Post by agito on Aug 27, 2008 20:23:24 GMT -6
You know me- if i'm posting something here, it's because it's more crap
RAHN: Confusing wealth and income
Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth
taxes are bad mmkay.....
and indeed, for anyone that parses between the lines of what Rahn is saying, one would have to say that he thinks no taxes at all are better than taxes.
he gives us 2 examples of families of income earners for comparison.
family one:
The first family consists of a wife who has recently become a medical doctor, and she makes $160,000 per year. Her husband is a small business entrepreneur who makes $110,000 per year, giving them a total family income of $270,000 per year. However, they are still paying off the loans the wife took out for medical school and the loans the husband took out to start his business, amounting to debts of $300,000. Their total assets are valued at $450,000; hence, their real net worth or wealth (the difference between gross assets and liabilities) is only $150,000.
family beta:
The second family consists of a trial lawyer who took early retirement and his non-working wife. They have an annual income of $230,000, all of it derived from interest on tax-free municipal bonds they own. However, their net worth is $7 million, consisting of $5 million in bonds, a million-dollar home with no mortgage, and a million dollars in art work, home furnishings, automobiles and personal items.
obviously we aren't talking about joe schmoe pulling in the median income (~15$ an hour). got another question for you though, $230,000 yearly off of 7 million in assets? .... 30 freakin percent in interest?!?!!?!?!? FUCK YOU. Make that 70 million in assets and now i know who you are talking about.
anyways- back to his point.
The second family is clearly far better off financially than the first family, yet many in the U.S. Congress, including Sen. Barack Obama, want to increase taxes on the first (and poorer) family and not on the wealthier family.
hmm an attack on congress or an attack on Obama? which is it.
I say it's an attack on .... Republicans! Afterall, aren't they the ones who want to make the 15% tax on capital gains permanent? Think about it- if the capital gains tax was comparable to the progressivity of the income tax, then the second family would pay as much as the first family if not more. the first family has business writeoffs and a tax deductions on those oh so oppressive school loans that Rahn mentioned. (i'm going to guess Rahn didn't pay student loans, i forgive him for overlooking this).
so- i bet he's going to bring the blame where it ought to lie right?
Mr. Obama also says that he wants to increase the capital gains tax.
maybe he's giving credit where credit is due?
Many people have times in their lives when they reap a substantial capital gain from the sale of a farm or small business or a vacation home, etc. If they receive a couple of hundred thousand dollars or more from the capital gain, they appear to be "rich" in that year, according to Mr. Obama's definition, even though they may have an average yearly income of less than $100,000 and net assets of less than a half-million dollars. They will not only be taxed at a higher rate, but if the asset has been held for many years and has grown in value no faster than inflation, they will be taxed on imaginary income, and may well suffer a real loss - which is not only economically destructive but immoral.
ah- ok- taxing on wealth is bad.... wait a minute- wasn't the proposition that started this piece the fact that family #2 didn't pay enough taxes on their wealth?
Those who confuse taxable income with wealth are guilty of both sloppy use of language and sloppy thinking. Is it prudent to trust the writing of the tax code to a group of sloppy thinkers? - emphasis mine
endorsement for the cato institute anyone? anyone? .. ben stein - u out there?
RAHN: Confusing wealth and income
Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth
taxes are bad mmkay.....
and indeed, for anyone that parses between the lines of what Rahn is saying, one would have to say that he thinks no taxes at all are better than taxes.
he gives us 2 examples of families of income earners for comparison.
family one:
The first family consists of a wife who has recently become a medical doctor, and she makes $160,000 per year. Her husband is a small business entrepreneur who makes $110,000 per year, giving them a total family income of $270,000 per year. However, they are still paying off the loans the wife took out for medical school and the loans the husband took out to start his business, amounting to debts of $300,000. Their total assets are valued at $450,000; hence, their real net worth or wealth (the difference between gross assets and liabilities) is only $150,000.
family beta:
The second family consists of a trial lawyer who took early retirement and his non-working wife. They have an annual income of $230,000, all of it derived from interest on tax-free municipal bonds they own. However, their net worth is $7 million, consisting of $5 million in bonds, a million-dollar home with no mortgage, and a million dollars in art work, home furnishings, automobiles and personal items.
obviously we aren't talking about joe schmoe pulling in the median income (~15$ an hour). got another question for you though, $230,000 yearly off of 7 million in assets? .... 30 freakin percent in interest?!?!!?!?!? FUCK YOU. Make that 70 million in assets and now i know who you are talking about.
anyways- back to his point.
The second family is clearly far better off financially than the first family, yet many in the U.S. Congress, including Sen. Barack Obama, want to increase taxes on the first (and poorer) family and not on the wealthier family.
hmm an attack on congress or an attack on Obama? which is it.
I say it's an attack on .... Republicans! Afterall, aren't they the ones who want to make the 15% tax on capital gains permanent? Think about it- if the capital gains tax was comparable to the progressivity of the income tax, then the second family would pay as much as the first family if not more. the first family has business writeoffs and a tax deductions on those oh so oppressive school loans that Rahn mentioned. (i'm going to guess Rahn didn't pay student loans, i forgive him for overlooking this).
so- i bet he's going to bring the blame where it ought to lie right?
Mr. Obama also says that he wants to increase the capital gains tax.
maybe he's giving credit where credit is due?
Many people have times in their lives when they reap a substantial capital gain from the sale of a farm or small business or a vacation home, etc. If they receive a couple of hundred thousand dollars or more from the capital gain, they appear to be "rich" in that year, according to Mr. Obama's definition, even though they may have an average yearly income of less than $100,000 and net assets of less than a half-million dollars. They will not only be taxed at a higher rate, but if the asset has been held for many years and has grown in value no faster than inflation, they will be taxed on imaginary income, and may well suffer a real loss - which is not only economically destructive but immoral.
ah- ok- taxing on wealth is bad.... wait a minute- wasn't the proposition that started this piece the fact that family #2 didn't pay enough taxes on their wealth?
Those who confuse taxable income with wealth are guilty of both sloppy use of language and sloppy thinking. Is it prudent to trust the writing of the tax code to a group of sloppy thinkers? - emphasis mine
endorsement for the cato institute anyone? anyone? .. ben stein - u out there?