Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur
dc-dux, don't you think the flat curve showing the percentage of taxes actually paid irrespective of nominal tax rates is evidence that people tend to pay at low rates and strategize to avoid payment at high rates? The graph was posted in this forum a little while ago, and you and others turned mental somersaults to avoid drawing the obvious conclusion.
|
nope...I didnt find that compelling at all.
You and ace are gonna have to do better than that with data or factual evidence that those in the top bracket are using "tax avoidance strategies" less now than pre-2001....or conversely, that they would ulitize such stratgies more than at present, if/when the rates are rolled back in 2010 as currently required by law.
-----Added 23/7/2008 at 05 : 23 : 28-----
I guess you guys dont accept the report from the Joint Committee on Taxation cited in the fact check above:
The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the 2001 tax legislation (the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act) would cause government revenues to be 107.7 billion less than they would have been in the absence of the legislation in 2004, 107.4 billion less in 2005 and 135.2 billion less in 2006. The committee's estimates for the effect of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 were that it would reduce otherwise projected revenues by 148.7 billion in 2004, 82.2 billion in 2005 and 20.7 billion in 2006. The JCT makes its comparisons against the Congressional Budget Office's receipts baselines.
My position remains that a tax cut focused on the middle class and working poor rather than the top wage earners would not only cost less but would also benefit far more people.
If you buy into the supply side argument, then we will obviously continue to disagree.