On July 17 2012 11:08 Danglars wrote: Obama's remarks in Virginia "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." ~ Obama, Roanoke Virginia last Friday
Ayn Rand answered this statement in Atlas Shrugged 1957. Talking about building a revolutionary metal that is stronger and lighter. The book is filled with scenes that speak out of today's world.
“He didn’t invent iron ore and blast furnaces, did he?”
“Who?”
“Rearden. He didn’t invent smelting and chemistry and air compression. He couldn’t have invented his Metal but for thousands and thousands of other people. His Metal! Why does he think it’s his? Why does he think it’s his invention? Everybody uses the work of everybody else. Nobody ever invents anything.”
She said, puzzled, “But the iron ore and all those other things were there all the time. Why didn’t anybody else make that Metal, but Mr. Rearden did?”
I love how the quote is presented, almost biblical dimension of quoting one might say.
And the "didn'tbuildthat" pics are lame to say the least - if you post smth. like that, at least make sure it's funny not only for people already sold on it.
I am also not very fond of the "dancing around the issue" DNC ad - it's rather lame. The offshore account one with Romney singing on the other hand was pretty good and really hit a chink in Romney's "business armor" and seems to stick.
well fought Obama campaign - hope Romney can make a sick comeback with a hidden 3rd to make it even more interesting :D (even though I read somethign about "cashmashine" Adelson bringing potential trouble for Romney with his business associates and practices in Macao.)
Surprised Obama still hasn't learned that every sentence that comes out of his mouth will be scrutinized heavily and used against him whenever possible. Should never have gone down the 'you didn't build that' line of thinking even if he was making a valid point... Really gives the GOP some fodder to fight back with when it seemed like Romney was really in a tough spot.
EDIT:
So basically Romney just repeats what Obama said originally.
On July 19 2012 23:53 DoubleReed wrote: This is amazing.
Actually the DNC already expressed regret for the ad and said there won't be any more horse dancing ads because they're a barb aimed at Ann Romney, who rides horses to treat her multiple sclerosis.
President Obama has long said that family is off limits and apparently had to remind the DNC of that.
On July 17 2012 11:08 Danglars wrote: Obama's remarks in Virginia "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." ~ Obama, Roanoke Virginia last Friday
Ayn Rand answered this statement in Atlas Shrugged 1957. Talking about building a revolutionary metal that is stronger and lighter. The book is filled with scenes that speak out of today's world.
“He didn’t invent iron ore and blast furnaces, did he?”
“Who?”
“Rearden. He didn’t invent smelting and chemistry and air compression. He couldn’t have invented his Metal but for thousands and thousands of other people. His Metal! Why does he think it’s his? Why does he think it’s his invention? Everybody uses the work of everybody else. Nobody ever invents anything.”
She said, puzzled, “But the iron ore and all those other things were there all the time. Why didn’t anybody else make that Metal, but Mr. Rearden did?”
That quote from Atlas Shrugged is a strawman if I ever saw one. Is Obama against patents? No. The correct, not-taken-out-of-context quote is "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that". The "you didn't build that" does not refer to the business itself, but to the roads and bridges and basically every other thing that have contributed to the creation of the business. In Atlas Shrugged, the person talking says the metal itself should not be Rearden's, because he's built on other things. In this case, Obama says the business owner has built on other things, but, contrary to the person speaking in A.S., he DOES NOT say the business should not be owned by the one who created it. He completely agrees that it is rightly his. He's only making an argument regarding the help government intervention provides to individual initiative (as the full quote makes clear) - he's certainly not trying to erase the idea of individual contribution like the person speaking in Atlas Shrugged. To equate the two is a strawman, and it is either ignorant or dishonest - and, in both cases, wrong.
edit: I just visited the website you linked to. You should probably tell them to read what Obama actually said, because they managed to understand "they didn't build that" as referring to the business, as opposed to the roads and bridges. A 6-year-old would understand Obama's two sentences correctly, but I guess some people are not too interested in using their brains when coming up with criticism of the President.
edit 2: I just saw the video of Mitt Romney addressing this posted on this page. That's as clear an example of him being deceitful as you can get.
On July 17 2012 11:08 Danglars wrote: Obama's remarks in Virginia "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." ~ Obama, Roanoke Virginia last Friday
Ayn Rand answered this statement in Atlas Shrugged 1957. Talking about building a revolutionary metal that is stronger and lighter. The book is filled with scenes that speak out of today's world.
