[quote]The money they have has already been taxed as income and now being taxed at the lower capital gains rate. If you feel that you just have to punish those evil rich people, you can raise the CG rate, they will still be rich, they will still have no effect on the middle and lower class and it will also reduce revenues to the government. [quote]
Not it hasnt, because the money they put into a trust does not count as income...
You clearly dont understand how this works. I have relatives in Austria that are married to some of the richest families there. These people live in castles that belong to the family trust. They have cars with driver paid for by the family trust. They have private jets paid for by the family trust. They themselves have a "small" allowance of 40k USD a month or so. That they use to pay for their other needs that cant be covered by the trust... Plenty of ways for the superrich to avoid paying taxes.
The other reason why I think that the very wealthy should be paying more taxes is because they use their wealth to influence politics in their favor. Call it a lobbying tax
Skipjack wrote:You clearly dont understand how this works. I have relatives in Austria that are married to some of the richest families there. These people live in castles that belong to the family trust. They have cars with driver paid for by the family trust. They have private jets paid for by the family trust.
That would hopefully be fixed by the flat tax reform I've worked up. Flat rate personal income tax. Zero corporate income tax, which would also cover trusts. But the moment corporate money translates into personal benefit it becomes taxable as income. The lease rate of the corporate condo, castle, or jet, would be covered by this. Although in the case given the assessed value of the residence might be subject to fudging one way or the other. The idea is that tax paid shouldn't depend on if the corporation gives an associate benefits or money to buy the benefits.
But the moment corporate money translates into personal benefit it becomes taxable as income. The lease rate of the corporate condo, castle, or jet, would be covered by this. Although in the case given the assessed value of the residence might be subject to fudging one way or the other. The idea is that tax paid shouldn't depend on if the corporation gives an associate benefits or money to buy the benefits.
Well then they will be "renting" the castle for 10 USD a month and I dont even want to hear the outcry once the government starts telling companies how much they can charge for something, right?
Skipjack wrote:You clearly dont understand how this works. I have relatives in Austria that are married to some of the richest families there. These people live in castles that belong to the family trust. They have cars with driver paid for by the family trust. They have private jets paid for by the family trust.
That would hopefully be fixed by the flat tax reform I've worked up. Flat rate personal income tax. Zero corporate income tax, which would also cover trusts. But the moment corporate money translates into personal benefit it becomes taxable as income. The lease rate of the corporate condo, castle, or jet, would be covered by this. Although in the case given the assessed value of the residence might be subject to fudging one way or the other. The idea is that tax paid shouldn't depend on if the corporation gives an associate benefits or money to buy the benefits.
Why a zero corporate tax rate?
Unless corporate personhood is repealed they should be subject to the same tax rate as everyone else!
A corporation is a collective of the share holders, and properly derives rights as such. Under my plan dividends paid to shareholders would be taxable income. To tax corporate income on top of that is double taxation, and a penalty for organized private cooperative economic activity.
We're going to be seeing a lot of these: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCoIjbgqv7Q
In the end it doesn't matter what Obama meant, what he said is what's going to stick.
Here is the best part of the review of "The little blue book"
"And this same insuperable problem bedevils every aspect of Lakoff’s thesis: Most of the countervailing “conservative” arguments he seeks to suppress are rooted in inescapable economic, biological or physical reality that can’t be euphemized out of existence, no matter how hard you try. This brings us to the fundamental difference between “progressivism” and “conservatism”: Progressives and their various ideological brethren have a deep belief that human nature and human culture are “constructed,” that there is no biological determinism, that mankind is a blank slate, and that human nature and human culture can be molded at will whichever way we want, if we just put our minds to it and manipulate the language cleverly enough; by contrast, conservatives and their various ideological brethren believe (correctly) that human nature is “innate,” not fabricated, not random, and arises from genetic realities that willpower cannot dissolve, no matter how hard we try. Furthermore, much of the misery we’ve experienced in the last century comes from futile attempts to create utopian societies by denying the immutability of human nature and attempting to change it by force."
It's the bureaucrats, stupid: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ ... tupid.html
A long time ago, when I was working at the lab in VA, we were lectured on sexual harrasment by a man whose job it was to chase down and harrase people due to implied sexual harrasement. Until then I hadn't really considered the predator/prey relationship of the typical bureaucrat and the general people.
Here is the best part of the review of "The little blue book"
"And this same insuperable problem bedevils every aspect of Lakoff’s thesis: Most of the countervailing “conservative” arguments he seeks to suppress are rooted in inescapable economic, biological or physical reality that can’t be euphemized out of existence, no matter how hard you try. This brings us to the fundamental difference between “progressivism” and “conservatism”: Progressives and their various ideological brethren have a deep belief that human nature and human culture are “constructed,” that there is no biological determinism, that mankind is a blank slate, and that human nature and human culture can be molded at will whichever way we want, if we just put our minds to it and manipulate the language cleverly enough; by contrast, conservatives and their various ideological brethren believe (correctly) that human nature is “innate,” not fabricated, not random, and arises from genetic realities that willpower cannot dissolve, no matter how hard we try. Furthermore, much of the misery we’ve experienced in the last century comes from futile attempts to create utopian societies by denying the immutability of human nature and attempting to change it by force."
The problem with conservatives is that they are more than willing to put aside economic, biological, and physical reality when it is inconvenient.
Just look at their support for drug prohibition.
The economics are: attacking drugs raises prices which increases profits which brings more sellers into the market.
