|
is everyone sure they are talking about income and not assets held when they consider total wealth. say joe millionaire owns 4 mil in assets, but makes no interest on those assets and doesn't work, he pays no income tax. of course this doesn't happen, but i'm just trying to see if we know when we're talking about apples and oranges. the biggest tax dodge of the superwealthy is paying themselves salaries of $1 dollar (which always reminded me of the asshats on the price is right who lowballed on bidders row, but i digress). by messing with the structure of capital gains and dividend taxes in recent years, they're pretty well sheltered.
i suggest that perhaps we step around the class issue for a moment and instead of thinking of it as a rich vs. poor cliche, we think about our tax base in business terms of market share or -to completely objectify us taxpayers- raw materials. in those regards, you want to pitch your product to the customers with the most disposable income or you want to develop the resources with the greatest potential. in both examples, it makes good economic sense to tax the upper income brackets proportionately. it's what the buzzmeisters call "low hanging fruit." the other point is, you need your lower income brackets to increase their retained wealth not only to expand their market potential but also ease the burden they place on the social systems.... thereby lessening the overall tax need.
at times i ask my self, WWTSD (What Would Tony Soprano Do), and he would expect his top earners to kick up more, and if you weren't kicking up enough, you need to get out there and earn more or else bada-bing bada-boom.
__________________
if everyone is thinking alike, chances are no one is thinking.
|