[jstoesz]

UCGal…you are right. It is fantasy land, but a fun thought experiment none the less.

Eugene,

You do realize that passive income is crucial to a healthy expanding economy? It is not just simply gambling (save commodities), but provides capital to people who have no money but good ideas. Without people making investments (looking for passive income), we would have no economic development. We would have only a fortified wealthy class untouchable by the up and coming innovators. Only in America can you have a good idea with no collateral and have someone lend you millions. Therefore, we should not want to tax either passive income or labor income, but should encourage both.

[jstoesz]

UCGal…you are right. It is fantasy land, but a fun thought experiment none the less.

Eugene,

You do realize that passive income is crucial to a healthy expanding economy? It is not just simply gambling (save commodities), but provides capital to people who have no money but good ideas. Without people making investments (looking for passive income), we would have no economic development. We would have only a fortified wealthy class untouchable by the up and coming innovators. Only in America can you have a good idea with no collateral and have someone lend you millions. Therefore, we should not want to tax either passive income or labor income, but should encourage both.

[jstoesz]

CAR…I agree and disagree.

I do not buy the argument that lower income earners spend more of there money by percentage and save less equates to a regressive tax. I think that this is a bit of twist of logic or spin. Just because some save more than others does not amount to a regressive tax.

I understand your base concern, and I think it is valid.

I agree that we need support for lower earners. That is the place for the public dole, in my opinion ( and all the policy initiative spin offs related). The bottom should be supported.

I don’t think that investment is the same thing as gambling…although the banking industry is certainly stretching my understanding.

[jstoesz]

CAR…I agree and disagree.

I do not buy the argument that lower income earners spend more of there money by percentage and save less equates to a regressive tax. I think that this is a bit of twist of logic or spin. Just because some save more than others does not amount to a regressive tax.

I understand your base concern, and I think it is valid.

I agree that we need support for lower earners. That is the place for the public dole, in my opinion ( and all the policy initiative spin offs related). The bottom should be supported.

I don’t think that investment is the same thing as gambling…although the banking industry is certainly stretching my understanding.

[jstoesz]

CAR…I agree and disagree.

I do not buy the argument that lower income earners spend more of there money by percentage and save less equates to a regressive tax. I think that this is a bit of twist of logic or spin. Just because some save more than others does not amount to a regressive tax.

I understand your base concern, and I think it is valid.

I agree that we need support for lower earners. That is the place for the public dole, in my opinion ( and all the policy initiative spin offs related). The bottom should be supported.

I don’t think that investment is the same thing as gambling…although the banking industry is certainly stretching my understanding.

[jstoesz]

CAR…I agree and disagree.

I do not buy the argument that lower income earners spend more of there money by percentage and save less equates to a regressive tax. I think that this is a bit of twist of logic or spin. Just because some save more than others does not amount to a regressive tax.

I understand your base concern, and I think it is valid.

I agree that we need support for lower earners. That is the place for the public dole, in my opinion ( and all the policy initiative spin offs related). The bottom should be supported.

I don’t think that investment is the same thing as gambling…although the banking industry is certainly stretching my understanding.

[jstoesz]

CAR…I agree and disagree.

I do not buy the argument that lower income earners spend more of there money by percentage and save less equates to a regressive tax. I think that this is a bit of twist of logic or spin. Just because some save more than others does not amount to a regressive tax.

I understand your base concern, and I think it is valid.

I agree that we need support for lower earners. That is the place for the public dole, in my opinion ( and all the policy initiative spin offs related). The bottom should be supported.

I don’t think that investment is the same thing as gambling…although the banking industry is certainly stretching my understanding.

[jstoesz]

I understand your point jpinpb and I think it is incredibly valid. My snarkiness in the original post was not appropriate for the level of tragedy this story amounts to. My point for linking the story was not to show that the firemen or police are bad, so much as the unionized bureaucratic litigative culture that is spreading like a cancer through some of our most beloved, important, and fundamental city sevices.

These people, I am sure, became police and fire because they wanted to serve and protect. But the rules are so corrupt that they are turned into monsters.

That is how they acted on that day, laws be damned. I would even venture to guess that most police or firehouses in the state would not act like this.

A freaking bystander waded in to fish the body out after he had drowned.

edit: The firemen and medics I know would not act like this! But we can not continue down this path.

[jstoesz]

I understand your point jpinpb and I think it is incredibly valid. My snarkiness in the original post was not appropriate for the level of tragedy this story amounts to. My point for linking the story was not to show that the firemen or police are bad, so much as the unionized bureaucratic litigative culture that is spreading like a cancer through some of our most beloved, important, and fundamental city sevices.

These people, I am sure, became police and fire because they wanted to serve and protect. But the rules are so corrupt that they are turned into monsters.

That is how they acted on that day, laws be damned. I would even venture to guess that most police or firehouses in the state would not act like this.

A freaking bystander waded in to fish the body out after he had drowned.

edit: The firemen and medics I know would not act like this! But we can not continue down this path.

[jstoesz]

I understand your point jpinpb and I think it is incredibly valid. My snarkiness in the original post was not appropriate for the level of tragedy this story amounts to. My point for linking the story was not to show that the firemen or police are bad, so much as the unionized bureaucratic litigative culture that is spreading like a cancer through some of our most beloved, important, and fundamental city sevices.

These people, I am sure, became police and fire because they wanted to serve and protect. But the rules are so corrupt that they are turned into monsters.

That is how they acted on that day, laws be damned. I would even venture to guess that most police or firehouses in the state would not act like this.

A freaking bystander waded in to fish the body out after he had drowned.

edit: The firemen and medics I know would not act like this! But we can not continue down this path.

[jstoesz]

I understand your point jpinpb and I think it is incredibly valid. My snarkiness in the original post was not appropriate for the level of tragedy this story amounts to. My point for linking the story was not to show that the firemen or police are bad, so much as the unionized bureaucratic litigative culture that is spreading like a cancer through some of our most beloved, important, and fundamental city sevices.

These people, I am sure, became police and fire because they wanted to serve and protect. But the rules are so corrupt that they are turned into monsters.

That is how they acted on that day, laws be damned. I would even venture to guess that most police or firehouses in the state would not act like this.

A freaking bystander waded in to fish the body out after he had drowned.

edit: The firemen and medics I know would not act like this! But we can not continue down this path.

[jstoesz]

I understand your point jpinpb and I think it is incredibly valid. My snarkiness in the original post was not appropriate for the level of tragedy this story amounts to. My point for linking the story was not to show that the firemen or police are bad, so much as the unionized bureaucratic litigative culture that is spreading like a cancer through some of our most beloved, important, and fundamental city sevices.

These people, I am sure, became police and fire because they wanted to serve and protect. But the rules are so corrupt that they are turned into monsters.

That is how they acted on that day, laws be damned. I would even venture to guess that most police or firehouses in the state would not act like this.

A freaking bystander waded in to fish the body out after he had drowned.

edit: The firemen and medics I know would not act like this! But we can not continue down this path.

[jstoesz]

Another shining example our elite services! They are just a bunch of heroes really.

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/01/136864398/after-suicide-calif-town-reviews-emergency-policies

[jstoesz]

Another shining example our elite services! They are just a bunch of heroes really.

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/01/136864398/after-suicide-calif-town-reviews-emergency-policies

[jstoesz]

Another shining example our elite services! They are just a bunch of heroes really.

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/01/136864398/after-suicide-calif-town-reviews-emergency-policies

[Author]

Posts