Drinking the koolaid, my friend, drinking the koolaid.

I presume you are not wealthy? But you want the wealthy to get wealthier while the country drowns in debt.

I'll let you have the last word. If cold hard facts don't move you, nothing will.

In reply to this comment by maestro156:
That's what I call appropriately aligned incentives. They've already paid taxes on the wages that went to buy the investments. If you raise taxes on capital gains you incentivize them to spend it arbitrarily, while if you keep capital gains low, you incentivize them to invest it.

I think it's clear that investments are a better expenditure than arbitrary spending, but you can feel free to disagree.

In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
The struggle to have the government be the "right" size is a conversation that will go on for as long as we have a viable country. There is no right answer.

However.

I do taxes. Let me tell you something...

Married filing joint. Dividend income from US corporations of $80,000. You know how much tax this couple pays?

$200. I swear to God.

If that same couple had wage income? Then they would pay $8,400 in income taxes, plus as additional $6,100 in payroll taxes.

I did a return for a married couple who had taxable income of $70,000, after standard deduction and exemptions of $16,000, who paid $3,000 in tax. In other words, income of $89,000 paying $3,000 in tax. Had a big capital gain, all of which was taxes at ZERO TAX RATE. Zero. ZERO.

Don't talk to me about the debt. DO NOT TALK TO ME ABOUT THE DEBT without talking about putting tax rates back.

It is a crime what has gone on in this country for the capital-heavy people. Wages and pensions get taxed full bore, but capital?

Drives me crazy.

The struggle to have the government be the "right" size is a conversation that will go on for as long as we have a viable country. There is no right answer.

However.

I do taxes. Let me tell you something...

Married filing joint. Dividend income from US corporations of $80,000. You know how much tax this couple pays?

$200. I swear to God.

If that same couple had wage income? Then they would pay $8,400 in income taxes, plus as additional $6,100 in payroll taxes.

I did a return for a married couple who had taxable income of $70,000, after standard deduction and exemptions of $16,000, who paid $3,000 in tax. In other words, income of $89,000 paying $3,000 in tax. Had a big capital gain, all of which was taxes at ZERO TAX RATE. Zero. ZERO.

Don't talk to me about the debt. DO NOT TALK TO ME ABOUT THE DEBT without talking about putting tax rates back.

It is a crime what has gone on in this country for the capital-heavy people. Wages and pensions get taxed full bore, but capital?

Drives me crazy.

In reply to this comment by maestro156:
The debt is only a symptom of a much larger problem, oversized government.

Though even if we returned the taxes to where they were a year ago, we've long since outgrown those tax rates. It simply wouldn't help. The only realistic way to get out of debt is to stop spending so much. If we even _froze_ our spending for 10 years, we'd grow our way out of debt. (And yes before you ask, that includes shrinking our military pretty heavily as well)


In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
Put the taxes back to where they were ten years ago, if the debt is such a worry.

Stop using the debt as a reason, please.

In reply to this comment by maestro156:
T

we would have the most important of these in place, while keeping the size and scope of our government limited in a way that would have avoided our current indebtedness.

Just read most of the wikipedia article then did a search on slashdot. This article's comments had a few interesting points/questions...

If this becomes established, it will be taxed in the US. It's income or capital gains. (http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1715548&cid=32869918)

Bitcoins are generated by wasting electricity. Not very green. (http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1715548&cid=32869504)

Bitcoin is designed to lead to massive deflation when the coin limit is hit. This might destroy whatever economy comes to depend on it. (http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1715548&cid=32870538)

Then you must know nearly HALF of all Americans pay NO federal income tax. Hmmm...I notice that same HALF shows no restraint on slurping up entitlements and welfare social services. You're in trouble when the tick is as big as the dog.

Yeah, borrow-n-spend isn't much better than tax-n-spend, but take a step back and note what all this money is being spent on. Hint: it's not "racism".





