IMHO, it's the idea that capital is more valuable than productive labor that got us into all this trouble (highly indebted, highly inflationary, decaying society/econony) in the first place.
Either we want to encourage production OR we encourage parasites sucking capital (substitute/means of exchange for production) out of the system so they can hoard it and use it to suck even more out of the productive system.
Suggesting that production should be valued more highly than capital isn't "socialist" or "communist"…it's common sense, and taking a long-term view of how our world and future economy can be sustained and made better for our children and grandchildren.
You guys have seen what happens in the housing market when there is too much debt. Why would you want the same thing for the entire country? Don't you want the U.S. to be a nation that pays its bills?
Actually, what got us in trouble was giving the average j6p and britney spears wannabe who has no financial sense way too easy access to leveraged capital. A good percentage of the population are completely inept at handling a small amount of credit (as is the case of people with one credit card sinking hundreds and thousands into debt), let alone getting access to hundred and thousands of leveraged dollars for a home purchase they cannot afford. Like I said, there are just some people in America that given $1, they'll try to spend $4. There are average j6p/britney spears who inevitably spend several thousands of leveraged dollars on big screen tvs, furniture they don't need, other bling crap, but at the same time wouldn't be able to save for a home purchase, but had the opportunity to under relaxed rules of financing.
My ex-cowoker fits this stereotype, who rather "invest" in a $50,000 DVD collection that he can't fit in an apartment so that he has to rent a SFH and to store his crap, and who thinks getting even with a credit card company is "paying of your balance one or two months" (when he normally carries a balance)….and yet b!tches how unfair it is that he can't afford a home (coincidently, the guy is also a democrat and subscribes to this robin hood wealth redistribution).
So even if you were to redistribute wealth back to them, inevitably that money will still end up in the hands of the rich.While there are trust fund babies that exist, I would say the majority of people who are "rich" got there for a reason, either out innovating, out smarting, or out performing others in some creative way.As terrible as it to say, not everyone is equal. We can't all be Buffett or Gates, and someone needs to empty the trash at union labor wages and someone needs to serve those fries at mckie-d's, and frankly there are people that need to hit rock bottom in bankruptcy before they learn a lesson or to about how money works.
TheBreeze, for someone that loves to "dollar-cost-average" in stocks/index funds/etc, I don't get why you are preaching for abolishing capital gains rates, unless you're eating shit right now in the markets and want a tax break for your capital losses, or unless you think the capital gains rate applies to everyone else but you, which again would suggest you are pretty much self-serving once again: ah the veil of a communist (these rules apply to everyone else but me).
It's ironic how some people think. I can't obtain X, therefore X is bad and anyone else that can achieve X should be punished it because I'm special and feel that it would only be fair.
