Tlaloc, so you take one aspect of one group's opinion, effectively rebutted by the Fair Tax people, and conclude the idea is bogus?

I take the conclusion reached by an impartial group, that also matches independent consensual reality, over the pipe dreams of the highly prejudiced people promoting the fair tax. Yep. Sue me.

Glad I don't work for you. As I said, intellectual dishonesty, or is it laziness?

My choice not to humor the kind of people who think the Fair tax is A) better and B) possible is a function of there being entirely too many nutters and not enough hours. Develop me a pill that makes sleep optional and maybe I can slot you in between the 9/11 truthers and the guys who insist the moon landing was faked.

*kisses*

Capital gains don't really represent income. It represents the increase in the value of an asset, which can be driven upward by many things, including just plain inflation.

But isn't it the case that a capital gain only occurs when an appreciated asset is sold? That is, an appreciating asset that is simply held does not represent a cap gain, right?

I think a fundamental issue worth discussing is whether unearned income should be privileged over income earned from work. Personally, I am not so sure.

I imagine that someone might reply, "Well, that unearned income was earned sometime." That's true, but I am not willing to privilege massive intergenerational transfers of wealth over income generated personally by work.

YMMV.

As usual, someone hasn't done his homework. Just more intellectual dishonesty.

*shrug*

The fair tax is essentially an over glorified sales tax, in other words the most regressive tax there is. Your "intellectual honesty" is neither impressive nor convincing.

Here's fact check's conclusion:

We found that while there are several good economic arguments for the FairTax, unless you earn more than $200,000 per year, fairness is not one of them.

fact check

Tax the rich and hard working more and see how much more they want to work, there is an economic law for this its called law of diminishing returns. Why work more if it nets me less.

That's a feature, not a bug. If you somehow get into a position of making a million dollars an hour I really really want to encourage you not to work more than one hour a year. Why? Because I don't care about productivity so much as equality. Specifically income equality in this case.

Again why? Because income inequality is a huge engine for a the various bad things (TM) going on right now. Income inequality promotes social instability and irresponsible behavior of the kind we've seen at Enron and more recently AIG. To say nothing of the literally deadly behavior of WR Graces and Union Carbides of the world. It is because we have a system where people are allowed to become obscenely wealth compared to the mean that people behave in utterly unscrupulous ways to be obscenely wealthy.

As long as we promote life as a rat race we'll never be better than vermin.

So by all means work less. Maybe read a good book, or spend some time with the family. Take up a hobby or a cause. If my proposed tax structure encourages that over a "grab as much as you can" mentality then I'm proud.

Tlaloc, I agree totally with your proposal to make the income tax schedule more progressive. However, I'm not sure that we should do the same with capital gains. Interest, sure. Dividends, sure. Capital gains, no. Capital gains don't really represent income. It represents the increase in the value of an asset, which can be driven upward by many things, including just plain inflation.

I'd be amenable to an inflation correction. Beyond that though I don't really see the difference between capital gains and other forms of income except that capital gains you don;t have to actually work for. And yet we tax them less. This clearly promotes the accumulation of wealth by the already wealthy (i.e. those who can afford to leverage their current wealth into things that will bring in capital gains, rather than having to work for a living).

As usual, someone hasn't done his homework. Just more intellectual dishonesty.

No shock for that.

And I must say, I've been rather ambivalent about Boortz's flat tax proposals, much as I've come to respect the man in general.

That said, however, let's look at the reality of the thing. The current government isn't about to give up that kind of power... and that's really what the current tax structure represents; power. A flat tax would certainly eliminate the kind of social redesign that's always been the darling of the left.

But perhaps most important of all; Anything that so frightens the left leaning denizens in here must be worth serious consideration.[/snark]

Noted tax expert Ari Fleischer is back on the case
Posted by Justin Fox

Because the last thing we need right now is a more regressive tax structure.

As usual, someone hasn't done his homework. Just more intellectual dishonesty.

Start by adding half a dozen or more tax brackets above the current maximum which starts at a paltry quarter million. Then tax capital gains the same as income.

Tlaloc, I agree totally with your proposal to make the income tax schedule more progressive. However, I'm not sure that we should do the same with capital gains. Interest, sure. Dividends, sure. Capital gains, no. Capital gains don't really represent income. It represents the increase in the value of an asset, which can be driven upward by many things, including just plain inflation. Capital gains needs to be treated as special case, which reflects its true essence as capital itself, not the earnings generated by capital. Worse, we want patient capital, which means that some investors might be leaving their investment in an asset for five, ten or more years, which society wants. Those folks we want to encourage, so capital gains with long time horizons might be rewarded with no capital gains tax. Those speculators who invest for short periods of time (less than a year, say) might pay a premium of multiples of the base tax rate. As a society we don't want hot money which leads to stupid financial tricks but we do want to reward patient investors.

Why don't any of you bring the Fair Tax into your musings?

Because the last thing we need right now is a more regressive tax structure.

It's been acknowledged, there just hasn't been any solution proposed that is acceptable to our social norms.

You keep increasing taxes on the top end until the inequality stops growing and starts shrinking. Start by adding half a dozen or more tax brackets above the current maximum which starts at a paltry quarter million. Then tax capital gains the same as income. Lastly buff up IRS enforcement and give them incentives to go after the big offenders rather than the little guys.