Clarify away. I enjoy it when you do, but am suspect of awkward prose when I don't know if it's hiding dazzling brilliance or baffling bullshit.

I don't think consistency has anything to do with taxes. In general owning a house is a good thing that can benefit anyone. Education may or may not, and certainly isn't going to be a one time huge income infusion likely to be taxed at confiscatory levels.

Don't read that stuff, davey-do luv. It gets you all agitated. Yes, dear boy, it is beyond outrageous to compare garden-variety "liberals" with Sept. 11 terrorists. It may even have been over the top for Rod Paige to call the teacher's union a terrorist organization. <snicker> You didn't hear that.

Is this religious war politically driven, or media driven? Who's on first?

Could you please let me in on your criteria for judging taxes, then?

Otherwise, it appears that you'll find some justification or other for the taxes you like and against those you don't on a case-by-case basis.

I dispute that "owning a house is a good thing that can benefit anyone". In addition, the "bump" in income that can result from one receiving e.g. one's J.D. (and passing the Bar) or one's MBA from a prestigious university can be significant.

In addition, "confiscatory levels" my foot. Unless one is already above the highest income tax bracket, the chances that all of the proceeds from the sale of a house the value of which has appreciated will be taxed at the so-called "confiscatory levels" of about 1/3 are nil.

It wasn't that brilliant but it certainly wasn't baffling bullshit. At least, not intentionally so.

Capital gain is not income.

Your house value could gain 5% per year in value while inflation is 6% per year. In the 70's and 80's a lot of capital gains tax used to be paid on gains that weren't.

Economics uses too few words to mean different things. Take "real." Realizing a taxable gain on real property that lost real dollar value, is really a tax on losses.

Ward, I am talking about actual income from the sale of appreciated stock.

I am all for getting rid of all inconsistencies which result in "phantom income" being taxed.

I am interested in all actual, real income, from all sources, being treated as "ordinary income" for income-tax purposes.

That's the way the government does it. case by case.



Dispute all you want, but people have to live somewhere and if they OWN it under todays tax system they can live AND save a bit of a nest egg over the long haul.

Nobody said the "bump" wouldn't be signifigant. But not everyone can afford or wants to get an MBA from a prestigious university.



High enough to take a bite out of even poor folks. The people that could use the one time profit most.

The point is that when Nomarchy is king it will be.

1. So, basically you have no response. You have no criteria for judging taxes. Fair enough.

2&3. What's with this nest-egg business? Why is the business of government to "encourage me" how to fend for my housing and "nest-egg building" needs?

4. It's not confiscatory. You said "confiscatory" and now you're back-tracking. Poor folks do not have enough of an income before selling their house and realizing income from it so that the latter increment will be taxed at anything like confiscatory levels. Why, exactly, it is better that their regular income from work is double-taxed from dollar number one than having their income from the sale of appreciated stock (including "real" property) be single-taxed as ordinary income?

Oh really? How do you figure?

When Nomarchy is King, he will have to change his posting name.

I've got one term for y'all. Regicide.

I think the proper question is, "who attacked whom and tried to trample whose rights"? You could take it from there.

Please note how Bart drops out of discussions like this when the become totally FUBAR, but does enjoy watching the remaining participants go at it.

I've noted that you have been reticent to advance a position on any particular policy, as has AV. There is an argument to support the "greater good" of taxing income differently by source, but it sure hasn't been stated here.


Perhaps it's just taken on faith.

Or perhaps we would rather just tease Nomarchy than debate.

The tax code is what it is precisely because there is no singe criteria.



Why should the government be in the business of keeping me from building self-sufficiency AND providing welfare if I cant?








adjective
1. taken by authority: taken legally or forfeited

2. having forfeited property: having had property taken away legally or by forfeiture







Backtracking? I think not.

My own cheapo house in worth about 95k. Add 95k to the poverty level for a year and tax it all as income and a poor person would lose thousands.

NOW you are adding in your payroll tax argument, but it hasn't been included since yesterday. Please quit using misdirection and induction in the discussion. Plus, if you want to complain about poor people and payroll taxes figure in the EITC and the payout schedule as well as the "double taxation".

Why don't you add something of value? As far as I can tell you're just here to taunt us in Nomarchy's name.

If you have a unified field theory of taxation please fill us in.

You asked how to measure greater good. You got your answer. I've seen nothing pointed my way from you since that time.

Want to get specific? Get specific. But at this point I consider the whole discussion FUBAR, as stated above.

In support of A.V.'s distinction between "regular" income and "occasional" income:

Why the Capital Gains Tax Rate Should Be Zero by NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS

You can do that when you become King.

I'll tell you what. My capital gain vote goes for keeping a first home exempt once in a lifetime after 55, and indexing gains for inflation at the very least.

Now, it's your turn.

I just love it when people who have nothing to add complain about others not wanting to debate.

Well your Google does beat Cowpattie's nothing.

What is your set of criteria?



I have no idea. Do you?



So, you mean to tell me that a 1% tax on any income is equally confiscatory as an 85% tax on it, right? Hey, everyone, the State of California and Los Angeles County together confiscated 8.25% of my income when I bought some detergent. I feel "robbed", my property has been "taken away legally or by forfeiture".



