Warren Buffet, your favorite target, is probably not paying close to 40% of his income, and that's because most of his earnings come from investments and his other taxes are dwarfed by his wealth.
The bottom line is you think a man who makes a lot of money ought to pay a confiscatory tax rates. Those of us who understand the issues think those peoples' money is what provides jobs, and therefore, their wealth ought not be confiscated.
When Carter was in office, the maximum tax rate for federal income taxes was 90% (if you elected MFS status). Look what it got us. When Reagan cut taxes, the unemployment rate came down.
Now you can argue with the facts, but there is plenty of evidence that confiscatory tax rates adversely affect the economy. This is why we have IRC Section 179, the reason we had (starting under Kennedy, and for some 26 years) IRC Section 238 (relating to the Investment Tax Credit), the Jobs Credit to encourage employment of the poor, the concept of accelerated depreciation, which is entirely a tax-motivated provision, and at least 100 other tax treatments that are specifically directed at economic stimulus (including, I might add, the recent rebate program which was spearheaded not by the president, but by the liberals in Congress).
So, at least SOME people believe that lowering taxes is a legitimate means of improving the economy. |
