Vaj wrote: > > On Jun 24, 2006, at 4:57 PM, 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. >> >> 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! > > Vaj, you haven't read any of the economists? I found it well worth my time to crack some of their books plus I have friends who are economists and teach it too.
------------------------ 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/