Wait a second. Are you telling me that selling your house would result in an additional 95k in your pocket, after you've subtracted the purchase price of the house?



NOW I am adding it? Get out of here, my man. Debate honestly. You're the king of misdirection and mis-induction. And, tell me, do you dispute that the vast majority of people whose income is from work, pay payroll tax on their entire income? And on top of that, pay income tax on that part of their income from work that is subject to income tax?

For all your bitching about being for the poor people, and all your ranting and raving against socialists and the rest of it, when it comes down to it, you couldn't care less about anyone else except yourself.

What is your point? What exactly do you want? You go back and forth between wanting verifiable evidence and arguments and wanting baseless rhetoric. Make up your mind.

I'll go along with both of those. Also, I would go along with a scheme that taxes income from the sale of appreciated stock over 4-5 years.

I'll take some factual rhetoric , as long as it's concise and to the point.

How's that:

The NCPA piece I referenced earlier is full of shit.

Cool. I’m with you on leaving a first home out of the income equation, for several reasons:

Purchase of a primary home is not an activity that constitutes a trade or business. In principle, It’s consumption, not a business. Besides, I like the “greater good” effect here, as Bart would say.

As for multiple houses purchased for rental, depreciation, and sale, that’s all income. I’d be favorably inclined to indexing for price inflation, but implementation specifics can be problematic – unintended consequences and such.

If you referenced something that's full of shit, does that make you full of shit?

Nah, cause I noted it was in support of a.v.'s points.

That's cool.

In keeping with the season and as we used to say back home, back in the day. You're as full of shit as a Christmas turkey.

I've heard of oyster stuffing, but that's a new one on me. Must be a southern thing.

Consider what they are doing when they put the giblets back in the turkey to cook.

To be more accurate, it's an Appalachain thing.

Personal residence exemptions are already more lax than your proposals. If you have lived in your home (first or not) for at least 2 of the last 5 years, your fed capital gains is waived up to the first $250,000 (500k if married.)

Using the same criteria, if your personal residence loses value, you cannot deduct those losses from other gains, or earned income.

Are you copyrighting all your posts in preparation for a battery of lawsuits?

I have lawyer Gary Lackey on retainer.

If it's a federal case I 'll call in the big guns.

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/

uh oh. Ned ain't so nice.

That's the guy that represented me against the ATF. They tucked tail and ran after he sent them two letters.

The ATF?

No kidding?

You ain't BSing?

I shit you not. It was all over a non publicized rule making. Well, when they found out who my lawyer was and his experience, they gave it up.

One is MORE confiscatory.





I bought it for 50, halfway through the life of the mortgage it's near 100, I figure by the time it's paid off it will be up to 150 if I do a bit of remodeling and fix up the yard.





Yes, they do. So what?



If I were to advocate that which is most advantageous to me now I wouldn't care what the tax rate was, would be for all sorts of socialist programs and take advantage of them. Take the standard lefty rant about greed and selfishness elsewhere.

Agreed.

Could it be that the key to honesty, accountability and ethics, lies with accountants?

Well, those outside the employ of arthur anderson?

From the link

How would a consumed income tax work?
Think of an unlimited individual retirement account. You would simply list your income -- including, possibly, all your fringe benefits and other goodies that are currently excluded -- then subtract everything you save and invest and calculate tax on what is left. Investment earnings would be taxed once they are cashed in and you have used them to buy something.

Why would interest deductions need to go?
Because if you can deduct interest on a loan, invest the money, and earn tax-free profits, you essentially get a government subsidy for investing. That would open up a new world of tax shelters and destroy the benefits of reform. Worse, it would create a system where only wages are taxed. That would be unfair to working people. And a wage tax could never produce enough revenue to fund the $2.4 trillion the government spends each year.

Don't many experts argue that a consumption tax is the way to go?
Only if done right. That would require eliminating interest deductions and other tax breaks -- a tall order for politicians. But if Washington did adopt a well-designed consumption tax, would be simpler than the current code, it would eliminate the double taxation of capital income, and sharply reduce the use of shelters. And most economists believe it would boost growth at least by a few tenths of a percent each year. Economist Alan J. Auerbach of the University of California at Berkeley figures it would push up gross domestic product by 9% over several decades. But a consumption tax's biggest virtue, say supporters, is that it is fair. "You work and save. I work and don't. Why should you pay more tax than me over your lifetime?" asks Urban Institute senior fellow C. Eugene Steuerle, who helped draft the 1986 tax reform.

I only wish we actually considered total system overhaul.
Noma, is it that you are opposed to this idea of reform, or is it you don't trust Bush to implement it fairly, or some combination?

OK, Bart, I am hearing you. And I will continue to think about your perspective on it as the issue arises (it seems nearly a constant now). I listened to an NPR report today on Islam in Europe. Tied in nicely with your reports from The Netherlands. There is a lot of dispute, and a lot of problems, with whether Muslims can live in countries with secular governments. That is exactly what I do not want to see further fanned upwards here.



Kewl.



Kewl squared.

Smerf, I don't think we've met. Hi. If one didn't believe in the afterlife, then sacrificing oneself to save another. Otherwise, no.

I wish you were serious; you could join my club. I'm only half serious -- but only half joking, too.