“He didn’t invent iron ore and blast furnaces, did he?”
“Who?”
“Rearden. He didn’t invent smelting and chemistry and air compression. He couldn’t have invented his Metal but for thousands and thousands of other people. His Metal! Why does he think it’s his? Why does he think it’s his invention? Everybody uses the work of everybody else. Nobody ever invents anything.”
She said, puzzled, “But the iron ore and all those other things were there all the time. Why didn’t anybody else make that Metal, but Mr. Rearden did?”
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
Obama is saying that there is no such thing as a self-made man. No one's success is attributable to his/her talents/genetics/skills/work alone. Do you think that Bill Gates could have founded Microsoft if he was born in Ethiopia? Do you think that a business owner deserves all the credit for their successful business? Why wasn't he/she bankrupted by a terminally ill spouse? Why wasn't he/she born with Down's Syndrome?
I like this discussion. It's getting a little too straw-man-y but the idea is there: how much does society contribute and foster to the success of individual members, and in turn how much should successful individuals pay for society's needs?
The liberal point that Obama is trying to make is that individuals owe quite a lot to the structure of society and it is up to our most successful members to maintain and grow the structure to make a system where everyone has improved quality of life.
The indirect but relevant response from conservatives on tax policy is that they don't trust the government to use increased revenues efficiently, so then more taxes just becomes a de facto punishment on successful people in the name of equality.
On July 17 2012 11:08 Danglars wrote: Obama's remarks in Virginia "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." ~ Obama, Roanoke Virginia last Friday
Ayn Rand answered this statement in Atlas Shrugged 1957. Talking about building a revolutionary metal that is stronger and lighter. The book is filled with scenes that speak out of today's world.
“He didn’t invent iron ore and blast furnaces, did he?”
“Who?”
“Rearden. He didn’t invent smelting and chemistry and air compression. He couldn’t have invented his Metal but for thousands and thousands of other people. His Metal! Why does he think it’s his? Why does he think it’s his invention? Everybody uses the work of everybody else. Nobody ever invents anything.”
She said, puzzled, “But the iron ore and all those other things were there all the time. Why didn’t anybody else make that Metal, but Mr. Rearden did?”
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
Obama is saying that there is no such thing as a self-made man. No one's success is attributable to his/her talents/genetics/skills/work alone. Do you think that Bill Gates could have founded Microsoft if he was born in Ethiopia? Do you think that a business owner deserves all the credit for their successful business? Why wasn't he/she bankrupted by a terminally ill spouse? Why wasn't he/she born with Down's Syndrome?
Well of course none of us are self made, we can't impregnate our mothers after all.
I think the point is, business owes its success to its workers/ customers and it owes its creation, implementation and goals to the entrepreneur. A business can certainly exist without workers and consumers, it just wont be successful. And I think a lot of people just interpreted obamas quote as saying that entrepreneurs dont create anything, which would be wrong. It was just badly worded.
On July 17 2012 21:17 DoubleReed wrote: The reason that capital gains tax is so low is because it is considered a double tax. That money was already made by the company and was already subject to corporate tax. It gets funneled to investors which is then subject to capital gains tax. So 'effective tax rate' for capital gains hides the corporate tax that was already taken out.
That's not what double taxation means. The term is deliberately misapplied by 1% lobbyists in order to create a false distinction between capital gains taxes and other taxes.
The idea that capital gains taxes are double taxation is a myth, as explained by the following sources (the former conservative and the latter liberal):
No it's double taxation. The term is not misapplied either - you'll find it used in textbooks aplenty.
If I invest in a corporation by lending to it, the interest expense is 100% tax deductible for the corporation while taxed at ordinary income rates for the individual. Here the cash flow generated by the business is only taxed once - at the individual level.
If I invest in a corporation by buying shares, corporate profits are taxed. If I receive any cash from the corporation I have to pay dividend taxes. So here the same cash flow is taxed twice (corp profits and dividends).
Capital gains are a bit more squishy to show as double taxation since the only cash flow is at the investor level when an asset is bought and sold. However, the value of a firm is the sum of all future after tax cash flows (profits) discounted over time. So the value of the company already includes taxes. So when you tax cap gains you are taxing future expected profits (that will already be taxed). If that sounds too theoretical think of it this way - if it turns out that those future expected profits were imaginary the shares will fall to $0 - and the cap gain tax the government collected will be wiped out by cap losses. So cap gains only exist if profits exist - which are already taxed - and therefore double taxation exists.
