[marshallp]

There's been talk recently of wealthy americans fleeing the country for tax reasons. If Obama gets reelected, as is expected, he's gonna go all out in his second term (I'm an Obama supporter but I dislike the idea of taxing the entrepreneurs more to fund the lazy government workers).

[ajross]

...Obama has a propsal to tax entrepreneurs?

Rant time: I despise what political discourse in this country has become. Rather than talk about policy we've trained everyone (like marshallp here) to regurgitate sound bites about how this or that politician is "gonna go all out" to do whatever evil thing sounds fun this week. Look: tax policy is a bunch of boring laws. You can read them if you like. You can look at proposed laws and make suggestions, and argue with the specifics of what our government is doing or what it proposes to do.

But slinging around loaded terms like "taxing entrepreneurs" or "lazy government workers" is hurting us all, and helping no one but the spin doctors. Stop it. Try to be smarter than that.

Edit: more spin terms from the reply: "out of our wallets", "my money". Spin if you want, but if you try to argue about policy using language you got from cable news, you'll merely perpetuate the current policy situation (designed almost exclusively to cater to the attention spans of cable news viewers).

[snowwrestler]

One of the pay-fors for the PPACA is a 3.8 additional tax on investment income above a certain level. Successful entrepreneurs looking to take some money out of their business have a good chance of hitting this tax.

[ajross]

Exactly! So a very broad increase in tax on all (!) investments by all (!) high income individuals becomes a "tax on entrepreneurs", because the specifics don't seem so scary unless you make it sound like it hurts something important.

Here's the snopes page on that very tax: http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/realestate.asp Amusingly, the spin it's trying to fight is that it's a tax on "home buyers". Apparently the "entrepreneurs" angle is a new one.

It's a tax. Is it a bad one? Dunno, I think on balance an increase in the capital gains rate (which is sort of what this is) gated on income level isn't a bad way to raise that revenue. You have a different suggestion?

[snowwrestler]

You're now ranting at my sober and factual comment. My suggestion is to be the change you want to see: calm down and put more substance in your communications.

[ajross]

I said it was a rant when this subthread started. A "sober and factual" comment in support of ridiculous spin doesn't qualify, sorry; it simply means you're spinning well. And given that only one of us linked to an actual analysis of that law, let's just say I'm greatly amused at your demand for "substance".

[maratd]

Spare me. Everyone is in it to manipulate the government to their benefit. We need a tax policy and a government policy in general, that stays out of our lives and out of our wallets. That way, policy wonks like you have less of my money to spend on your pet peeves. Spend your own money on your hobbies.

[jarek]

> Rant time: I despise what political discourse in this country has become.

Maybe not being associated with that (or at least not as much) is another of Sivers' reasons for renouncing...

[waterlesscloud]

You think that "my money" is an inaccurate term in some way?

[ajross]

The beauty of good spin is that it can be "accurate" without being "complete" or "informative". So it can fool the weak-minded into emotional responses (in this case, that tax is "like theft" and thus evil [removed, see below]. So what if tax starts as "your" money? You still need to pay it. Don't like the current policy? Then state a new one; don't spin.

Edit: removed the "zero tax" bit as apparently it sounds like spin. I don't think it changes the point. (was: ", even though no one sane thinks a zero tax policy is possible")

[waterlesscloud]

No one has introduced the concept of zero tax policy until you did so just now.

There are many kinds of spin, that's one of them.

[maratd]

> I'm an Obama supporter but I dislike the idea of taxing the entrepreneurs more to fund the lazy government workers

So is that like a very mild dislike or something? Otherwise, that sentence makes zero sense.

[marshallp]

Not really. Obama's foreign policy is better than the republicans and he genuinely cares about people so healthcare and welfare policies would be better, but his support base also consists of the unions, which I disagree with.

[gnaritas]

> but his support base also consists of the unions, which I disagree with

So it's OK for people to pool capital into companies and abuse workers, but it's not OK for workers to pool labor into unions to prevent it?

[marshallp]

They're not the same. Unions are equivalent to crony capitalism (ie. regulations put in place to prevent competition), but most of what companies do is just free markets at work (which helps the consumer).

[noahc]

How is a union a regulation? A union is a contractual obligation between workers that they will only work under certain conditions.

[maratd]

> contractual obligation

In what country? In the US, most are mandated by law. All government jobs are union, regardless of the wishes of the worker.

Contracts are mutually consented to. If it's a union job, you have to be a part of the union. How is forcing workers to do something they do not want beneficial?

I'm all for unions where someone can join and leave freely without the threat of force or loss of work. Do we have that in the US? No.

[jakeonthemove]

Obama is not your king... he doesn't make the laws (I know he can, but he'd be impeached faster than you can say "WTF"). You should broaden your view and... blame more people, I guess...

[mikeryan]

Thats it, Derek Sivers is renouncing his citizenship so his hard earned money doesn't go to lazy people like school teachers and firefighters.

[adolph]

And the F35!