The Tea Party

[Liberty1]

Of course it occurs, there are statists everywhere. Doesn't mean I like it, don't have my own beliefs or opinions and won't express them. Statists look to politicians and government for solutions, I prefer to have my own and want as little to do with the government as possible in my personal life.

So, I assume you agree with my opinion of you.

[Rick]

Lib1 even Jefferson had to compromise...

[Gob]

Of course it occurs, there are statists everywhere. Doesn't mean I like it, don't have my own beliefs or opinions and won't express them. Statists look to politicians and government for solutions, I prefer to have my own and want as little to do with the government as possible in my personal life.

So, I assume you agree with my opinion of you.

if I said my opion of you was a coward who will not act on his convictions and go and live in Somalia, or ther libertarian heaven, would you agree with my assesment of you?

[Liberty1]

As far as I know, somalia does not have a Constitution that limits and enumerates the powers of the central government, so no I will continue to try and educate the statists here and prevent them from bastardizing the US. But thanks anyway.

Still don't hear you disagreeing with my opinion of your beliefs.

[Gob]

Well I do disagree with this description of me; "Somone who's maintains the political phylosophy that emphasises the role of the state in politics or supports the use of the state to achieve economic, military or social goals," as it's totally fucking illiterate. So why not try again?

[Sue U]

eliminating the distinction between capital gains and ordinary income

Capital gains is earnings from money you put ask risk that you had already paid taxes on. Take away the risk if you are going to tax it like ordinary income, pay back losses. Of course that wouldn't be capitalism, but that's my point with your comment, it isn't either.

That is a specious distinction. Income is income regardless of whether it is derived from selling one's labor or one's property. The value of capital is no more "at risk" than the value of labor.

eliminating most corporate tax subsidies

Agreed, but I would say all. But elliminate all corporate taxes as well. As we know, corps just pass that on in their prices which is just another complication to the tax code and a way for pols to be pols.

By that "logic" no one should pay taxes on anything because the cost is passed on in the price of whatever it is the taxpayer does to generate income.

closing loopholes that allow corporate tax avoidance

Loopholes are just laws that some people don't like. Aside from that see comment above.

No, loopholes are designed into the system by lobbyists and special interests who influence legislators to create exemptions and exceptions.

eliminating the cap on social security payroll taxes

Fine as long as you elliminate the cap on benefits too. fair is fair

Why is that fair? Social Security is intended to guarantee a minimum income for those presumably out of the work force. What is "fair" might be to restructure it as a means-tested beneft rather than an entitlement, but I think that should be an absolute last resort.

100% estate tax on amounts in excess $1 million

Nazi

Me and Teddy Roosevelt.

[Sue U]

I would echo that request re Sue...

Her suggestion however:

100% estate tax on amounts in excess $1 million

Is outrageous....a prescription for economic disaster, and a bonanza for large corporations at the expense of small business...

It would, among other things:

1. Wipe out every single remaining family farm in this country within one generation (I'll bet Archer-Daniels would be a big fan)

2. Do the same to a huge percentage of small businesses (Walmart would certainly stand up and applaud)

3.Compel the inheritors of small manufacturing businesses subjected to this confiscation to either fold up shop or sell off to larger businesses at fire sale prices...

4. Throw all the employees of these businesses out of work

5. Make the capital flight from the US we have today look like a trickle compared to the tidal wave that would take place as huge numbers of people scrambled to transfer their assets to countries with less draconian policies....

6. Force people to transfer all of their assets to their children prior to their deaths, leaving them entirely dependent on the goodwill of their kids, (and their spouses) for their well being.

It's difficult to imagine a single more destructive and counter productive policy than this one. It's both economic insanity, and down right immoral.

Your parade of horribles is not supported by the actual data. For example:

Reality: The number of small, family-owned farms and businesses that owe
any estate tax at all is tiny, and virtually no such farms and businesses have to
be liquidated to pay the tax.

The estate of only 0.24 percent of all people who die in 2009 (i.e., the estates of
between two and three of every 1,000 people who die) are expected to owe any estate
tax, according to the Tax Policy Center.2 And only about 1.3 percent of the few
estates that still are taxable are small business or farm estates.3

Moreover, even if your assertion were true, what is so sacrosanct about "the family farm"? If it is so economically inefficient that it cannot survive without effective subsidy, why are you so hot to preserve it? Shouldn't the invisible hand of the market be left to do its work? Or do you still mourn the demise of the buggy whip industry?

