tl;dfw

More race card sh;t.

Sane person: And that's why I think Obama's plan to raise the capital gains tax will prolong any recession.

Liberal: You just wanna kill people with BROWN skin! Hate crime!

Sane person: Remember to vote November 5th.

^ Actually, I was more trying to insinuate you were a pedophile, goatfucker, locomotophile (train fucker), and vet groupie. Tongue in cheek, of course.

I think you're a leftie as far as what issues you care about solving, you just believe this conservative nonsense that there's something innately wrong with government trying to solve problems.

To be a neocon would be to think that the biggest problems with America are terrorism, illegal immigration, the corporate and capital gains tax rate, and bans on drilling for oil (in that order).

To be a progressive the biggest problems are the job market, wages, our belligerent foreign policy, violation of civil & human rights, healthcare, environment, education, and social security.

I think your list of "problems to solve" is a lot closer to the progressive list, even if you don't like the fixes the progressives are proposing.

"I think, deedub, ya need to go looking for facts elsewhere than the Heritage Foundation, which is just another one of these think tanks whose raison d'etre is to support Republican/conservative policy."

The Heritage Foundation does profess to be a conservative think tank. Neither they, nor I have ever tried to downplay that fact. The fact that they are conservative doesn't make them wrong.


-During Reagan's last year in office, the rate of increase of Federal Debt to GDP was lower than the previous years of his term in office.

-During Bush 41's last year in office, the rate of increase of Federal Debt to GDP was lower than the previous years of his term in office.

-During Clinton's last year in office, the rate of increase was much higher than the previous year.

-Don't get me started on "W." Federal spending under George W. Bush has skyrocketed and the economy has plummeted.

Just when we start to get it right, some other dummy comes in and messes it all up.


"Obama's supposed "largest tax increase in history" is to restore the capital gains tax to the level we had under Clinton, and raise taxes from 36% to 39% on net income above $250K, while cutting them on all income (including capital gains) below $250K."

I don't have a problem with the wealthy paying a higher tax rate than the poor. I have a problem with raising that tax rate even further. I don't care what it was during the Clinton years. I have a problem with Obama's reasoning behind increasing tax rates for some, and decreasing it for others.

Everyone knows that some people work harder than others. We've all witnessed it. If John Q chooses to work 60 hours a week to advance his career, and Henry Y prefers to spend time playing video games, who is to say that Henry deserves some of the extra income John has earned? Is that fairness? I call it completely unfair.

Not only is it unfair, it doesn't work (according to the House Joint Economic Committee Report, April 1996)

What conversation is here, is better than the clip from Fox and Friends that raises these kinds of silly aspersions.

First we need to point out that McCain's $5000 refundable tax credit for "healthcare" would work in much the same way. It's $5k into the pockets of people who aren't paying any taxes at all. McCain is clearly the socialist here.

I think, deedub, ya need to go looking for facts elsewhere than the Heritage Foundation, which is just another one of these think tanks whose raison d'etre is to support Republican/conservative policy.

There are two schools of thought about what makes an economy grow. Conservatives say that lessening government spending, and making sure that the rich bear less tax burden is the best/only way to create jobs.

The other school of thought is that more money in the hands of the lower & middle class creates more demand, and more lucrative possibilities for the rich to invest in -- only now they have to cater to the desires of the people of the lower/middle classes, instead of whatever the investor class feels like doing (like Credit Default Swaps, say).

Additionally, there's a dual benefit to government spending -- short term, it creates jobs, and pumps money into the economy, just like any other kind of spending. The other is that government can invest in things that have very long-term returns, like improved education, environmental protection, and improved infrastructure. In the short run, they can create deficits, but in the long run they make us all more wealthy as private industry takes advantage of the fruits of that public infrastructure (like with the Interstate Highways program).

Finally, we have an enormous national debt, largely created by Presidents Reagan, H.W. Bush, and Dubyah Bush. Now isn't a good time to try to pay it down, but tax increases are guaranteed during our lifetimes, and it's better they happen sooner rather than later. When it comes to asking who should pay those increased taxes, do you really think the poorest people should be asked to give the same portion as the people who've taken the lion's share of the growth over the last decade?

I get the argument that conservatives make, I just think, like theaceofclubz said, there's diminishing returns.

