should force more older people back into the work force? Are you really suggesting we should carve more money for our "government" out of retirees' hides? The last thing we need to be doing in this country is taking money AWAY from people who have diligently planned and saved in part based on the knowledge that a large part of their reitrement income would be taxed at a discounted rate. You're hurting the older members of the middle class. I don't see how you can say that is fair.

BTW, I did not lump you into the group of people desiring HDTV for welfare mothers. You've debated with me enough to know that. Your appetite for progressive taxation is far from that, but I still say its a form of wealth redistribution.

It's not taking money away from people who have saved. I'm just saying that the same tax should be imposed on income from investment as from salary or wages. As for retirees, if they are counting on the income from savings being taxed at a lower rate, they get that through (i) a lower marginal rate on their lower retirement income and (ii) the appreciation for their working years tax-free.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Nor, I would note, in a Libertarian one.

I'm not aware of many Libertarians favoring abolition of the Court system.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I'm biased, but Obama rocked tonight, didn't he?

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm biased, but Obama rocked tonight, didn't he?

Women voted for him 35% to Hillary's 30%. Independents were something like 57-17. She is going to get killed in N.H., where independents can vote in in the Dem. primary. She is going to get killed in S.Carolina, which is 50% black on the Dem. side. I can't wait to see the new odds tomorrow.

eta: Michigan is on 1/15, and she will be probably be beaten there too.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
It's not taking money away from people who have saved. I'm just saying that the same tax should be imposed on income from investment as from salary or wages. As for retirees, if they are counting on the income from savings being taxed at a lower rate, they get that through (i) a lower marginal rate on their lower retirement income and (ii) the appreciation for their working years tax-free.

How does that make for losing the lower cap gains rate pre-retirement?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by LessinSF

eta: Michigan is on 1/15, and she will be probably be beaten there too.

I thought all the Dems pulled out of Michigan to punish us for changing the date.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
I'm biased, but Obama rocked tonight, didn't he?

"Iowa picks corn; New Hampshire picks Presidents"

[SlaveNoMore]

LessinSF
eta: Michigan is on 1/15, and she will be probably be beaten there too.

Doubtful. She's the only Dem running.