<p>
</p>
<p>Oh. My. Gosh.</p>
<p>(sorry - no disrespect intended - just thinking out loud)</p>
<p>I am seriously worried about this country.</p>
<p>My mother was thinking about what job she was going to create next. She eats a lot of Subways.</p>
<p>“…buying and selling is essentially anti-social in all its tendencies. It is an education in self-seeking at the expense of others, and no society whose citizens are trained in such a school can possibly rise above a very low grade of civilization.”</p>
<p>I have been considering Bellamy’s statement from his novel, Looking Backward all weekend. I read the book eons ago and it made an impression. Mainly because he was seeking a vision in his christain socialism of how it could be done differently. And by the way he disliked the word socialism.</p>
<p>I am just sharing.</p>
<p>He also wrote the pledge of allegiance (without the deity in it).</p>
<p>Roubini “…is capitalism doomed?”</p>
<p>[Is</a> Capitalism Doomed? - Nouriel Roubini - Project Syndicate](<a href=“http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/roubini41/English]Is”>Is Capitalism Doomed? by Nouriel Roubini - Project Syndicate)</p>
<p>Capitalism is definitely a mess…</p>
<p>And debt and delusion…millions suffer from this…</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/shiller78/English[/url]”>http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/shiller78/English</a></p>
<p>One thing that Shiller did not mention is interest rates…</p>
<p>The US 10 year is yielding …2.07%…doesn’t look like investors don’t want to lend the U S money…</p>
<p>That is a pretty low number…</p>
<p>Plus the US can print money…</p>
<p>
An instant classic! Destined to take its place beside Anatole France’s “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”</p>
<p>
And… why? Social Security taxes were deliberately raised above current needs in the 1980’s and the excess funds used to offset the deficits caused by the Reagan income tax cuts, with the result that regressive taxes on earned income have been subsidizing lowered taxes on investment income for 30 years, while our national debt increased ten-fold. Now that the “IOU’s” are coming due, suddenly it’s a crisis? :rolleyes: There is absolutely no rational reason why unearned income cannot be taxed to cover the temporary SS fund shortfall caused by the retirement of the baby boom generation, just as the opposite has been done for 30n years.</p>
<p><a href=“Questioning the Dogma of Lower Taxes on Capital Gains - The New York Times”>Questioning the Dogma of Lower Taxes on Capital Gains - The New York Times;
<p>"Proponents of lower — even zero — capital gains rates have some academic research and statistics to support their claims. Still, there’s no doubt that the root of the problem highlighted by Mr. Buffett is the disparity between tax rates on capital gains and ordinary income. Were these rates the same, the debate over how to treat carried interest would vanish, along with much of the disparity between tax rates for the rich and people like Mr. Buffett’s secretary.</p>
<p>Is that so unthinkable? It does seem intuitive that lower taxes and thus potentially greater rewards would encourage risk-taking and investment, and surely at some rate high taxes can discourage any endeavor. But even some hedge fund and private equity officials concede that the argument for lower capital gains rates rests more on faith than science. “I’ve seen study after study that says lower capital gains rates have no impact on behavior,” the hedge fund official told me.</p>
<p>That view is also backed by a growing amount of academic research questioning the premise that lower capital gains rates promote growth. The evidence “is murky, at best,” said Leonard E. Burman, the Daniel Patrick Moynihan professor at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University. Mr. Burman is also a former deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax policy in the Clinton administration and author of “The Labyrinth of Capital Gains Tax Policy.”</p>
<p>“It’s not the panacea for economic growth that advocates make it out to be,” he said. Mr. Buffett himself lent empirical support to this view in his column. “I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off,” he said.</p>
<p>Whatever benefits lower capital gains rates might generate, they indisputably complicate the tax code and have spawned a multibillion-dollar industry in tax avoidance. “Every imaginable individual income tax shelter is driven by the differential,” Mr. Burman noted. He added that the tax code was needlessly complex. “Have you looked at the alternate rate schedule on the back of Schedule D? It’s so complicated. It’s insane. That alone is a really good argument for change.”</p>