Think of the extreme case, the elimination of all income tax. Will that increase tax revenue? Certainly 100% tax would be similarly fruitless. I think Bush cut taxes to a level below the optimal level. Obama's supposed "largest tax increase in history" is to restore the capital gains tax to the level we had under Clinton, and raise taxes from 36% to 39% on net income above $250K, while cutting them on all income (including capital gains) below $250K.

I also think companies are too shortsighted with how they invest their money, so government programs can do things that corporations won't, because the ROI would take decades, or worse, might not produce a direct return for them.

I actually agree with most of what you're saying. I agree that we need to make welfare (and other social programs) more like the hardhat than Vicodin. Better still, I want it to be like a cheap-but-effective hardhat, plus good training that makes sure people understand how to safely handle nail guns. People who want nicer hardhats are free to buy 'em, too.

As for Obama's qualifications, I agree about his resume being thin, but we've had a lot of great Presidents with thin resumes. To be truthful, I think his argument that a President needs more judgment than experience is accurate as well. The President will always be availed with the best experts he can find on any subject matter -- his job is to listen to the advice and call the shot. In a sense, as long as the President is passably familiar with the issues at work (and Obama has shown that he's more than passably familiar with the issues we face), and has a record of good judgment (which I contend Obama has had), he can be effective.

I'm glad you're more moderate than most around here -- seems like we have a lot of market fundamentalists hanging out here. I also agree with what you're saying about needing to make government more efficient in how it uses the money. I think Bush has shown that the modern Republican party is trying to make government as inefficient and broken as they can, so more people lose faith in government and fall for the siren call of the "small government" Republican party. Democrats on the other hand want desperately to fix it, make it efficient and effective, in order to restore people's faith in government. They're not the Socialist party -- increasing the size of government is a means to an end, not an end in an of itself. If reducing the scope of government proves more effective, Democrats will go for it (think Clinton with capital gains tax cuts, and NAFTA). We just don't see reducing the scope of government as some sort of absolute necessity that shouldn't ever be questioned.

As far as taxes go, Obama's plan is primarily aimed at shifting the burden, but it does both increase the amount of expected tax revenue, while cutting some spending (Iraq war), and introducing new spending (healthcare). It includes a deficit, but a smaller one than McCain's (since he doesn't even come close to offsetting his tax cut with spending cuts).

I agree with you that corporate benefits can help regular people, I just think we've gotten to a point where we're doing too much corporate welfare, and not enough of the regular kind. I share your concern about cracking down too hard on oil companies, since the price of gas will likely increase, but I don't think there's anything wrong with giving them a big push towards helping find alternatives to oil, rather than new places to drill for oil. They're supposedly "energy" companies, after all.

I also think corporations have too much influence over government policy generally, and that the government shouldn't be run by people who equate corporate interest with common interest. There's certainly overlap, but common interest should be the priority when they diverge.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I don't think that anyone makes a conscious decision to be homeless. It's a consequence of their actions. The result of the sum of their decisions over a period of time landed them where they are today. Only 3% of homeless people in this country have mental disabilities, so it's not like they just one day woke up homeless. It's not that I don't feel compassion for somebody who has made mistakes and found themselves in a really bad spot. I do. But that's why I choose to give back in my donations. I believe we should be focusing more energy on prevention and education. If you've got a nail in your head, Vicodin will make it feel a little better -Or I could have provided you with a hardhat so that you didn't get that nail in the first place. Welfare is meant to be the hardhat but, over the years, it has evolved into the Vicodin. Now we've got to surgically removed the nails and pass out hardhats. I'll stop before I get too carried away. My point is, the government doesn't do much with my money to help people rise above poverty. It helps them to stay alive while continuing to live their poor quality of life while not doing much do address the reason that they are there in the first place. Guess what happens to their children.


I agree with you that wealthy people have different concerns than do poor people, but my point is that they aren't as far removed from the rest of us as you make them out to be. Again, I didn't vote for John McCain, nor do I want him to be our next President. That doesn't make Barack Obama qualified. If you present me with a rotten peach and a rotten apple, I'll tell you that neither of them is appetizing.

