--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jun 24, 2006, at 4:57 PM, new_morning_blank_slate 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 :) > > Are you a CPA or Tax Attorney? You sure seem to know a lot about the > economic and financial world! >
Whatever he is, he sure knows his stuff. I do estate planning and I know alot of this stuff and he is pretty much right on. ------------------------ 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/
