God, my life would be easier if they taught people ANYTHING about economics in government schools. But I can see why they don't.

How can you simultaneously advocate a "major boon" for investors at the same time you bemoan other boons for other groups? How can you advocate eliminating the gains tax "on the way up" as Scott puts it, while you advocate government compensation for losses "on the way down"? This doesn't sound like a principled objection to government interference, but more like a craven attempt to play the game the same way as everybody else, grabbing what you can from the government.

Both tax breaks have exactly the same results: more of a person's own money kept in his own pocket.

A lower capital gains tax allows the person to keep more of the money he makes on sale of an asset.

A larger deduction* on losses allows the person to pay fewer taxes on the rest of his income. It is NOT NOT NOT "compensation" from the government, despite the constant attempt of the socialists to twist it that way.

Rule of thumb:

Anything that lets a person or company keep more of the money they have earned is a GOOD THING.

Anything that takes money away from a productive person or company and gives it to someone else is a BAD THING.

This includes all wealth redistribution schemes, REAL corporate welfare (not tax cuts), and almost three-quarters of everything else the government currently does.

Of course, from a politician's standpoint, it's the other way around. Independence from government is not conducive to accumulation of power. Dependence is.

If you have trouble with this, I would be glad to address individual examples. You will be tested on this Nov. 5.

Good Lord, this doesn't even require two levels of abstraction. Why is this so hard?

* You DO know what a tax deduction is? Makes less of your income taxable? You DO pay taxes, right? Use Schedule A? Maybe even Schedule C?