Here we were having a nice little discussion, and you had to go and
Do what all extremists like to do - slap on a label. I think our soundbite driven world seems to make that mandatory. I’m part of a group called “my fellow lefties”, which makes it so much easier to just dismiss.
I guess I triggered you with my “sitting on my ass” remark. Sorry, I will try to remember to provide you with a trigger warning in advance from now on.
Point isn’t who’s sitting on their ass and who isn’t. It was just a way to express my opposition to the way the tax code essentially values some kinds of income over others. It shouldn’t.
You are looking at the relationships of income to inflation far too narrowly. You are saying that if my asset increases from 100k to 110k, and the inflation rate were deemed to be 5%, I should only pay taxes on 5k (or get some other relief from tax burdens on inflation).
But if I earn 50k, get no raise, and the inflation rate is 5%, should my W2 not be adjusted down to reflect that? If not, why not? Why the economic benefit to the asset holder and not the wage earner (I’m being very careful not to trigger you with my wording)?
IMO, inflation indexing opens up inescapable cans of worms of complexity, and the tax code should not go there.
|
(
In response to this post by Hoodafan)
Posted: 08/10/2020 at 1:06PM