To: Mary Cluney who wrote (2325 ) 10/25/2007 3:15:23 PM From: TimF Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 42652 As for Reich's plan, I think it would be horrible, perhaps disastrous. Even Charlie Rangel is talking about decreasing corporate incomes taxes (although he plans his entire plan as revenue neutral) Even if you want to greatly increase the amount of redistriubtion caused by federal tax and spending policies, his idea isn't a good way to do it. Greg Makiw, who doesn't want to greatly increase redistribution, none the less suggested a better waygregmankiw.blogspot.com My personal opinion is that there would be a huge dead weight loss created by such confiscatory level of taxation. [T]he principle for who’s gonna pay should be equal sacrifice. Equal sacrifice means that in paying taxes, people ought to feel about the same degree of pain – regardless of whether they’re wealthy or poor. The idea that you should try to make a policy to make everyone feel the same level of pain is not only horribly impractical (impossible to measure the pain, or figure out how to cause the same level of pain) and filled with negative consequences (you discourage investment and initiative, while driving investment, and skilled driven individuals overseas, its also immoral. The goal of a program shouldn't be to inflict pain on anyone, except perhaps people who are criminals and/or enemies of the country. during World War II it was over 90 percent. In 1953, with the Cold War raging, Republican president Dwight Eisenhower refused to support a Republican bill to reduce the top rate, then 91 percent. At such levels, esp. levels sustained at that level rather than just in force during a massive war (that cost over a quarter of our GDP instead of 1 or 2 % like today's war), you not only harm the economy, you actually reduce government income below what it would be at more reasonable tax rates. Postscript: The blogger who asserts that 84.6 percent of all federal taxes are paid by the top 25 percent of income earners, and over a third are paid by the top 1 percent, advances a specious argument. Its not complete but its far from specious. Even when you factor in payroll taxes a disproportionate amount of tax income comes from the rich, and the vast majority comes from people with above average incomes. Second, and more to the point, it’s irrelevant how much of the total income tax burden is paid by the top 25 percent, or even the top 1 percent. The ethical and logical issue is what sort of sacrifice individuals are making, or should be expected to make, rather than what sacrifice an economic “class” is making as a whole. The rich have become so wealthy that even if each wealthy American paid a very small share of his or her incomes in taxes, the rich would still, as a group, account for a large share of total income taxes. I find it ironic that conservatives who extol the virtues of individualism and abhor so-called “class warfare” would resort to such a deceptive argument. Nothing deceptive about it. What is deceptive is deciding that the only relevant moral concern is the level of pain and sacrifice that people make or feel. What's even more deceptive is arguing that people who disagree with that idea, are not just wrong but are dishonest. The rich don't just pay more taxes because they have higher incomes, they pay a higher percent of their income as taxes, often much higher. Reich wants to increase that even further, and than go beyond high rates to include a wealth tax. This would cream small to medium size business owners, and provide a disincentive to monetary investment, investment in higher education, risk taking, and to hard work among the very skilled and productive.