From: matus (matus@snet.net)
Date: Mon Apr 07 2003 - 20:01:25 MDT
> Michael Dickey quotes
>
> "[U.S.] High Incomers are paying an even larger share of income
> taxes than in past years, according to the new IRS data from tax
> returns for 2000, the most recent set it has analyzed."
>
> The data in the quote reads
> Percentage of
> Top Percent All Taxes Paid
>
> 1% 37%
> 5% 56%
> 10% 67%
> 50% 96%
>
>
> > While I am opposed to progressive taxes..., I have a suggestion.
> > Why not just eliminate that bottom 50% of wage earners from the
> > income tax? It would amount to a 4% tax cut to income revenue,
> > some of which would be negated by how much would be saved by the
> > IRS only dealing with 140 million people instead of 280 million.
>
> That's a brilliant idea!
>
> Of course, then the bottom 51% will have absolutely no incentive
> whatsoever to oppose tax increases, and since they are the
> beneficiaries of the redistributed monies, we can demolish
> incentives all around, and complete the wrecking of the country
> right away! It's better than a slow death of a thousand jabs
> anyway.
>
> Lee
>
> (Note. Many sentences of the above were sarcastic in nature---Lee)
>
Ugh, good point Lee. Well its clear I had not clearly thought through this
suggestion, I just thought of it while reading the Kiplinger Tax report a
few months ago. What a terrible positive feedback, every single tax hike on
the 49% who pay all the taxes would directly benefit the 51% who do not!
The majority of course winning every time. Ok, altered suggestion, how
about instead of the bottom 50%, we make it the bottom 40% - 33%, they will
always remain in the minority and thus hopefully prevent a runaway tax
increase. The majority would always be the ones bearing the brunt of the
taxes, and thus would successfully oppose continued tax hikes.
Michael Dickey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 07 2003 - 19:53:33 MDT