Question for Copernicus (any any other supply-siders present):
 

<u>Question:</u> In your informed economic opinion, should the wealthy pay any taxes at all?

I ask this because you apparantly believe that cutting taxes for the rich universally "increases tax revenue" and "stimulates the economy" (at all times and under all circumstances).

So, my question is: should we simply eliminate ALL taxes for the rich, in the interest of the nation?

If this is your position, please say so for the record.
If this is not your position, please explain *why not*.


q/q

Re: Question for Copernicus (any any other supply-siders present):
 

As a devout supply-sider, I'd say - NO.
As far as businesses go - YES

Re: Question for Copernicus (any any other supply-siders present):
 

[ QUOTE ]
In your informed economic opinion

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess that leaves me out.

Re: Question for Copernicus (any any other supply-siders present):
 

My opinion is not informed, but here are my thoughts. It would seem there exists some level of taxation of the rich that is optimal for sufficient funding of the treasury and economic growth. I have not heard of anyone who can say what that percentage is. I will assert that excessive(progressive) taxation of income hurts those who are trying to move up in income brackets, the presently rich will remain so regardless of income taxation rates. So since the optimal taxation rate is unknown and the morality of taxation is debatable, how about a flat tax which punishes all producers at the same percentage and still accomplishes the task of funding the treasury for those things deemed necessary by society.

Re: Question for Copernicus (any any other supply-siders present):
 

[ QUOTE ]
I will assert that excessive taxation of income hurts those who are trying to move up in income brackets

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
how about a flat tax which punishes all producers at the same percentage and still accomplishes the task of funding the treasury for those things deemed necessary by society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those two statements are difficult to reconcile. Because our system is progressive, a flat tax would increases taxes for lower and middle classes, while decreasing them for the upper classes. It would hurt more people trying to move up income brackets than the progressive one currently does. This all presumes we need the same $$$, no massive scale down in spending.

Re: Question for Copernicus (any any other supply-siders present):
 

[ QUOTE ]
since the optimal taxation rate is unknown

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you accept that there is an "optimal taxation rate" for the wealthy which is greater than zero?


q/q

Re: Question for Copernicus (any any other supply-siders present):
 

The reconciliation lies in determining what is needed by society within the confines of a fair tax system. The fairness being that any determination of the morality of a particular income tax percentage is arbitrary, hence having all earners pay the same percentage is "fair", in so far as all pay the same percentage of what it is they have produced. Of course you can argue the 'fairness' of the system, arguing the rich owe society to a greater degree than others.

Re: Question for Copernicus (any any other supply-siders present):
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
since the optimal taxation rate is unknown

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you accept that there is an "optimal taxation rate" for the wealthy which is greater than zero?


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

I do, but I could be wrong.

Re: Question for Copernicus (any any other supply-siders present):
 

[ QUOTE ]
I ask this because you apparantly believe that cutting taxes for the rich universally "increases tax revenue"

[/ QUOTE ]Uh- isn't there consensus among economists that Bush's tax cuts did nothing of the sort? Even Greenspan reversed himself and called them wrong not too long ago.

http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm

Re: Question for Copernicus (any any other supply-siders present):
 

Business investment stimulates economic growth. The political rhetoric regarding the 2003 tax cuts IMO almost always ignores the tax cuts that were business friendly. Individuals share of the federal income tax revenues is much greater than the corporate share of federal income tax revenues. So I think it's important to distinguish between what businesses pay and what individuals pay.

With that stated, we've discussed income taxes for individuals ad finutem [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. There's obviously a point where income taxes are so high that people won't bother working thus less tax revenues and there's a point where taxes are so low government revenues will start to decline signficantly.