On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:49:49 -0400, D. LaCourse wrote:

On 2010-09-30 18:59:40 -0400, Tom Littleton said:

well, I've waded through all this, and coincidentally read a very
interesting take on matters today. It discussed the 'golden era' that
many of the Tea Party types seem to look back upon, the 1950's. You
know, capitalism worked well, jobs were created, folks were moving
forward reasonably. You know how the tax code worked, back then?
Anything in income over $500,000(in today's money, about $4,000,000)
got taxed at the top federal rate. That rate? 91%. That's right, 91%.
If we had something along those lines in effect right now, taxing all
income over $4,000,000 at 91%, roughly $400 billion annually would go
into the budget. And the number affected? Roughly 0.04% of the entire
population. It wouldn't impact small businesses, it wouldn't cause the
government to have to gauge middle class earners with an AMT, none of
that. I have to admit that I've always been intrigued by Andrew
Carnegie's idea of a 90% inheritance tax, but the 1950's tax code works
just fine the way I see it, as well.
Tom

Tom, raising *anyone's* taxes during a recession is a very foolish
thing to do. It won't bring in that much revenue, probably make fed
revenue income go down. Tax cuts for *everyone* is necessary.

Um, well, no, it is not "necessary" - first, many do not, and will not, pay any
taxes (and some will still get "credit(s)" on top of that, IIRC), so one cannot
"cut" taxes that aren't paid. Second, at some level, folks could pay the extra
5% and really not notice it, insofar as "lifestyle" is concerned. To use the
extreme example, Gates and Buffett - if they were suddenly taxed 5% _of their
net worth_, rather than "taxable income," they'd still see no change in their
lifestyle (hell, they both see such swings in their net worth regularly).

But
your Muslim Hero doesn't want that; he wants to tax the "rich". He has
continueously talked about redistributing the wealth. Tax increases is
not the way to do it, nor can we spend our way into prosperity. Two
hundred fifty thousand/year is not rich is many areas of this country.

250K a year is not "rich" anywhere on the planet, but that's not, pardon the
pun, material. OTOH, it is pretty darned comfortable just about anywhere, and
in many areas, when compared to the lowest earners, it is income beyond
comprehension. But so what? Taxation should be fair to all, and _no one_
should be able to avoid _income_ tax (by necessity, one must have income to be
taxed on it, so those that honestly cannot work would owe no tax).

HTH,
R

Dave