I don't believe in fundamental capitalism. I'm happy to pay taxes to fund roads and education and defense, among other things. All of those things are good. I just feel that this country already collects more than enough money from it's citizens. We need to concentrate our energy on being more efficient and effective, not on collecting more money from the rich or from anybody. Not adding new programs, but streamlining the programs that we already have in place. Does all the money collecting from the gas tax go to maintain our transportation infrastructure? It was supposed to. Speaking of roads, is our long term expenditure on our roads efficient? No. We focus too much on getting them done quickly on not enough on building them to last. We work over and over on the same problems when we could have done it right the first time for a little more money up front.

I also feel that those who have succeeded have a greater responsibility to support our common good. I just don't believe that they should be forced to shoulder the cost of the common good more than anybody else does.

When corporations receive monetary benefits resulting from legislation, it's not always a bad thing. It's always a bad thing when lawmakers make it harder for large corporations (don't get me started on military contractors like Lockheed. You and I will probably agree a lot on that issue). Too many people in this county have a negative attitude toward Exxon and other oil companies. I think we've done a VERY good job keeping fuel inexpensive. Even with all the recent price increases, fuel is still cheaper here than in most other countries, including Japan and the UK. As soon as you increase taxes on corporations like Exxon, or increase restrictions that cause their profits to be reduced, their responsibilities to their shareholders dictate that they must increase their margins. In other words, picking on big oil only hurts the lower and middle classes in this country. ...or picking on any big business for that matter.

I make under 20k and have to pay about 20% in combined social security tax / income tax / sales tax. Meanwhile, the capital gains tax rate is 15%.

>> ^NetRunner:
I read on the internet that he's a secret muslim, whose Pastor is a reverse racist who wants to enslave white people, ally with Iran, ban the pledge of allegience, unpatriotically eschew wearing the required flag lapel-pin, and raise my taxes.
I heard from his fellow Democratic senator Hillary Clinton that he's an elitist, who doesn't understand the concerns of working Americans, hard working Americans, white Americans, that he's a misogynist who's heckled Geraldine Ferraro for telling it like it is (that he's only winning because he's black!) He disenfranchised the people of Michigan and Florida by not agreeing to let Hillary have all the delegates from both states.
Some Abe Simpson impersonator told me that somehow, people are being fooled by this proponent of failed policies of the past, when a 71 year-old white guy is clearly embracing policies of the future, like winning in Iraq, and giving everyone a well-deserved capital gains tax cut, while dismantling silly government programs like the EPA, FDA, and the quaint Bill of Rights.
You can keep your Tiger Woods, I want Ron Paul! Down with the CFR!
smack
Actually, I think he's going to usher in a sweeping change in public opinion, the way Ronald Reagan did. The country will realize that from the conservative point of view, Bush was the most successful conservative yet at implementing conservative ideology, and the crushing failures of the country are a direct result of those policies (and the ones Clinton acquiesced to in the 90's, like NAFTA, telecomm deregulation, and a huge capital gains tax cut).
Obama can draw in vast new segments of people disillusioned with the Bush years, and speak to them about liberal values and policies in a persuasive way I've never seen someone do before.
I think he'll be able to build a coalition of support to actually start addressing the problems our country faces with the economy, foreign policy, health care, infrastructure, and the environment.
Most of his past work has been in the realm of ethics reform, and governmental transparency. He's talked about forcing the health care companies to negotiate with him while in front of C-SPAN TV cameras -- something like that would be truly remarkable.
He won't be afraid to be painted as a "liberal" (as if that's a bad thing), or to fight for what he believes in because he knows that he's on the right side of the issues, and can explain why...
I think it'll be an amazing thing to see.



I had so many sarcastic responses lined up for this tripe, my brain overloaded, and I had visions of Hillary as Vice President.

I read on the internet that he's a secret muslim, whose Pastor is a reverse racist who wants to enslave white people, ally with Iran, ban the pledge of allegience, unpatriotically eschew wearing the required flag lapel-pin, and raise my taxes.

I heard from his fellow Democratic senator Hillary Clinton that he's an elitist, who doesn't understand the concerns of working Americans, hard working Americans, white Americans, that he's a misogynist who's heckled Geraldine Ferraro for telling it like it is (that he's only winning because he's black!) He disenfranchised the people of Michigan and Florida by not agreeing to let Hillary have all the delegates from both states.

