TurquoiseB wrote:

>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  
>
>>A flat tax (some say 17% would do it) with no or few deductions,
>>starting at incomes over $30-50,000, (even a negative income taxfor
>>incomes below say $15,000) would eliminate all the inefficiencies,
>>overheads and drags on society from excessive tax accountants, 
>>searching for tax shelters and deductions, poor economic choices for
>>tax reasons, etc. And would trigger greater economic growth -- which
>>is the engine for productivity increases, and that being the driver
>>for wage rate increases at all levels.
>>
>>Unless you are mistakenly saying "income" when you mean estate tax 
>>and want to tax estates above 12 million. A fair proposal in my view
>>-- particularly if there are 3-5 kids, 20 grand kids etc.
>>But then again, few with estates above 12 million pay much estate 
>>    
>>
>< tax -- its all in sheletered trusts.
>  
>
>>I suggest a flat tax per above, with an estate tax kicking in at
>>$10-20 million.
>>
>>Just watch the resident ultra-leftists -- poor wannabes but
>>never-gonna-bees,  whine at this :)
>>    
>>
>
>This leftist has absolutely no problem with the 
>suggestion. I'd make the estate tax level much
>lower, but other than that, a flat tax with no
>deductions is the way to go.
>
Yup, the estate tax should kick in lower.  There was nothing wrong with 
it the way it was.  Bill Gates and his father championed keeping it the 
way it was.  Bill is probably like Hurley in "Lost", his estate is being 
managed by a investment team and he pays little attention to it.

The idea I proposed was often discussed more back in the 1980 election 
where it was a plank by some of the candidates, I think maybe even John 
Anderson.  I have friends with more than a $12 million estate who 
agree.   Concentrated wealth is not a good thing.  I always thought that 
Reagan and company were getting complaints about the Saudi billionaires 
and that one couldn't be a billionaire in the US so they did away with 
the progressive tax (which was ~95% at one point).   However I'm not 
that sure they were so happy about a computer geek becoming the richest 
guy. :)

As for a flat tax, I'm for that.  It is an insult to expect Americans to 
be accountants to do their taxes fairly.  I have mine done by an 
accountant but I still practically have to be one just to do the 
worksheets.   This is probably an issue that the right and left might 
get on the same page but we probably won't see it because the break that 
homeowners would get on their taxes would go away and many won't be able 
to afford their homes after that.  Thus the flat tax is being found by 
the real estate interests.

BTW, this leftist benefited from the Bush tax cuts, so there.




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Something is new at Yahoo! Groups.  Check out the enhanced email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



Reply via email to