Re: Liberals: Defend capital gains taxes

da pickle wrote, On 4/25/08 7:40 AM:
> "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.

Oh. rsfc. My apologies.

> 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.

I think it's neither good nor bad. It just is. And, as such,
it puts the arguments about double taxation to bed. All taxation
is double taxation in some sense.

> 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.

"Double taxation sucks" is a fundamental and oft-used premise for
decrying capital gains taxes. The problem with it is that if one
believes that premise to be sufficient to abolish the CGT, he can
then go forward and abolish every other tax. There's nothing special
about the CGT where "double taxation" is concerned.

> 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.

Fair enough, hopefully this helps.

cb