Re: Liberals: Defend capital gains taxes

"Bob T."

> Bob, I have just had a bunch of old posts show up this afternoon ...
they
> are all from recpoker. Have you (or anyone else) had a bunch of posts
just
> show up that are old?

Not that I've noticed.
==========================

I had a bunch of posts (all from recpoker) show up this afternoon ... they

are all dated April 19 or 20 ... very strange.



> On the point about multiple taxation, I disagree. The argument is not
that
> you "can't" double or triple or worse tax money as it circulates ... it
is
> that such "reality" is a "bad thing" not a good thing.

It's an inevitable thing.  If we want to have a debate about tax
policy, we should weigh different forms of taxation against each other
and debate which do the least harm to the economy, not construct
strawmen about "multiple taxation."
=========================================

I agree that all tax policy should be discussed in an open way.  For 
example, there are people that still believe that taxing "business" does
not 
have any impact of individuals.



> Taxes should be open and obvious and not hidden in holes. Every citizen
> should pay taxes if they would like to vote. The easiest solution is
that
> everyone gets to vote their taxes ... weighted by now much each pays.
This
> one person one vote stuff will eventually kill us.

Sure, and it would save poor people the trouble of voting at all.  So
what if Bill Gates could sell 1% of his Microsoft stock, pay ten
million dollars in taxes, and have more votes than the entire state of
Louisiana?  So what if Paris Hilton and Britney Spears could each vote
a hundred times for each vote cast by a doctor?  Democracy is
overrated, anyway.  Let's try a plutocracy!  If that doesn't work, we
could take one small step further and re-instate the monarchy.  Does
Queen Elizabeth have any American relations?  Or should we just hire
the artist once again known as "Prince"?  It's too bad "The King" is
dead.
=========================================

You discount the difficulty of those that have not having the power to
have 
what the haves have.

You also discount the idea that those that have are not willing to give a 
reasonable ****tion of what they have no only for the general good but also

for those that have less for legitimate difficulties.

You also tend to overestimate the ability of the bureauracracy to provide 
the best result with the resources of a populace.