Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?

Back to the subject at hand, I'm going with 750k as an appropriate cutoff. Then adjust every year with inflation rates. There's no formula involved with this value, just good old gut instinct. Sometimes you got to go with the gut.

Back to the subject at hand, I'm going with 750k as an appropriate cutoff. Then adjust every year with inflation rates. There's no formula involved with this value, just good old gut instinct. Sometimes you got to go with the gut.


I'll see your 750K and up it by 250K. I say let's make it a cool million just to be on the safe side.

I don't claim to understand the in's and out's of tax policy, but the 'tax revenue increases with decreased rates of taxation' is apparently a questionable assertion.

It's debateable for a number of reasons. First and foremost, it is difficult to separate causation from correlation. But, even if cuts in the capital gains rate do not result in substantial increases in tax revenue, I have yet to see anything which indicates that cuts in the cap gains rate results in the loss of substantial amount of tax revenue.

Well here is a peice about two of the largest tax cuts durn JFK (yes JFK cut taxes for the rich) and Regan tax cuts.Tax Cuts vs. Government Revenue [Mackinac Center for Public Policy] (http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=676)

Well here is a peice about two of the largest tax cuts durn JFK (yes JFK cut taxes for the rich) and Regan tax cuts.Tax Cuts vs. Government Revenue [Mackinac Center for Public Policy] (http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=676)

I like how he says this:
It should be stressed, however, that the economy of the 1990s has grown moderately, in spite of tax increases, not because of them.

Yet he provides absolutely no support for the statement.

I like how he says this:

It should be stressed, however, that the economy of the 1990s has grown moderately, in spite of tax increases, not because of them.

Yet he provides absolutely no support for the statement.Economic theory has generally ruled that statement to be true through trial and error, but it is a poor writing technique to just assume your reader is fluent in economic theory and move on.

It's not hard to defend a statement like that; a little effort would be nice.

I'll see your 750K and up it by 250K. I say let's make it a cool million just to be on the safe side.

I actually considered 1 mil but I think the elation of making it to the 7 figure mark would be offset by being taxed more. I'd hate to make a suggestion that leads to such disappointment. Hmm, what the hay, let's make it 1.25 million but increase the taxable % to offset all of the potential money we will have lost from the 250k to 1.25M crowd.

I couldn't agree more. If we had a flat tax everything would be great. If you make 10K you should get another job or second job and then you might be able to afford that $4.50 gallon of gas and that $4 gallon of milk and won't have to rely on a tax scheme that fleeces the rich.
I don't want to turn this into another thread about oil, but this is exactly why we need to drill for oil here. If we were energy independent, gas would be cheap again and the recession would be over.

oil speculation is driving up prices more than lack of supply right now... everyone diving in for fast cash (700% profit in 7 years, wow). other commodities are seeing the same type of investment hoarding too.

as for riggo - you don't like seeing soldiers hurt, but guess what? try talking to some of them. they knew the deal and wanted to join anyways. using the "someone might get hurt" argument in a war debate would be pretty laughable. have fun with your terribly warped and close minded world view.

Economic theory has generally ruled that statement to be true through trial and error, but it is a poor writing technique to just assume your reader is fluent in economic theory and move on.

It's not hard to defend a statement like that; a little effort would be nice.
I'm not sure what you mean by "trial and error". I found a few links discussing it, but it's mostly places like the Heritage Foundation, from whom I expect no less (see these comments (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/03/tax-cuts-not-th.html)):
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm1835.cfm

Factcheck.org says it was a combination of reducing the deficit, oil, and the internet boom:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/were_clintons_policies_responsible_for_the_1990s.h tml

This was a pretty balanced review of the 1990s economy (although it could be raving lunacy for all I know):
http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TotW/clinton.html

I did find one study that suggested the deeper the tax cuts in the 1990s the deeper budget problems and economic stress during the downturn:
http://www.cbpp.org/1-12-05sfp-pr.htm

The important takeaway according to the study was that tax cuts have to be affordable (which means cutting programs). That would support the opposite conclusion of tax cuts increasing revenue.