Reagan’s scheme gave the wealthy a "bye" [still does] and it just didn’t raise enough money. Clinton was closer to right, but it’s hard to evaluate because he was also good at cutting spending. Bush [I & II] made arbitrary tax cuts just to be cutting taxes based on no actuarial evidence that I can see – vote buying I think. So, with the data in these posts and a my ouija board, I arrived at the following scheme – graduated, lite on the bottom, not too heavy on top, not vengeful, would raise the money needed:
| 1BORINGOLDMAN |
BUSH II |
|||
| TAX RATE | OVER | TAX RATE | OVER | |
| 8% | $0 | 10% | $0 | |
| 14% | $25,000 | 15% | $16,050 | |
| 20% | $75,000 | 25% | $65,100 | |
| 26% | $150,000 | 28% | $131,450 | |
| 32% | $250,000 | 33% | $200,300 | |
| 38% | $400,000 | 35% | $367,700 | |
| 44% | $750,000 | |||
But whether President Obama heeds my advice or not, there’s one thing for sure. The Republicans and their media auxillary will jump on whatever he does with a ferocity that will dwarf their reactions to his Stimulus Program, his Health Care Reform, or his Nobel Prize. The taxation issue will be a real noisy debate.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.