Should the Bush tax cuts be extended?

[skeptic2]

Are you saying that Dems don't like to tax and spend?

I can't speak for OmCheeto but taxing and spending is not a matter of liking or not liking. Taxing and spending is what government does by necessity. The priorities for taxing and spending may be argued but both Republicans and Democrats tax and spend.

 

[turbo]

I can't speak for OmCheeto but taxing and spending is not a matter of liking or not liking. Taxing and spending is what government does by necessity. The priorities for taxing and spending may be argued but both Republicans and Democrats tax and spend.

Or borrow and spend. Prosperity for some can be engineered, as long as you are willing to defer the payments to some future reckoning. The trouble is that DC has that credit-card mentality ingrained and both parties know how to play that game to their benefit. We should go to a pay-as-you-go budgetary system except in the case of dire emergencies, like unforeseen wars. Some fiscal restraint would be quite welcome.

 

[skeptic2]

So how do we change from a borrow and spend government to a pay as you go government. We're still talking about cutting taxes while increasing spending.

 

[turbo]

So how do we change from a borrow and spend government to a pay as you go government. We're still talking about cutting taxes while increasing spending.

Cutting wasteful spending would be a start. Farm subsidies overwhelmingly go to millionaires and huge agribusinesses, not to small local farms. Ever wonder why presidential candidates all have to pay homage to Iowa? Next, stop subsidizing "fuels" that cost more to produce than they can be sold for. Ethanol from corn is a huge scam, and it is making our fuel unstable and even damaging to many small engines. Every time I fill my fuel cans at the gas station, I have to add expensive fuel stabilizer to them or risk having to pay the "backdoor tax" of small engine repair. I can do a lot of that repair work myself, but most people are poorly equipped for that.

These are very modest suggestions - we need to explore many more of them. Unfortunately, the Dems and the GOP only gain financial support by funneling our money into spending programs that benefit their sponsors - not by cutting spending.

It may be necessary to force real campaign finance reform onto our elected representatives, before we can expect any change in their behaviors.

 

[WhoWee]

Care to estimate how much MORE taxes we have been paying compared to 2, 3, or 4 years ago, as a result of legislation passed by the tax-loving Dems? By my count, somewhere over $300 billion worth of NET tax cuts have been passed in the last couple of years, but obviously that must be wrong, since Dems only raise taxes, not cut them.

I you want to have an honest analysis of Democrats taxing and spending in our modern era - let's go back to Johnson.

 

[turbo]

I you want to have an honest analysis of Democrats taxing and spending in our modern era - let's go back to Johnson.

If you want to play this game, perhaps we should go back to Grant, Hayes, or T Roosevelt? Or back to Washington? Context is everything, and if you want to demonize a president by making historical comparisons, your argument fails by fiat. Taxation and spending is only relevant in context. Can we at least agree on that?

 

[WhoWee]

If you want to play this game, perhaps we should go back to Grant, Hayes, or T Roosevelt? Or back to Washington? Context is everything, and if you want to demonize a president by making historical comparisons, your argument fails by fiat. Taxation and spending is only relevant in context. Can we at least agree on that?

What game turbo? Do you want to discuss current problems or historical issues? We are dealing with Social Security and welfare programs as a component of the budget and deficits. If you want to go back beyond Johnson please explain why it is appropriate.

Keeping Bush tax cuts or not is the "game" - it's a shell game and class warfare - we need to address the problem in it's entirety.

 

[turbo]

Keeping Bush tax cuts or not is the "game" - it's a shell game and class warfare - we need to address the problem in it's entirety.

The right frames it in this way. Is it "class warfare" to ask the wealthy to support the political system that made it possible for them to earn and accumulate fortunes? The wealthy have a pretty robust entitlement program in the US and they can strip more tax dollars out of us than the apocryphal "welfare queens" could ever manage.

Why is it so hard to understand this? All the outrage over the earned income tax credit, and not a peep over the low rates for capitol gains rates. Why? Normal folks have all their income taxed at a relatively high rate. Wealthy people can often shuttle their income into categories that lower their tax liabilities. Most regular folks cannot. Why rally to protect shelters for millionaires, unless you have a reliable expectation of joining their ranks? I came from a family of modest means, born of parents who grew up in the Depression. My mother was always unconditionally supportive, but my father was absolutely horrified by my support of Goldwater.