Some Abe Simpson impersonator told me that somehow, people are being fooled by this proponent of failed policies of the past, when a 71 year-old white guy is clearly embracing policies of the future, like winning in Iraq, and giving everyone a well-deserved capital gains tax cut, while dismantling silly government programs like the EPA, FDA, and the quaint Bill of Rights.

You can keep your Tiger Woods, I want Ron Paul! Down with the CFR!

*smack*

Actually, I think he's going to usher in a sweeping change in public opinion, the way Ronald Reagan did. The country will realize that from the conservative point of view, Bush was the most successful conservative yet at implementing conservative ideology, and the crushing failures of the country are a direct result of those policies (and the ones Clinton acquiesced to in the 90's, like NAFTA, telecomm deregulation, and a huge capital gains tax cut).

Obama can draw in vast new segments of people disillusioned with the Bush years, and speak to them about liberal values and policies in a persuasive way I've never seen someone do before.

I think he'll be able to build a coalition of support to actually start addressing the problems our country faces with the economy, foreign policy, health care, infrastructure, and the environment.

Most of his past work has been in the realm of ethics reform, and governmental transparency. He's talked about forcing the health care companies to negotiate with him while in front of C-SPAN TV cameras -- something like that would be truly remarkable.

He won't be afraid to be painted as a "liberal" (as if that's a bad thing), or to fight for what he believes in because he knows that he's on the right side of the issues, and can explain why...

I think it'll be an amazing thing to see.

1. Gun Grabber? Are you a member of a well regulated militia? Do you have guns at home for personal home defense or recreation? Then you're fine. Is trading foreign-made assault rifles at gun shows or concealing pistols something you enjoy? Only a chance of a problem. This is a non-issue that the old conservatives use to drum up votes.

Divide and conquer. "That's right, we're only going after gun show people." (Next year) "Don't worry rifle owners/hunters, we're only going after handguns." And so on.
During Katrina, armed "good guys" arrived at less-damaged homes and confiscated all firearms from private citizens without any lawful reason. While some years are more intense than others, there will never be a time to relax vigilance on this issue.

The easiest thing, unfortunately, is to try to place restrictions on who can buy guns, who can buy ammo, what kinds of guns can be sold, etc.

All the 50.000 gun laws we have on the books now do is keep honest people honest, make it harder for them to defend themselves and, of course, squeeze a few dollars more out of them via licensing. The criminals, obviously, don't care about gun control laws.

I did look at the Barack firearms page. There's nothing there that he can do that hasn't already been tried or isn't being done. Very little of it has an impact, and even if Barack put a personalized stamp on each idea, no one could reasonably hold any single politician accountable for such vague, general measures.

2. Oh Jesus, capital gains tax... are we talking long-term capital gains? 5% is less than 20%? ... my ears are open as to how that works. Keep in mind I don't listen to O'Reilly or Limbaugh.

Lower taxes = higher government revenue, as in revenue for your government funding, etc. Whether it comes from Limbaugh or Franken, a fact is a fact. Raising taxes as a way to demonstrably "punish the rich" satisfies the so-called little guys' illusions while hurting them all the more. "You may lose a hand, but we're going to make those evil rich people lose an arm!" (No, I'm not wealthy, but I don't want to drive wealthy people away with higher taxes and more regulations).

.3. Heh, lol on this one. At least you didn't say the ex-Marine was anti-American.

Lee Harvey Oswald was also an ex-Marine. We needn't go there.

Wright remains a crank. Barack took too long to disassociate himself, and even if he hadn't, he's been aligned with Wright's political church for 20+ years.

We can agree on this: Obama's supporters are willing to overlook anything they find wrong with Wright, and to his non-supporters, there's no positive angle to the Obama/Wright association.

Not to cut this short, but our differences are philosophical about the purpose of government:

You're a scientist in a field that either earns most of its bread from government funding (or has limited opportunities in the private sector). Concurrent with that, you see government as a tool to balance natural inequities in economics and social dynamics. Were I you, I'd vote for Obama or Hillary.

