“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.”
Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll
We seem to have lots of Humpty Dumptys in politics, their words mean what they choose, not what most people think they mean.
Take the “Freedom Caucus”. What do they mean? It certainly doesn’t mean freedom to govern ourselves according to generally accepted rules. To them it means freedom to do what they damn well please, to hell with whoever else's freedom they tromp on.
Just what are “conservatives” conserving. It certainly isn’t resources. It certainly isn’t careful consideration before making any changes. To too many “conservatives” it means either conserving the power of large corporations or conserving a very narrow view of religion. ironically, the latter don’t hold the former to “you cannot serve both God and Mammon.” - Matthew 6:24.
As I’ve written more times than some of my readers would like, “free market” means, according to the Humpty Dumptys is again, free for the sellers to do as they please. To them the free market is not providing buyers with all the information they need and is not avoiding externalities such as pollution and worker safety. These to them are impediments to “free markets”.
“Liberals” misuse words also, but their goals tend to be more friendly to the general populace. But sometimes their “liberality” works counter to the general welfare or unnecessarily creates opposition to certain desirable goals: like letting people lead the lives they choose.
I think “gay marriage” has lost a lot of otherwise “liberal” votes because many supporters have a different view of marriage. I’ve always thought this problem should be dealt with by a “granny rule”. If two grandmothers choose to live together, is it our business whether they sleep in the same bed or in different rooms? It is “our business” if one of them dies. Does the survivor have to sell the house to pay the inheritance of the deceased’s children and grandchildren? To avoid this situation, any group of people who choose to live together should be able to have a civil contract that protects the interests of each member of the group.
Showing posts with label inheritance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label inheritance. Show all posts
Sunday, March 26, 2017
Monday, August 20, 2012
The political spectrum – from wrong to wronger
The conventional idea of the political spectrum from left to right is as if one adapts different ideas as one moves smoothly from one side to the other. But people aren't so easily graded as eggs. Some people are for ideas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, and other are against all six. Some people are for ideas 1, 2, and 3, and against ideas 4, 5, and 6. Others are for ideas 1, 3, and 6 and against 2, 4, and 5. And so on.
But a group of activists or diehard or hard-nosed have determined that if you are for ideas 1, 2, and 3 and against ideas 4, 5, and 6, then you are a conservative. If you are against ideas 1, 2, and 3 and for ideas 4, 5, and 6, then it is obvious that you are a liberal.
Even the labels conservative and liberal are misnomers. If you are for liberal extraction of resources then you are a conservative. If you are for conservative extraction of resources you are a liberal. If you are liberal in what powers should be given to corporations you are a conservative. If you are conservative in what powers should be given to corporations you are a liberal.
About the only thing conservative about conservatives is keeping privileges and powers to themselves. About the only thing liberal about liberals is spreading privileges and powers to larger and larger numbers of people.
So, Mel, what about your title "from wrong to wronger"?
That was a bit of whimsy based on my dissatisfaction with political discussions, mostly spectrum categorizations.
Many of the "liberal" causes don't excite me. Sure, two people who share some property should have rights of inheritance. I have many gay and lesbian friends, but I don't get excited about celebrating their status. I buy as much as I can locally, but on the other hand I'm not going to give up bananas and coffee because they are transported so far.
Most of the way "conservative" causes are presented excites me even less. Many regulations may be hard to fathom, but let's not get rid of all regulations. Do we want unsafe trucks on the highways and tainted food? Freedom is a nice idea, but "freedom" doesn't mean free to do whatever one damn well pleases. Abortions may be something to avoid if possible, but bombs cause lots of abortions without the mother even having a choice.
It is tough to be a thoughtful voter nowadays. Even if you like idea A of the conservatives and idea B of the liberal, they all muddy the waters so much that I'm afraid too many people are going to stay home on election day. As for me, I'll vote for wrong over wronger.
But a group of activists or diehard or hard-nosed have determined that if you are for ideas 1, 2, and 3 and against ideas 4, 5, and 6, then you are a conservative. If you are against ideas 1, 2, and 3 and for ideas 4, 5, and 6, then it is obvious that you are a liberal.
Even the labels conservative and liberal are misnomers. If you are for liberal extraction of resources then you are a conservative. If you are for conservative extraction of resources you are a liberal. If you are liberal in what powers should be given to corporations you are a conservative. If you are conservative in what powers should be given to corporations you are a liberal.