>> ^bareboards2:

There's the big lie. Tax and spend.
I do taxes for a living. I know how low the taxes are that folks are paying.
Did you know that you can have taxable income of $40,000 and pay zero income tax?
Oh, well, it has to be a long term capital gain -- this doesn't apply to wages or pensions, which is what most people in America have as a source of income.
Zero Percent tax on long term capital gains and qualified dividends in many cases.
Don't tell me we are taxing ourselves to death. It's a lie.
Guess who came up with this brilliant tax strategy? It wasn't a Democrat.

>> ^quantumushroom:
If history is any indicator, there's plenty to fear from these communist thugs posing as a legitimate government. Unfortunately, the worldwide number of people murdered by communism is 100 million, a number so great it's usually reserved for stars or grains of sand.
Anyway, this submission as framed is a bizarre attempt at misdirection, bizarre because those opposed to cutting government spending are going to drown as well.
The actual video concerns obvious truths the left refuses to heed: no government has ever taxed and spent itself into prosperity, we now owe crushing debt to foreign enemies, future generations are already burdened.
As the Chinese Proverb goes: "If we don't change the direction we're going, we're going to end up where we're headed."

There's the big lie. Tax and spend.

I do taxes for a living. I know how low the taxes are that folks are paying.

Did you know that you can have taxable income of $40,000 and pay zero income tax?

Oh, well, it has to be a long term capital gain -- this doesn't apply to wages or pensions, which is what most people in America have as a source of income.

Zero Percent tax on long term capital gains and qualified dividends in many cases.

Don't tell me we are taxing ourselves to death. It's a lie.

Guess who came up with this brilliant tax strategy? It wasn't a Democrat.


>> ^quantumushroom:

If history is any indicator, there's plenty to fear from these communist thugs posing as a legitimate government. Unfortunately, the worldwide number of people murdered by communism is 100 million, a number so great it's usually reserved for stars or grains of sand.
Anyway, this submission as framed is a bizarre attempt at misdirection, bizarre because those opposed to cutting government spending are going to drown as well.
The actual video concerns obvious truths the left refuses to heed: no government has ever taxed and spent itself into prosperity, we now owe crushing debt to foreign enemies, future generations are already burdened.
As the Chinese Proverb goes: "If we don't change the direction we're going, we're going to end up where we're headed."

*promote

Any neigh-sayers should look @ this information on the taxing of the wealthy over the past century before commenting.

^Those tax numbers that I linked do not include any capital gains taxes (or in other words, the rich could still sell stocks and other capital and make an assload off of it b/c Uncle Sam isn't taking nearly that much in the way of those forms of taxes); that being said there is, I believe, a clear pattern established that supports the idea that taxing the rich means prosperity for the country as a whole.

END THE BUSH TAX CUTS NOW!

"The Chinese pay zero capital gains tax."


China has a capital gains tax, so maybe he's talking about tax evasion? Their income tax also tops out at 45%, vs 35% in the US (I think I read that correctly).

Either way, the capital gains tax rate in China is not zero. Perhaps he's getting his financial data from the same place conservatives normally get their "scientific" data.

>> ^jwray:

If people aren't investing in T-Bills, they're either going to invest that money somewhere else or hoard it under their mattress. So deficit spending will help when confidence is low but won't be worthwhile at other times.
Ideally T-Bill interest rates shouldn't even be as much as inflation. You should actually have to make an informed choice and take a risk to make money, rather than participating in an ever-snowballing hereditary aristocracy.


The price on T-bills is set by auction, and I'm not so sure it'd be a wise idea to put a thumb on the scale with them. If we systematically undervalued them, then people who (randomly?) got them for less than others were willing to pay would just sell them to the people willing to pay more.

As for stopping a snowballing hereditary aristocracy, you can't eliminate the market for safe investment instruments entirely. For example, you can still buy Canadian debt, British debt, German debt, Japanese debt, AT&T debt, Microsoft debt, McDonald's debt, WalMart debt, etc.