 

[WhoWee]

The right frames it in this way. Is it "class warfare" to ask the wealthy to support the political system that made it possible for them to earn and accumulate fortunes? The wealthy have a pretty robust entitlement program in the US and they can strip more tax dollars out of us than the apocryphal "welfare queens" could ever manage.

Why is it so hard to understand this? All the outrage over the earned income tax credit, and not a peep over the low rates for capitol gains rates. Why? Normal folks have all their income taxed at a relatively high rate. Wealthy people can often shuttle their income into categories that lower their tax liabilities. Most regular folks cannot. Why rally to protect shelters for millionaires, unless you have a reliable expectation of joining their ranks? I came from a family of modest means, born of parents who grew up in the Depression. My mother was always unconditionally supportive, but my father was absolutely horrified by my support of Goldwater.

Are you in favor of a capital gains increase for everyone - or just the "rich"? BTW - I've noticed there is no mention of the death tax proposals in this thread .

Anytime you want legislation where 2 to 5% of the people are expected to pay for everyone else - and give more to the other 95 to 98% - it's class warfare.

 

[mheslep]

I don't think that's particularly useful as a historical comparison, since the total spending in chained dollars is essentially a monotonically increasing function since the beginning of time. But if that's what you want to go with, Reagan's total spending exceeds even that during WWII. Not quite the signature of a model fiscal conservative.

I think you are conflating two issues. I tried to separate these two issues above: i) absolute defense build up and its pressure on the Soviets, ii) fiscal impact on the US. For i) we want constant/chained dollars, for ii) we want percent GDP. Also a fiscally conservative President should spend primarily on that which the constitution sets aside the federal government for - defense, when it is necessary, and it was necessary in the cold war in my view.

 

[mheslep]

Cutting wasteful spending would be a start. Farm subsidies overwhelmingly go to millionaires and huge agribusinesses, not to small local farms. Ever wonder why presidential candidates all have to pay homage to Iowa? Next, stop subsidizing "fuels" that cost more to produce than they can be sold for. Ethanol from corn is a huge scam, and it is making our fuel unstable and even damaging to many small engines.

Agreed. Unfortunately the ethanol subsidy is part of this tax compromise, of all places, thanks mainly but not solely to Harkin and Nelson. Its outrageous to put ethanol subsidies in the tax package.

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- A tax credit that helps the ethanol industry appears to have survived an effort to cut or eliminate it and is likely to be in a tax package working its way through Congress, Democratic senators said Thursday.
"As far as I know they're in and should not be," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) told reporters as she headed into a vote. Sen. Tom Harkin (D., Iowa) and Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) said later that a one-year extension of the 45-cent-a-gallon credit for blending ethanol into gasoline would be added to the Senate tax package.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/12/09/sen-feinstein-ethanol-tax-credit-included-tax-compromise/#ixzz17k5jpfYE

As an aside, from living close by, I've come to know that the best party hosts in Washington, DC, are the Congressional delegations of farm states and their agricultural lobbying associations - Sugar, Cattlemen, etc. Hoards of money.

 

[WhoWee]

Agreed. Unfortunately the ethanol subsidy is part of this tax compromise, of all places, thanks mainly but not solely to Harkin and Nelson. Its outrageous to put ethanol subsidies in the tax package.


http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/12/09/sen-feinstein-ethanol-tax-credit-included-tax-compromise/#ixzz17k5jpfYE

One more excellent example of the need for smaller Bills - with a laser focus. I'd rather see nothing happen than to cram an extension of these tax rates with wasteful Pork.

 

[mheslep]

Care to estimate how much MORE taxes we have been paying compared to 2, 3, or 4 years ago, as a result of legislation passed by the tax-loving Dems? By my count, somewhere over $300 billion worth of NET tax cuts have been passed in the last couple of years, but obviously that must be wrong, since Dems only raise taxes, not cut them.

