--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > shempmcgurk wrote: > > >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > > > > > >>new_morning_blank_slate wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate > >>><no_reply@> 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 :) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>The above does not address your greed issue. I am sympathetic to > >>> > >>> > >that. > > > > > >>>Yet strong progressive taxation of the pre-80's did not put much > >>> > >>> > >of a > > > > > >>>dent in that. Greed is not a trait well addressed by the tax > >>> > >>> > >code. Its > > > > > >>>an ethic, set of values, and ethos. Thats what needs to be > >>> > >>> > >changed. > > > > > >>>There has always been strong tradition of giving large fortunes to > >>>charitable causes. Increasing a lot of PC and net fortunes appear > >>>headed that way. Strengthening that impulse in society is a good > >>>thing. Public esteem and fame based on charitable works rather > >>> > >>> > >than > > > > > >>>accumulations, houses, etc, needs to be nurtured. > >>> > >>>Its a matter of social and collective values. I dream of a day > >>> > >>> > >when > > > > > >>>kids grow up wanting to make billions so they can make a transform > >>>world health, nutrition, shelter, education, spirituality, the > >>> > >>> > >arts, > > > > > >>>etc. (Some already do). I dread the day if/when all income and > >>> > >>> > >estates > > > > > >>>are capped at some maximum with the largess going to feed a > >>> > >>> > >corrupt > > > > > >>>political system. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>You still don't understand, the tax is not to feed the political > >> > >> > >system > > > > > >>but as a disincentive to concentrated wealth. > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >Concentrated wealth in the hands of those responsible for creating > >it is a GREAT thing and should be encourated. > > > >Bhairitu, if you tax it, it goes to government which will NOT use it > >wisely. It WILL be used more wisely by those that create the wealth. > > > History shows that not to be true at all. Most are just greedy bastards > who care little about their fellow humanity. People like Bill Gates are > a rare exception but as I stated earlier he has always had a mood of > detachment from his wealth which I particularly noted in a local Seattle > interview with him in 1991. > > You still don't get that a progressive tax means people won't try to > earn another dime if they are going to pay more in taxes. So the > government doesn't get anything. They're already wealthy and anything > more is just an ego driven power trip. This lets others have more of a > chance. >
Well, yes, it gives others who are LESS creative and LESS efficient with the limited resources of this earth to have a chance to fuck things up. Precisely the point. Better the wealth goes to the people who are more efficient in the enterprise that they create. As for greediness, virtually everyone is possessed of it...you, me, government...so better to tap self-interest for the betterment of society than have to work against us. Simple formula: more money in the hands of those that earn it means a better life for the poorest of the poor. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/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/
