Seems like a good idea to me.
Cesca also says:
It turns out that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire will only hurt people earning more than $300,000 per year. And it appears as if keeping the Bush tax cuts in place would force people earning $60-150,000 to pay slightly more.
H/T to Southern Beale, extending the chain.
Now, go post this on your blog.
Seriously - what are you waiting for?
.
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/tny_au_xx_usoz_4.gif)
2 comments:
Cesca sort of gets it (actually he usually just blesses ObamaCo)--but see my blog for an interesting proposal on taxing the very rich.
According to some progressive econo-men we need to revoke the current tax brackets (which Reagan initiated) and return to something like the earlier, more complex brackets, where say very wealthy individuals (millionaires+) were taxed at higher rates (substantially higher) than just moderately wealthy ($250,000+). It's a bit weird that say billionaires pay no more in taxes-- per capita as the frat-boy economists say--than a successful doctor in town making 300 grand a year or so (what is it, about 45% on both--the Dr shouldn't be taxed much more, but the rates should 75% on the ueberwealthy).
And when someone reaches obscenely wealthy levels such as Warren Buffett or Billy Gates levels, the Feds just seize their cash and asssets.
I'm not a regular Cesca reader, and saw this at Beal's place.
I wouldn't go so far as to just seize asstes . . . yet!
But steeply progressive taxation, on both income and inheritance is vitally important to avoid or undue the kind of wealth disparity we now have.
Thanks for the comment.
Cheers!
JzB
Post a Comment