Anyways, I am bored. Or it could be overwhelmed. Usually when I have too much to do, I end up being unable to do anything.
Nevertheless, I realize that even the hilarity of the Democratic Primary race is almost uninteresting to me. And I do mean, almost. Because today, the day after the PA debate, I have found a new spark. Quite possibly, I have found my "Gigi". The questions from last night's debate were brilliant and bravo to ABC's Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos for asking tough questions and not letting up on either Obama or Clinton.
I especially applaud the line of questions regarding the capital gains tax. The questions were thoughtful. I loved this part:
MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the [Capital Gains] rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.
My concern, as should be just about everyone's, is that Senator Obama has equated the capital gains tax with fairness. This screams redistribution of wealth, which is what is unfair! It is essentially taxing production and innovation.
Let me take on a typical argument for capital gains tax. If you are making enough money that pushes you into the capital gains bracket, then you can afford the tax.
However, with a higher tax, some people will be forced out of the stock market, which means that fewer people will be able to afford investment, which then means that the company will lose out on dollars, which means that company will not be able to hire additional employees, and so on and so on.
Furthermore, at what point is a tax fair? Is it fair at 50%? Is it fair at 10%? You see where I am going with this? When we arbitrarily enforce fairness, there is no standard. There is no benchmark. Essentially, a tax bracket will always be unfair to someone. How can you possibly measure fairness?