About the only thing conservative about conservatives is keeping privileges and powers to themselves. About the only thing liberal about liberals is spreading privileges and powers to larger and larger numbers of people.
So, Mel, what about your title "from wrong to wronger"?
That was a bit of whimsy based on my dissatisfaction with political discussions, mostly spectrum categorizations.
Many of the "liberal" causes don't excite me. Sure, two people who share some property should have rights of inheritance. I have many gay and lesbian friends, but I don't get excited about celebrating their status. I buy as much as I can locally, but on the other hand I'm not going to give up bananas and coffee because they are transported so far.
Most of the way "conservative" causes are presented excites me even less. Many regulations may be hard to fathom, but let's not get rid of all regulations. Do we want unsafe trucks on the highways and tainted food? Freedom is a nice idea, but "freedom" doesn't mean free to do whatever one damn well pleases. Abortions may be something to avoid if possible, but bombs cause lots of abortions without the mother even having a choice.
It is tough to be a thoughtful voter nowadays. Even if you like idea A of the conservatives and idea B of the liberal, they all muddy the waters so much that I'm afraid too many people are going to stay home on election day. As for me, I'll vote for wrong over wronger.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Let's do away with capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, and estate taxes by...
Replacing them with taxing withdrawals from savings. Not withdrawals from your passbook savings account or your money market fund. That could well be money that was already taxed, especially considering the low interest on these currently.
I think a better plan would be to create investment accounts similar to IRAs. If you put money into an IRA it is not taxed. When you withdraw money from an IRA you are taxed at the wages rate on the full amount of the withdrawal, regardless of the source of the money: original contribution, capital gains, dividends, or interest.
In one way, you can look at an IRA as a lousy investment tax-wise. You may have saved some taxes at time of deposit, but you may be paying for more taxes than if you had put the money in a traditional mutual fund, especially if you had large capital gains over the life of your account.
However, if we move all investments to IAs, we solve the problem of taxing capital gains, dividends, and interest at a lesser rate than taxing work at a desk or bench. We also eliminate many of the side effects of people changing investments to get some tax advantage. The markets may be less chaotic at year's end as people buy or sell stock for some advantage.
We also solve the problem of estate taxes. Those who bequeath or who are bequeathed often don't want a penny of taxes to come out of the estate. But what happened to all the capital gains taxes that might have been paid if the deceased had lived. If an Investment Account is bequeathed, the beneficiaries would only be taxed on the money they withdrew. They would be free to buy and sell investments in the Investment Account without being concerned about the tax consequences of the transactions.
Probably most opposition to this plan would come from those benefiting from the current tangle of tax laws - lawyers, estate planners, and so on.
I've been sitting on this idea for some time; I was prompted to write about it after reading "Savings Accounts for All: Simple, but Not Easy" by Ron Lieber for the New York Times and republished today on Yahoo! Finance.
I also posted the above to http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
I think a better plan would be to create investment accounts similar to IRAs. If you put money into an IRA it is not taxed. When you withdraw money from an IRA you are taxed at the wages rate on the full amount of the withdrawal, regardless of the source of the money: original contribution, capital gains, dividends, or interest.
In one way, you can look at an IRA as a lousy investment tax-wise. You may have saved some taxes at time of deposit, but you may be paying for more taxes than if you had put the money in a traditional mutual fund, especially if you had large capital gains over the life of your account.
However, if we move all investments to IAs, we solve the problem of taxing capital gains, dividends, and interest at a lesser rate than taxing work at a desk or bench. We also eliminate many of the side effects of people changing investments to get some tax advantage. The markets may be less chaotic at year's end as people buy or sell stock for some advantage.
We also solve the problem of estate taxes. Those who bequeath or who are bequeathed often don't want a penny of taxes to come out of the estate. But what happened to all the capital gains taxes that might have been paid if the deceased had lived. If an Investment Account is bequeathed, the beneficiaries would only be taxed on the money they withdrew. They would be free to buy and sell investments in the Investment Account without being concerned about the tax consequences of the transactions.
Probably most opposition to this plan would come from those benefiting from the current tangle of tax laws - lawyers, estate planners, and so on.
I've been sitting on this idea for some time; I was prompted to write about it after reading "Savings Accounts for All: Simple, but Not Easy" by Ron Lieber for the New York Times and republished today on Yahoo! Finance.
I also posted the above to http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)