--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 :)
>

Very well said.

I would add, however, that if there is going to be an estate tax it 
should be for everyone and it should be a flat rate of about 5%.







------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups.  See the new email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/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