Thanx, Joshua... I HATE being inconsistent, especially so blatantly.

It was kind of you to give me an out. :D

And you are dead on ballz accurate (it's an industry term) In a perfect world, we would all abide by our principles.

But then again, in a perfect world, Fate would ALLOW us to abide by our principles..

I don't begrudge Obama et al for doing the best that the system allows them to do for themselves and their families..

What bothers me is that it gives the appearance of just paying lip service to real change...

That when the rubber meets the road, they like the status quo just fine..

Michale.....

i think what you mean is that it's an issue with nuances. the president has his daughters to think of. the republican senators have to consider the immediate needs of their constituents. yes, in an ideal world we would all stick by our fundamental beliefs 100%. but the ideology of either matter doesn't stand up too well against the reality of the near-and-dear who depend on you to make their lives better.

Having said all that, I *do* see your point and pretty much agree with it..

OK, this is a little inconsistent, even for me... :D

Michale....

it's irresponsible to intentionally put yourself at a disadvantage based solely on ideology.

I disagree...

Consider a person that is facing death from a degenerative disease... There is a medical treatment that can save her but it's formulated from the research of a war criminal that used human beings to experiment on...

This person refuses treatment out of principle..

Granted with my example, the stakes are higher, but the principle is the same..

If a person thinks a particular system is unfair and wrong but then takes specific and willful actions to personally benefit from that system, that is the epitome of hypocrisy...

Having said all that, I *do* see your point and pretty much agree with it..

I just think it's wrong and hypocritical for Democrats to get all 'holier than thou' over the tax system if they continue to take advantage of it to enrich themselves personally...

Michale.....

that's actually a good point, although i think the hypocrisy meter on this issue is a bit lower for the president or the former speaker, because doing the job of representing constituents is a different role from caring for one's family and personal finances. to some extent it's true though, opposing stimulus funds but using them once they're offered is not particularly hypocritical either. you want a system with fewer earmarks, but if you lose the battle on the system, it's irresponsible to intentionally put yourself at a disadvantage based solely on ideology.

just like a sports team in a league with no salary cap, there's no point falling on the blade of your ideology. when the policy battle is over, the practical thing to do is accept things as they are and do the best you can for your own.

The GOP had a somewhat valid argument in the stimulus issue. They fought against Porkulus but still used the dollars to the benefit of their constituents..

Democrats who rail against the tax system for the rich, yet use that same tax system to make themselves, personally, richer have no such philanthropic argument to make.

Michale.....

So, when ya'all were castigating the Right for taking stimulus dollars while at the same time they were fighting against the stimulus in Congress, ya'all were being disingenuous?? :D

Michale.....

that oft-repeated maxim by the cons, much like the "if you want higher taxes, why not donate extra money to the government," is a phony conflict. it's like saying if most baseball owners want a salary cap, why do so many teams keep paying their players more money?

there is simply no conflict between a: doing the best you can for yourself within an unfair system, and b: wanting a fairer system, even if it wouldn't be to your personal benefit.

further, it frequently comes as a disingenuous retort from people who actively promote keeping the system as unfair as possible, explicitly for their own benefit. the way i see things, that type is the more hypocritical of the two.

Obama and the entire Left scream and yell and bitch and moan about how the taxbreak for millionaires is unfair and wrong etc etc etc..

Yet, Obama doesn't seem to mind taking advantage of the tax breaks....

Goes back to what I said before..

If the Left is so against such breaks, why do they take advantage of them??

Michale.....

Ah, but line 13 comes from Schedule D. If you look at "Schedule D Tax Worksheet" (on page D-10 of the Schedule D instructions), you'll find the part where it says "enter the smaller" of what would be your tax if it was all income, and your actual tax because of the lower capital gains rate. You take this smaller number and enter it on line 44 of 1040. Voila! You have just had your taxes generously slashed, because some income is more equal than other income!

:-)

-CW

What's not income is *unrealized* capital gains. If you buy something and sell it for more than you paid for it, the difference is income. If you have something that's worth more than it was last year, you could sell it and get some income. But if you don't sell it, you haven't made money on it yet. The problem is that time is money. So taxation delayed is taxation denied.

"These lobbyists take the money, and bribe as many members of Congress as possible. Then when the tax laws are drawn up, the politicians which you have bribed write into the tax code 'widget makers don't have to pay taxes.'"

My understanding is that they're not that blatant about it. Rather, they find candidates who are likely to be favorably disposed toward widget makers, and get them elected at no personal gain to the congresscritters. Then they explain the merits of (insert 8000 words of gobbledygook here, that amounts to no taxes for widget makers). Then, when the congresscritters retire, the ones who voted as they were told become consultants or lobbyists, get hired to do legal work that doesn't visibly involve any actual work.