wow.

[hobbit]

socialistic/communistic

Reading that phrase is like opening a small box and finding seventeen strings of Christmas lights tangled in a ball.

There's always been some aspect of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" in US social programs.  How that gets to "socialist/communist" probably even MFAWG couldn't fathom.

How much extra revenue would a 30% effective rate generate?

And anyway, I'm a fiscal conservative -- I'd much rather see the federal government pull back on spending before jacking anyone's taxes.

How did I get there?  See above post.

Anyway, moving from ~23% to 30% is an average of $112,500 more per return in taxes each year from the RICH, for a total of about $93B (all 2005 tax data as posted before).  Real money in other words.

What affect would that have on business investments/re-investments?  Wage increases for employees of affected owners?  Some I'm sure, tolerable maybe - take even larger chunks out, and it would surely start to have a real affect.  Everyone thinks we're just taking their yacht, but we're also affecting business - how well/effectively it grows (or doesn't).  'Its growth, stupid' to paraphrase Carville.

Sure, we can cherry pick people we don't like.  See him over there?  He's a greedy *bunghole*, its ok to take half his chit.  Hell, that felt so good, lets take half that other guys chit too - he didn't give big enough raises to his employees.  Doesn't sound all bad.  But what about the people that are not *bunghole*s, or did give decent raises?  They make just as much money, take half their chit too?  (I'd submit that if you answered yes, you are a closet socialist - just one guy's opinion).



You kept me up too late doing math - my drowsy head tomorrow morning curses you already.  I'm out.

Oh, wait - spending.  Yes, yes, yes - reduce it.  Imagine not having that desert boondoggle to fund...  We'd likely (Not sure, but I'm not doing anymore math tonight) have enough tax receipts to balance our budget (if prudent) - no tax increases necessary.  That means exactly *8==>* - but it makes people feel better nonetheless.

[Clive]

Sure, we can cherry pick people we don't like.  See him over there?  He's a greedy *bunghole*, its ok to take half his chit.  Hell, that felt so good, lets take half that other guys chit too - he didn't give big enough raises to his employees.  Doesn't sound all bad.  But what about the people that are not *bunghole*s, or did give decent raises?  They make just as much money, take half their chit too?  (I'd submit that if you answered yes, you are a closet socialist - just one guy's opinion).

The progressive tax scheme is by its nature socialist to some extent.  But it's at least blindly so: the tax brackets don't care whether you're Mother Theresa or Charles Manson, whether you're a quadriplegic who boot-strapped himself up from Hell's Kitchen or a silver spoon who inherited it all and can't find his financial-sense ass with both hands -- the same AGI has the same effective tax rate applied.  And that's how I want it to be.

[hobbit]

Sure, we can cherry pick people we don't like.  See him over there?  He's a greedy *bunghole*, its ok to take half his chit.  Hell, that felt so good, lets take half that other guys chit too - he didn't give big enough raises to his employees.  Doesn't sound all bad.  But what about the people that are not *bunghole*s, or did give decent raises?  They make just as much money, take half their chit too?  (I'd submit that if you answered yes, you are a closet socialist - just one guy's opinion).

The progressive tax scheme is by its nature socialist to some extent.  But it's at least blindly so: the tax brackets don't care whether you're Mother Theresa or Charles Manson, whether you're a quadriplegic who boot-strapped himself up from Hell's Kitchen or a silver spoon who inherited it all and can't find his financial-sense ass with both hands -- the same AGI has the same effective tax rate applied.  And that's how I want it to be.

I know - I was just responding to the prior post about taxing people at 50% because we don't like them (said with fecetious intent I hope).  Was just too lazy to start a new post.

[tdcoly]

Would anybody cry about fairness if these fat cats were taxed at even a 50% tax rate?

http://articles.moneycent...ndfallForCEOs.aspx?page=1

But they love 'merka.