Nice of him to offer OPM - Other People's Money - to the cause. Would it make any difference? This author says no.
. . . . . doubling the tax rate on Mr. Buffett’s fellow billionaires, America’s 400 wealthiest households, would raise enough money to run the federal government for only two days.
and
The federal system is not regressive (making the poor pay relatively more than the rich). The top 1 per cent of U.S. taxpayers pay 23.2 per cent of their income in taxes, nearly double the proportion of all Americans. At the bottom, nearly half of Americans pay no net tax.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle2130834/
Quote:
|
I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.
|
Mmmmmmm . . . . . the S & P 500 was about 92 in 1976 and its about 1,200 as an index today. Would it be at that level if capital gains rates were still 39.9%? One could easily argue it wouldn't be . . . . .
The fact the S&P 500 is at 1,200 has created wealth for the common man as well as the super wealthy. Stock ownership in Canada and the USA was probably less than 20% of the population in the 1970's and would be between 50% and 60% today, including mutual funds.
For the record, I think Americans should pay more in taxes. They need more taxpayers though, not necessarily more taxes on a select group.
Cowperson