<p>But the biggest reason for equalizing capital gains rates may be that it would generate a vast amount of additional revenue for the Treasury. The Internal Revenue Service reports that for taxpayers with the top 400 adjusted gross incomes, capital gains in 2008 amounted to an eye-popping average of $154 million for each of those taxpayers, or 57 percent of their adjusted gross income, and this in a year when the stock market plunged. In 2007, it was $229 million each, or 66 percent. Much of the windfall from higher capital gains rates could be offset by cutting the rate on ordinary income. For antitax zealots who vow they won’t accept one more penny of federal tax, all of it could be offset by lower rates on ordinary income. And for advocates of reducing the government deficit at least in part through higher taxes, tax reform is an appealing approach.</p>
<p>Though controversial, this isn’t a new idea. The most prominently successful advocate of a drastically simplified tax code that treated ordinary income and capital gains the same was Ronald Reagan, who made it a centerpiece of his successful 1986 tax reform proposal. (The lower rate reappeared as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, championed by Newt Gingrich, the former Republican speaker of the House, and signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton.)</p>
<p>In the end, the most compelling argument for equalizing tax rates on capital gains and ordinary income may not be economic efficiency, growth incentives, higher tax revenue or reducing the deficit. It’s simple fairness. It’s hard to quantify or put a dollar value on a just society. “I’ve earned both, and in my experience earning income from capital gains is a lot easier than earning ordinary income,” Mr. Burman said. “Why not tax both at the same rate? It only seems fair.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When FDR set up the system he instructed that it be self-sustaining. Taxes collected for the program would be used to pay for the program. </p>
<p>Unlike other social programs, if you don’t pay into social security for enough quarters, you are not eligible for benefits. Compare that to food stamps where if you simply exist in America you can get them. </p>
<p>Social security is also different because once you qualify you get it even if you don’t need it. Warren Buffett can receive social security even though he clearly does not need it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The role of our government is to provide equal opportunity as best it can. The role is not to provide equal outcome where everyone has the same income and same assets. Why are doctors rich and welfare queens poor? They behave differently.</p>
<p>SOOO, at what magic point does raising taxes not cut into spending???</p>
<p>The role of our government razorsharp is to say we are going to try and provide equal opportunity for all…and then protect the status quo.</p>
<p>I think you are right on that, dstark.</p>
<p>Well…we agree for once. :)</p>
<p>I do think that the tax rate for unearned income should be the same for earned income. I bet we would have less of a SS problem if we taxed unearned income the same way as earned for SS taxes too. </p>
<p>We would have less dependency on the government programs if companies paid a livable wage. It is a sad day in America when two people work full time and they still have to receive government aid. Oh and the government could save a lot of money if absentee parents actually paid to feed, house and provide care for their own children instead of the government being surrogate parents.</p>
<p>Razorsharp, in post 48 you provided three true statements about social security - and not a single rational reason why income taxes could not be used to backfill a temporary shortfall in the social security budget. Not a one. And in post 49 you failed to address why an “equal” enforcement of laws which affect different groups differently is actually “equality.” Is taxing the kind of income only the affluent have at a lower rate than the only kind of income the poor and middle class enjoy really “equal opportunity?” Your facile comment about doctors and welfare queens doesn’t change the fact the we tax heirs at a lower rate than we tax teachers and fire fighters - or provide a reason for doing so.</p>
<p>But that’s OK - Paris Hilton “behaves differently” than the 9/11 first responders did - which clearly explains why her tax rate is lower than theirs. :)</p>
<p>“welfare queen” - Gawd, what an offensive term. Disgusting.</p>
<p>Today’s Doonesbury (Aug. 21 to clarify, since it’s now after midnight in some timezones) nails it:
[Welcome</a> to Doonesbury](<a href=“http://www.doonesbury.com/]Welcome”>http://www.doonesbury.com/)</p>
<p>Yep…great cartoon…</p>
<p>That Doonesbury dovetails nicely with this one…</p>
<p>[Doonesbury</a> Reminds Us That “10% Is STILL In Play” - Democratic Underground](<a href=“Democratic Underground Forums - Request error”>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1548297)</p>
<p>IOW, if the “poor” can still afford refrigerators and TVs, they have too much.</p>
<p>Jazzymom…nice…</p>