I'd care to try.

o Yes there was a little less than $300B of tax credits in the stimulus, total, over 3-4 years, some still into the future. I don't call them cuts, because they were mostly extended for things like buying a car, college tuition, energy savings features on the residence, i.e. things on which the government tells you to spend. Same goes for the business tax credits, yes for renewable energy, yes for government contractors, not so much for everyone else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#Tax_incentives

o The health care act raised tax revenues, by CBO scoring, some $550B over 2010-2019, starting mostly in 2012. These taxes are on everyone, from tanning salons (already in effect), to a 40% tax on cadilac health plans, $50k tax on some hospital orgs, cosmetic surgery, 2.5% tax on individuals who do not get coverage, etc, etc.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11355/hr4872.pdf. Table 1
http://www.businessinsider.com/heal...als-without-acceptable-health-care-coverage-9

o The Democrats, about 90% of Congressmen and the President, would have raised the top bracket income, estate, and dividend taxes $700B over the next ten years, and they still might.

Yes I think it is fair to say, on net, that Democrats at the federal level are mostly about raising taxes.

 

[WhoWee]

I just watched President Obama introduce former President Clinton at a White House press conference. The Former President then held the press conference (with the current President looking on) and spoke about the tax extension proposal being negotiated. At some point President Obama said his wife was waiting and departed - former President Clinton continued the Press conference and Gibbs stood ready to field questions afterward. What is going on - has anything like this ever happened before?

 

[Gokul43201]

I'd care to try.

o Yes there was a little less than $300B of tax credits in the stimulus, total, over 3-4 years, some still into the future. I don't call them cuts, because they were mostly extended for things like buying a car, college tuition, energy savings features on the residence, i.e. things on which the government tells you to spend. Same goes for the business tax credits, yes for renewable energy, yes for government contractors, not so much for everyone else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#Tax_incentives

Most of the tax credits were not extended for things that you had to spend money on. That's just not true. Most of it came to you through the payroll credit, the child tax and raising the AMT floor. As far as I'm aware, Cash for Clunkers was not a part of the ARRA. And the homebuyer and energy savings credits make up a lot less than 10% of the total. The vast majority of people that benefit from the tuition credit were likely already in school, but even if you throw that entire group in with those that were being forced to spend money, it still doesn't quite make it much past 10% of the total.

So far that accounts for about $150B to $200B in less taxes paid so far over the last couple of years.

And this only counts the tax provisions that arise from ARRA. There seem to have been plenty of other tax cuts that have since passed, which I have been hearing about on the radio, including the small business tax cuts that were repeatedly blocked by Republicans, but did eventually pass.

o The health care act raised tax revenues, by CBO scoring, some $550B over 2010-2019, starting mostly in 2012. These taxes are on everyone, from tanning salons (already in effect), to a 40% tax on cadilac health plans, $50k tax on some hospital orgs, cosmetic surgery, 2.5% tax on individuals who do not get coverage, etc, etc.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11355/hr4872.pdf. Table 1
http://www.businessinsider.com/heal...als-without-acceptable-health-care-coverage-9

So, until now, there has been very little additional tax paid as a result of the Healthcare Bill (less than $20B perhaps?), but if things do not change in the coming years, there will be a lot more. I'll be happy to count those dollars as tax increases at the time that they do kick in. Who knows what may happen in 2012? Parts of the bill may be amended or repealed. Other tax cuts and credits may be passed. When it's the end of 2012, we can figure out how much taxes were paid in 2012. Right now, we can only speak with knowledge of the taxes we've been paying thus far.

o The Democrats, about 90% of Congressmen and the President, would have raised the top bracket income, estate, and dividend taxes $700B over the next ten years, and they still might.

First it was a "will", then it was a "won't". Now it's a "would have". I think it's prudent to wait and see what actually happens and redo the math when we know the numbers.

Yes I think it is fair to say, on net, that Democrats at the federal level are mostly about raising taxes.

This may yet be borne out, given the time and opportunity, but so far, there is no direct evidence supporting this based on the past two tax years. Clearly, the recession forced the hand of Dems to pass tax cuts that they might not have passed under normal circumstances. But that only disqualifies any argument that the Dems are tax cutters based on their recent history; it doesn't prove that they are tax raisers.

My own personal opinion is that the Dems in office today are happy to cut taxes on low and middle income households and happy to raise them on high income households.

 

[mheslep]

Most of the tax credits were not extended for things that you had to spend money on. That's just not true.

I meant the government "tells you" to spend only in the sense of, "if you, home owner, replace your windows or buy this particular car, I'll pick up a share of the tab for you." People thus spend on thing they would not have otherwise.

 

[Al68]

Here's a suggestion - I don't know if its non-objectionable, or even terrible descriptive, but I think it's appropriate - neo-liberalism (to contrast it with classical liberalism).

