new_morning_blank_slate wrote: >--- In [email protected], Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>That's why a progressive income tax is a good thing. It is an >>disincentive to accumulating excessive wealth. It is better to have >> >> >more > > >>millionaires than any billionaires. You would allow people to >> >> >accumulate > > >>an estate worth up to $12 million and then the progressive tax kicks >> >> >in. > > >>It's not there to make money for the government. Anyone who thinks they >>need more than $12 million has to be sick. >> >>(Just watch the resident righties -- rich wannabes but never-gonna-bees >>-- whine at this). >> >> > > >Well I am not a resident rightie, but your conception of a progressive >income tax is fine, but has nothing to do with the progressive income >tax thats in place. Or the much more progressive one of the pre-80's. >A problem with high marginal rates -- near 70% in pre-80's, is people >spend an inordinate amount of time trying to shelter it or make it tax >deductable via "clever" means -- elaborate business trips and meals, >etc. Very unproductive energy for them and society. But understandable >when sheltering $1000 saves you $700. And such systems lead to hugely >complex tax codes, and an army of tax accountants -- all unproductive >overhead on society. And such complex tax codes increases corruption >in government where special interests are willing to pay a lot to get >special tax breaks. And lots of research does indicate the strong >correlation of low(er) marginal tax rates with economic growth. > >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. > > > And I *do* want to make it clear the progressive tax would work this way: once you had an estate valued at 12 million the progressive tax would kick in. Smart people would retire probably spend more time one their favorite charities, travel the world etc. I would probably do that at even 4 million. Right now we have people with too much money making bad decisions effecting too many people. They are not gods. Take away their excess wealth and bring them back to reason. You could even have a flat tax where the progressive would kick in under these rules.
>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 :) > > > > > > > > > ------------------------ 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/