Generally, I view government as a water-stream of good intentions sprayed onto an oil fire of problemos. I believe in what Patrick Moynihan called, "Benign neglect", letting natural consequences and the free market shape society. Government is at its best when enforcing the few laws that make sense, and killing barbarians at the gate. But on its best day, it's still nothing more than raw force, a good servant but terrible master.

Every time the government is given power, it's power we the people never get back again. Therefore I'm wary.

Who knows how McLame (or McShamnesty or McNasty, take your pick) might 'lead' as President, but even at his most liberal he won't be as liberal as O-bam or Hillary. That might not bring you much comfort, but odds are you'll have your funding and employment regardless of who makes it in. Although the mainstream media denies it, Bush is a liberal about everything but Iraq.

For fun: if I had to choose only between Barack and Hillary, I'd choose Barack.


In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
1. Gun Grabber? Are you a member of a well regulated militia? Do you have guns at home for personal home defense or recreation? Then you're fine. Is trading foreign-made assault rifles at gun shows or concealing pistols something you enjoy?....

Why I would never vote for Barack Obama (or Hillary)

1. Gun grabber. Any government official who thinks the people cannot be trusted with a firearms cannot be trusted with government power. I'm appalled a Constitutional lawyer wouldn't recognize the 2nd Amendment.

2. Anti-capitalist. When explained point blank that lowering/keeping capital gains tax low brings more revenue to government, he dismissed it outright.

3. Close alliance with anti-Semitic, anti-White pastor and former Weathermen terrorists. Yes, you will be judged by the company you keep.

4. the lack of experience he brings to the job

Doesn't have a distinguished record (could be argued he's too new) and the guy can't even go one-on-one in a debate with Hillary...how is he supposed to deal with nutjobs like Ahmadinejad? Will not reveal his plans for the military, budgetary or otherwise.

5. Gives good speeches that fall short on substance and specifics. The "impartial" mainstream media has let this guy have a free pass and will continue to do so. Also, he seems to take offense when pressured to answer difficult or unpopular questions. That's the opposite of transparency.

I don't think socialized medicine is a good idea, but for those who do, what specifics has he laid out already to achieve his stated goals?

I wouldn't think you'd be incredibly supportive of McCain as candidate, are you? I thought McCain would be okay until his last year and a half of pandering, dumbing down his message and watering down his ideals to get the anti-liberal side of the conservative party onboard.

No, I'm not supportive of McLame, and the proof is, the only way I'd vote for him is if the other guys ran Barack or Hillary against him.

I know why Barack is popular, he appeals to the imagination and engages emotions (just like religion does). But from my POV, the people looking to him for salvation are reacting to a (not) surprisingly false and negative presentation of reality, courtesy of the monolithic media (no, not Fox).











In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
Basics of why I'm voting for Barack Obama.

1. he's an grounded idealist; identifies goals and outlines realistic paths to achieving them in the ridiculous environment of Washington D.C.
-(maximize transparency in federal government! have all parties (including health care providers) involved while moving in stages to universal healthcare! get out of Iraq by pressuring their government to make hard decisions! increase community service with college scholarships! etc.)

2. the experience he brings to the job
-(Constitutional Law professor from a middle-lower class family, raised by single mom and grandparents, attracted to community service literally through the joy of helping others, history of reaching across the aisle and not only respecting but understanding opposing views, etc.)

3. is not a "good" politician; refuses to bullshit for votes
-(treats American citizens like intelligent people, doesn't change his message to suit the audience, directly challenges parties to understand one another and find compromise, etc.etc.etc.)

I wouldn't think you'd be incredibly supportive of McCain as candidate, are you? I thought McCain would be okay until his last year and a half of pandering, dumbing down his message and watering down his ideals to get the anti-liberal side of the conservative party onboard.

Actually I still think Obama as Pres/McCain as Vice would be cool, as long as nothing happened to Obama.


In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
America can take all the criticism dopes like Dan can churn out and a whole lot more. It's just when these empty shirts (or in this case, hoodies) are called on their bullsh*t by presentations of facts, they backpedal while throwing out the same old, same old: "America bad. Life unfair. Racism."

How about some new material? This poor-me victim crap is plenty stale. Last time I checked, Whites were paying the same $4-a-gallon for gas as everyone else.

