Re: Liberals: Defend capital gains taxes

Jesus wept!  Capital gains tax isn't all that complicated lads.  When you 
reduce capital gains tax you encourage investment which, in turn,
stimulates 
growth in the economy, creates jobs and ultimately generates more tax 
revenue.  Therefore, Obama wants to increase capital gains tax by 66%.  As

he explained when challenged on this during a debate, "It's not just about

revenue, it's about fairness".  Which indicated he doesn't have a clue
about 
the U.S. economy.  But no worries.  Obama also plans to repeal the Bush
tax 
cuts, raise taxes, raise tariffs, kill free trade agreements and increase 
entitlement spending.  ****ing brilliant!

Irish Mike


"Randolph M. Jones" <rjones@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:m76dnUuA0Nbrf4zVnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> da pickle wrote:
>> "Chris Bellomy"
>>
>>>>>>> All money is taxed multiple times.
>>>>>> You act like that is a good thing.
>>>>> No more than water being wet. It's just a fact.
>>>> Which group is yours where statements of the obvious might be 
>>>> considered profound?
>>> I'm not sure why facts drive you to incomprehensibility, but
apparently
>>> they do.
>>
>> My group limited my expositions, so I have to limit my word count.
>>
>> I was trying to find which group you frequent.
>>
>> Most folks would have understood my original comment, my response to
your 
>> reply and my request for information.
>>
>> So, if we are to start over again, I will start with my original
comment:
>>
>> "You act like that is a good thing."
>>
>> Pointing out that "taxes" are ubiquitous seemed pretty obvious to me, I

>> would hope that you meant more than just a statement of fact ... I 
>> thought you had a point in mind.  Seemed to me that you were saying
that 
>> it was good that "income" was taxed in many different ways ... at least

>> that was what I thought you might mean.  I did not think you were just 
>> stating an obvious fact.
>>
>> As a matter of fact, your response was to someone who was quite
specific 
>> that such "double" taxation was a bad thing.  You also said that his 
>> "argument is fundamentally fallacious" which, of course, misstated his 
>> comment that double taxation sucks.  He made no argument at all.  But
he 
>> did make a comment.  Your response seemed to offer a counter comment
... 
>> not an argument.
>>
>> And then, you get all snippy and continue with another statement of the

>> obvious, which led me to question which group was your group in this 
>> cross posting thread so I could visit you there and stop the cross 
>> posting ...
>>
>> (I also think cross posting sucks ... and I agree with the poster that 
>> said double taxation sucks as well.)
>>
>> So, if you could, you might respond with a little more clarity.  I have

>> used up pretty much the rest of this month's supply of words so I may
not 
>> be able to get back to you until after the May Day celebrations ... 
>> peace.
>>
>>
>
> The person he was responding to was making the argument that capital
gains 
> tax is bad *because* it is "double taxation".  Chris was pointing out
that 
> "double taxation" can't be the reason it's bad.  If you just think all 
> taxes are bad, that's one thing, but to try to distinguish between
"double 
> taxation" and not is just silly, because there's not really any such
thing 
> as "non double taxation".  I think Chris' point was obvious to most 
> people.  The question of whether "double taxation" is good or bad is a
non 
> sequitur that you introduced into the discussion.  If you want to argue 
> that all taxes are bad, then fine, but "double taxation" is just a red 
> herring, which was clearly Chris' point.