<p>“What do they want you to say? Yes, we working Americans really love it, especially paying more taxes, while your maids and contracters enrich your life on my hard work.”</p>
<p>Ah, the secret of corporate socialism. (“and I know that, if I just worked a little harder making your even richer, I might be able to hire a housecleaner once a month too!”)</p>
<p>“while your maids and contracters enrich your life on my hard work. Comedy of the absurd, I am sure to those reading.”</p>
<p>You are too funny! I just love your posts in whatever incarnation.</p>
<p>I am sorry Felix12 and zoosermom, I do not see how I was insulting or being insensitive to anyone here. If I have, I apologize.</p>
<p>All I am saying is that the Bush tax cuts such as lowering taxes on dividends and capital gains have NOT done good by the working Americans and HAVE provided a windfall for the rich people “with maids, contractors”. What I am saying is that this is not a good status quo and I welcome the expiration of those tax cuts.</p>
<p>And BTW, ZM, I think you might have mistaken me for someone else, I have never called you a nazi or nazi-like. I remember someone else saying that to you a few weeks ago. I try to treat people with respect even when I disagree.</p>
<p>“I am sorry Felix12 and zoosermom, I do not see how I was insulting or being insensitive to anyone here. If I have, I apologize.”</p>
<p>I was not offended. I was enjoying a nice conversation with a nice poster.</p>
<p>We conservatives give most generously to charities and don’t sit around bragging about it. We just do it.</p>
<p>VP - there used to be a CC poster named Tommybill who seemed to delight in tormenting Zoosermom. Oddly, he never posts at the same time as Felix 12. When Zoosermom gets prickly you can usually bet that it’s in response to a trollish post by one of those (?) individuals, not you.</p>
<p>Is this new or did I miss it earlier?</p>
<p>Was I making you prickly, Zoosermom?</p>
<p>Is Tommybill around? Want to prove we are different ■■■■■■?</p>
<p>May I suggest careful reading by all?</p>
<p>The Tommybill I know is a sweetheart.</p>
<p>VicariousParent has made a good point: the Republicans have done a good job of making dissimilar people think they have similar interests. This is an example, making middle and upper-middle class people with primarily earned income think they have the same interest in tax policy as people with a lot of unearned income. Another example is making people who feel strongly about conservative social issues think that they have interests in common with people who are interested in conservative economic policies.</p>
<p>“Another example is making people who feel strongly about conservative social issues think that they have interests in common with people who are interested in conservative economic policies.”</p>
<p>Actually, we do have a lot in common. To not vote for democrats for all sorts of good reasons.</p>
<p>ZM: Nothing wrong with making strategic alliances to fight a common enemy but as the “enemy” transforms, perhaps the old alliances don’t make that much sense. I think Huckabee is on to something. Social conservatives and economic liberals have a lot in common.</p>
<p>“ZM: Nothing wrong with making strategic alliances to fight a common enemy but as the “enemy” transforms, perhaps the old alliances don’t make that much sense. I think Huckabee is on to something. Social conservatives and economic liberals have a lot in common”</p>
<p>Oh I think that’s very, very true, but the “enemy” this election is the exact same tax and spend liberal, no matter gender. I read somewhere that Hillary is considering going after Obama as a liberal, which I find uproariously funny.</p>
<p>I think the biggest fallacy is that issues fit neatly into bundles labelled “liberal” and “conservative.” This gives us odd results: for example, it is very difficult to oppose both abortion and the death penalty. (And those are both “social” issues, in a sense.)</p>
<p>" think the biggest fallacy is that issues fit neatly into bundles labelled “liberal” and “conservative.” This gives us odd results: for example, it is very difficult to oppose both abortion and the death penalty. (And those are both “social” issues, in a sense.)"</p>
<p>That’s also very true. One can only prioritize. I consider myself pro-life, but do not vote on that issue, so I don’t consider candidates’ views on that (I also oppose the death penalty). My top two are illegal immigration and taxes, so I choose my candidates based on those. Which is why I’m REALLY not in love with John McCain.</p>
<p>There are good reasons for capital gain and dividend to be taxed at lower rate. Dividend tax is double taxation. Capital gain does not take into account of inflation of the basis. Lower capital gain and dividend tax benefit those who are willing to save for the future. They also invest in the economy and results in more jobs.</p>
<p>The problem of capital gain tax is not that it is lower, but that it is essentially a fixed rate (except for the lowest two bracket). What they should do is do it like in Canada and some other countries, where capital gain is given a discount and then it is added back to the ordinary income, so the rich pay effectively a higher rate for the capital gain because it goes up with their tax bracket, and the AMT would prevent from paying too little.</p>
<p>And that would also get rid of the painful 1040 dividends and capital gain tax worksheet.</p>
<p>Lower capital gains and dividends (than other countries) also encourages foreign investment into the US, helping to offset our (im)balance of trade, and not to mention taxes paid for foreign nationals and foreign corporations. :)</p>
<p>A few years ago a bipartisan panel of experts (commissioned by Bush) had come out with some suggestions to simplify the tax code. Unfortunately it was dead on arrival. It is ironic that the Republicans who complain loudest about taxes were in total control of the legislative and executive branches of government at the time but nobody had the political courage to do anything about the report. </p>
<p>[President’s</a> Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform - Final Report - November 1, 2005](<a href=“http://www.taxreformpanel.gov/final-report/]President’s”>http://www.taxreformpanel.gov/final-report/)</p>