If you were to write tax policy...

[Emsworth]

At the federal level, income taxes would range from 15%-25%. (A flat tax may be ideal according to some views, but I don't think that it is very feasible.) The AMT, which leads to unnecessary compliance costs, would be abolished. Capital gains, estate, and gift taxes would also be repealed.

[Emsworth]

People making >$10 million/year would pay about 90-95% of their income above this. 

You might as well take all of it. Such a tax policy would not only (a) be tyrannical, but also (b) result in economic disaster.

[Emsworth]

Something like.
Define the ideal after tax salary to be x=$40,000

If your actual income is i, after taxes you are left with the geometric mean of these, sqrt(i*x).

That's a tax of more than 99% for those who make millions of dollars a year.

[Emsworth]

Something like.
Define the ideal after tax salary to be x=$40,000

If your actual income is i, after taxes you are left with the geometric mean of these, sqrt(i*x).

That's a tax of more than 99% for those who make millions of dollars a year.

Yes, if you make more than $400 million per year. I'm sure that sounds tragic to Republicans like you.

It's not tragic, but tyrannical. And will you please demonstrate how believing (a) that the Florida recount was unconstitutional, and (b) a 99% tax rate is oppressive, makes one a Republican.

[Emsworth]

Clearly that you agreed wtih Bush vs. Gore, which ended the recount, disenfranchising plenty of voters, 3 days before a non-binding deadline makes you be a Republican.

(A) Arguing with you seems rather pointless, but the federal safe harbor date was a binding deadline under state law, as the Florida Supreme Court admitted.
(B) Bush v. Gore ended the recount one day before the deadline, not three.
(C) The recount was unconstitutional, and violated the equal protection clause.

[Emsworth]

A. The FL Court was just trying to be nice and make the deadline

... which was binding.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's the result of an injunction, not Bush v. Gore.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, their votes were originally counted by appropriate equal standards (the machines, etc., were obviously equal). The hand recount was unequal.

[Emsworth]

It clearly was not, as Hawaii had electors appointed January 4th, 1961, and the 1876 election dragged on for 4 months.

Did you read the words "state law" in one of my previous posts? Florida state law made the federal deadline binding. I quote from a decision of the Florida Supreme Court, Gore v. Harris, in refuting allegations of the Gore camp: "There is no legislative suggestion that the Florida Legislature did not want to take advantage of this safe-harbor provision."

Hawaii did not have a comparable state law making the safe harbor date an actual deadline. Furthermore, in 1876, any deadlines were specifically vitiated by an Act of Congress. There was no comparable Act of Congress in 2000. Hawaii and the election of 1876 are irrelevant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The difference in the machines was irrelevant. There was some reasonably well-defined manner in which votes were originally counted.

The recount was unconstitutional because it was carried out in a completely arbitrary fashion.

[Emsworth]

Clearly the FL Supreme Court or the SCOTUS had the power to over-ride any supposed state deadline that you have not shown proof of existing.

(A) I have shown proof of its existence. Did you notice the quotation from the Florida Supreme Court's ruling? In Gore v. Harris: "There is no legislative suggestion that the Florida Legislature did not want to take advantage of this safe-harbor provision." Also, to quote from the statement of facts in Bush v. Gore: "The Florida Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. § 5." Thus, the safe-harbor benefits provided by federal law were secured by state law. What more do you want, than an official interpretation of the law by the state Supreme Court?

(B) Article II prevents the courts from overriding this deadline. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..." Once the FL Supreme Court admitted that December 12 was a legislatively set deadline, it could not change it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What Gore wanted (a statewide recount of all votes with a uniform standard) was not arbitrary. What Florida provided (recounts in only some counties of only some votes with no standards at all) was.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've already said that the injunction was based on unsound legal reasoning. The ultimate decision that the Florida recount was unconstitutional, however, was legally sound.

[Emsworth]

You mean a state law that they would pass after the election? But the SCOTUS said that only the laws that existed on election day must apply to the election. There goes that argument.

No, the intent of the Legislature prior to the election was what applied.

A few devious Florida legislators (IIRC) wanted to essentially ignore the election and appoint electors, which would obviously have been unconstitutional, as the election had already occurred, rendering the law an ex post facto one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No standards were specified, if I recall correctly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree. They should not have done so.

But that doesn't change my main point, that the recount was unconstitutionally conducted.

[Emsworth]

You really think the SCOTUS would have found that unconstitional?

Did I say that? Perhaps next time you would actually bother to read my post. I said it "would obviously have been unconstitutional," not that it "would have been found unconstitutional."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I see no point in responding as long as you continue to assert that the deadline was non-binding, even though I have provided clear evidence to the contrary in the form of court opinions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really, I don't see why I even bother responding to you. I have attempted to remain civil, but you seem deteremined (with all due respect) to drag this debate to personal attacks.

[Emsworth]

Personal Exemptions:
Single - $15,000
Married - $30,000
Dependent - $4,000

All other credits, exemptions, and deductions repealed...

taxable income under $40,000 -- 1%
taxable income over $1,000,000 -- 25%

With marginal relief between $40 K and $1 million, I presume?

[Emsworth]

I would suggest three brackets of 15%, 20%, and 25% each. I couldn't give the precise figures as to the size of each bracket, as I don't have the figures to do the necessary calculations. Perhaps, for singles:

Exemption: $25,000

$0 - $100,000: 15%
$100,000 - $250,000: 20%
$250,000+: 25%

In any event, estate tax, gift tax, and, especially, the AMT should be eliminated.

[Emsworth]

Talk about horribly oppressive rates. I would favor violent revolution if that ever happened.

Well I'm not really sure how much income that would produce.  If it would generate a significant amount more than now I would proportionally drop all of the rates slightly.

Actually, significantly higher income tax rates don't necessarily generate more income, counterintuitive though it may seem. With low tax rates, there is likely to be more economic activity, and hence the total revenue of the government will not be reduced.

For example, when Andrew Mellon cut the top rate from 70% to just 25%, revenues rose significantly. When President Kennedy cut FDR's top rate from 90% to 70%, I believe that tax revenues were increased by about one-third (in real terms). Hence, higher tax rates don't necessarily translate to more tax revenue; often, the government will get more revenue with lower rates.

To quote Jack Kemp: "There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount of revenue: high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high production."

[Emsworth]

Sometimes true, but in the long run government developement of human capital can signficiantly to the economy.  Plus, my tax rates are really not that high where they would be on the steep end of the laffer curve, so there wouldn't be a dramatic impact on the tax base, if any.

I would say that a 60% tax rate (although marginal) borders on being confiscatory. The top marginal tax rate, ideally, should be closer to 25%.

In any event, you seem intent on generating a lot of revenue. Welfare and/or Social Security, I presume?