Quote:
Originally Posted by Honus
It's funny that you would post this immediately after implying that I have a superior attitude.
I disagree with just about every syllable in your post. It's too bad that you don't want to have a civil conversation about it. I will leave you with an article that expresses what I have been attempting to say: The Great Tax Shift | Brookings Institution Some of the authors' predictions didn't come true, but their basic argument rings true to me. I agree with their basic point that, under W, the tax system shifted in favor of the wealthy and high earners. I wish it would shift back. The exact rates that should be enacted are not of much interest. |
Hilarious. I apologized for the error. You, apparently, don't want to accept it.
The article makes a conclusions simply on the basis of the cut taxes for dividends and on estate taxes. The remainder of the article tries to make a case that the reduction in marginal tax rates causes a greater benefit for the wealthy. Naturally, this is obviously true for the simple reason that the wealthy make
more money.
Such an argument, if left to its own devices, would have the wealthy paying marginal tax rates of 90% because that's where the greatest benefit would reside in terms of income.
No, sorry, I don't buy any of that argument. Fundamentally, you must sit down and make some decisions on how much you expect people to pay based upon income.
I gave you a scenario whereby a person had a taxable income of $300K and they currently pay $100K in taxes. When you address whether this amount of tax is acceptable, too low, or too high............then we can have a discussion about it. I'm not interested in discussing the opinion of an ivory tower institution that makes an argument based upon the obvious.