Too much of a contrast. The prefix neo doesn't mean "opposite of".

 

[Gokul43201]

I meant the government "tells you" to spend only in the sense of, "if you, home owner, replace your windows or buy this particular car, I'll pick up a share of the tab for you." People thus spend on thing they would not have otherwise.

Unless I'm still missing some subtle point here, that is how I interpreted that. But the numbers don't justify it. About half the tax credits, for instance, were in the form of a payroll credit - no spending necessary whatsoever (etc.).

 

[CAC1001]

Why is it so hard to understand this? All the outrage over the earned income tax credit,

This is actually a Republican invention I believe.

and not a peep over the low rates for capitol gains rates.

If stocks, I think this is (at least in theory) because the corporations themselves pay corporate taxes and taxes on their own dividend income from investments. Income received from capital gains via stocks or dividend income the corporation pays out to the shareholders, when taxed, it thus can be a triple tax, so the capital gains and dividend taxes are kept lower than marginal income taxes.

In terms of Democrats being for "tax-and-spend," I think this is because the large social welfare state they desire to create, which of course requires lots of spending, and this inevitably requires taxes. In Europe, they fund this through ordinary income taxes, VAT taxes, I think higher fuel taxes, and also if a country like Germany, people are mandated to purchase health insurance, which is a form of tax as well (don't purchase and pay a fine).

 

[mheslep]

As far as I'm aware, Cash for Clunkers was not a part of the ARRA.

I didn't mean clunkers. I meant the sales tax deduction, which was in the ARRA:

$1.7 billion: for deduction of sales tax from car purchases, not interest payments phased out for incomes above $250,000.

(wiki)

So far that accounts for about $150B to $200B in less taxes paid so far over the last couple of years.

Yes, ok, for the ARRA.

And this only counts the tax provisions that arise from ARRA. There seem to have been plenty of other tax cuts that have since passed, which I have been hearing about on the radio, including the small business tax cuts that were repeatedly blocked by Republicans, but did eventually pass.

What you are hearing about there are numerous only in the amount of specialized, here, there, cutouts, and not any large dollar sum outside the ARRA tax credits.

So, until now, there has been very little additional tax paid as a result of the Healthcare Bill (less than $20B perhaps?), but if things do not change in the coming years, there will be a lot more. I'll be happy to count those dollars as tax increases at the time that they do kick in. Who knows what may happen in 2012? Parts of the bill may be amended or repealed. Other tax cuts and credits may be passed. When it's the end of 2012, we can figure out how much taxes were paid in 2012. Right now, we can only speak with knowledge of the taxes we've been paying thus far.

That's all beside the point, which at the moment is as raised by Who Wee: which party is more inclined to raise taxes.

I think it's prudent to wait and see what actually happens and redo the math when we know the numbers.
...
[This may yet be borne out, given the time and opportunity, but so far, there is no direct evidence supporting this based on the past two tax years. Clearly, the recession forced the hand of Dems to pass tax cuts that they might not have passed under normal circumstances. But that only disqualifies any argument that the Dems are tax cutters based on their recent history; it doesn't prove that they are tax raisers.

Whether or not the taxes have gone into effect yet ( in the case of health care) is not relevant. The Dems drafted the legislation and enacted it, and that is evidence enough. After all, the point of the discussion must be to judge a future course based on the actions of legislators taken now. I for one don't say I need to sit around until 2014 to gauge that course given we have legislation on paper.

My own personal opinion is that the Dems in office today are happy to cut taxes on low and middle income households and happy to raise them on high income households.

I agree on the income taxes, at least for the President. On other taxes like those placed on health care, no, I think that will hit everyone, especially for the case of the failure to insure 'tax'. Still the topic was not on which class the Dems may raise taxes, but whether they do or not.

 

[Gokul43201]

Too much of a contrast. The prefix neo doesn't mean "opposite of".

I don't think it should. I don't think present day Dems (to make a crude average over the positions of people in office today) are the opposite of classical liberals. I think they are fairly similar to old school liberals along the social freedoms axis, but very dissimilar along the economic freedoms axis.

 

[Al68]

The right frames it in this way. Is it "class warfare" to ask the wealthy to support the political system that made it possible for them to earn and accumulate fortunes?

