On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 03:51:18 -0400, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Wall Street Journal: August 5, 2004 > CAPITAL By DAVID WESSEL > > Bush, Kerry Are Far Apart on How Raising Taxes on 'Rich' Pans Out
Interesting article - thanks, Erik. One question to the more economics-oriented here... This article seems to equate "rich" with $200K+ income: >The candidates differ sharply on how heavily to tax Americans with >incomes above $200,000 a year. In other places, I have seen $90K+ income given as the boundary definition of "rich", (though I don'tt recall where). Does anyone know what the figure really is? Is that individual or joint family income? Is there an "official" definition, or does it depend on who's using it, what context, and what political party? I'm guessing maybe the latter, but, still, there's a pretty big gap between $90K and $200K. One other thing to comment on: >Yes, Subchapter S companies pay taxes on profits at individual income >tax rates. But the bulk of small businesses, farmers and ranchers >don't make enough to fall into top brackets. They won't pay more under >Mr. Kerry's plan. And I've never understood the case for taxing a >farmer, rancher or small-business owner who clears $500,000 differently >than a corporate executive, lawyer or ballplayer who earns $500,000. I'm guessing Bush's argument here is that the $500K <whoever> ends up paying the tax, and it's the uber-rich $10M CEO/ballplayer that can hire the accounts to beat paying the taxes. Still, it's a pretty lame argument to say "well, they'll get around paying the tax anyway, so we shouldn't bother". Honestly - if it's such a certainty that they'll get around paying their taxes that he can use it as an argument against the taxes, wouldn't a better tactic be to rework the tax laws to remove those holes? _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
