3 ms·

I tried in vain to find a valid argument in this article. Instead, it was nearly wall-to-wall non sequiturs and faulty generalizations. There's some arm waving

by mkn 18y ago

I tried in vain to find a valid argument in this article. Instead, it was nearly wall-to-wall non sequiturs and faulty generalizations. There's some arm waving about how increasing the income tax on high wage earners will act as a disincentive to angel investors. Am I misunderstanding tax law, or aren't capital gains (e.g., from startup investments) separate from income for tax purposes? Then, when Obama's "socialized medicine" plan would actually help, the author rails against it because it has 'failed everywhere it's been tried.' (Except where it has succeeded. And also, the dismal failures mentioned are anecdotal scaremongering.) The solution is held out in front of the author and he rejects it on unrelated, partisan grounds! Maybe he makes sense to himself, but his oversimplifications haven't adequately made the case for the article title or his two supporting gripes.

petercooper 18y ago
When he says Obama's plan is "putting the cart before the horse" I think he means that it's silly to tax us on the money we earn that we'll eventually invest with and not on the money we invest ONCE we're rich. I'm not rich, but let's assume I'm on track to become so by way of my ever increasing income. Obama would take more of the income I'm using to build my fortune, leaving me less to invest later on. Lower income taxes would give me more to play with later on, and since I'll already be quite well off by then, paying tax on my capital gains doesn't really bother me. Personally I don't think this is a great argument and I am in support of Obama's plan, but I do see its point. It's a very long-term argument, and I think that if far smaller investors can use the capital gains 0% tax (such as entrepreneurs who self-fund) then it's an amazing idea. But if small self-funding entrepreneurs cannot take advantage of the 0% tax on capital gains in their own businesses, I'd probably agree with the author as it serves only to unfairly placate the rich.

by mkn 18y ago

petercooper 18y ago

When he says Obama's plan is "putting the cart before the horse" I think he means that it's silly to tax us on the money we earn that we'll eventually invest with and not on the money we invest ONCE we're rich. I'm not rich, but let's assume I'm on track to become so by way of my ever increasing income. Obama would take more of the income I'm using to build my fortune, leaving me less to invest later on. Lower income taxes would give me more to play with later on, and since I'll already be quite well off by then, paying tax on my capital gains doesn't really bother me. Personally I don't think this is a great argument and I am in support of Obama's plan, but I do see its point. It's a very long-term argument, and I think that if far smaller investors can use the capital gains 0% tax (such as entrepreneurs who self-fund) then it's an amazing idea. But if small self-funding entrepreneurs cannot take advantage of the 0% tax on capital gains in their own businesses, I'd probably agree with the author as it serves only to unfairly placate the rich.