You're so full of shit on this issue I don't know where to begin.
Tom Send a noteboard - 04/09/2009 03:15:55 AM
That "draconian" system prior to the 1986 Tax Code allowed so many deductions and exemptions that it failed to function. People could deduct sales tax - don't you remember how people saved all their receipts and added that up at the end of the year? Also, you could deduct interest payments on non-mortgages. You could invest money in trusts due to complicated structures. The list goes on and on. I studied the history of the tax code as an intern for the tax professor in law school and am aware of all the twists and turns of the Code from its inception.
If the system had been employed without all of the loopholes that used to exist, the US would have taxed its entrepreneurs out of business. Hell, we officially had a 90% rate during World War II, that started at $200,000 (it had been $1,000,000 prior to the war). However, due to the way that trusts were taxed (or rather, often not taxed) and the massive gaps in the estate and gift tax system, most of the people who qualified paid much less than 90% on that income. In fact, there are still pre-1928 trusts that do not qualify for the estate or gift tax, chugging along happily and not paying taxes - legally.
If you are advocating simply a return to the Clinton rates, it's something that I don't like but I can see that you're at a point where people don't pay more than 50% of their income, when aggregated, in taxes. It is an obscene thought that anyone should ever pay more than 50% total (higher "recapture" rates that eliminate lower brackets but stop working once the money is recaptured are from a policy standpoint defensible, though I loath even that).
Your point about the Beatles simply reinforces a larger macroeconomic truth - America grows economically only to the extent that it provides people an opportunity to prosper. If we lived like Europe, fewer people would come here and our growth would slow. DON'T FORGET THAT 70% OF OUR ECONOMIC GROWTH IS DUE TO CONSUMER SPENDING. That's a disgusting truth, but the point is that without innovators coming here and bringing existing wealth or making new wealth, we will become a second-rate nation. If we have taxes that are lower than Europe's but a comparable living standard and domestic stability, people will continue to come here, bringing talent, wealth and/or ideas with them to keep us growing. If we follow your tax advice, we could see that dry up.
As for tax havens, it doesn't matter for US citizens. We are taxed on worldwide income and all tax havens report that information to the US IRS except Andorra and Monaco, which are coming under MASSIVE pressure and whose activities are scrutinized with a presumption of criminal (tax evasion) intent. AND ANOTHER THING: those Europeans who are "taxed so much" actually can take advantage of tax havens if they're ultra-rich - most European nations don't tax their citizens on income earned in other countries. By keeping income offshore, Europeans avoid their obscenely high tax rates. Once again, Americans can't do that.
Ultimately, I can take comfort in the fact that you aren't making policy in Washington or in a position to affect tax trends generally.
But yes, the Internet shows how everyone has an opinion. Just like they have assholes. You know where this is going - just go take a shower and quit oversimplifying tax policy.
If the system had been employed without all of the loopholes that used to exist, the US would have taxed its entrepreneurs out of business. Hell, we officially had a 90% rate during World War II, that started at $200,000 (it had been $1,000,000 prior to the war). However, due to the way that trusts were taxed (or rather, often not taxed) and the massive gaps in the estate and gift tax system, most of the people who qualified paid much less than 90% on that income. In fact, there are still pre-1928 trusts that do not qualify for the estate or gift tax, chugging along happily and not paying taxes - legally.
If you are advocating simply a return to the Clinton rates, it's something that I don't like but I can see that you're at a point where people don't pay more than 50% of their income, when aggregated, in taxes. It is an obscene thought that anyone should ever pay more than 50% total (higher "recapture" rates that eliminate lower brackets but stop working once the money is recaptured are from a policy standpoint defensible, though I loath even that).
Your point about the Beatles simply reinforces a larger macroeconomic truth - America grows economically only to the extent that it provides people an opportunity to prosper. If we lived like Europe, fewer people would come here and our growth would slow. DON'T FORGET THAT 70% OF OUR ECONOMIC GROWTH IS DUE TO CONSUMER SPENDING. That's a disgusting truth, but the point is that without innovators coming here and bringing existing wealth or making new wealth, we will become a second-rate nation. If we have taxes that are lower than Europe's but a comparable living standard and domestic stability, people will continue to come here, bringing talent, wealth and/or ideas with them to keep us growing. If we follow your tax advice, we could see that dry up.