Who's saying that? Nobody is saying that in this thread. The cost of that is but a small fraction of the taxes paid by the rich, and nobody is advocating that they not pay for it.

The wealthy have a pretty robust entitlement program in the US and they can strip more tax dollars out of us than the apocryphal "welfare queens" could ever manage.

Nobody is advocating that in this thread, either.

Why is it so hard to understand this?

Who is having a problem understanding that?

All the outrage over the earned income tax credit, and not a peep over the low rates for capitol gains rates. Why?

The same libertarian/conservative principles that have been explained ad nauseum to no avail.

Normal folks have all their income taxed at a relatively high rate.

Not relative to the rich in general. This has been proven repeatedly in this forum based on the CBO numbers http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml".

Wealthy people can often shuttle their income into categories that lower their tax liabilities. Most regular folks cannot. Why rally to protect shelters for millionaires, unless you have a reliable expectation of joining their ranks?

Nobody is advocating that in this thread.

It's pretty easy to argue against things nobody is arguing for, huh?

 

[Gokul43201]

The cost of that is but a small fraction of the taxes paid by the rich, and nobody is advocating that they not pay for it.

Do you have a number? I haven't seen an estimate, and have imagined it would be pretty difficult to make one.

 

[Al68]

I don't think it should. I don't think present day Dems (to make a crude average over the positions of people in office today) are the opposite of classical liberals. I think they are fairly similar to old school liberals along the social freedoms axis, but very dissimilar along the economic freedoms axis.

Yes, but I was asking about a word to describe their economic beliefs, not their social issue positions. The social issue positions of many Dems could be called classical liberal, or libertarian, and I agree with them on those issues.

 

[Al68]

Do you have a number? I haven't seen an estimate, and have imagined it would be pretty difficult to make one.

No, you're right, it would be difficult to get an exact number, but the cost of "the political system that made it possible for them to earn and accumulate fortunes" clearly excludes the overwhelming majority of the federal budget, and this is immediately obvious from a mere glance at a budget pie chart. And just as obvious is that it was very possible for the rich to "earn and accumulate fortunes" prior to the existence of the programs that constitute the bulk of the budget.

 

[Gokul43201]

No, you're right, it would be difficult to get an exact number, but the cost of "the political system that made it possible for them to earn and accumulate fortunes" clearly excludes the overwhelming majority of the federal budget, and this is immediately obvious from a mere glance at a budget pie chart.

It's not immediately obvious to me, but then I haven't given it a whole lot of careful thought. Maybe as an exercise at testing this, you could suggest a spending sector from the Federal budget pie chart that you say is irrelevant to the wealth acquiring power of the high income segment, and someone else (turbo or I, perhaps) could attempt to find ways in which it would be relevant.

And just as obvious is that it was very possible for the rich to "earn and accumulate fortunes" prior to the existence of the programs that constitute the bulk of the budget.

But were they able to earn and accumulate fortunes to the extent that they now are? I think most any measure of the wealth of the high-income groups relative to some standard measure (e.g., median income, poverty level, <you propose a suitable standard>) reveals a significantly greater ability to earn and acquire fortunes compared to the times when these programs were not in place. By the converse your argument, this points a finger towards the possibility that these programs may have been playing a role in this enhanced ability.

 

[CRGreathouse]

But were they able to earn and accumulate fortunes to the extent that they now are? I think most any measure of the wealth of the high-income groups relative to some standard measure (e.g., median income, poverty level, <you propose a suitable standard>) reveals a significantly greater ability to earn and acquire fortunes compared to the times when these programs were not in place. By the converse your argument, this points a finger towards the possibility that these programs may have been playing a role in this enhanced ability.

It's possible that I misunderstand you, but that seems 'obviously' wrong. The majority of the budget (51% as of 2008, you can check other years for comparison if you like) goes to social security, Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP/etc. (where "etc." refers to other 'safety net' programs like unemployment payments). How would these help the present rich to have gained their fortunes? (Not exactly sure what you mean by "rich", but something in the upper 50% surely, probably in the top 1%.)

 

[Al68]

It's not immediately obvious to me, but then I haven't given it a whole lot of careful thought. Maybe as an exercise at testing this, you could suggest a spending sector from the Federal budget pie chart that you say is irrelevant to the wealth acquiring power of the high income segment, and someone else (turbo or I, perhaps) could attempt to find ways in which it would be relevant.

