KaskadskyjKozak

Quit while you are behind, my friend. :-)

It was a pleasure finally meeting the great Ivan, although, based on your stature, I will consider you more as a Piotr Velikiy than an Ivan Groznyj in my mind henceforth.

clowns are scary

or in my case a fat fuck even if I do walk it. :-)

LOL. Irony. j_b is so above the fray.

because you are his intellectual equal.

nOOb!

+1

and cutting programs. both.

You sure talk about this kind of stuff a lot Ivan. Just saying wish i could take the credit for that wonderful bit of dark poetry I bet you're from Texas, or named Lawrence...

the ticks are horrible - everyone should stay away ;-)

You sure talk about this kind of stuff a lot Ivan. Just saying

Cool, we can agree on something: estamos fudidos.

Does anybody? true, Jay's weaving has just gotten particularly irksome lately. like your "double taxation bollocks" now that you think it should be treated like income are you ever happy?

Does anybody?

i neither throw my hands up nor pick the simplest course of action in a moment - i don't mind and frequently do discuss details ad nasuem, and just point out eventually its time to stfu and DO somethign other than bitch back and forth - my sense of "tax the rich" is a broad one, and really, not divorcing myself from the group to pitch in - fuck, as a public employee, for years now i've acquiesced w/o excessive complaint to no small amount of sacrifice for the Greater Good - end exemptions, increase marginal rates, thresholds, whatever, just bring more cash in and jesus-fuck, quit spending inordinately on dipshit stuff like the maintainence of a global empire Does anyone know the history of cap gains taxes? I am too lazy to look myself. :-) And why are there only 2(?) brackets? Seems the structure of cap gains taxes (progressive) could/should be closer to that of income, no?

just don't drop any c-bombs and you'll be fine

Picking a simple course of action (tax the rich more) because it "feels like the right thing" is just as bad as "throwing up one's hands" (which nobody said to do, actually, but, hey manufacture the position of others who disagree with you anyways - a tactic you are fond of) Gov't can always grow and spend more than they currently are. There is a limit as to how much you can tax the rich, and any proposal's benefit actually needs to be evaluated for efficacy (i.e. impact on the 1.65 trillion dollar deficit). But hey, pontificate some more, throw out the term "sociopath" a few hundred times more and talk about how smart you are and dumb everyone else is.

as if the choices are that "simple".

Can you point to the spike in revenues under policy conditions that best approximate that set of policies? There is a flaw in that plot. The top marginal rate has not always been set for the same salary - even normalizing for inflation. For example the 90% of the past may have applied to someone making $1,000,000 in today's dollars, but the 35% rate applies to those making, say, more than $250,000.

54 billion - from 35 to 37%? only 1.59 trillion to go!

How much of the 1.65 trillion dollar deficit (see pie chart above) will be eliminated by raising the top marginal rate from 35% to 39%?

yeah, like Bubba donating 6 pairs of used underwear!

Legalize it and people would not need to hide their plants indoors to grow.