As for tax havens, it doesn't matter for US citizens. We are taxed on worldwide income and all tax havens report that information to the US IRS except Andorra and Monaco, which are coming under MASSIVE pressure and whose activities are scrutinized with a presumption of criminal (tax evasion) intent. AND ANOTHER THING: those Europeans who are "taxed so much" actually can take advantage of tax havens if they're ultra-rich - most European nations don't tax their citizens on income earned in other countries. By keeping income offshore, Europeans avoid their obscenely high tax rates. Once again, Americans can't do that.
Ultimately, I can take comfort in the fact that you aren't making policy in Washington or in a position to affect tax trends generally.
But yes, the Internet shows how everyone has an opinion. Just like they have assholes. You know where this is going - just go take a shower and quit oversimplifying tax policy.
Political correctness is the pettiest form of casuistry.
ἡ δὲ κἀκ τριῶν τρυπημάτων ἐργαζομένη ἐνεκάλει τῇ φύσει, δυσφορουμένη, ὅτι δὴ μὴ καὶ τοὺς τιτθοὺς αὐτῇ εὐρύτερον ἢ νῦν εἰσι τρυπώη, ὅπως καὶ ἄλλην ἐνταῦθα μίξιν ἐπιτεχνᾶσθαι δυνατὴ εἴη. – Procopius
Ummaka qinnassa nīk!
*MySmiley*
ἡ δὲ κἀκ τριῶν τρυπημάτων ἐργαζομένη ἐνεκάλει τῇ φύσει, δυσφορουμένη, ὅτι δὴ μὴ καὶ τοὺς τιτθοὺς αὐτῇ εὐρύτερον ἢ νῦν εἰσι τρυπώη, ὅπως καὶ ἄλλην ἐνταῦθα μίξιν ἐπιτεχνᾶσθαι δυνατὴ εἴη. – Procopius
Ummaka qinnassa nīk!
*MySmiley*
For Europeans who don't understand why Americans are against ObamaCare
03/09/2009 04:24:35 AM
- 1151 Views
I'd be happy to tax top "earners" more and suffer Europes economic "collapse. "
03/09/2009 04:30:31 AM
- 626 Views
The US will never work with socialism.
03/09/2009 04:40:21 AM
- 710 Views
Re: The US will never work with socialism.
03/09/2009 04:58:47 AM
- 700 Views
I don't think the mistrust of the government is really all that overblown
03/09/2009 05:04:34 AM
- 621 Views
It's advanced beyond what it was during the Revolution, I think.
03/09/2009 05:18:22 AM
- 661 Views
I would say it's grown with the government
03/09/2009 05:23:52 AM
- 648 Views
The key is that government shouldn't be heavily involved in personal lives.
03/09/2009 05:58:39 AM
- 668 Views
Re: I don't think the mistrust of the government is really all that overblown
04/09/2009 03:30:23 AM
- 586 Views
How much more can we really tax the wealthy??
03/09/2009 04:41:14 AM
- 550 Views
A lot; before Reagans "reforms" we already taxed them less than any other industrialized state did.
03/09/2009 05:06:00 AM
- 666 Views
I hear a lot of socialism coming from you.....
03/09/2009 05:19:08 AM
- 531 Views
Re: I hear a lot of socialism coming from you.....
03/09/2009 05:40:32 AM
- 616 Views
Nice non-answer answer.....
03/09/2009 05:52:04 AM
- 625 Views
You want detailed answers that require detailed data I don't have.
03/09/2009 06:06:55 AM
- 682 Views
Here are some facts and analyses.....
03/09/2009 02:40:22 PM
- 704 Views
The Heritage Foundation, huh?
03/09/2009 03:01:17 PM
- 733 Views
The non-working wealthy? Please quantify.....
03/09/2009 03:31:58 PM
- 719 Views
So you accept the CBOs assessment the House healthcare bill will be $1 trillion over the next decade
04/09/2009 03:02:13 AM
- 610 Views
You're so full of shit on this issue I don't know where to begin.
04/09/2009 03:15:55 AM
- 699 Views
Re: You're so full of shit on this issue I don't know where to begin.
