It’s not 80% of your income, just like if you’ve paid any attention to your current taxes you’re not paying the rate of whatever your tax-bracket is on your gross income, just the portion of it that rests in the bounds of that bracket.

My fault for not being clearer. I understand marginal tax rates and didn’t make that obvious.

I was trying to state that taxing 80% of income over $250,000 is wrong.

This is actually an idea that Friedman (Chicago School) had MANY years ago only he called a guaranteed income.

“Second, I don’t understand how Liberals can consider various tax rates for citizens of this ‘equal opportunity’ country to be good.”

Was Teddy Roosevelt a ‘liberal’?

“Third, I like the idea of shifting thought to a tax system which urges people to think a bit longer term”;
THAT is the idea behind ‘home ownership’; hasn’t worked out too well has it? Don’t get me wrong, I concur for thinking on a longer term but when you have a populace who can’t remember the history of the last 50 years and a business community who is only interested in short term profits, well…….

It is the codification of corporations rights as equal to that of a living breathing person when they are nothing but a ‘legal entity’ that is the root of MANY problems in this society. This is something the Founding Fathers (Washington,Jefferson) warned against and until the U.S.C. was changed earlier last century Title 1 specifically stated that ‘persons’ was defined as a living being.

It’s not 80% of your income, just like if you’ve paid any attention to your current taxes you’re not paying the rate of whatever your tax-bracket is on your gross income, just the portion of it that rests in the bounds of that bracket.

First, I find it interesting that many on this blog think corporations are NOT people and yet taxes on them is still considered okay.

no one is forced to form a corporation, but there are big benefits for doing so. the biggest one is that it limits personal liability. corporate taxes are the cost of this benefit.

1) i don’t see why the dems had to do anything they didn’t think was in the best interest of the country.
2) i don’t think the bail out bill was in the best interest of the country
3) folks here could have written a better bill in less time – but that doesn’t even really matter because while paulson et al. were yelling fire, they haven’t been so quick to actually use the $ congress gave them. so it’s clear that paulson was lying from the start. (btw, listen to the conference call on my link above you doubt that).

i wish the bill had failed to pass – and if the Rs had succeeded in that, i would have applauded them.

Second, I don’t understand how Liberals can consider various tax rates for citizens of this ‘equal opportunity’ country to be good.

Third, I like the idea of shifting thought to a tax system which urges people to think a bit longer term. But, if government is going to just govern and not dominate, then how can you do that? Only if by their short term activities do they harm society.

Where does this lead?

One tax rate for everyone. None for corporations.
Higher rate for short-term gain, lower rate for longer-term gain.

In the past couple of years I’ve suggested a one flat rate individual tax with a big deduction for Cost Of Living. Adding the time-line makes it more complicated.

I see a reason to tax shifts of wealth from cash in the local economy to investments or vice versa. Shortening the time an investment can be cashed out & returned to investment would encourage keeping investments longer. What’s the time now, something like 90 days to roll over investments before taxation occurs on gains?

If you always tax gains when an investment is sold you would seriously impact the fluidity and effectiveness of the markets. And, if you let people keep rolling over til they’re dead, then you are essentially letting wealth remain in a bank where it’s of use, but never taxed.

Exactly what uses can stock & bonds be put to when it’s never cashed out? Maybe that should be limited in some way.

I’d prefer to let people “play” with their money in companies or investments and only tax gains when they’re cashing it out to return it to the real economy and their pockets. At that point a percentage which redistributes enough wealth to prevent damage to the real economy and enough to run government is all that’s needed.

Of course, some of this may seem like silly talk as the world trade revolution develops.

The bailout/rescue was intended to buy toxic assets on which nobody could assess a value. That it turned into something else is not the Democrats fault. Ask Paulson why he’s letting them do this. — MarkH

the bill that was passed was written by the Democrats. It is their bill and it was always the plan not to constrain bonuses. it wasn’t that big a secret.

Democrats HAD to write the bill since Paulson only gave them an outline of what he wanted.

Democrats HAD to take what Paulson offered because they were told the imminent collapse of the economy gave them no time to start from scratch.

Democrats did a remarkable job of getting it written with some big improvements in the short time it was done.

Some Democrats DID WANT to constrain bonuses and that’s why there’s language in the bill to do that. It was Sec. Paulson who said many firms wouldn’t participate in selling toxic assets unless those limits were eased.

Also, it was Repubs in the House who refused to get it passed first time around. If the crisis has exploded then it would’ve been on them.

or is this too “Marist”?

Hmmm. Freudian slip? I believe the Marist Brothers here in my city do take a vow of poverty — no doubt the execs in question would so consider your proposal…

Heh.heh– I welcome them here to my humble calling center — we’ll hire anybody who can make it through the training. Good luck to them dealing with all the people just like them who feel entitled to whatever they want. And I’m sure they’ll enjoy the cursing and name-calling when they are required to tell them ‘no.’
Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of people.