Try actually reading and responding to the points in the links I provided, instead of assuming I don't know what you're talking about. Your explanation is simply incorrect, for reasons that the links explain.
Ok. First your blogspot article:
As I said, I’ve heard it twice just this week where a conservative states unequivocally that a person who earns capital gains pays the 15% rate on top of any income tax rate. It’s not a straw man – it’s a very real misconception held by some conservatives.
That would be a misconception - though I've never heard that one before.
There is another double taxation argument that basically says the corporation has already paid its taxes on profits, and the price of my shares of stock reflect it. To then tax me on the increased value of my stock is a form of double taxation. There is truth in this argument, but it’s also a bit of a distraction.
As the individual shareholder I am not personally taxed twice. The corporation has paid its taxes and I pay my own capital gains tax. Yes, the value of my share is discounted based on the amount of corporate taxes paid, but I am not paying tax twice. The corporation, similarly, is not taxed twice. Not to mention, this argument only applies to capital gains earned through the purchase/sale of stock and would not apply to other capital gains like interest earned.
Here's the problem: the taxation on the corporation does matter. If you own a small business as the sole owner as a sole proprietorship you ARE the business. The profit the business generates is your income and you pay taxes on it as your own income. The business itself pays no taxes. Corporations, on the other hand, are taxed themselves and any income that flows to the owner is taxed a second time as dividends. So two taxes on one stream of income (double taxation).
The CTJ article makes 3 arguments: my replies follow. 1) Some corporations pay no tax. This is irrelevant! The corporation pays the taxes it is supposed to. If you don't like the 'loophole' it uses then argue to close the loophole. 2) 2/3 of dividends are paid to tax-exempt entities. Another irrelevant argument! 3) Third, a capital gain from selling a corporate stock is not necessarily a form of corporate profit. Yes it is. As the CTJ article correctly points out the value can come from expected future profits. Therefore, and as I said in my previous response, the capital gain can only exist if the expected profits come true. And if they do, they will be taxed!
This is a pointless semantics argument.
Why does it matter that capital gains is "double tax"? Surely, the only thing that should matter is how much tax is paid and who pays it.
And it seems that you've agreed to the argument that businesses shift the cost of their taxes onto the shareholders and customers. So how is it double taxation when businesses have shifted the burden of the tax onto others? You can't have it both ways.
The cost of all taxes get shifted to some extent.
Regardless, the point of the double taxation argument is that tax rates can appear lower than they really are. Since the argument about 'fair share' often revolves around effective tax rates the double taxation argument is used to illustrate that effective tax rates do not include all the explicit and implicit taxes that a taxpayer is paying.
The same can be said about tax-exempt bonds where the tax is implicit.
I'll be voting for Obama for 1 main reason. Gay marriage.
I am a gay man and would love the benefits that married couples get under the government with my partner. While I can't be sure that we'll pass gay marriage legislation under the Obama administration post 2012, I am highly confident that nothing positive in terms of homosexuality will come out of Romney. Obama has already taken a firm stance as pro-gay marriage publicly. He has a lot of the same liberal attitudes that I hold.
Also, we have about 2-3 Supreme Court justices that are "due". If Romney is elected, we will have more conservative justices in our court system for years to come, well beyond his 4 year term. If Obama is elected, we will most likely have considerably more liberal justices promoting legislation and ruling on things that I care about most.
This is what is important to me and that is why I will vote for Obama.
'we dont trust government to handle your money!' oh wait.... we want to be the government... That isnt a good line of reasoning for tax policy at all. Theyre full of crap.
I can't take it anymore. I'll explain why what Obama said about "no one getting there on their own" is ridiculous and worthy of the ridicule that it is receiving. At best, it is a ludicrous strawman argument of the highest order. No one is arguing that the government has no role in providing basic infrastructure or that the basic infrastructure is unimportant. At worst, it demonstrates true antipathy towards fundamental American values.
For the life of me I don't understand how Obama could be stupid enough to go down this road. Elizabeth Warren already tried it out and got burned for it. This is an election where the economy is going to be the number one issue and there are already serious doubts about Obama's leadership on the economy. Obama's comments are precisely the type of thing that will drive voters away and sink him.
Here's Obama's full quote, in context, if you're going to discuss it.
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
All he's pointing out is that a civil society and public infrastructure contributes to the quality of our lives and enables us to succeed.
