tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4841866593898210279.post5088280125278559076..comments2023-10-31T03:54:17.210-05:00Comments on Thus Blogged Anderson: Another refugee from the Republican PartyAndersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02325205512110155291noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4841866593898210279.post-57855309841675565062011-09-07T09:51:44.616-05:002011-09-07T09:51:44.616-05:00Just to give a true-life example I've seen, an...Just to give a true-life example I've seen, an old farmer might have a farm that he ought to sell (Or a landlord an apartment building). They can no longer manage the property as well as an active owner. But they won't sell because the government will take a big chunk of their sales price in taxes, so instead they just rent out the property and earn a lesser return on a bigger corpus. As a result the property is not as well managed or cared for and society loses.<br /><br />Second, a four-percent rise in marginal rates may not have much effect on the guy making from 500,000 to one million. He really has no choice but to keep plugging away. But for the super rich it becomes worth their while to find ways to avoid taxation rather than to pay the extra money. It's not that they aren't working, it's just that more of their work effort is spent reducing their tax burden, because that is how their time is best spent.<br /><br />As a society we don't hesitate to increase taxes on cigarettes to reduce smoking, increase taxes on liquor to reduce drinking; the Europeans tax energy to reduce consumption. So why doesn't the average smart guy like you, and yes I rate you as such, realize that taxing work and investment will reduce work and investment.<br /><br />As I mentioned earlier, I would wholeheartedly support a very low annual estate tax on larger estates of say one-half to one percent. You could combine this with a low-rate flat tax plus a national sales tax and have a much fairer tax structure.Col. Reb Sezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02962693457509336759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4841866593898210279.post-65697737820752704532011-09-06T16:36:25.599-05:002011-09-06T16:36:25.599-05:00Successful people, IMHO, aren't usually doing ...Successful people, IMHO, aren't usually doing what they do because it earns them x dollars instead of x - (0.9x) dollars. They're doing it because That Is What They Do, they're good at it, they wouldn't want to do anything else. They are not thinking how they're going to see fewer patients if their top bracket goes from 35% to 39%.Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02325205512110155291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4841866593898210279.post-3548802268872364162011-09-06T14:25:50.721-05:002011-09-06T14:25:50.721-05:00While #1 re marginal income tax rates might be tru...While #1 re marginal income tax rates might be true in theory, in practice I find it hard to believe. Is the next investment banking deal not going to get done because of marginal tax rates? Can a small business owner just close up shop, e.g., the entire month of December? Can Jeff Immelt go on vacation for two months (and even if he did, would his compensation decrease)?<br /><br />It really is an Econ 101 fantasy world that doesn't take into account how the actual market for services from individuals works (at least in the United States). I suppose if you were the world's expert on Topic Y and had an insatiable demand for your services, you might sit down and consider the work vs. leisure tradeoff that comes with changes in marginal income tax rates, but I doubt there are few such people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4841866593898210279.post-78113369664223562672011-09-06T12:31:24.899-05:002011-09-06T12:31:24.899-05:00Reb, your point # 1 would, literally, disqualify y...Reb, your point # 1 would, literally, disqualify you from seeking the GOP nomination for president. Seriously. <br /><br />(I also don't recall that any high earners became disinclined to work under the Clinton years' top tax bracket, but perhaps you have examples.)Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02325205512110155291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4841866593898210279.post-86276787512967428432011-09-06T11:51:01.029-05:002011-09-06T11:51:01.029-05:00I consider myself a Republican.
1. I oppose raisi...I consider myself a Republican.<br /><br />1. I oppose raising taxes on high earners because I think it will distort the economy and serve as a disincentive to work. I am NOT opposed to a relatively low annual tax on wealth, which will hit the super rich like Warren Buffet, who never has taxable events and thus never pays taxes. This is exactly what Huey Long supported, although I wouldn't want to go to the five to eight percent rate that he supported. One-half to one percent should be plenty and should raise a lot of money.<br /><br />2. I, along with many other Republicans, are far more militantly in favor of peace than our current Democratic president, who just staged an illegal war. Even Bush didn't do that. Ron Paul is running on an anti-war platform; Obama isn't.<br /><br />3. While I respect those on the religious right, I really don't consider myself a member, and I oppose some of the things they support.<br /><br />There are a lot of us who DO want to see the federal government shrink in both size and power. Mike Lofgren spent the better part of his life trying to increase the size and power of the federal government, and I don't think he can stand the fact that most Republicans don't share his views.ColRebSezhttp://www.colrebsez.comnoreply@blogger.com