Besides which, that's not how the snowballing hereditary aristocracies I'm familiar with have maintained an empire. Instead they hire talented people to manage their investments to maximize return while managing risk, and enjoy the endless flood of riches that result.

It seems like estate taxes, capital gains taxes, progressive income taxes and the like are the only reliable way to stop hereditary aristocracies from snowballing into virtual monarchies.

>> ^tsarsfield:

Yeah, his math is pretty bad to begin with but he goes with the major assumption that companies will drop prices once they are unburdened with taxes.
What a dope.


Wow, are you serious? Please tell me you graduated from high school at the very least? If you were to increase property taxes or business taxes, you would see rent and good prices go up immediately. It makes perfect sense that taxes affect prices. A tax plus the labor needed to comply with it is a cost of production like any other cost that affects how low you can sell to undercut a competitor. Still going over your head?

If every producer's costs are lowered from $.95 to $.75 on a soda by shifting out their tax burden onto consumers directly, how can Pepsi still charge $1.00 when Coke reduces their prices to 0.80? They would make 5 cents a soda and murder them on volume. It's not just how much higher over cost you sell, it's HOW MANY you can sell. That's how competition drives down prices. With the income tax in place and a cost of .95 per soda, no one is capable of going down to .80 to undercut a competitor because that's 10 cents BELOW COST. That changes when the income tax disappears.

That's why the fair tax is actually a slight reduction in terms of its end-cost to consumers. You either pay the tax embedded in the product price, or you pay it externally. The main difference is that the income tax is much more complex and costly in terms of compliance costs, so those costs are eliminated completely. If production and business-to-business sales are not taxed under a fair tax, wealthier people are incentivized to create job-creating businesses and start charities in their name. Because that wouldn't be taxed, only their lavish purchases would. It somewhat reverses the incentive of how rich people use their money.

The fair tax would also prevent any particular category of goods from receiving a lower rate. That would end the corruptive practice of businesses and industries lobbying politicians to receive an unfair advantage over others. For example, in 1997, the housing industry won a capital gains exemption on the first $250k in profit for any home sale. Is it any wonder we radically change human behavior for the worse with incentives like that?

You guys need to do some serious reading, and so does Chris Matthews for that matter. I am absolutely in awe that anyone with a high school education could believe taxes are some sort of ethereal cost that don't affect prices. Wow.... wow! We have a much bigger problem in this country than I ever imagined.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq_answers#1

All of that aside, the main problem isn't so much how we are taxed, but how much. The government spends way, way, way too much money that it doesn't have. not only that, they don't use it to make products, but to start wars and consume and increasingly, pay shitloads of interest to foreign creditors.

>> ^rougy:
Our government is corrupt and ineffectual. Our military is bloated and not really ours as a nation but "ours" in the multi-national corporate sense. If you have no money, you have no justice. A fraction of a percentage of people are allowed to get rich, and everybody else has to fight it out and claw their way through life just to stay alive. Financiers like Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan make a living out of figuring out ever better ways to fuck people over and get a slap on the wrist when they're caught, if that. We torture people. We murder innocents overseas for the sake of convenience. We overthrow governments that we don't like, that won't march to our tune, and call it spreading democracy.
Worst of all, nobody here knows anything. We have to be some of the dumbest people on earth, especially in regards to what's being done overseas on our name.
And I'm supposed to swear my blind, undying allegiance to that? I'm supposed to point to Mexico and exclaim proudly "Things could be worse!"


You forgot to mention how you continuously vote for people who believe in continuing all of those things, either directly or through policies that enable it. And then you spend the rest of your time trying to convince everyone that the problem is we're not all registered Democrats. The real problem is that we allow people to vote on things they shouldn't. The constitution sealed its fate with the general welfare clause.

When America defaults on its debt, it will be because the constitution failed to prevent idiots from trying to steal from each other or borrow money that they would benefit from, but that future generations would have to pay. Because it failed to ban the public sector from voting in elections. Because it failed to prevent a central bank from price fixing interest rates and monopolizing the money supply with unbacked paper they can print for themselves while we work to obtain it and watch it's scarcity/value siphoned. It is so much easier to just print more money and redirect its value than appropriate the money itself. Whatever you think you got out of this is crumbs compared to government employees and politically connected companies.