On July 20 2012 02:16 xDaunt wrote: I can't take it anymore. I'll explain why what Obama said about "no one getting there on their own" is ridiculous and worthy of the ridicule that it is receiving. At best, it is a ludicrous strawman argument of the highest order. No one is arguing that the government has no role in providing basic infrastructure or that the basic infrastructure is unimportant. At worst, it demonstrates true antipathy towards fundamental American values.
For the life of me I don't understand how Obama could be stupid enough to go down this road. Elizabeth Warren already tried it out and got burned for it. This is an election where the economy is going to be the number one issue and there are already serious doubts about Obama's leadership on the economy. Obama's comments are precisely the type of thing that will drive voters away and sink him.
I can't take it anymore. You've made 2 long paragraphs on Obama's statement, giving not a single reason why his statement is wrong.
On July 17 2012 21:17 DoubleReed wrote: The reason that capital gains tax is so low is because it is considered a double tax. That money was already made by the company and was already subject to corporate tax. It gets funneled to investors which is then subject to capital gains tax. So 'effective tax rate' for capital gains hides the corporate tax that was already taken out.
That's not what double taxation means. The term is deliberately misapplied by 1% lobbyists in order to create a false distinction between capital gains taxes and other taxes.
The idea that capital gains taxes are double taxation is a myth, as explained by the following sources (the former conservative and the latter liberal):
No it's double taxation. The term is not misapplied either - you'll find it used in textbooks aplenty.
If I invest in a corporation by lending to it, the interest expense is 100% tax deductible for the corporation while taxed at ordinary income rates for the individual. Here the cash flow generated by the business is only taxed once - at the individual level.
If I invest in a corporation by buying shares, corporate profits are taxed. If I receive any cash from the corporation I have to pay dividend taxes. So here the same cash flow is taxed twice (corp profits and dividends).
Capital gains are a bit more squishy to show as double taxation since the only cash flow is at the investor level when an asset is bought and sold. However, the value of a firm is the sum of all future after tax cash flows (profits) discounted over time. So the value of the company already includes taxes. So when you tax cap gains you are taxing future expected profits (that will already be taxed). If that sounds too theoretical think of it this way - if it turns out that those future expected profits were imaginary the shares will fall to $0 - and the cap gain tax the government collected will be wiped out by cap losses. So cap gains only exist if profits exist - which are already taxed - and therefore double taxation exists.
Try actually reading and responding to the points in the links I provided, instead of assuming I don't know what you're talking about. Your explanation is simply incorrect, for reasons that the links explain.
Ok. First your blogspot article:
As I said, I’ve heard it twice just this week where a conservative states unequivocally that a person who earns capital gains pays the 15% rate on top of any income tax rate. It’s not a straw man – it’s a very real misconception held by some conservatives.
That would be a misconception - though I've never heard that one before.
There is another double taxation argument that basically says the corporation has already paid its taxes on profits, and the price of my shares of stock reflect it. To then tax me on the increased value of my stock is a form of double taxation. There is truth in this argument, but it’s also a bit of a distraction.
As the individual shareholder I am not personally taxed twice. The corporation has paid its taxes and I pay my own capital gains tax. Yes, the value of my share is discounted based on the amount of corporate taxes paid, but I am not paying tax twice. The corporation, similarly, is not taxed twice. Not to mention, this argument only applies to capital gains earned through the purchase/sale of stock and would not apply to other capital gains like interest earned.
Here's the problem: the taxation on the corporation does matter. If you own a small business as the sole owner as a sole proprietorship you ARE the business. The profit the business generates is your income and you pay taxes on it as your own income. The business itself pays no taxes. Corporations, on the other hand, are taxed themselves and any income that flows to the owner is taxed a second time as dividends. So two taxes on one stream of income (double taxation).
The CTJ article makes 3 arguments: my replies follow. 1) Some corporations pay no tax. This is irrelevant! The corporation pays the taxes it is supposed to. If you don't like the 'loophole' it uses then argue to close the loophole. 2) 2/3 of dividends are paid to tax-exempt entities. Another irrelevant argument! 3) Third, a capital gain from selling a corporate stock is not necessarily a form of corporate profit. Yes it is. As the CTJ article correctly points out the value can come from expected future profits. Therefore, and as I said in my previous response, the capital gain can only exist if the expected profits come true. And if they do, they will be taxed!
This is a pointless semantics argument.
Why does it matter that capital gains is "double tax"? Surely, the only thing that should matter is how much tax is paid and who pays it.
