Kurt Ullman wrote in news:- LSdnXspmvHe9g3SnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:
About six lines above, for example. "those in the higher brackets pay a higher effective rate..." with no qualifiers such as "on average" or "some".
And I'm *still* waiting for you to admit that income from capital gains is taxed at a lower rate than income from wages or salaries.
" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
If I remember correctly, the US was designed in stages. The current concept is one of the US overriding the individual states (in many aspects - we'll see about health care ). This followed the failure of condfederated state envisioned by the original articles of confederation. The process leading to the Constitution didn't make the US a failure. Similarly, it was abominable nonsense for the Europeans to think that a common currency would work without a common and top-down fiscal and economical policy. That is what almost no state in Europe is willing to confront, yet. The US Constitution turned out much better, despite the continuing fights about "states' rights", and Eurpe will/should follow in those footsteps. I just hope that there will not be anything like what some here call the recent unpleasantness ...
Heck Europe has been able to engage in multiple unpleasantnesses (WWI and WWII for example) even w/o the monetary overlay. I would posit that this probably main reason no one wants to even discuss giving up sovereigty for a true "United States of Europe".
...or, of course, "all.
taxed at a lower rate
If you consider that capital gains has already been taxed as profit, you'd likely be wrong.
higher effective
is taxed at a lower rate
There is only taxation involved if the capital gains stream came from a business that involved profit that was being taxed. I think what you're saying is that the business paid taxes over the years so when the business or stock in the business is sold, the lower rate is justified.
You could have capital gains from the sale of a house, land, coins, gold, corn futures, etc that don't involve an income stream.
By the same token, selling an item on Craigslist for 1/2 its purchase price can be a capital loss (taking into account depreciation, etc.).
The Constitution has been amended eighteen time, and several courts have invented "penumbras", and such, sure.
Considering that the current argument before the Court has nothing to do with "states rights", I'd say you're FOS, as usual.
It not considered a "failure" because it has lasted two hundred some odd years. The USE hasn't even been born yet, and it's already failing miserably. War will probably ensue. They're good at starting such things but again, they have no means to conduct it, anymore than my declawed cats have.
I think that's what I said. ;-)
There will. History puts the odds greatly in my favor.
higher effective
taxed at a lower rate
Dividends are also capital gains, and taxed (at least) twice.
True.
Depreciation is only of interest if you've claimed it.
a higher effective
ns is taxed at a lower rate
Dividends are *not* capital gains, though they too receive special tax treatment. Capital gain is strictly the profit from the SALE of an asset. Dividends are an income stream from a stock. As such, your claim of double taxation is most clearly applicable to dividends. In the case of a stock, it's less clear. Best example of that would be the internet bubble of
2000. You had people taking huge profits in stocks that had no earnings and where the companies never paid taxes. If those captial gains were not taxed, there would have been no profit paid at all on the gains, by the company, etc." snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
Indeed
The current CONCEPT of the Constitution, not necessarily that of the currently greatest case before SCOTUS.
You didn't realize you had the right analogy? Before the Constitution there were the Articles of Confederation. That latter concept was discarded, since it didn't work without a strong central authority.
Yes.
War these days would be in the courts, I hope ...
As usually, we are closer in actual philosophies than you realize ...
"The current CONCEPT of the Constitution" says it all. You have no regard for it at all. It means whatever you want it to mean. You really don't like freedom, do you?
You really don't understand the Constitution, at all.
Laugh! That's certainly not the Europeon way.
Bullshit. You have no regard for the Constitution, or this country.
At a town meeting in Boston in 1765, James Otis, Jr shouted out "Taxation Without Representation is Tyranny". Unfortunately, Mr. Otis died in 1783 so he did not see the Whiskey Tax of 1791 and the subsequent Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. Had he seen those events he would have most likely said "Taxation With Representation is still Tryanny"
So whenever somebody says "Tax Fairness", "Tax Simplification", Tax Equalization, etc, I reach for my under my pillow and click off the safety catch on my Smith & Wesson.
There are two choices. The first is an open rebellion which is somewhere between ignorant and stupid. The other is to vote the bastards out of office. This is a federal election year for the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Simply vote for the candidate most likely to defeat the incumbent as in vote Republican against an incumbent Democrat and Democratic against an incumbent Republican.
Dick
-- Richard D. Adams, CPA (retired) Moderator: Misc.Taxes.Moderated and Misc.Legal.Moderated
With Chicago Thug politics, and electronic vote counting. Do you think the voters actually have that power, now days?
Diebold: You vote, we decide.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus
There are two choices. The first is an open rebellion which is somewhere between ignorant and stupid. The other is to vote the bastards out of office. This is a federal election year for the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Simply vote for the candidate most likely to defeat the incumbent as in vote Republican against an incumbent Democrat and Democratic against an incumbent Republican.
Dick
-- Richard D. Adams, CPA (retired) Moderator: Misc.Taxes.Moderated and Misc.Legal.Moderated
That is a failed strategy. Why would you vote blindly to put a Democrat in to replace a Republican when the Democratic party is clearly in favor of more big govt, more govt employees, more govt programs, and most importantly more govt spending that is bankrupting the country?
I can see returning some moderate Democrats that are closer to the middle. But that isn't the mainstream Democratic pary of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. So to suggest that the solution is to throw out Democrats and replace them with Republicans and vice-versa is nuts.
The fed debt increased several trillion under GWB, so both sides of the aisle appear to be deficit spenders. Perhaps time for a third party?
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus
That is a failed strategy. Why would you vote blindly to put a Democrat in to replace a Republican when the Democratic party is clearly in favor of more big govt, more govt employees, more govt programs, and most importantly more govt spending that is bankrupting the country?
I can see returning some moderate Democrats that are closer to the middle. But that isn't the mainstream Democratic pary of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. So to suggest that the solution is to throw out Democrats and replace them with Republicans and vice-versa is nuts.
It actually increased by about $5tril in eight years. And I agree the Republicans were also spending too much money. But there is a difference. The deficit then was steadily declining and was down to $160bil. By comparison, under Obama the deficit has gone up by $6tril in just three years. Some of that is attributable to the recession. But the govt today is taking in more money than ever before, yet we still have a $1.2tril deficit.
So, whatever excess spending the Republicans were guilty of in the past, what's going on now is an order of magnitude worse. And the Republicans, particularly the Tea Party folks, have apparently gotten the message and actuall are willing to tackle the spending problem.
So, just blindly throwing out everyone and replacing them with someone else whether they are a Republican or a Democrat is a failed strategy.
We all need to learn more about Jesus. But you need to learn that only Sons of Perdition Top Post.
I believe in the ballot box. If you don't, your only alternatives are accepting slavery or engaging in insurrection. Neither alternative should be acceptable to a rational human being.
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe
Well, the USA was started with an armed insurrection.
And, I happen to like being a Son of Perdition. I'd prefer to be a son of Petition. I'm making my voice known.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus
We all need to learn more about Jesus. But you need to learn that only Sons of Perdition Top Post.
I believe in the ballot box. If you don't, your only alternatives are accepting slavery or engaging in insurrection. Neither alternative should be acceptable to a rational human being.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.