Nowhere on earth have Whites done so much for a Black minority than America, spending over a trillion dollars in 50 years on what amounts to 13% of the population. How about a little gratitude? Just a little? They're still practicing slavery in North Africa and tribes (Hutus/Tutsis) are still pointlessly killing each other over there; any White colonial remnants left decades ago, can't blame them.

Voting for Obama and his odious doof of a pastor? As long as you're not doing so out of White guilt or Black entitlement...and if not those what do you got? O-Bam's "principles" are socialist, ultra-left-wing to the left of Ted Stumblebum Kennedy. There's nothing else there in the way of plans or leadership, except to raise taxes. I don't think I'm being unfair here, if you know something I don't about Obama's experience and quals, do tell.

The White House is the absolute last reward anyone should receive for having a victim mentality.

Maybe you'd never heard of the Boston Tea Party? Our revolution against britans forceful taxation of the americas?

TAXES
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
Capital Gains Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Court Fines
(indirect taxes)
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax
(FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax
(42 cents per gallon)
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax Interest expense
(tax on the money)
Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges
(tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties
(tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Local Income Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Septic Permit Tax
Service Charge Taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Taxes
(Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Road Toll Booth Taxes
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax
(SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and
local surcharge taxes
Telephone mi nimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Toll Bridge Taxes
Toll Tunnel Taxes
Traffic Fines
(indirect taxation)
Trailer Registration Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

COMMENTS:
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago and our nation was the most prosperous in the world, had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.


>> ^NetRunner:
I fail to see any sense in what the questioner was saying. Because there are penalties for not paying your taxes, it's forceful, and therefore somehow wrong?
With regard to Reid referring to our tax system being "voluntary", he's referring to voluntary enforcement -- we rely on citizens to fill out an income tax form, and voluntarily pay any outstanding taxes. A non-voluntary system would mean you have no opportunity to pay or not pay, ever. Things like Huckabee's "Fair tax" plan, where all tax becomes sales tax, would be a good example of a "non-voluntary" tax system. No forms, no opportunity to avoid paying it because it'd just be baked into the cost of everything you buy.
The obligation to pay taxes is not voluntary, and is an innate responsibility that comes with citizenship. Without taxes, there's no government for you to be a citizen of.
If you're not willing to sign on to that part of the social contract, you're free to renounce your citizenship, and go elsewhere.
All that would probably go over the head of this guy. He's just a right-wing hack using word games to try to make the Democratic Senate Majority Leader look silly.

McCain's a flip-flopping neo-con schmuck, but Obama and Clinton are barely any better. They all want to take your money one way or another, either taxation or inflation. They all get lobbied to pass special privilege legislation. Fuck, NAFTA was a Clinton bill. And SS and Medicare were doomed to fail from the very beginning, it is a complete con. If you were allowed to keep that 12% per paycheck tax, you'd be able to invest it YOURSELF for YOUR OWN RETIREMENT. Holy shit, what a novel idea: a system that can't fail with generational bubbles, can't be raided by government, can't result in fraudulent claims, doesn't need higher taxes to FUND the paychecks of useless jobs needed to run the damn thing, can't be stolen by manipulating CPI calculations to understate inflation (another Clinton-era miracle), can't be moved further to your death by raising the retirement age... I mean, honestly, get off the big government bandwagon.

And ideally, there should be no federal income tax for ANYONE. Enough with this rich vs poor antagonism, it's a total diversion. Who the hell do you think pays your salary, created the job you're in? A rich person. And guess what, most of them compete with one another for your skilled labor, which is why your wage doesn't drop to 10 cents an hour overnight. And not all them gained unfairly. It's morally retarded, there's no way to determine who gained fairly or unfairly, so just tax em all above a certain bracket? They are responsible for creating pretty much all of our jobs. You tax the shit out of them, more small businesses go plunk, more jobs get cut, and the biggest move it offshore and say "fuck it, where's the incentive?" and avoid it completely. That's exactly what happened when the capital gains tax was raised last time, total revenue went DOWN because you socialist idealists don't understand how easy it is for rich people to avoid tax, so only the poor people end up paying.

The point of a leveraged buyout is to buy a company, do something to make it more valuable, then resell it at a profit. What exactly that “something” is depends on the company, but usually involves improving its efficiency (layoffs and other cost-cutting are the easiest ways). Yes, this sucks for those on the receiving end of a pink slip.