People like you are constantly fooled into enabling what you despise. Government destroys free market self-regulation and then claims lack of regulation is the problem. They loan banks money well below realistic interest rates. They insure every bank's deposits so banks don't have to compete on the safety of those deposits. GSEs like FM&FM implicitly backed subprime and so everyone thought that was a riskless bet as well. The tax code encouraged flipping property over real investment by making certain home sales completely exempt from capital gains. You may as well dump candy into a busy intersection and blame people for getting hit by passing cars. And instead of stopping the candy dumpage, your solution is to borrow even more money from China at interest to hire 10,000 full-time crossing guards. That is how insane the socialist rhetoric has gotten. When their social engineering fails, the problem isn't something they did, but something else they didn't do. Well, it's only going to last until China realizes that dollars are no asset, no product placeholder, when you're accumulating them in perpetuity.

>> ^rougy:
>> ^quantumushroom:
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.

Only a fuckstick like you would take a parody that exposes the shallowness of racism and equate it with some invisible phantom robbing you of your money.



HAH !

Of course we need a stronger safety net, but this is a shitty way to construct the safety net. Unemployed people should be paid to to learn vocational skills from general treasury money from a single progressive income tax. Unemployment Taxes, sales taxes, social security taxes, medicare taxes, etc are not adequately progressive, and harm the poor. Employers should be free to hire and fire anyone they please for any reason they please with no strings attached. All the restrictions on firing make employers ridiculously circumspect about hiring so that it is actually much harder to get a job and much harder to start a business.

The sheer amount of time people waste figuring out if they qualify for benefits A through Z and filling out the paper work for each one wastes time that could be spent doing something productive. All this shit needs to be consolidated. I'm tired of seeing pages and pages of shit like a $50 tax credit for one-legged zebras on my 1040.

Fuck all the little deductions and pork. Just make annual personal income after taxes = 10k + 0.6*(income before taxes), including capital gains, employer benefits, inheritance, gifts, and absolutely every other source of income in the same pool for that "income before taxes". A 1% annual net worth tax would be fine too.

Subsidies are always rife with waste and contrivances to conform to the letter but not the spirit of the regulation. So instead of giving tax credits to barely efficient cars, just tax fossil fuels themselves. Instead of tax credits for people who bought well-insulated houses, tax the builders in proportion to how shitty their insulation is.

All taxes should be consolidated into a progressive personal income tax. No tarriffs, sales tax, social security tax, or special low rate on capital gains.

I guess since you've thoroughly lost this argument, you want to dig up an older one where you think you won?

Here's what you're characterizing as "evidence you believe in Nazism on a 'visceral level'":

7. We support the abolition of incomes unearned by work.

I don't know what this means. I suspect they're not talking about welfare, but things like interest, generic capital gains, rent collection, etc.

I find this idea appealing on a visceral level, but I don't ultimately believe this is the way to address the issue of the idle and clearly undeservedly rich (like Paris Hilton).

8. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the confiscation of all war profits.

Another one I find appealing on a visceral level. I think this is easier said than done though. On the one hand, I think it's a bit unavoidable that someone will make a profit off wars, even if it's just the funeral service, and we shouldn't necessarily begrudge every ounce of it. I also think a lot of the profit being made now is because we keep giving our military a huge amount of leeway to buy unproven, expensive toys that have questionable battlefield value (e.g. the F-22). The old-fashioned meaning of this is that someone is intentionally starting or prolonging a war just to make a profit. I think this is frankly what the "neoconservatives" are really about. They don't really give a shit who we fight, they just want us eternally at war so their defense contractor friends will stay constantly flush with cash, which they can freely donate to their reelection campaigns.

However, if we could clearly identify illicit profit, I'd have no qualms with confiscating it, and donating it to humanitarian relief organizations working the battlezone.

