3 ms·

I am not sure about the strength of this suggestion and I am not going to comment it (or the suggestion itself). It's funny how many excuses people try to find

I am not sure about the strength of this suggestion and I am not going to comment it (or the suggestion itself). It's funny how many excuses people try to find against such "proposals". You can hear/listen to all kinds of excuses. From "yeah, good luck making them pay their taxes" to "if you tax them they will go to another country". Really? They won't pay their taxes? Jail them. Really? They will go to another country? Let them go then, and forbid them from operating in your country. It's beyond understanding how such a big part of the "middle class" believes we shouldn't touch the rich. And, of course, it's also beyond understanding how we have allowed tax heavens to exist. Very funny, for example, to watch Germany go all crazy against private money in Cypriot banks but ignore Switzerland and Luxemburg ones.

Kaizyn 13y ago
Generally, if you or I take what belongs to another person (wealthy or not) it is called theft. However, when we start talking about governments expropriating wealth for its own ends - such as paying off its spending deficits - that's considered OK. No one argues with the concept that necessary government services should be paid for by the people who live in a country and make use of those services. What is usually objected to is when someone gets the bright idea that because wealthy people have money, that money should be taken to pay for irresponsible government spending. It's no different than infamous bank robber Willie Sutton. He was asked why he robbed banks and offered as a reply, "Because that's where the money is."
- sebkomianos 13y ago
  I am not for theft. I am for a more fair taxation system. Banks aren't even being properly taxed at all anyway, for example.
millstone 13y ago
The excuses are at their funniest when the issue is at its most indefensible, such as the proposals to end the carried interest exemption, or the accelerated depreciation of corporate jets.
- alushta 13y ago
  "Most indefensible"? Really? See the following from the NYTimes article "Capital Gains, Ordinary Income and Shades of Gray": "Consider five examples, and see if you can identify what is ordinary income and what is a capital gain: • Abe buys a vacation home for his family for $800,000. Some years later, when his children have grown and left home, he sells it for $1 million. He makes $200,000. • Bob is a real estate investor. After scouring the market for the best investment opportunities, he buys a house for $800,000 that he believes is undervalued. A few years later, he sells it at $1 million, for a profit of $200,000. • Carl is a real estate investor and a carpenter. He buys a dilapidated house for $800,000. After spending his weekends fixing it up, he sells it a couple of years later for $1 million. Once again, the profit is $200,000. • Dan is a real estate investor and a carpenter, but he is short of capital. He approaches his friend, Ms. Moneybags, and they become partners. Together, they buy a dilapidated house for $800,000 and sell it later for $1 million. She puts up the money, and he spends his weekends fixing up the house. They divide the $200,000 profit equally. • Earl is a carpenter. Ms. Moneybags buys a dilapidated house for $800,000 and hires Earl to fix it up. After paying Earl $100,000 for his services, Ms. Moneybags sells the home for $1 million, for a profit of $100,000. How much capital gains and ordinary income do we attribute to Abe, Bob, Carl, Dan and Earl? (To keep things simple, assume that Ms. Moneybags is untaxed. Think of her as running a pension fund or university endowment.)" As for accelerated depreciation of corporate jets. Are you saying we should not allow accelerated depreciation of corporate assets? Or just corporate jets? I'm sure the Fedex/UPS have some pretty valid reasons to accelerate depreciation on their 747-800s. Oh, you must mean corporate jets like the Bombardier LearJet 85. What if it's used to haul people to remote oil fields, or do you think geologists and oil engineers should only fly commercial? If they charter the jet, why shouldn't the charter company be able to depreciate this asset? You sound like someone who's just complaining about "the rich" without knowing a thing about accounting or taxes. Otherwise you'd have never called these two items "indefensible".

Kaizyn 13y ago

Generally, if you or I take what belongs to another person (wealthy or not) it is called theft. However, when we start talking about governments expropriating wealth for its own ends - such as paying off its spending deficits - that's considered OK. No one argues with the concept that necessary government services should be paid for by the people who live in a country and make use of those services. What is usually objected to is when someone gets the bright idea that because wealthy people have money, that money should be taken to pay for irresponsible government spending. It's no different than infamous bank robber Willie Sutton. He was asked why he robbed banks and offered as a reply, "Because that's where the money is."

sebkomianos 13y ago
I am not for theft. I am for a more fair taxation system. Banks aren't even being properly taxed at all anyway, for example.

millstone 13y ago

The excuses are at their funniest when the issue is at its most indefensible, such as the proposals to end the carried interest exemption, or the accelerated depreciation of corporate jets.

alushta 13y ago
"Most indefensible"? Really? See the following from the NYTimes article "Capital Gains, Ordinary Income and Shades of Gray": "Consider five examples, and see if you can identify what is ordinary income and what is a capital gain: • Abe buys a vacation home for his family for $800,000. Some years later, when his children have grown and left home, he sells it for $1 million. He makes $200,000. • Bob is a real estate investor. After scouring the market for the best investment opportunities, he buys a house for $800,000 that he believes is undervalued. A few years later, he sells it at $1 million, for a profit of $200,000. • Carl is a real estate investor and a carpenter. He buys a dilapidated house for $800,000. After spending his weekends fixing it up, he sells it a couple of years later for $1 million. Once again, the profit is $200,000. • Dan is a real estate investor and a carpenter, but he is short of capital. He approaches his friend, Ms. Moneybags, and they become partners. Together, they buy a dilapidated house for $800,000 and sell it later for $1 million. She puts up the money, and he spends his weekends fixing up the house. They divide the $200,000 profit equally. • Earl is a carpenter. Ms. Moneybags buys a dilapidated house for $800,000 and hires Earl to fix it up. After paying Earl $100,000 for his services, Ms. Moneybags sells the home for $1 million, for a profit of $100,000. How much capital gains and ordinary income do we attribute to Abe, Bob, Carl, Dan and Earl? (To keep things simple, assume that Ms. Moneybags is untaxed. Think of her as running a pension fund or university endowment.)" As for accelerated depreciation of corporate jets. Are you saying we should not allow accelerated depreciation of corporate assets? Or just corporate jets? I'm sure the Fedex/UPS have some pretty valid reasons to accelerate depreciation on their 747-800s. Oh, you must mean corporate jets like the Bombardier LearJet 85. What if it's used to haul people to remote oil fields, or do you think geologists and oil engineers should only fly commercial? If they charter the jet, why shouldn't the charter company be able to depreciate this asset? You sound like someone who's just complaining about "the rich" without knowing a thing about accounting or taxes. Otherwise you'd have never called these two items "indefensible".