"Josh Hill"  wrote in message
news:3j9qi3pqpdulh4hgmsvml66fsl4ukdogch{at}4ax.com...
> On Sat, 3 Nov 2007 20:30:30 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
>  wrote:
>
> >"Josh Hill"  wrote in message
> >news:a82hi39gbjjdtkunfb5d3fdqh40qbe18ff{at}4ax.com...
>
> >> Well, yeah, they cut those taxes, and the estate tax, because they
> >> wanted to cut taxes for the rich. Even then, they could have targeted
> >> the cuts towards the middle class, had they wanted to.
> >
> >Or, just perhaps....by cutting captial gains taxes they'll
> >stimulate.....economic activity.
> >:-)
>
> Wrong way to do it, because capital gains taxes benefit the rich, who
> spend a much lower percentage of their income than the poor. So a $1
> capital gains tax cut increases consumption significantly less than a
> $1 cut in taxes that hit the poor and middle class.
>

So the only economic activity of worth is consumption?
Did Buffett consume his way into wealth?

> Incidentally, I came across this the other day:
>
> "Critics of supply-side economics such as Paul Krugman claim that
> 'supply-side economics' was always a smokescreen for
> politically-motivated tax cuts. They point to Reagan-era Director of
> the Office of Management and Budget David Stockman's admission that
> supply-side doctrine of across-the-board tax cuts embodied in
> centerpiece legislation commonly known as the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut 'was
> always a Trojan horse to bring down the top [marginal income tax]
> rate'."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics
>
> >And I've not really been fond of the estate tax.
>
> Me, I've never quite understood why a rich man shouldn't be taxed for
> money he receives for doing nothing, while a guy who works to support
> his family isn't.

Well, IIRC they're both taxed on income, dividends, capital gains, etc.

>
> >>
> >> >> To put it in perspective, the top 1% of American
taxpayers earn
21.2%
> >> >> of American income. They paid 39.4% of income taxes,
or a bit less
> >> >> than twice the average rate, but they paid much
lower effective
rates
> >> >> on other taxes such as FICA, real estate, and sales, so their
overall
> >> >> tax burden as a percentage of gross income may well
be *lower* than
> >> >> that of the middle class.
> >> >
> >> >So the top 1% pay 39.4 % of iuncome taxes, yet that's not enough.
> >>
> >> No, it isn't. For one thing, other taxes are regressive -- they hit
> >> regular people a lot harder than they hit the rich -- and the mildly
> >> progressive income tax helps to correct for that. But, mostly, the top
> >> 1% of taxpayers earn *21.2%* of American income. It stands to reason
> >> that a family that earns a hundred times what others earn in a year
> >> has a bit more to spare when tax time rolls around.
> >
> >So how mcuh more should they pay? Clearly paying  39% isn't enough -
> >How much more?
>
> There's no "should" there, because there's no magical percentage at
> which taxes become "enough."

So it'll never be enough to satisfy some folks :-)

Dennis


.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32