And it seems that you've agreed to the argument that businesses shift the cost of their taxes onto the shareholders and customers. So how is it double taxation when businesses have shifted the burden of the tax onto others? You can't have it both ways.
The cost of all taxes get shifted to some extent.
Regardless, the point of the double taxation argument is that tax rates can appear lower than they really are. Since the argument about 'fair share' often revolves around effective tax rates the double taxation argument is used to illustrate that effective tax rates do not include all the explicit and implicit taxes that a taxpayer is paying.
The same can be said about tax-exempt bonds where the tax is implicit.
But when you start dealing with these implicits, you also start dragging in other factors as well. Sales tax, estate tax, income tax, tariffs/excise taxes, and so on and so forth get into impossibly complex layers of taxation. In order to make sense of it all, we state the taxes we pay explicitly, in which double taxation extends to things like taxed retirement accounts, where the gross income is taxed before investing, then the capital gains are taxed upon "cashing out."
On July 17 2012 21:17 DoubleReed wrote: The reason that capital gains tax is so low is because it is considered a double tax. That money was already made by the company and was already subject to corporate tax. It gets funneled to investors which is then subject to capital gains tax. So 'effective tax rate' for capital gains hides the corporate tax that was already taken out.
That's not what double taxation means. The term is deliberately misapplied by 1% lobbyists in order to create a false distinction between capital gains taxes and other taxes.
The idea that capital gains taxes are double taxation is a myth, as explained by the following sources (the former conservative and the latter liberal):
No it's double taxation. The term is not misapplied either - you'll find it used in textbooks aplenty.
If I invest in a corporation by lending to it, the interest expense is 100% tax deductible for the corporation while taxed at ordinary income rates for the individual. Here the cash flow generated by the business is only taxed once - at the individual level.
If I invest in a corporation by buying shares, corporate profits are taxed. If I receive any cash from the corporation I have to pay dividend taxes. So here the same cash flow is taxed twice (corp profits and dividends).
Capital gains are a bit more squishy to show as double taxation since the only cash flow is at the investor level when an asset is bought and sold. However, the value of a firm is the sum of all future after tax cash flows (profits) discounted over time. So the value of the company already includes taxes. So when you tax cap gains you are taxing future expected profits (that will already be taxed). If that sounds too theoretical think of it this way - if it turns out that those future expected profits were imaginary the shares will fall to $0 - and the cap gain tax the government collected will be wiped out by cap losses. So cap gains only exist if profits exist - which are already taxed - and therefore double taxation exists.
Try actually reading and responding to the points in the links I provided, instead of assuming I don't know what you're talking about. Your explanation is simply incorrect, for reasons that the links explain.
Ok. First your blogspot article:
As I said, I’ve heard it twice just this week where a conservative states unequivocally that a person who earns capital gains pays the 15% rate on top of any income tax rate. It’s not a straw man – it’s a very real misconception held by some conservatives.
That would be a misconception - though I've never heard that one before.
There is another double taxation argument that basically says the corporation has already paid its taxes on profits, and the price of my shares of stock reflect it. To then tax me on the increased value of my stock is a form of double taxation. There is truth in this argument, but it’s also a bit of a distraction.
As the individual shareholder I am not personally taxed twice. The corporation has paid its taxes and I pay my own capital gains tax. Yes, the value of my share is discounted based on the amount of corporate taxes paid, but I am not paying tax twice. The corporation, similarly, is not taxed twice. Not to mention, this argument only applies to capital gains earned through the purchase/sale of stock and would not apply to other capital gains like interest earned.
Here's the problem: the taxation on the corporation does matter. If you own a small business as the sole owner as a sole proprietorship you ARE the business. The profit the business generates is your income and you pay taxes on it as your own income. The business itself pays no taxes. Corporations, on the other hand, are taxed themselves and any income that flows to the owner is taxed a second time as dividends. So two taxes on one stream of income (double taxation).
The CTJ article makes 3 arguments: my replies follow. 1) Some corporations pay no tax. This is irrelevant! The corporation pays the taxes it is supposed to. If you don't like the 'loophole' it uses then argue to close the loophole. 2) 2/3 of dividends are paid to tax-exempt entities. Another irrelevant argument! 3) Third, a capital gain from selling a corporate stock is not necessarily a form of corporate profit. Yes it is. As the CTJ article correctly points out the value can come from expected future profits. Therefore, and as I said in my previous response, the capital gain can only exist if the expected profits come true. And if they do, they will be taxed!
This is a pointless semantics argument.
