Not everyone who serves in the military is on the front lines, in the line of fire. There are many support positions, and a variety of career paths – pretty much whatever you need in civilian life, you have in the military i.e. doctors, nurses, engineers, logistics personnel, project managers etc. And not every civilian occupation is free of risk. Would you like to be an ER doctor in an inner-city hospital? Or an undercover police officer dealing with drug dealers? (Think “Miami Vice”)</p>
<p>Rangel’s comments display the same type of disparaging attitude that John Kerry showed in his remarks about “study hard or you end up in Iraq.” There are terrific opportunities in the civilian world for those who have served their country, especially for those who are educated professionals.</p>
<p>I agree that there should be rewards for investment in education, time and talent. However, many people living off inheritence and capital gains did not make that investment, and it is only luck that afforded them the opportunity to be born into their family of origin.</p>
<p>Of course everyone isn’t on the front line, but for Army or marine recruiting, it is very likely that enlisting is putting one in one the bottom rung, which is not the logistics peronnel or project manager. One has to earn those stripes, and the new recuits are not in that position, so indeed, signing on for Iraq, at the moment, is signing on for the front lines, and all of the inherent dangers therein.</p>
<p>Luck is involved in every aspect of life – one’s intellectual abilities are probably the biggest factor. Your health, opportunities etc are all functions of luck or chance. In any case, the money in an inheritance has already been taxed. I just don’t think it’s fair for the government to simply abscond with it.</p>
<p>So you think that the new young fireman is not also putting his life on the line? How about the five firefighters who died in Southern California recently. What about traffic fatalities? Enlisting in the military is an opportunity for many – in return for their service, they reap certain benefits. The work involved is not a secret.</p>
<p>There are inherent risks in many lines of work.</p>
<p>I think there happen to be far greater risks, at the moment, in volunteering to go to fight in Iraq, than in being a young fireman. Yes, one could die in either capacity, but it appears that the chance of ending up in a body bag is far greater for the young Marine than the young fireman.</p>
<p>“There are inherent risks in many lines of work.”</p>
<p>However in a non-military or police role, risk takes the form of an accident. Trapped in a forest fire is not the same as trapped in a crossfire. The forest fire doesn’t intend to kill the firefighters, an ememy combatant does. </p>
<p>As far as volunteering doesn’t mean you’ll end up on the frontlines… just where is the front line in this one? That is the biggest problem for our troops is not knowing where or when the ememy could pop up. there is no where in country that a service person can let their guard down a little.</p>
<p>“Earnings from investments have typically already been taxed, at the corporate level and also at the individual level when you used your net income to purchase such an investment.”</p>
<p>The funds my employer collects have already been taxed, too. But I have to pay again when they arrive in my check, and again when I spend them on goods and services. Taxation enters the picture with each transaction – the money changing hands. Taxes are generally levied against persons and corporations, not against sums of cash.</p>
<p>“the money in an inheritance has already been taxed. I just don’t think it’s fair for the government to simply abscond with it.”</p>
<p>No one on the thread has suggested the government should. But I don’t see why the government should be so lightly taxing the dividends I earn on my inheritance when it “absconds” with over a third of what I earn by the sweat of my brow. If the government wants to tax those two incomes at different rates, then it should be incentivizing work, not lazy reliance on Great-Grandpa’s work 100 years ago. If they cut the capital gains tax to zero, which is a classic Bush Sr. idea, I could probably retire at 40. How does it benefit the economy or the government for me to drop out of the workforce? It’s a perverse incentive, IMHO.</p>
<p>Why 0% capital gains tax? Because wealth can be created by both labor and capital. Efficient and appropriate use of capital can result in great leverage for wealth production, whereas there are just so many hours in the day that one person can work.</p>
<p>But then I believe both capital and labor should be taxed at low rates and the government shrunk to fit accordingly.</p>
<p>Regarding another comment somewhere that cash is generally not taxed, I seem to recall when I lived in either Washington or Oregon that they had something called an “Intangible Tax”. You paid a tax on the balance in your bank, brokerage and other accounts. So much for encouraging savings.</p>