04/09/2009 03:59:21 AM
- 785 Views
Less than 200 people were said to be US persons with Swiss accounts
04/09/2009 04:16:24 AM
- 581 Views
And yet account for many millions of dollars; what does that say...?
04/09/2009 04:21:57 AM
- 617 Views
It's statistically insignificant and your hyperbole is reminiscent of screaming guests on CNN.
04/09/2009 02:07:31 PM
- 518 Views
Well, look at this way:
04/09/2009 02:24:03 PM
- 659 Views
That's not a solution.
05/09/2009 02:39:12 AM
- 669 Views
The Soviets weren't socialist, or even communist, so it's a false comparison.
05/09/2009 03:09:06 AM
- 609 Views
Okay, now you've just gone into Kool-aid drinking territory.
05/09/2009 04:32:07 AM
- 720 Views
Communist THEORY is predicated on democratic participation at every level,totally absent in the USSR
05/09/2009 04:55:00 AM
- 838 Views
Ever heard of the 20-80 rule?
04/09/2009 04:28:54 AM
- 528 Views
Top earners? Please define.....what income and how much more? *NM*
03/09/2009 04:52:25 AM
- 429 Views
That would be open to definition, and should change with inflation.
03/09/2009 05:13:02 AM
- 779 Views
What is your justification for taking over 50% of anyone's income?
03/09/2009 05:28:22 AM
- 707 Views
That's a good example of why I say the rate has to be set to cost of living.
03/09/2009 05:50:16 AM
- 741 Views
Still no comment on the fact that 40% of Americans don't pay any income taxes?
03/09/2009 02:32:12 PM
- 669 Views
To what 40% do you refer?
03/09/2009 02:42:55 PM
- 525 Views
Dude, you are not making this easy.....
03/09/2009 03:38:01 PM
- 562 Views
No one "gets money from the IRS. "
04/09/2009 02:55:02 AM
- 574 Views
Actually with EIC you can get money back that you never paid in.
04/09/2009 02:56:43 AM
- 559 Views
It MIGHT be possible with the EIC, but in practice few people get more than they paid.
04/09/2009 03:43:36 AM
- 598 Views
I don't know, I've known plenty of people that have gotten more back than they paid in
04/09/2009 03:46:29 AM
- 689 Views
Yet another example of your ignorance on tax policy.
04/09/2009 03:19:39 AM
- 511 Views
The word I notice is "welfare"
04/09/2009 03:57:01 AM
- 627 Views
I wouldn't say that's what it means....
04/09/2009 04:02:40 AM
- 630 Views
It's what welfare means to me...
04/09/2009 04:32:17 AM
- 634 Views
I was just talking about EIC as a form of welfare, not welfare welfare. *NM*
04/09/2009 04:45:13 AM
- 387 Views
It's a credit for people who file a return on income that's been taxed.
04/09/2009 04:19:57 AM
- 560 Views
It is only for the WORKING poor, yes.
04/09/2009 02:12:55 PM
- 550 Views
Mean it may be, but hardly illegal.
04/09/2009 02:31:16 PM
- 582 Views
No real comments, just 100% agree with you....plus the $12 trillion is terrifying to me. *NM*
03/09/2009 04:33:39 AM
- 273 Views
Excellent post - the US government is not capable of running HC.....
03/09/2009 04:40:19 AM
- 505 Views
It depends on your level of cynicism
03/09/2009 05:38:53 AM
- 675 Views
when have they ever cut the fat?
03/09/2009 08:35:36 PM
- 596 Views
This doesn't make sense to me.
03/09/2009 08:33:18 AM
- 644 Views
The key phrase is "should be. "
03/09/2009 09:38:15 AM
- 779 Views
In fairness, most Europeans don't seem to realize what ObamaCare is.
03/09/2009 02:34:01 PM
- 669 Views
As far as most people I know are concerned, opposition to ObamaCare isn't the issue.
03/09/2009 11:04:36 PM
- 741 Views
It's hard not to be horrified with a government as wasteful as ours
03/09/2009 11:24:59 PM
- 525 Views
For Americans who don't understand why Canadians like their public healthcare.
04/09/2009 04:23:11 AM
- 645 Views
Correction
04/09/2009 04:44:32 AM
- 627 Views
Re: Correction
04/09/2009 05:05:11 AM
- 704 Views