*promote. I get by with a little help from my diamond.

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, January 4th, 2011 8:06pm PST - promote requested by original submitter fissionchips.

I found this interesting if a little glib, a little sound-bitey. But then, that is how you get folks to start looking at issues.

One thing that is not glib -- the current tax code bows down to capital at the expense of labor.

I do taxes for a living, and have posted this information before, but it frosts my ass more than anything I have ever seen in 35 years of doing taxes:

A married couple with $87,000 in qualified dividends (meaning a portfolio worth millions) paid ZERO INCOME TAX in 2009. A married couple with $87,000 in wages paid $16,000 in income and payroll taxes.

This is fact. And this is basically the tax code that has been extended for two years.

Once again, the convolution of the tax code causing problems. Need to reboot the IRS like we rebooted Star Trek!

"They will employ the whole authority of government and prevent the administration of justice and ruin those who interfere with them in any house of commerce which by means of agents they may choose to carry on" Adam Smith on unearned income.

*history *controversy *talks

Adding video to channels (Controversy, History, Talks) - requested by MrFisk.

>> ^bareboards2:

I found this interesting if a little glib, a little sound-bitey. But then, that is how you get folks to start looking at issues.
One thing that is not glib -- the current tax code bows down to capital at the expense of labor.
I do taxes for a living, and have posted this information before, but it frosts my ass more than anything I have ever seen in 35 years of doing taxes:
A married couple with $87,000 in qualified dividends (meaning a portfolio worth millions) paid ZERO INCOME TAX in 2009. A married couple with $87,000 in wages paid $16,000 in income and payroll taxes.
This is fact. And this is basically the tax code that has been extended for two years.


Ya, I thought the same thing as well. What he didn't talk about was what the taxation was in respect to total GDP. If he did, he would of had to admit the fact that taxes were lower as a fraction of total spending. That compared to today, taxes were "lower" for most every american, like 99% of them or whatever his statistic is. So even though you had very high marginal taxes, it didn't extract nearly as much revenue from the total economic system.