Sherry Shaw wrote:
> that's who gets paid for that privilege, in the form of higher tax 
> rates.  

I wouldn't say it's a privilege, as the wealth-creator is already giving 
much back to the country in terms of creating wealth. That's why they 
get money. Everyone giving them money thinks they should have it.

Except the government. They get money because they shoot you if you 
don't give it to them.

> It's reasonable.  It's not reasonable to reward people for 
> making lots of money, because they've already been rewarded, with lots 
> of money.

Well, sure.  I am not sure why you're arguing that rich people should 
pay more taxes, since they do.

> That's my point, my whole point, and nothing but my point.  I have 
> absolutely no objection to people getting rich.  I have lots and lots of 
> objection to governments effectively handing out big stacks of cash to 
> rich people as a reward for being rich.  It's just creepy, and it 
> doesn't get the road repaired.

Sure. But as the IRS documents showed, the government doesn't seem to be 
handing out big stacks of cash as a reward for being rich.

> It's on a web page produced by a political action organization. 

It's on a web page produced by "political action organization"??

It's on a web page produced by THE F'ING CONGRESS OF THE USA!

Of *course* it's a political action organization! It's what we elect 
them for, to take political action!

I ask you again: where do you think you'd get better numbers on tax 
rates than a congressional investigation requesting the IRS summarize 
those numbers?

If you count the IRS as a "political action organization", what 
organization would you trust to give you the numbers you're asking about?

If you think the congress and the IRS are lying, then you'll have to 
come up with something more than "I don't believe it" to be credible. I, 
personally, believe the IRS is a credible source of information about 
how much taxes were collected from whom.

> How is $100K for a Lamberghini not waste, 

Because you can't get a Lamberghini for $50, even used.

 > And how in heaven's name is that Indy car different from a very
> expensive lottery ticket?

It's not. They're both investments.  Different costs, and different 
qualities, but both investments.

>> Then she has more wealth than you, because she has $5 plus $10 worth 
>> of beer, and you only have $10. If it's down to two people, you can't 
>> value "money" abstractly any more. Fiat currency doesn't work when 
>> there's only two people.

> Oopsie, you switched from "money" to "wealth" as if they were the same 
> thing, and then turned around and said that they're different.  Naughty.

I switched from "money" to "wealth" when you knocked it down to only two 
people, removing any need for money and any possibility of competition. 
I think you're confusing "money" with "currency."

This leads me to believe you don't know how wealth actually works, or 
how money actually works, or both.

> Why is investing faster than merely spending?

Oh. Because I don't expect to get back and use up the result of 
investing as quickly as I get back and use up the result of spending.

See, when you "spend", you trade some money for some stuff, and then 
you're done. I "spend" money on rent, because once I write the check, I 
have a month's worth of shelter in my pocket.

When I invest, it takes much longer to recoup my money, and maybe I'll 
never get value from it. I spend money to buy a house that I plan to 
rent out to others. But it takes me years and years of collecting rent 
to get the value of my investment back.

Investments are when you give other people money in order to enable them 
to create value, then taking part of the value they create in return for 
having created the opportunity. Since there are many more people out 
there than just me who are capable of creating value given the 
opportunity, I can invest much more in other people than I can spend on 
myself.

I can buy rental houses for lots of renters, whereas I couldn't live in 
more than just a couple myself.

>> It's called "not understanding the fuckage that is the USA tax system."
> 
> There's that.  And also not understanding the whole "buy low, sell high" 
> thing.

No, they bought low and unfortunately sold lower because the tax laws 
encouraged that. Of course, they were taxed *as if* they sold high.

I see you've never run into the AMT before.

Spending $5000 to buy and selling for $2000 isn't a disaster. Owing 
$100,000 in taxes on that transaction because folks like you think that 
being able to keep your own money is somehow a privilege? That is the 
problem.  Folks who don't know that there's a difference between wealth 
and money.  Of course, the government prefers money the treasury can 
forge, so you are required to pay your taxes in FRNs. If the folks I was 
talking about were able to pay their taxes in stock certificates, it 
also wouldn't have been a problem.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message