Taxes

.Perhaps you in a fully free market society; Canada and many European countries have a single payer system and are still thought of as free societies.

And where do some Canadians go when they need medical services they can't get to or have long waits in Canada? Single payer has been found to create backlogs when people go for every sniffle. People tend to maintain healthier lifestyles when they have to pay for their own medical services. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

You are answering something I never asked; you stated that single payer socialism had no place in a free society. I was wondering whether you really meant free society or free market.

You are answering something I never asked; you stated that single payer socialism had no place in a free society. I was wondering whether you really meant free society or free market. Originally Posted by discreetgent

He has no idea what he meant. He makes sh*t up as he goes along.

Eliminate preferential treatment of capital gains and dividends over $5 or $10k per person. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Those are certainly popular items on the left's wish list, but it's important to understand why they could do a lot more harm than good.

Big increases in capital gains tax rates never raise anywhere near the revenue predicted by static analysis, and often don't raise significant additional revenue at all. This somehow seems mysterious to a lot of liberals, but experienced investors understand the issue quite well. There is a very clear negative correlation between aggregate realizations and the top tax rate on capital gains.

Another problem with high capital gains tax rates is that they produce an impediment to the flow of capital. The economy suffers when capital does not flow freely into sectors, industries, and companies deemed the highest and best use by investors and entrepreneurs. Further damaging the economy with another wave of bad economic policy is not exactly something we can afford right now.

Raising the tax rate on qualified dividends (now 15%) to 35% (or 39.6% in the future, as planned) would also produce negative unintended consequences. Since most of them are obviously not interested in paying income taxes at a 39.6% rate, high net worth individuals would simply divest themselves of large amounts of issues that pay high dividends, putting downward pressure on their prices. Many retirees and other individuals of rather modest means depend, at least in part, on income from dividend-paying stocks. Although most of them (especially if retired) may not be in high income tax brackets, their portfolios would be devalued by selling pressure on high-dividend stocks. I don't think most of us want to see the non-affluent lose net worth, even if just by a few percentage points, as a result of bad tax policy.

When politicians fire bullets at the wealthy, they often hit a lot of people who aren't so well off.

You are answering something I never asked; you stated that single payer socialism had no place in a free society. I was wondering whether you really meant free society or free market. Originally Posted by discreetgent

He has no idea what he meant. He makes sh*t up as he goes along. Originally Posted by Doove

LOL!!! I scoff in your general direction. I don't sweat either of your bleets.

The single biggest threat to our country is not terrorism, it is not foreign oil, IT IS OUR DEFICIT. We have to get our deficit under control and get out of debt. I think debt service accounts for some 30% of the budget. If we could diet for a few years and get things paid off....then lower taxes to a more reasonable level....then you would see our economy take off not seen since post WWII.

Federal employees don't have collective bargaining for pay and benefits. Originally Posted by pjorourke

work rules are inefficient and expensive ya know

work rules are inefficient and expensive ya know Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

No union should have collective bargaining for work rules. Work rules are the essence of management.

The single biggest threat to our country is not terrorism, it is not foreign oil, IT IS OUR DEFICIT. Originally Posted by FatBastard

Word!

I was wondering whether you really meant free society or free market. Originally Posted by discreetgent

You mean they aren't the same thing?

You can't have a free society without free markets.

You mean they aren't the same thing?

You can't have a free society without free markets. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Do you consider Denmark, Sweden, Norway to not have free societies because they have many socialist policies? They have free markets but are far more socialist than the US.

The single biggest threat to our country . . . is not foreign oil, IT IS OUR DEFICIT. Originally Posted by FatBastard

Dependence on foreign oil is contributing to the deficit. It cannot be a separate issue.

I said if you don't have free markets, you don't have a free society.

Free markets are a necessary, but not sufficient condition for a free society.

Dependence on foreign oil is contributing to the deficit. It cannot be a separate issue. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Its contributing to the trade deficit, not the Federal deficit.

Dependence on foreign oil is contributing to the deficit. It cannot be a separate issue. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Its contributing to the trade deficit, not the Federal deficit. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Is it not one of the reasons for our excessively bloated defense budget?

Score one for I B Hankering.

Is it not one of the reasons for our excessively bloated defense budget?

Score one for I B Hankering. Originally Posted by Doove

Well then you could blame the whole damn thing on stupid environmental policies that keep us dependent on foreign oil -- Drill baby Drill!