[Dark_crow]

That was a serious response. The resource used is not saying it is the gospel of politics, but what is?
Here is an article by Paul Hein:

Momentous Trifles
by Paul Hein

I haven’t conducted a survey, but I think .

The article in your first post was an obvious bias account, completely with-out intellectual content, and devoid of any significant value.

In the current post you quote Paul Hein and he starts with the startling announcement that, “I haven’t conducted a survey, but I think…”

But I am not interested in that account, but rather what you believe and why.

[Dark_crow]

Hello DC:

Not much! They're both extremely liberal!

One would take your money and use it to build government bureaucracy's that enforce their views about YOUR morals.

The other would take your money and use it to build government bureaucracy's that enforce their views about the COUNTRY'S morals.

These are distinctions WITHOUT differences. I don't think the government ought to be in the morals business. Actually, it never was until some liberal thought it should. Then all hell broke loose.

excon

Morals aside, what do you think about economics; for instance Marxists economics was first practiced, then liberals and conservatives drifted away from them; however, in the past 3o years both a Republican and a Democrat have relied on those Marxist economic principles.

[shygrneyzs]

I honestly do not believe there is that much difference between the parties. When it comes to graft, acceptance of lobbyist dollars, siphoning federal funds for pet projects, cover ups on murders and other crimes - there is NO difference. But I do feel the Republican party is fundamentally more conservative than the Democrats, although you can always find a conservative Democrat out there.

[Dark_crow]

DC,

I need a clarification of your question. Are you asking what the difference between the POLITICAL STANCES of the parties are? Or are you asking about the differences between the way the parties operate. If you are asking the latter, I would say that there is really very little difference between them. In the case of the former, I believe that there is a stark contrast between the two parties. Please let me know.

Elliot

I suppose POLITICAL STANCES, works for me; more specifically political philosophy.

[nicespringgirl]

Overall -
Republicans support keeping things the way they are (hence, conservative). This goes toward issues such as gay marriage and civil rights. They also support big business and rewards for the productive individual (bigger tax breaks for the wealthy).
Democrats support change, generally toward equality (gay marriage, civil rights) and community based programs. The farthest left you can go is Marxism.

[Dark_crow]

Overall -
Republicans support keeping things the way they are (hence, conservative). This goes toward issues such as gay marriage and civil rights. They also support big business and rewards for the productive individual (bigger tax breaks for the wealthy).
Democrats support change, generally toward equality (gay marriage, civil rights) and community based programs. The farthest left you can go is Marxism.

Hi

I think your answer is a fair description of what most people commonly believe.

However it raises two questions for me:

If the Republican Party supports big business, and I think they do, why is there a capital gains tax? I think that I can answer that in part: because big business uses the tax collector as a hedge against new competition.

On the Democratic side, I would argue that the left is mistakenly called Marxist, if fact, much of the Right is actually much closer to Marx’s political philosophy.

The following is a concept Marx would be in agreement with.

Excess taxation can result in hedging economic progress through its effect on capital accumulation. It creates a general movement toward stagnation and the preservation of business practices which could not last under the competitive conditions of the unhampered market economy...

[nicespringgirl]

If the Republican Party supports big business, and I think they do, why is there a capital gains tax? I think that I can answer that in part: because big business uses the tax collector as a hedge against new competition

The capital gains tax is to encourage the financing of new business investment through debt rather than equity. That is because the capital gains tax is a form of double taxation of the same income (it is taxed as corporate income when earned and later as capital gains income when the taxpayers sell their equity holdings). In contrast, income resulting from debt-financed investments is taxed only once, because interest expenses are tax deductible.
That has created a powerful and unintended incentive to finance corporate expansion and reorganization through leveraging rather than equity. Thus supporting big business.

[Dark_crow]

The capital gains tax is to encourage the financing of new business investment through debt rather than equity. That is because the capital gains tax is a form of double taxation of the same income (it is taxed as corporate income when earned and later as capital gains income when the taxpayers sell their equity holdings). In contrast, income resulting from debt-financed investments is taxed only once, because interest expenses are tax deductible.
That has created a powerful and unintended incentive to finance corporate expansion and reorganization through leveraging rather than equity. Thus supporting big business.

Hi

Nice overview.

Not only that, it is a deterrent to capital growth. America should abolish the tax entirely, along with interest deduction.

The capital gains tax appears to me to be connected to demand-side economics.

But what is your thought on that?

[tomder55]

America should abolish the tax entirely, along with interest deduction.

Agree ;although I would phase out the interest deduction on homes instead .

[Dark_crow]

Agree ;although I would phase out the interest deduction on homes instead .

Eliminate The Home Mortgage Interest Deduction?
That’s exactly what one economist argues:
“Why do we subsidize mortgage interest? More than Social Security–the benefits of which are taxed–it’s the most sacred cow in the Federal Budget. But it’s a truism that a subsidy yields higher prices. Home sellers can charge more because buyers are effectively subsidized by their ability to deduct mortgage interest. The purpose of the deduction is to encourage home ownership even though the deduction extends to people who hardly need government largesse. Canada has no mortgage interest deduction and yet its rates of home ownership are comparable to those in the United States. In other words, if we phased out the deduction, it probably wouldn’t reduce the rate of home ownership.”

There should be a debate about whether we really need it.

[tomder55]

Yes I agree I'm in favor of the phased elimination of it .Since so many have a good chunk of their nest egg riding on their house it would be unfair to change the rules on them abruptly.

This was essentially the same argument I made during the attempt at reforming SS . I am in favor of the privatization but provisions need to be made for those who have played by the old rules for years.

I have never considered my home an investment and at this point I could absorb the loss of the deduction ;but many new homeowners purchased their homes with the deduction as part of the equation .

Also ;I would like to see that as part of an overall tax code revision. People would be less opposed to losing the MID if there were going to be savings elsewhere . I'm open to flat income tax and other alternatives... especially VAT to replace income taxes .

Federalist #21:

There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counterbalanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four." If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.