Re: observant....the "wealthy" will be taxed, are being taxed, and no doubt will bear the brunt of any tax policy changes. I guess we will just have to wait and see what the affect will be on productivity, capital formation, and ultimately tax receipts.
You sound dejected. Do you consider yourself among those who are wealthy and about to be taxed? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but I'm curious if you see yourself standing to lose anything.
The figure I continue to obsess over is that 1% of the population controls 95% of the country's wealth. I don't think that's economically healthy. I think the people with all that wealth mostly hoard it, and if it were redistributed (I hope you don't mind me using that word) to the middle class, I think you'd see the middle class spending that money, and increasing the velocity of wealth in this country.
And that will help our GDP, which will put people back to work, help the state and federal shortfalls, and still afford all the programs that help people who truly cannot afford to live a healthy American lifestyle.
It's not a punishment to the wealthy, either. They will still be wealthy. Let's say we rolled back the taxes to before the Bush tax cuts. Here is an example of what it would cost Americans in various income levels using this calculator:
AGI = $400,000 - Bush tax (2003-2009): $114,411 - Clinton tax (2000): $133,219 - Difference: $18,808
AGI = $1,000,000 - Bush tax (2003-2009): $324,709 - Clinton tax (2000): $370,819 - Difference: $46,110
AGI = $5,000,000 - Bush tax (2003-2009): $1,724,411 - Clinton tax (2000): $1,954,819 - Difference: $230,408
If you were to ask me if I'd feel guilty if someone making $5M - *after deductions* - has to pay an extra quarter million in taxes, then the answer is no. I think the more than $3M remaining after taxes would result in a very comfortable lifestyle.
And moreover, if you look at page 9 of the Whitehouse budget, it will tell you how much it's costing the country in lost revenue, from continuing the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.
$154M in Fiscal 2011 alone, which is nearly as much as the worst case state level shortfall you showed in your link.
Seems like rolling back the Bush tax cuts alone can solve the statewide funding issues, and I don't think it would be a high price to pay for those individuals making that much money.
n48 .. and for the affect toward bubbles, or not ..
observant....the "wealthy" will be taxed, are being taxed, and no doubt will bear the brunt of any tax policy changes.
I guess we will just have to wait and see what the affect will be on productivity, capital formation, and ultimately tax receipts.
leading to more unemployment, upheaval and misery, or less.
GDP growth in the 30 years from 1950 to 1979, when income tax was >70%: $293.8B to $2,563.3B = 8.7x expansion, and no economic bubbles.
- GDP growth in the 30 years from 1980 to 2009, when income tax was lowered by Reagan and Bush(es): $2,789.5B to $14,240.2 = 5.1x expansion, with at least 3 banking related bubbles.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