But were they able to earn and accumulate fortunes to the extent that they now are? I think most any measure of the wealth of the high-income groups relative to some standard measure (e.g., median income, poverty level, <you propose a suitable standard>) reveals a significantly greater ability to earn and acquire fortunes compared to the times when these programs were not in place. By the converse your argument, this points a finger towards the possibility that these programs may have been playing a role in this enhanced ability.

No, because those programs aren't the only difference, and there just isn't a logical or empirically derived connection between them.

You just can't claim that the social security program, for example, is necessary for the purpose of "making it possible for the rich to earn and accumulate fortunes", and justify it in that way. Ditto for other social programs.

But I really have no interest in trying to counter a claim that the social agenda of the Democratic Party over the last century was to benefit the rich. I don't think anyone is claiming such a thing, in fact Democrats typically claim that their agenda, which represents the bulk of the federal budget, is in opposition to the interests of the rich.

But the rich do benefit from the federal government's primary purpose, protecting our liberty, to a far greater extent than the poor, and they should pick up the tab for that. Nobody is arguing otherwise, which was my point.

 

[turbo]

It's possible that I misunderstand you, but that seems 'obviously' wrong. The majority of the budget (51% as of 2008, you can check other years for comparison if you like) goes to social security, Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP/etc. (where "etc." refers to other 'safety net' programs like unemployment payments). How would these help the present rich to have gained their fortunes? (Not exactly sure what you mean by "rich", but something in the upper 50% surely, probably in the top 1%.)

Once again, SS is self-funded, and is not a drain on our budget. Alan Simpson and his pals would have you think otherwise, but it is NOT true. Small tweaks can keep SS cooking along for the foreseeable future.

 

[CRGreathouse]

But the rich do benefit from the federal government's primary purpose, protecting our liberty, to a far greater extent than the poor, and they should pick up the tab for that. Nobody is arguing otherwise, which was my point.

I've tried a few times to start discussions relating to that point here, but with little or no success.

 

[Al68]

Once again, SS is self-funded, and is not a drain on our budget.

LOL. Self-funded? The fact that it's funded from the "payroll tax" instead of the "personal income tax" makes it "self-funded"?

So if congress were to separate out taxes used to fund the military, and give them a separate name, we could call the military "self-funded"?

 

[Gokul43201]

It's possible that I misunderstand you, but that seems 'obviously' wrong.

No, I don't think you've misunderstood. In general, I hold that it is at least very hard to justify a more-or-less universal negative. An example of a universal negative is: there is no link between action A and entity B. In a system in which the elementary entities (people+wealth, in this case) interact in gazillions of different ways, it would take at least a little more than "it's obvious" to convince me of the absence of any link between different parts of the system.

The majority of the budget (51% as of 2008, you can check other years for comparison if you like) goes to social security, Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP/etc. (where "etc." refers to other 'safety net' programs like unemployment payments). How would these help the present rich to have gained their fortunes? (Not exactly sure what you mean by "rich", but something in the upper 50% surely, probably in the top 1%.)

Consider a rich (pick some suitable definition - I don't think that affects the argument significantly) person who owns a company that hires several non-rich people. The earning potential of the rich person is directly tied to the performance of the company, which depends on the welfare of the non-rich workers that help run it. And the welfare of these non-rich people is directly dependent on the programs mentioned above. Ergo, <blah>.

 

[turbo]

I've tried a few times to start discussions relating to that point here, but with little or no success.

CRG, I think that we can relate. Our country and our states (to more or lesser extents) provide an environment in which we can operate with some expectation of future stability. Is this worth nothing? People who get taxed on capital gains tax only (max 15%) and make millions of dollars a year shouldn't have to help pay for the system that provides them that security? I hope we can change things.

 

[Gokul43201]

People who get taxed on capital gains tax only (max 15%) and make millions of dollars a year shouldn't have to help pay for the system that provides them that security? I hope we can change things.

The implication here, I believe, is that they don't (help pay ...). Could you explain?

 

[nismaratwork]

I just have to say, having been here from page 1, this has been one of the most surreal threads I've ever been a part of. The way in which different people are interpreting the same data, the differences in how figures such as Reagan are viewed (often the loved and hate stem from the same sources).

Above all I'm surprised that while the current trend of the discussion has been fairly open thanks to Gokul, often this degenerates into dogmatic and polarized camps.