you can't win an argument with us because your case is flimsy and doesn't stand up to the scrutiny. we've still yet to hear what plan you support. is it more of the good old Bush years?

I never referenced the Bush tax cuts.

I believe in making taxes less all the time. For EVERYBODY.

The bullshit is thinking that printing money or borrowing helps anyone.

The analysis seems deeply flawed. It treats capital income as ordinary income in order to conclude that lower cap gains rates increase income of the wealthy. This shows a very poor understanding of what ordinary income and what capital gain income are.

you're splitting hairs now.

No it is totally different. Do you really think someone drawing down more heavily on accumulated wealth is the same as getting a huge raise?

If Jamy Dimon decides to draw 2 million a year from his investments instead of one million a year because of the lighter tax burden is that the same as if Jamy decided to increase his salary by one million dollars? It very clearly is not.

Capital income and ordinary income have different origins and different economic substance. That is why they are treated differently in the tax code. To lump them together creates faulty conclusions.

i know the difference, one is at 15% and the other is 36%, but lower with the deductions that are available. But it doesnt not create a faulty conclusion. The lower rate does increase the income of the wealthy.

Of course it does. Theo nly way the conclusion works is if you make wealth equivalent to income.

again you're splitting hairs. Wealth, income.
if I open a business and make an investment buying equipment with my "wealth" that income from the equipment and business should be taxed at capital gains rates?
mind you that Im taking 100% depreciation up to 500k on the equipment I invested in with my wealth.

It is not splitting hairs. they are different things.

It depends entirely on the substance of the transaction. The answer could be yes or no.

Yes. Businesses typically deduct things which are costs incurred in the ordinary cost of business. Are you now arguing that businesses should pay taxes on the gross and not the net? Otherwise, relevance?