Why does it matter that capital gains is "double tax"? Surely, the only thing that should matter is how much tax is paid and who pays it.
And it seems that you've agreed to the argument that businesses shift the cost of their taxes onto the shareholders and customers. So how is it double taxation when businesses have shifted the burden of the tax onto others? You can't have it both ways.
The cost of all taxes get shifted to some extent.
Regardless, the point of the double taxation argument is that tax rates can appear lower than they really are. Since the argument about 'fair share' often revolves around effective tax rates the double taxation argument is used to illustrate that effective tax rates do not include all the explicit and implicit taxes that a taxpayer is paying.
The same can be said about tax-exempt bonds where the tax is implicit.
How can I shift my income tax onto you? The burden of the capital gains tax ultimately falls on people. Tax rates are lower than what they historically are, and I don't see how "double taxation" should come into the argument. What is of interest is how much tax does one have to pay, how much revenue is the government making, and is it good economics to increase/decrease taxes. A discussion of these 3 points doesn't need to refer to "double taxation". I admit I haven't read far back enough to see who brought the issue up in the first place.
On July 20 2012 02:13 Focuspants wrote: 'we dont trust government to handle your money!' oh wait.... we want to be the government... That isnt a good line of reasoning for tax policy at all. Theyre full of crap.
Mmm, no. Conservatives can be the government and promise not to increase taxes but focus on cutting spending instead. They turn the government smaller and more efficient.
Is that a promise they can keep? Not as much as they say. In office, it turns out modern governments have a lot of interests to take care of and it's not easy to just chop off lots of groups that are doing good work.
But it's no more naive than believing Obama could reduce the toxic tone of partisan discussion or make a hostile Congress more productive by increasing executive power.
These things require many steps and just dismissing them as full of crap is not helpful.
On July 20 2012 02:16 xDaunt wrote: I can't take it anymore. I'll explain why what Obama said about "no one getting there on their own" is ridiculous and worthy of the ridicule that it is receiving. At best, it is a ludicrous strawman argument of the highest order. No one is arguing that the government has no role in providing basic infrastructure or that the basic infrastructure is unimportant. At worst, it demonstrates true antipathy towards fundamental American values.
For the life of me I don't understand how Obama could be stupid enough to go down this road. Elizabeth Warren already tried it out and got burned for it. This is an election where the economy is going to be the number one issue and there are already serious doubts about Obama's leadership on the economy. Obama's comments are precisely the type of thing that will drive voters away and sink him.
I can't take it anymore. You've made 2 long paragraphs on Obama's statement, giving not a single reason why his statement is wrong.
You may want to read a little bit closer. I'm not taking issue with the "factual accuracy" so much as the merits of the argument itself.
On July 20 2012 02:13 Focuspants wrote: 'we dont trust government to handle your money!' oh wait.... we want to be the government... That isnt a good line of reasoning for tax policy at all. Theyre full of crap.
Mmm, no. Conservatives can be the government and promise not to increase taxes but focus on cutting spending instead. They turn the government smaller and more efficient.
Is that a promise they can keep? Not as much as they say. In office, it turns out modern governments have a lot of interests to take care of and it's not easy to just chop off lots of groups that are doing good work.
But it's no more naive than believing Obama could reduce the toxic tone of partisan discussion or make a hostile Congress more productive by increasing executive power.
These things require many steps and just dismissing them as full of crap is not helpful.
I've yet to see any "conservative" run government go for "smaller" government. It's all bigger government for the things I believe in and smaller government for things I don't like.
On July 20 2012 02:13 Focuspants wrote: 'we dont trust government to handle your money!' oh wait.... we want to be the government... That isnt a good line of reasoning for tax policy at all. Theyre full of crap.
Mmm, no. Conservatives can be the government and promise not to increase taxes but focus on cutting spending instead. They turn the government smaller and more efficient.
Is that a promise they can keep? Not as much as they say. In office, it turns out modern governments have a lot of interests to take care of and it's not easy to just chop off lots of groups that are doing good work.
But it's no more naive than believing Obama could reduce the toxic tone of partisan discussion or make a hostile Congress more productive by increasing executive power.
These things require many steps and just dismissing them as full of crap is not helpful.
I've yet to see any "conservative" run government go for "smaller" government. It's all bigger government for the things I believe in and smaller government for things I don't like.
I address that in my post. And I think you mean it the other way around because otherwise that's exactly why you want conservatives in government as a check.
EPT
