Let me translate that

"We shouldn't try to tax the rich, only count on their being generous because they are too smart for us."

Why does that sound like bullshit?

Going beyond that, some of us are talking about the rich and here you are equating that with the top 25%. Waitaminute. I know what rich is. I know what top 25% is. Rich ain't top 25%. It ain't top 10%. Top 1% is getting there, though not really. Top tenth of a percent, now that is the ballpark. Totally different kettle of fish. Million dollars a year, like Bush.

I can't find the figures that I want, but I found some that I find interesting. Visit [link|http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/irsfigures.guest.html|http://www.rushlimba...igures.guest.html] and ignore the spin there. From 1986 to 2000 the amount of money that you had to make to get into the top 1% doubled. The portion of the income that was made by the top 1% went from 11.30% of the US income to 20.81%. The tax rate on that money fell from 33.13% to 27.45%. The total portion of tax paid by the top 1% therefore rose, but nowhere in line with their actual income.

Now that is an amazing trick. Make more. Pay a smaller portion in tax. How do they do that? Because they are smarter than us? Wow, good accountants, don't you wish you could afford that!

Nah. It is really pathetically simple.

What has happened is that the very well off have realized that it is cheaper to buy politicians than it is to pay taxes. So they buy politicians, get exemptions, and then don't pay tax. And then apologists for them say that we can't tax them, we have to hope and pray for their generousity!

Wouldn't it make more sense just to cut out a ton of the special rules that make life easy for them (like a proposal making it possible for those who live almost entirely off of existing investments to stop paying income tax entirely) and cut rhetoric that lumps the fraction of a percent of the top quarter that really makes money with the rest of us in that category?

Oh sorry. Guess Bush wouldn't like that because guess how HE makes his money...

Cheers,
Ben

Your translation is a tad loose.

But most of the rest is fairly reasonable. And glaring examples of why silly things like campaign finance reform and tax code revision are necessary.

I'm not a big fan of the elimination of taxes on dividends. It does, however, have short term benefits that will do good things for the market and thus consumer confidence. Problem is you can't really >undo< it and maintain the positives. And long term...encouraging dividends will reduce re-investment and cost jobs and long-term growth. Neither one of these is a good thing.

I think your solution is acceptable. There should be alot of rules tossed out.

Make it too extreme, though, and you encourage capital flight. (like the mega-rich in Europe moving to Monaco). The objective is to find the right spot on the Laffer curve and stay there...the hard part is knowing where that is ;)

Post #74,178 by ben_tilly 1/12/03 8:13:54 PM Reply	Let me translate that "We shouldn't try to tax the rich, only count on their being generous because they are too smart for us." Why does that sound like bullshit? Going beyond that, some of us are talking about the rich and here you are equating that with the top 25%. Waitaminute. I know what rich is. I know what top 25% is. Rich ain't top 25%. It ain't top 10%. Top 1% is getting there, though not really. Top tenth of a percent, now that is the ballpark. Totally different kettle of fish. Million dollars a year, like Bush. I can't find the figures that I want, but I found some that I find interesting. Visit [link\|http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/irsfigures.guest.html\|http://www.rushlimba...igures.guest.html] and ignore the spin there. From 1986 to 2000 the amount of money that you had to make to get into the top 1% doubled. The portion of the income that was made by the top 1% went from 11.30% of the US income to 20.81%. The tax rate on that money fell from 33.13% to 27.45%. The total portion of tax paid by the top 1% therefore rose, but nowhere in line with their actual income. Now that is an amazing trick. Make more. Pay a smaller portion in tax. How do they do that? Because they are smarter than us? Wow, good accountants, don't you wish you could afford that! Nah. It is really pathetically simple. What has happened is that the very well off have realized that it is cheaper to buy politicians than it is to pay taxes. So they buy politicians, get exemptions, and then don't pay tax. And then apologists for them say that we can't tax them, we have to hope and pray for their generousity! Wouldn't it make more sense just to cut out a ton of the special rules that make life easy for them (like a proposal making it possible for those who live almost entirely off of existing investments to stop paying income tax entirely) and cut rhetoric that lumps the fraction of a percent of the top quarter that really makes money with the rest of us in that category? Oh sorry. Guess Bush wouldn't like that because guess how HE makes his money... Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #74,202 by bepatient 1/12/03 11:15:10 PM Reply	Nothing objectionable there. Your translation is a tad loose. But most of the rest is fairly reasonable. And glaring examples of why silly things like campaign finance reform and tax code revision are necessary. I'm not a big fan of the elimination of taxes on dividends. It does, however, have short term benefits that will do good things for the market and thus consumer confidence. Problem is you can't really >undo< it and maintain the positives. And long term...encouraging dividends will reduce re-investment and cost jobs and long-term growth. Neither one of these is a good thing. I think your solution is acceptable. There should be alot of rules tossed out. Make it too extreme, though, and you encourage capital flight. (like the mega-rich in Europe moving to Monaco). The objective is to find the right spot on the Laffer curve and stay there...the hard part is knowing where that is ;) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #74,207 by ben_tilly 1/12/03 11:41:51 PM Reply	The translation might be slightly loose... But I think it accurately captures the perception that people are actually reacting to, as fair or unfair as it might be. Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #74,209 by bepatient 1/12/03 11:52:05 PM Reply	Fair enough You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!