Further, transfers of property can be effected in numerous ways other than an inheritance at death, and there is no reason that transfer of a farm or business to one's children can't be accomplished by sales that for example, might be paid for over time by income generated from the farm/business, or by distribution of shares in an S-Corp or through creation of a partnership.

And if there is some genuinely legitimate policy interest at stake in certain industries or types of transfer, it is not terribly difficult to create an exemption in the tax code.

[dales]

And if there is some genuinely legitimate policy interest at stake in certain industries or types of transfer, it is not terribly difficult to create an exemption in the tax code.

Sue is a one-percenter.......I knew it all along.

[Rick]

She's a tax lawyer...

[Sue U]

Sue is a one-percenter.......I knew it all along.

Hey, them's fightin' words!

She's a tax lawyer...

I'm a trial lawyer (mass tort, product liability, other personal injury). I was in a Tax Honors program (special concentration in tax) in law school, because it was fun and challenging, and the professors were great. I almost went on to get my LLM in tax, but I found it more rewarding to help victims of asbestos disease than to structure deals saving rich people lots of money. Go figure.

[dgs49]

It is a supreme irony that one can be extremely knowledgeable about tax law, and yet be oblivious to the fundamental concept of OWNERSHIP, as it applies to tax law. That is to say, the wealth that one accumulates during one's life belongs to the person who has accumulated it (absent theft in one form or another), and the government has no right to any of it.

The very idea that simply because it is transferred from a deceased person to a survivor somehow ENTITLES various levels of government to confiscate a portion of it is absurd.

Governments perform necessary functions that must be paid for by a combination of user fees, excise taxes, and, regrettably, income taxes and borrowing. The government has every right to lay taxes on the population to fund its legitimate functions (set forth, mainly, in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution), but the concept that government has a right to take money from the population simply because the individual may not NEED IT, is utterly ridiculous. And yet, the entire Democrat ethos is based on this absurdity. The "rich" (actually high earners) must pay their "fair share."

And the more you earn the more you owe?

OWS is a tribute to this bit of stupidity.

[Rick]

That is to say, the wealth that one accumulates during one's life belongs to the person who has accumulated it

I know nothing about these matters but isn't the key to this the part in bold?

[Sue U]

You are exaclty right, Keld. It is the transfer of wealth that is taxed. dgs49 may not like it, but that is how the system works.

[Liberty1]

Lib1 even Jefferson had to compromise...

If we held to what Jefferson comprimised to, I would be estatic.

Well I do disagree with this description of me

I don't see you as a pure statist, I think we have held a few similar views, like my take on the hypocrisy of the anti-smoking people and a few others. And I've not noticed so much in recent months. I'll try and point it out as it comes up.

That is a specious distinction. Income is income regardless of whether it is derived from selling one's labor or one's property. The value of capital is no more "at risk" than the value of labor.

Really, you're too smart to be that ignorant of capitalism. I guess tax law has nothing to do with capitalism. My father invested in a startup company in the 70s, lost every penny. THAT is putting post-taxed money at risk. It is far far different than selling something at an mutually agreed to price, whether it is property or labor.

By that "logic" no one should pay taxes on anything because the cost is passed on in the price of whatever it is the taxpayer does to generate income

I'm not even sure if that sentence makes any sense. A company sells a product. If they are taxed at 10% of profit, they will maintain their margins by increasing the cost of the product to the consumer. It's not that complex of a concept.

No, loopholes are designed into the system by lobbyists and special interests who influence legislators to create exemptions and exceptions

So you agree

Me and Teddy Roosevelt.

Progressives both.

[Rick]

Since Jefferson was the model for Libertarian thought.

Any acquiescence to governmental control would death blow to libertopia.

It was then, it is now...

[dgs49]

I completely understand that it is the transfer of wealth that is taxed, but what difference does that make? Just because it goes from one person to another does not entitle Government to confiscate it. Even sales taxes do not confiscate a portion of the corpus - it is only inheritance/estate taxes that do that.

Capital gains taxes are equally absurd. Government places nothing at risk, adds nothing to the bargain, yet it confiscates a portion of the profit.

Thankfully, it's not all that much.

And of course, the only chance my heirs would have to pay a Federal Estate tax would be if I were to hit the lottery, but as the saying goes, "You gotta play to win," so that ain't happening either.

This is all theoretical to me.

[Andrew D]

Is there any tax that you support?

[Liberty1]

I have a novel idea. Have government add up their expenses, divide by the number of citizens and residents call that a tax bill.

[Scooter]

Because they tried it in the Middle Ages and realized it didn't work very well.

[Sue U]

Is there any tax that you support?

I'd guess "poll."