This site would be so much more pleasant if it wasn't completely overwhelmed by 16 year old liberal nutjobs like Nithern who haven't done enough research to realize that both Dems and Repubs have been complete fiscal retards for a really long time. Nithern, you bring up the old Clinton surplus myth. Read this:

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

If you can't understand it, let me break it down for you: there was never a surplus under Clinton. Ever. There are two parts of the national debt. Imagine you're a household and you have a mortgage and credit card debt. You take out a second mortage on your home and pay down some of your credit card debit. Home debt goes up, credit card debt goes down. Then you go all over the city and tell people you reduced your credit card debt! Whee! You don't tell them you went deeper into debt elsewhere in order to do it. Do you realize how ridiculous of an accomplishment this is?

Moreover, Social Security payments are adjusted for the CPI. The CPI is the government's way of calculating rises in the cost of living. In the 90s, the Boskin commission was formed to look for "bias" in the way the CPI was calculated. Let me translate that for you: hey guys, we need reduce Social Security obligations without anyone noticing by subjectively omitting certain price increases, thereby artificially lowering the CPI against which SS payments are adjusted.

http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/2005/0624.html

Perhaps there is no accurate measure for the underemployed, but discouraged workers (jobless for over a year) are no longer counted when they used to be prior to the Clinton admin. It's a goofy new category created to intentionally make the number look more timid that historical numbers and nothing more. Both the CPI and the way unemployment are calculated changed during the Clinton administration as short term "fixes" of problems that need real solutions that no citizen is ever going to vote for. So if you think Clinton solved jack shit fiscally, I've got news for you: we're going to need something 100x more potent. And it won't happen, because people are retards like you. Think about it. You bitch about the Iraq war, and rightfully so, but before you were born the Democrats started a useless little war called "Vietnam" that led to Nixon severing our currency's last link to gold. Oh, and we lost about 50k soldiers. Which is sad, because you can always count on communism to fail by itself, which is exactly what happened after we pulled out.

You cry about the lack of Republican regulation. We need more regulation like we need a hole in the head. You don't even know what the word means, it's just some magical decree for officiating infractions in a game that can't exist without "subsidy fever". I mean, there's laws against stealing and killing and defrauding, and then there's handing out free money while impossibly trying to stop people from gambling with it. People's hope for gain is NORMALLY offset by their fear of loss. That goes out the window in an economy where anyone can borrow foreign money cheaply for a depreciating asset that they're convinced is an infinitely appreciating piggy bank. It goes out the window WITHIN the government, because politicians are by nature operating with money it appropriated rather than labored for. A "GSE" like Fannie and Freddie need way more regulation that any bankruptcy-fearing company.

Moreover, no one cares what bank they give their money because all bank deposits are insured by the FDIC. No investor gave a shit what loans Freddie and Fannie were spewing out because they were implicitly backed by the federal government. The home bubble got a huge boost from a 97 tax law excepting certain home sales from capital gains taxes. Because politicians like being the candyman. They don't think about the unintended consequences of creating artificial demand and employment in certain sectors with all their subsidy intervention bullshit. TO THIS DAY, FHA loans are being made requiring only 3% down. All the private subprime lenders? Couldn't have happened unless a politically motivated central bank exists to PRICE FIX the cost of borrowing in the market. Spike the punch, see mayhem that ensues, then resolve that the solution isn't to kill the spiker, but rather to hire more police officers to regulate the effects caused by the spiker. That's great logic. I hope you're regulating your regulators, too, because the SEC was told of Madoff's scheme 8 FUCKING TIMES and didn't do jack shit about it. I have more confidence in genuine personal risk of loss regulating behavior than some fucknut at the SEC. If only you would support an economy that wasn't so awash in fucking subsidies.

Social Security is another Democrat timebomb. Why not bring that shit up? It operates like a ponzi scheme and if you know how ponzi schemes work, you know that early investors win at the supreme expense of later investors. Guess who that later investor is? It's you!