To: GraceZ who wrote (107981 ) 6/11/2001 8:01:44 AM From: flatsville Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 436258 >>>Confiscatory taxes tend to reduce economic activity simply because they provide a disincentive to create income as well as encourage the creation of tax shelters. The idea that you can get the rich to share a bigger burden than they already do by raising marginal rates or keeping them high tends to backfire. Simply because when the tax rates are high the rich tend to structure their money making ventures to avoid taxes. When the marginal rates are lower they simply pay the tax because it isn't worth it to them to go through the shenanigans of sheltering income.<<< ROTFLMAO--Grace, honestly I think you need to re-examine your assumptions here. According to you, when the Tax Reform Act of 1986 reduced the top tax rate on upper-income taxpayers from 50 percent to 28 percent there should have been a reduction in tax avoidance behavior. I can tell you that was not the case and so can just about any employee in the Exam Division of IRS. What determines whether or not people engage in tax avoidance or sheltering of income (legal) or in many cases tax evasion or outright cheating (illegal) is the opportunity created in each change of the tax code regardless of rates. IOW what doors does Congress leave open-- >>>The effect of loopholes is to narrow the tax base, which means that there is less income to tax. As documented in chapter 1, the federal government counted 50 tax expenditure items in 1967 that cost the IRS an estimated $37 billion in uncollected taxes. By 1981, the number of tax expenditures had grown to 104, with an estimated loss of $229 billion, a total that more than doubled to over $500 billion in foregone revenues in 1986. By 1989 the figure had fallen to about $400 billion, but by 1993 it again surpassed $500 billion. The effect of all these loopholes, demanded and obtained by special-interest groups, is that the tax base is in the neighborhood of half the GDP.<<< So tinkering with the tax code between 1989, when the figure first fell significantly because some loopholes were closed as a result of TRA 86, (not because people stopped looking for or seeking the opportunity because rates were lower and they figured "Aw, what the hell...we'll just pay up.) and 1993, before the next revision of rates to the upside, produced 100 billion in tax expenditure items (or tax preference items.) IOW rates were lower due to TRA 86, but the rich still bitched and Congress gave back some tax expenditure items between 1989 and 1993. The rich missed their old friends. Whaddaya know? Anyway, what you wrote sounds reasonable it just isn't correct.