SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
From: KLP11/8/2012 3:01:58 AM
7 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) of 793926
 
READER MICHAEL MILLER offers another suggestion to Speaker Boehner for increasing revenue:
Want to change the direction of the debate? Let’s talk about actually taxing the wealthy. You want to see Dem’s scream and argue about that. Tax people on their assets, not their income. Pelosi’s wealthy on income, nope.

The conversation MUST change. There are dozens of potential revenue sources within the wealthy that would easily triple the income to the US over penalizing hard workers. And then, we’d see the true colors of the Dems, the Streisands, Spielbergs, the Soros.

Hundreds of billions can be generated, by taxing a very small portion of muni bond income. Yes, other items can be looked at, tax breaks, but they are miniscule, to the total WEALTH, (NOT INCOME) that is out there. And it wouldn’t change their desirability since even after a SMALL tax, it beats everything out there. Guess who owns muni’s? Feinstein, Spielberg…

In essence, this is the only way out of the punitive tax brackets we find ourselves in. And even if it makes little economic sense, just hearing these jerks whine about a tax on THEM, just for a bit, would be hilarious.

Meanwhile, Prof. Stephen Clark writes:
Why not call Obama and Reid’s bluff.

Quid: Bush era tax rates expire for everyone and a one-time only extension of the debt ceiling limit to get us into the New Year and a new Congress.

Quo: An agreement by all parties to a vastly simplified tax system that is flatter and has no exemptions other than that for dependents, and no deductions – none for anyone or anything.

I thought about including spending cuts; but no, perhaps not, in keeping with the KISS principle. If the people want their government to spend money in a manner that would make a drunken sailor blush, then they should have to pay for it – every single one of them. It is not a coincidence that as the tax system has become more progressive we’ve become such public spendthrifts.

Only when people see that the revenue obtained doesn’t come close to covering the government’s outlays will anyone begin to believe that the cupboard is bare. Does it hurt the economy? Perhaps, but therein lies a lesson too.

I’m all for education.

Posted at 11:10 pm by Glenn Reynolds
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext