--- In [email protected], new_morning_blank_slate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <noozguru@> 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. > > 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 :) >
Oh, and I would also add that when you consider payroll taxes, federal income tax and state income tax, if you live in California you are already at about a 50% combined marginal tax rate for single self-employed people at around $31,000 in taxable income. Still very, very outrageous and why many conservatives and libertarians like myself are NOT happy with either Bush or the Republican Congress... ------------------------ 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/
