"DSK" wrote in message
...
Walt wrote:
The problem lies in that the tax rate changes depening on how you make
the money. If you *earn* it by *working* it's taxed at a higher rate
than if you obtain it without working. That's my main beef with the tax
system.


Agreed.

Liberal.

A guy who busts his ass working as a plumber or a ditch digger pays a
higher rate than a guy who makes much more flipping condos or bonds. And
the guy who makes money flipping condos in turn pays a higher rate than
the lucky offspring of the well to do who "earn" their fortune simply by
virtue of outliving their parents.


Well, you have to pick your parents. The big problem with the inheritance
tax is
1- it seems to resonate with a lot of angry voters who themselves aren't
going to inherit anything except car payments and possibly a mobile home
2- it is burden... often unbearable, literally... on small family
owned-businesses that are assessed by their average gross. The burden is
unbearable and the business is sold (usually for not much money) when the
net is much smaller and the cash flow won't support the tax assessment.
One way to fix this would have been to seperate inherited propery from
inherited businesses.... but that was never even proposed AFAIK.


Plus, workers whose salary is more than $90k don't pay FICA on the amount
over that. If you make money via dividends or capital gains, no FICA is
due at all.


That would be one way to try to fix Social Security long-term, but the
same angry voters won't hear of it.

Ever consider why those voters are angry? Could it be that they react to
basic unfairness, despite not being privy to such wealth? You seem to be
from the "if it doesn't affect me, then stick it too 'em" school of
"ethics."

Max

Walt wrote:
The problem lies in that the tax rate changes depening on how you make
the money. If you *earn* it by *working* it's taxed at a higher rate
than if you obtain it without working. That's my main beef with the tax
system.


Agreed.


Maxprop wrote:
Liberal.


Not really. It's just a mainstream sense of what's fair.
I suppose, with the tremendous shift to the right these last
few years, "fair" appears to be a somewhat liberal concept.




That would be one way to try to fix Social Security long-term, but the
same angry voters won't hear of it.


Ever consider why those voters are angry? Could it be that they react to
basic unfairness, despite not being privy to such wealth?

The basic unfairness of what? A plan to keep grandmothers
from starving on street corners?





... You seem to be
from the "if it doesn't affect me, then stick it too 'em" school of
"ethics."


???? Are you referring to my lack of sympathy for people who
expect Social Security to support them in luxury? I thought
that was a rather conservative (certainly it's fiscal
conservatism in action).

But hey, you should feel GREAT! After years and years of
calling me a liberal, for absolutely no reason other than
that I can logical & factual support for my statements & you
can't, I have now actually said something LIBERAL!

LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL!!!!

Better go shout it from a few roof tops, Max!

DSK