From: James Rogers (jamesr@best.com)
Date: Wed Jan 02 2002 - 20:30:10 MST
On 1/2/02 6:51 PM, "Neil Blanch" <neilb@nswcc.org.au> wrote:
>
> However the constant obsession with lowering
> tax burdens (particularly for the wealthy, who through tax avoidance
> schemes, contribute increasingly small portions of their incomes)
The taxes are on income, not on wealth, hence why many wealthy people don't
seem to pay that much in taxes. For example, Bill Gates only makes
something like one million dollars a year of income; punitively taxing his
income probably costs him less than his utility bill. Most of the "income"
for a wealthy person is frequently derived from some type of capital
investment, which doesn't suffer from the same tax structure as working
folk. The current punitive tax structure, and the fact that people seem to
ignore that income is not wealth, is arguably one of the biggest reasons
that more people in the middle class don't become wealthy.
Income is potential wealth, not real wealth. The current tax structure
interferes with conversion of potential wealth into real wealth. The more
wealthy people there are, the more society benefits. Therefore, one could
argue that the current "progressive" income tax structure actually serves to
limit the spreading of wealth in the population. Taxing the life out of the
middle class every time they get a pay raise neither "soaks the rich" nor
helps the middle class become financially independent. Put this way,
progressive income tax structures sound more like a way for a rich elite to
stay that way.
-James Rogers
jamesr@best.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:32 MST