4 ms·

No, libertarians understand the allocation of scarce resources. Politicians, on the other hand, act as if taxpayers have "virtually unlimited piles of money for

by webXL 16y ago

No, libertarians understand the allocation of scarce resources. Politicians, on the other hand, act as if taxpayers have "virtually unlimited piles of money for which they can pay for basic services like clean water or a functioning local road system". With $14 Trillion of mounting debt, you can continue to bury your head in the sand and pretend the wealthy will somehow be able to pay for it all and everything will be alright, OR you can perhaps use reason and facts to ascertain that government pyramid schemes (SS and Medicare), unnecessary wars, and corporate welfare (Ethanol subsidies!) have a little bit more to do with the problem than libertarian thinking.

jshen 16y ago
We had surpluses under Clinton. What's changed since then? I can only think of a few major changes, the bush tax cuts, the wars, medical costs rose, and derivatives finally collapsed. I don't think taxpayers have unlimited money, but I do think the super rich should pay more on capital gains which makes their tax rate lower than mine!
- webXL 16y ago
  More on capital gains?? If I buy 1 share of GOOG with my after-tax income, and someone buys it from me for a $100 more with their after-tax income, why should the government get a cut of that, let alone more of a cut? And I don't think they have a lower rate. The super-rich (top 1%) already pay 38% of all tax revenue, but they only earn 20% of total income (http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html). You can only squeeze them so much before they leave. Ask Mayor Bloomberg.
  - jshen 16y ago
    Let's say you bought microsoft early on and sold it for a huge profit. You then bought google early on and sold it for a huge profit. You then use that to buy apple 7 years ago, and you now sell it for a huge profit. Let's ay you made millions on this. You believe that you should pay a lower percentage on that than what I pay on my income as a programmer? The rich weren't squeezed out before the bush tax cuts were they?
    - webXL 16y ago
      In order to make millions on my investments, I would have had to risked millions more of already taxed income to do so. The fact that others' after-tax income was transferred to me along the way in exchange for shares is irrelevant to the question why a positive or negative return on investment should involve the government for a second, third, fourth... time. It's called double-taxation, and it prevents people from buying and selling more than they actually would with the money the government lets them keep. I don't think they were squeezed, but the bush tax cuts were a step back after decades of tax increases, when the wealthy were paying a larger share. Sure the top bracket wasn't the 90% pre-Kennedy rate, but the group of 38-42%'ers were paying a larger a share of GDP that they ever did before. There is a point of diminishing returns on tax increases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve How else did the government fund itself when Kennedy cut taxes? Someone at the time must have thought the rich were being squeezed.
      - jshen 16y ago
        My pay comes from people who bought a service with after tax income. Why should you pay a lower percentage than me?
        webXL 16y ago
        Your pay most likely comes from sales of goods and services, buyers of which are taxed at a lower rate. They are using after tax income, so it is double taxation there, too. But value was created in those instances, so one can say that the government helped create that value to justify it. I supposed the value of the stock can also be viewed in that manner, but why should it be taxed as much as income, when goods and services aren't?
        jshen 16y ago
        because someone like warren buffet shouldn't pay a lower percentage of his income in taxes than the rest of us. Hell, you're the one that is making the case that a worker generates more value than people who gamble on stocks.

by webXL 16y ago

jshen 16y ago

We had surpluses under Clinton. What's changed since then? I can only think of a few major changes, the bush tax cuts, the wars, medical costs rose, and derivatives finally collapsed. I don't think taxpayers have unlimited money, but I do think the super rich should pay more on capital gains which makes their tax rate lower than mine!

webXL 16y ago
More on capital gains?? If I buy 1 share of GOOG with my after-tax income, and someone buys it from me for a $100 more with their after-tax income, why should the government get a cut of that, let alone more of a cut? And I don't think they have a lower rate. The super-rich (top 1%) already pay 38% of all tax revenue, but they only earn 20% of total income (http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html). You can only squeeze them so much before they leave. Ask Mayor Bloomberg.
- jshen 16y ago
  Let's say you bought microsoft early on and sold it for a huge profit. You then bought google early on and sold it for a huge profit. You then use that to buy apple 7 years ago, and you now sell it for a huge profit. Let's ay you made millions on this. You believe that you should pay a lower percentage on that than what I pay on my income as a programmer? The rich weren't squeezed out before the bush tax cuts were they?
  - webXL 16y ago
    In order to make millions on my investments, I would have had to risked millions more of already taxed income to do so. The fact that others' after-tax income was transferred to me along the way in exchange for shares is irrelevant to the question why a positive or negative return on investment should involve the government for a second, third, fourth... time. It's called double-taxation, and it prevents people from buying and selling more than they actually would with the money the government lets them keep. I don't think they were squeezed, but the bush tax cuts were a step back after decades of tax increases, when the wealthy were paying a larger share. Sure the top bracket wasn't the 90% pre-Kennedy rate, but the group of 38-42%'ers were paying a larger a share of GDP that they ever did before. There is a point of diminishing returns on tax increases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve How else did the government fund itself when Kennedy cut taxes? Someone at the time must have thought the rich were being squeezed.
    - jshen 16y ago
      My pay comes from people who bought a service with after tax income. Why should you pay a lower percentage than me?
      - webXL 16y ago
        Your pay most likely comes from sales of goods and services, buyers of which are taxed at a lower rate. They are using after tax income, so it is double taxation there, too. But value was created in those instances, so one can say that the government helped create that value to justify it. I supposed the value of the stock can also be viewed in that manner, but why should it be taxed as much as income, when goods and services aren't?
        jshen 16y ago
        because someone like warren buffet shouldn't pay a lower percentage of his income in taxes than the rest of us. Hell, you're the one that is making the case that a worker generates more value than people who gamble on stocks.