That is fairly sick, your common sense, if you're asking me. To encourage relatively tiny contributions, you want to continue taxing bundles and bundles. You won't justify taxation of privately earned funds for use in huge boondoggles(just a fraction of $'s often get to earmarked projects/poor parties), as per is the well known status quo of government programs, so that some tiny fraction will be sure to go to charities from private hands(look at the total you've taken from private hands, then calculate how much more givers could afford and how much they would likely give, if they had it mostly back. The analysis presented didn't account for that).
The 70+% fall of the QQQ under Clinton led the grand fall over the last 3.5 years, and whatever hardship the rich may be suffering along with the poor, as you suggest. If this is Bush's fault in some large way, it must surely stem as Clintons fault in a huge way, as witnessed by the huge fall in technology on his time. Personally, i'm not convinced - for numerous reasons - that it is fairly said to be either mans fault.
By the by, if you paid 20%, you paid too much. There is a good chance I paid only 15% at least one of those years you made 300,000+. I did it by enjoying life and earning too little. Damn those graduated taxes, eh?
Dan B |