The big problem is that leveraged buyouts have little downside risk. Since most of the financing is debt, the buyout guys have very little of their own money at risk so they act very aggressively to make the company as valuable as possible before they resell it.

- don’t have to pay back debt
This is misleading. The debt will get paid back in one of two ways, either with the profits of the company they bought or from the proceeds they get when the company is resold. But, if the debt is secured by the assets of the company, if something goes wrong then the debt-holders will liquidate the company to recover their investment.

- company pays less tax because of all the debt
This one’s true, but it’s not a bad thing. The company pays more interest, which is tax-deductible (as are all other expenses of the company). But someone out there will be receiving the interest, which is taxable, so overall tax revenues for the government aren’t significantly changed.

- capital gains tax less than normal tax
I don’t know US tax law, but this is true in Canada. This is the only real loophole in the whole video. It’s something Warren Buffet has talked about a lot (that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary).

Well, I feel better about my long posts now anyway. It may or may not make you feel better to know that I had already read or heard about both of those. I'm not going to attempt to respond to every point in those since they are still not germane to the original topic. Let me pick out just two:

1) "...but for the people who make millions per year, effective tax rates are falling dramatically." Effective tax rates is exactly what I was talking about earlier. That's a fancy way of saying, "not just income but capital gains taxes and dividends as well". I've already stipulated that to be true in my earlier post and I have also pointed out the original social engineering behind the concept. Nothing in either of your posts has remotely touched on my point or my question to you.

2) "Secondly, law enforcement has collapsed." No one is above the law. Everyone should be prosecuted for breaking it. That so many people (not just the evil rich) get away with cheating the tax system is a sign that the system is thoroughly and completely broken. Again notice that I have previously stated that this is true.

This is not a tax or budget video and it's about to expire anyway. You want to continue to talk tax / budget, go start posting on my video about that. To conclude this particular thread, let me just point out that what you call social justice remains an attempt at social engineering. Were you in power in the US government, I believe you would attempt to manipulate the tax code in order to improve the lives of the middle class as best you saw how. Given that, it is still an attempt to control people through the tax code. I on the other hand think there is a fundamental entitlement to the fruits of ones labor. Were I in office, I would attempt to completely eliminate the income tax system and replace it with a consumer tax system. Social engineering, no matter if its intended for justice or injustice, is still social engineering.

test

I'll accept that the US isn't a big concern to you and I'll try to adjust my comments accordingly. The current US tax code is extremely broken, but it does tax income in a "progressive" (I hate that word, it implies something it isn't but it is the correct term) manner whereby the income of the higher tax brackets is taxed at a greater percentage than the income of the lower brackets. Therefore, those in the highest bracket end up paying proportionately more than do those in the lower brackets. According to the Tax Foundation, in 2005 the top 1% of income earners in the US paid 39.4% of all federal income taxes on an adjusted gross income of 21.2%. If there is anyone reading who didn't understand that, the top 1% of households earned 21.2% of the income in the US and paid 39.4% of the income taxes. The "rich" are already paying more than their "fair share" in the US.

Where the system is broken is that we are attempting to use the tax code in order to push social engineering changes on the nation. Sure, it sounds great, and we can all agree with some things (like tax credits for hybrid and alternative energy vehicles) but the problem is that as administrations come and go they all try social engineering towards different ends. What you end up with is a mess of rediculous, outdated programs that no one wants to cut and anger a part of the electorate. I assume by the tone of your posts that you are against the concept of a lower tax rate on capital gains because it "favors" the wealthy. I ask that you understand the social engineering that was originally behind the concept. Lower capital gains taxes encourage investment in the markets. This in turn spurs the economy. Does it favor the rich? Hard to say. Certainly people with disposable income to invest get the direct benefit, but how about the people who have their pension plans invested in the stock market? A strong stock market, driven by a steady influx of capital from "the rich" directly improves the lives of those totally dependant upon their pensions. Is that good? Or bad?

In the end, I believe that the US government should not be using an income tax to try to control the behavior of its citizens anyway. Personally, I believe in a consumer tax system that completely abolishes the income tax and replaces it with a sales tax. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with health care and this video, so I'll leave it for another time.