Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan

I also think that people who 'succeed' do so not only by their virtue but with the help of a social infrastructure (roads, police enforcement, the rule of law, government policy, etc.) that supports the attainment and aggregation of wealth.

I think that few wealthy individuals have a problem paying for roads, police, the military, etc. Some government programs, however, are not so vital to our society or economy and I think some people have a problem paying for them.

Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan

It strikes me that rolling back parts of the Bush tax cuts is not particularly onerous and that those cuts were a bad idea in the first place, especially given the apparent imperative of fighting a war that has cost exponentially more than what we were told by the administration in 2003.

Some of his tax cuts, however, actually increased tax revenue. Reducing the capital gains tax, for example, actually increased capital gains tax revenue. Moreover, capital gains tax cuts were not aimed squarely at the upper echelons of society. More than 50% of the American households report capital gains/losses. Moreover, the notion that we should increase taxes on people who have gained money by pumping money into the economy sounds somewhat counterproductive to me, especially in light of the fallout of the subprime market and its aftershocks (e.g., limited credit availability for M&A and capital expenditures).

[SC Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Some of his tax cuts, however, actually increased tax revenue. Reducing the capital gains tax, for example, actually increased capital gains tax revenue. Moreover, capital gains tax cuts were not aimed squarely at the upper echelons of society. More than 50% of the American households report capital gains/losses. Moreover, the notion that we should increase taxes on people who have gained money by pumping money into the economy sounds somewhat counterproductive to me, especially in light of the fallout of the subprime market and its aftershocks (e.g., limited credit availability for M&A and capital expenditures).

I don't claim to understand the in's and out's of tax policy, but the 'tax revenue increases with decreased rates of taxation' is apparently a questionable assertion.

FactCheck.org: The Budget According to McCain: Part II

But if we want to cut taxes then we have to cut spending (which is what McCain said way back in 2001/2003) because the effects of the current administration's policies have been to enlarge the deficit enormously. It is the 'no sacrifice required' ethos that infuses so much of contemporary American culture. And with McCain's current rhethoric that means cutting domestic spending, which has consequences. So then you have to ask who is being asked to sacrifice and who gains most from that sacrifice.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan

I don't claim to understand the in's and out's of tax policy, but the 'tax revenue increases with decreased rates of taxation' is apparently a questionable assertion.

It's debateable for a number of reasons. First and foremost, it is difficult to separate causation from correlation. But, even if cuts in the capital gains rate do not result in substantial increases in tax revenue, I have yet to see anything which indicates that cuts in the cap gains rate results in the loss of substantial amount of tax revenue.