Re: shuttle disaster
On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 01:59:12AM -0600, DvB wrote:
> Nathan E Norman <nnorman@incanus.net> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 09:22:33AM -0600, DvB wrote:
> > > Nathan E Norman <nnorman@incanus.net> writes:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 11:34:51PM -0600, DvB wrote:
> > > > > "James Buchanan" <jamesbuch@iprimus.com.au> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Famine victims OK, but nobody has mentioned the people living in
> > > > > > poverty in America. Boost welfare, more education funding, subsidise
> > > > > > pay rises for the lowest paid workers... ooops, America's budget all
> > > > > > gone ;-)
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <sarcasm>
> > > > > Of course! If we spent that much, people with enough money to have
> > > > > significant amounts of it in taxable stock accounts wouldn't be able to
> > > > > keep it all!
> > > > > </sarcasm>
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, after all it's not their money .. they just worked hard to earn
> > > > it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You don't "work hard" for stock dividends. You just put your money in
> > > stocks and they come all by themselves... although I guess I did word
> > > that a little strangely.
> >
> > Did the stocks buy themselves? Where'd that money come from? "Just
> > put your money in stocks" is oversimplifying the issue a bit, don't
> > you think?
> >
>
> And you think that clicking a few buttons on e-trade or calling
> Vanguard's tolls free number and filling out a form entitles people to
> tax-free income? Not any more than any other form of work (assuming the
> above qualifies as work) does.
If you want to have a debate, try to not put words into my mouth.
Obviously I never said any such thing. I know I never thought it
either, and I'm quite certain you don't know what I think.
What I was originally objecting to was your seeming assertion that
people with a lot of money (i.e. more money than you have) don't need
or deserve it and thus the government should take it back.
> > I find it deliciously ironic that so many people use the Internet to
> > complain about the "evils" of capitalism and the United States of
> > America.
>
> I think I have a right to complain about my own country and how my tax
> dollars are used. Or, in this case, what millionaires get tax cuts
> instead of me (even if my stock investments were in taxable accounts
> rather than tax deferred, the tax savings from untaxed dividend income
> would be negligible).
Again, I never said you didn't have the right to complain. Do you
always place words in the mouths of others?
Anytime I hear people talking about "millionaires getting tax cuts" my
bogometer goes off. I find that many people who make such statements
lack knowledge of economics. This may or may not apply to you.
In any case, you missed the irony altogether. That's ok.
> A better way to "lower taxes for all Americans" would be to increase the
> amount of income that's taxed at the lowest level (currently the first
> $10,000 are taxed at 10%, IIRC).
I think the point of the dividend tax cut is to spur investment. I
think we can safely deduce that most people receiving dividends are
investors. The idea is that investors will spend or invest even more
money which in turn will spur the economy. There seems to be ample
evidence that investment spurs econimic growth (though haphazard `,
reckless investment often yields "phantom" growth).
You obviously do not agree. As you frantically point out, that is your
right. That doesn't mean you _are_ right :-)
By the way, isn't it a fact that the 2001 tax cut package, while
lowering marginal rates, is in fact a more "progressive" tax scale?
--
Nathan Norman - Incanus Networking mailto:nnorman@incanus.net
Exhilaration is that feeling you get just after a great idea hits you,
and just before you realize what's wrong with it.
Reply to: