(03-28-2022 10:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-28-2022 09:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-28-2022 08:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-27-2022 12:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-27-2022 11:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That’s how I read it too - hence to connection to statements advocating that everyone have some skin in the game in terms of federal taxes. It’s the same principle, but it’s been scaled up.

Where do you see the disincentive to investment happening? Are you thinking it would encourage those above the specific bracket to move funds away from business and into liquid assets? Or something else? I just don’t immediately see what change in behavior this would have in respect to investment behavior.

How do you figure this is a 'everyone has skin in the game' issue?

Income tax always has been, and should be, an 'accession to wealth' issue. I dont think you have thought through the underlying issues when it comes to the interactions of capital gains, depreciation, pass through loss, or any number of very relevant issues in your blanket label there, tbh.

But please answer my question above. The issue isnt a 'everyone has skin in the game', the only issue is that progressives are continuously pissed off at the whole idea of distinction between income taxes on capital gains and income taxes on ordinary income.

The issue isnt 'everyone has skin in the game', currently everyone who has an accession to wealth already has 'skin in the game', notwithstanding your characterization above. That is everyone *except* the 57% who dont pay income taxes whatsoever.

So, with all due respect, please cut with the rhetoric, especially when it is not very accurate. The issue is singular -- in progressive minds people who have more assets should shoulder even more responsibility than they already do. Again, your characterization is inaccurate, and it might be best if you ditch it.

I related this to "everyone has skin in the game" because it's the same idea - setting a base level of skin that people must have in the game. For people making under $X it's >0%, for people making over $Y it's >20%. Hence the "it's the same principle, but it's been scaled up."

Actually it is not. 'Everyone has skin in the game' means the 57% that paid NO income taxes last year actually do.

This is saying 'some of those that have the temerity to be paying some capital gains taxes as part of their taxes, should now be held to a minimum higher rate'.

Radically different.

Quote:I said this was the same principle.

And again, it is not. Notwithstanding your marriage to that idea.

Quote:But don't let words get in the way of you doubling down on being rude when it's really not necessary, in the slightest.

I will denote an empty rhetorical flourish as just that. If it offends you, dont make an empty rhetorical flourish.

Quote:Hell, I even agree with you that progressive minds agree that people who have more assets should shoulder even more responsibility than they already do (which is completely in line with my comments above that you misunderstood). I've always taken issue with the liberal/progressive line of the wealthy "paying their fair share" because they already do foot a lot of the bill. But I don't personally have a problem with a policy that clearly asks them to shoulder more responsibility. Like Uncle Ben said, "with great power comes great responsibility."

Amazing, you just said, when boiled down, 'I dont agree with it, until I do'. I'll just leave that at that.

In short, capital gains taxes are lower because of risk element -- all investment has associated risk. In the hive progressive mind, fk the risk, we want more of your earnings. Now in the progressive hive mind, and explicitly so, it is 'you have X assets, to fk with the issue of capital gains issues considering inherent risk' simply because someone has more zeros in their net worth.

Yep, bleed out those that have something.

I wont bother getting into issues of capital return, loss carryover, depreciation, or a whole slew of issues relating to the issue. In the hive mind, the idea of capital and taxation can be summed up as 'more than 8 digits, fk 'em we want more'. Does that sound accurate to you?

Yes, I am married to an idea I find to have merit. You are married to the idea that it's meritless and here we are. At least I'm not acting like an ******* cus you disagree with my perspective.

toodles

Actually, you are acting like ****** (whatever that was) when you stomp off to avoid further discussion.

If your ideas have merit, present them, don't just leave when we disagree with you.

Taxes are necessary, but excessive taxes on the wrong people are not. There are consequences to your tax "idea" that go far beyond just money raised. I would love to discuss this with you, but you stomp away insulted at the least disagreement.

Nothing snide about "toodles". (for those keeping count)