The biological is - self medication as opposed to Dr. prescribed medicine with similar effects. You can't medicate unless the legal drug cartel approves.
It turns out that anxiety disorders are the most common mental health problem in the United States. They are worth $46 billion a year to the pharmaceutical industry. You don’t suppose this fact has any thing to do with the pharmaceutical industries being in the forefront of the Drug Free America campaign do you? Of course not. They are just trying to keep you from being addicted to natural products at the cost of 1/10th of a cent per dose when they are more than willing to sell you an FDA and doctor approved, pharmacy sold product that will do the job for a dollar a dose. They have only your best interests at heart. Just ask their accountants.
Before the Harrison Narcotics act was passed 1.3% of the population was addicted to heroin. After it was passed 1.3% of the population was addicted to heroin. And the most recent number is 1.3% of the population was addicted to heroin.
You see it is not just liberals who act like human nature is a construct.
The conservatives claim it isn't a construct but act like it is. Making them liars. But liberals too will lie if convenient. Everyone knows: "Politicians are liars" and as my grandpappy used to say: "They are ALL crooks."
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Here is the best part of the review of "The little blue book"
"And this same insuperable problem bedevils every aspect of Lakoff’s thesis: Most of the countervailing “conservative” arguments he seeks to suppress are rooted in inescapable economic, biological or physical reality that can’t be euphemized out of existence, no matter how hard you try. This brings us to the fundamental difference between “progressivism” and “conservatism”: Progressives and their various ideological brethren have a deep belief that human nature and human culture are “constructed,” that there is no biological determinism, that mankind is a blank slate, and that human nature and human culture can be molded at will whichever way we want, if we just put our minds to it and manipulate the language cleverly enough; by contrast, conservatives and their various ideological brethren believe (correctly) that human nature is “innate,” not fabricated, not random, and arises from genetic realities that willpower cannot dissolve, no matter how hard we try. Furthermore, much of the misery we’ve experienced in the last century comes from futile attempts to create utopian societies by denying the immutability of human nature and attempting to change it by force."
Amen! Absolutely correct! Iron on target!
Conservatives acknowledge existing human nature. Liberalism keeps trying to construct a better human.
It is a variation on the Nature v. Nurture argument.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Here is the best part of the review of "The little blue book"
"And this same insuperable problem bedevils every aspect of Lakoff’s thesis: Most of the countervailing “conservative” arguments he seeks to suppress are rooted in inescapable economic, biological or physical reality that can’t be euphemized out of existence, no matter how hard you try. This brings us to the fundamental difference between “progressivism” and “conservatism”: Progressives and their various ideological brethren have a deep belief that human nature and human culture are “constructed,” that there is no biological determinism, that mankind is a blank slate, and that human nature and human culture can be molded at will whichever way we want, if we just put our minds to it and manipulate the language cleverly enough; by contrast, conservatives and their various ideological brethren believe (correctly) that human nature is “innate,” not fabricated, not random, and arises from genetic realities that willpower cannot dissolve, no matter how hard we try. Furthermore, much of the misery we’ve experienced in the last century comes from futile attempts to create utopian societies by denying the immutability of human nature and attempting to change it by force."
The problem with conservatives is that they are more than willing to put aside economic, biological, and physical reality when it is inconvenient.
Just look at their support for drug prohibition.
The economics are: attacking drugs raises prices which increases profits which brings more sellers into the market.
The biological is - self medication as opposed to Dr. prescribed medicine with similar effects. You can't medicate unless the legal drug cartel approves.
It turns out that anxiety disorders are the most common mental health problem in the United States. They are worth $46 billion a year to the pharmaceutical industry. You don’t suppose this fact has any thing to do with the pharmaceutical industries being in the forefront of the Drug Free America campaign do you? Of course not. They are just trying to keep you from being addicted to natural products at the cost of 1/10th of a cent per dose when they are more than willing to sell you an FDA and doctor approved, pharmacy sold product that will do the job for a dollar a dose. They have only your best interests at heart. Just ask their accountants.
Before the Harrison Narcotics act was passed 1.3% of the population was addicted to heroin. After it was passed 1.3% of the population was addicted to heroin. And the most recent number is 1.3% of the population was addicted to heroin.
You see it is not just liberals who act like human nature is a construct.
The conservatives claim it isn't a construct but act like it is. Making them liars. But liberals too will lie if convenient. Everyone knows: "Politicians are liars" and as my grandpappy used to say: "They are ALL crooks."
You know, in all the times you have said that conservatives are against legalizing drugs, not once have you actually linked to anything from a conservative source that actually says that drugs should not be legalized. I've been reading National review, American Spectator and Commentary for decades and I have never seen a groundswell of support for the drug war. That also goes more recently for American Thinker, Red State, Hot Air, Reason as well as the above referenced sites and journals. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think so. Where are all these Conservatives you keep talking about? Why does everthing have to be about the drug war anyway? Frankly there are much bigger issues at play here and as far as I'm concerned whethor or not some druggie can get his fix is essentially irrelevant.
Why does everthing have to be about the drug war anyway? Frankly there are much bigger issues at play here and as far as I'm concerned whethor or not some druggie can get his fix is essentially irrelevant.
Indeed. I see broader matters of property rights and due process of law as far more pressing. While these touch on the drug war, the latter being misused as cover for some of the former, there are conspicuous cases of these that have no apparent connection to drug enforcement.
