No one talking about My RA?

yeezus said:
This is where you need to read between the lines and stop being so obtuse. Clearly he doesn't despise double taxation the way you do, and what he's said so far and the arguments he's making ESTABLISHES THAT. But you always just harp on one question instead of addressing what he said, like it somehow proves your point. A well-thought out argument makes a point, not regurgitating a question that has been answered in an un-black and white way, but you seem to only think in black and white. At times.
Click to expand...

Calm down there guy. It's a simple question that I'm not clear on his answer. You seem to have a big problem answering simple questions.

Asking if he's cool with double taxation is a reasonable question, no? His answer was simply that "we've done it before." Well that doesn't make it right and doesn't mean he supports it.

If he does support it, I'd like to know why he thinks that's fair to individuals. All I've seen so far is that we do it on other things so we can do it on that too.
 
sturg33 said:
Calm down there guy. It's a simple question that I'm not clear on his answer. You seem to have a big problem answering simple questions.
Click to expand...

You have to admit: you often ask these "simple questions" in a way that obfuscates, overly reduces, or distracts from the actual point, and then – when you don't receive a "simple answer" phrased in the exact terms of the initial "simple question" – you act as if you've caught the poster(s) in some sort of logic-trap.

I'm sure some of your "simple questions" are actual good-faith queries, but a lot of them send my Admiral Ackbar Alarm ringing.
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _,,,-------------------,_ . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ : : : :::: :::: :: : : : : :º ‘-, . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .,-‘ :: : : :::: :::: :::: :::: : : :o : ‘-, . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ :: ::: :: : : :: :::: :::: :: : : : : :O ‘-, . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .,-‘ : :: :: :: :: :: : : : : : , : : :º :::: :::: ::’; . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .,-‘ / / : :: :: :: :: : : :::: :::-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;\ . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . /,-‘,’ :: : : : : : : : : :: :: :: : ‘-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;;| . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . /,’,-‘ :: :: :: :: :: :: :: : ::_,-----,_’-, ;; ;; ;; ;; | . . . . . . .
. . . . . _/ :,’ :/ :: :: :: : : :: :: _,-‘/ : ,-‘;’-‘’’’’---, ;; ;; ;;,’ . . . . . . . .
. . . ,-‘ / : : : : : : ,-‘’’ : : :,--‘’ :|| /,-‘-‘--‘’’__,’’’ \ ;; ;,-‘ . . . . . . . .
. . . \ :/,, : : : _,-‘ --,,_ : : \ :\ ||/ /,-‘-‘x### ::\ \ ;;/ . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . \/ /--‘’’’ : \ #\ : :\ : : \ :\ \| | : (O##º : :/ /-‘’ . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . /,’____ : :\ ‘-#\ : \, : :\ :\ \ \ : ‘-,___,-‘,-`-,, . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . ‘ ) : : : :’’’’--,,--,,,,,,¯ \ \ :: ::--,,_’’-,,’’’¯ :’- :’-, . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .) : : : : : : ,, : ‘’’’---------’ \ :: :: :: :’’’’’¯ :: :,/\ . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .\,/ /|\\| | :/ / : : : : : : : ,’--, :: :: :: :: ::,--‘’ :,-‘ \ \ . . . . . . . .
. . . . .\\’|\\ \|/ ‘/ / :: :_---,, : , | )’; :: :: :: :,-‘’ : ,-‘ : : :\ \, . . . . . . .
. . . ./¯ :| \ |\ : |/\ :: ::-----, :\/ :|/ :: :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : ‘’-,,_ . . . .
. . ..| : : :/ ‘’-(, :: :: :: ‘’’’’--,,,,,’’ :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : : : :,-‘’’\\ . . . .
. ,-‘ : : : | : : ‘’) : : :¯’’’’---,: : ,--‘’’ : :,-‘’ : : : : : : : : : ,-‘ :¯’’’’’-,_ .
./ : : : : :’-, :: | :: :: :: _,,-‘’’’¯ : ,---‘’ : : : : : : : : : : : / : : : : : : :’’-,
/ : : : : : -, :¯’’’’’’’’’’’¯ : : _,,---’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : :| : : : : : : : : :
. : : : : : : :¯’’------------’’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : | : : : : : : : : :
 
jpx7 said:
You have to admit: you often ask these "simple questions" in a way that obfuscates, overly reduces, or distracts from the actual point, and then – when you don't receive a "simple answer" phrased in the exact terms of the initial "simple question" – you act as if you've caught the poster(s) in some sort of logic-trap.

I'm sure some of your "simple questions" are actual good-faith queries, but a lot of them send my Admiral Ackbar Alarm ringing.
Click to expand...

Are you OK with double tax? If so, why? And do you think the government has more of a right to a family's money than the family?
 
sturg33 said:
You didn't answer what I asked. I asked if you're cool with double taxation? Do you think that's right?
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with it. If you're a non-itemizer, you're pay a tax on a tax fairly regularly.

Here's the deal in my mind and while it's not in my mind alone, I'm not going to say it's right or wrong because it infers a value system that I don't see as appropriate to the discussion. The bottom line of any tax system is to raise revenue. That's it in a nutshell. The decisions made in raising that revenue are both political and pragmatic. The estate tax brings some measure of progressivity to the system overall, which I view as a good thing (and you do not). There are other ways to bring progressivity into the system and they should probably be explored.

I'd gladly ditch the estate tax and instead have capital gains (which is usually huge chunk of large estates) taxed as regular income (and I'd even allow an inflation adjustment that could be deducted from the total gain to determine the net capital gain). My guess is the uber-rich affected by the estate tax would rather pay the estate tax than have their capital gains taxed as normal income. I don't know that for sure because I haven't seen any analysis to determine the tax distribution on such a proposed change. And my guess is people who are exempt from the estate tax (about 98% of estates) certainly don't want to have their capital gains taxed as normal income, so this particular proposal is dead in the water.

sturg33, what I guess I'm saying is that there is no such thing as pure tax policy (just like there isn't pure policy in about everything else). It's a set of compromises. Please don't take this as an ad hominem attack on you and other libertarians, but the problem I have with your approach is that you seem to abhor any compromise and the world simply doesn't move forward without it. You can cling to broad principle--we all do--but you don't get anywhere if you don't put gas in the car and compromise is the gas that runs the machine. I can't remember if it was Lenin or Boris Badenov, but the quote goes something like "you can't make an omelet if you don't break any eggs."

PS--Anticipating your likely response to my suggestion to treat capital gains as income. When you cash in a gain and go to spend it, the clerk at the counter doesn't ask you where the money came from. He doesn't say, "These dollars came from a realized capital gain. They aren't worth as much as other dollars." Yet the current tax system gives them preferential treatment. Again, I'm not saying that is "right" or "wrong." It's the result of a political decision where one side had more compelling graphs and charts than the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top