> The "trickle down" Reaganomics theory for less progressive taxes has already
> failed once. See http://epn.org/prospect/22/22wolf.html for a cogent
If tax rates are 0%, taxes are 0. If tax rates are 100%, taxes are 0,
because no one's bothering to work. So there's some curve relating
rates and revenues. If rates are below the optimal rate, then raising
rates will increase taxes; if above the optimum, then the rates are
being a net disincentive, and should be lowered. Essentially
supply-side ("voodoo economics" according to candidate Bush) stated that
we were above the optimum. Apparently this was not the case.
> "trickle down" resulted in real dollar decreases in the incomes of the lowest
> 60% of American society. During the 1960s when the tax system was decidely
> progressive (with the highest marginal tax rate exceeding 70%) all portions of
> American society experiencd real wage growth. And what about countries such as
Don't know if I can buy this. There are some differences in the world
economy between the 60's and the 80's.
> unreasonable that the ones who reap the most from the American system pay a
> higher portion (though still retaining ample amounts unto themselves) in return
My problem is that the biggest expenses are welfare for old folks.
Defense, welfare for poor people, and other things, don't add up to that
much; it's SS and Medicare which dominate.
-xx- GSV Cynical Optimist X-)
"If ants had nuclear weapons, they would probably end the Earth in a
week." -- E.O. Wilson, _Journey to the Ants_