Malachi151
28th May 2003, 08:35 PM
You ideas are pretty much correct. YOu can read though the paper that is linked in my sig if you want, or I'll just post the most relevent part here. Forgive the length, skip it if you don't want to read it.
Edit: okay I cut a part of that out.
Inheritance Taxes
There has been large push for the total repeal of estate/inheritance taxes over recent years. George Bush made this part of his presidential campaign and his bill to repeal the estate tax was one the first pieces of economic legislation that he put forward when he took office.
The repeal of the estate tax is, quite simply, absurd.
Estate Tax reform could take place in a manner to raise the bar on who pays estate taxes, that is a viable concern, but a full repeal of the tax is outlandish.
Estate Taxes were last established in 1916 by President Woodrow Wilson. Wilson was a Nobel Prize winning economist that enacted the estate tax after several years of building support for the tax in the country. Prior to Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt had pushed for the estate tax, but there was not broad enough support for the tax within his party at that time.
"…the National Government should impose a graduated inheritance tax, and, if possible, a graduated income tax. The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government. Not only should he recognize this obligation in the way he leads his daily life and in the way he earns and spends his money, but it should also be recognized by the way in which he pays for the protection the State gives him."
"This object can be attained by making the tax very small on moderate amounts of property left; because the prime object should be to put a constantly increasing burden on the inheritance of those swollen fortunes which it is certainly of no benefit to this country to perpetuate."
"This species of tax has again and again been imposed, although only temporarily, by the National Government. It was first imposed by the act of July 6, 1797, when the makers of the Constitution were alive and at the head of affairs. It was a graduated tax; though small in amount, the rate was increased with the amount left to any individual, exceptions being made in the case of certain close kin. A similar tax was again imposed by the act of July 1, 1862; a minimum sum of one thousand dollars in personal property being excepted from taxation, the tax then becoming progressive according to the remoteness of kin. The war-revenue act of June 13, 1898, provided for an inheritance tax on any sum exceeding the value of ten thousand dollars, the rate of the tax increasing both in accordance with the amounts left and in accordance with the legatee's remoteness of kin. The Supreme Court has held that the succession tax imposed at the time of the Civil War was not a direct tax but an impost or excise which was both constitutional and valid. More recently the Court, in an opinion delivered by Mr. Justice White, which contained an exceedingly able and elaborate discussion of the powers of the Congress to impose death duties, sustained the constitutionality of the inheritance-tax feature of the war-revenue act of 1898."
- President Theodore Roosevelt, 1906
http://www.taxhistory.org/TR/1906.htm
The estate tax was, and is, seen not only as a very just tax, but a tax that is essential in order to keep our economy functioning properly and to protect our democracy from the buildup of vast amounts of wealth by a small minority (which is happening anyway).
Understanding why the estate tax is important may shed some light on why some people, like Bush, want to repeal it, precisely because it would jeopardize our democracy and our economic system, as the rest of his legislation does.
It should be noted that the estate tax only affects the top 2% of American estates and that the tax is graduated so that even people who have to pay the estate tax do not pay the full amount unless their estate is extremely highly valued.
The average amount paid by those families that do pay the estate tax is only 17% because there are a number of deductions that are always taken advantage of by those wealthy enough to have to deal with the estate tax in the first place.
Furthermore, revenue lost from the repeal of the estate tax will have to be made up for by other taxes, which would inevitably fall more on middle income and low income Americans. The estate tax was estimated to raise $662 billion between 2002 and 2011. That is money that will have to be made up somewhere else. Obviously the estate tax is a tax that specifically targets the wealthiest Americans, so if it is repealed that $662 billion is going to have to come from somewhere other then the wealthiest Americans or else there would be no point in repealing it, so that means the tax burden is going to be shifted down to less wealthy Americans.
Bill Gates Sr. is a major proponent of keeping the estate tax. In an interview on the matter he had to say this about how and why the estate tax issue has become popular among Americans.
"Planned Giving Today: “Death to the death tax” has become a kind of rallying cry for minority business and family farmers. Yet only a very small percentage of all estates are taxed. How do you explain this kind of populist outrage against a tax that affects so few people?
Gates: Well, I think the principal ingredient of that result is an enormously clever, long-term and persistent effort by those on the other side of this issue to create a public attitude. I credit it to an unbelievably successful public relations effort. The newspaper people have been highly organized, using the expression “death tax" and showing the poster children -- farmers or small business persons -- having lost a business or not being able to pass it along to their families because of the estate tax. The continuous pounding and presentation of those pieces of the case have been very effective. Unfortunately, those of us who feel otherwise never got on the field. I mean, the opposition was running up and down the field making touchdowns at will because there wasn’t anybody doing any tackling on the other side."
http://www.pgtoday.com/PGT/Articles/reflections_on_the_estate_tax_gates_interview.htm
Obviously popular support for the repeal of the estate tax is largely due to a deceptive media campaign. Bush is not the sole source of this deception though, many politicians have weighted in the matter. In fact the issue was brought up during the Clinton administration by Republicans. What Bush did finally do was to implement a policy that repeals the estate tax over time until 2010 when it is then up for vote to get rid of it or reinstate it.
Below is a web site that opposes the estate tax, as they call it, the "death tax":
http://www.deathtax.com/deathtax/issue.html
As is typically the case, the site is full of deceptive statements and emotional appeals. For example: "More than 70% of all family businesses do not survive through the second generation and fully 87% do not make it to a third generation."
Yes, that's true, but there is no connection between estate taxes and the failures. I mean there are hundreds of reasons why small businesses don't survive three generations. Do you want to work at your grandpa's barbershop? To attribute this fact to estate taxes is absurd. Furthermore this statement doesn't even say that the businesses that fail were ever subject to the estate tax! This is blatantly irrational propaganda, and this is the type of propaganda that was been a part of the Bush campaign and has been a part of the general media campaign against estate taxes.
It has also been stated that the estate tax is a "double-taxation". Well first of all, even if it is that's not really relevant, we all get taxed double, triple, and more on our money and secondly, it's not. Any portion of an estate that has risen in value over time is value that has never been taxed.
Commenting on the inheritance tax during his campaign Bush stated: "You're going to hear all kinds of rhetoric out of Washington. They're going to say it's risky, it's this, it's that ... Al Gore believes the surplus is the government's money. I believe the surplus is the people's money,"
What surplus is there under Bush in the first place?
From Bush's tax plan:
"The death tax also impedes economic growth because it levies yet another layer of taxes on capital. More capital investment means higher incomes for all workers."
More capital investment does not mean higher income for all workers. I have already shown this in the section on Trickle-Down economics. While Reagan implemented the largest tax cuts I history, freeing up the largest amount of capital for investment in history, average wages for workers actually went down, and have generally stayed the same for the past 30 years.
"Since the marginal federal tax rate on savings can reach 68 percent (the 40 percent top income tax rate combined with the effect of the 55 percent top death tax rate and the state death tax credit),"
Well, Bush also is proposing to cut the top tax bracket to 33% instead of the current 39%. Is he unsure of his ability to get that plan through? Why not use his own numbers for the calculations? Secondly, there is no logic in combining income tax rates with inheritance tax rates. In what way are the two related? None, unless he means to imply that if a person earned all their money in the year of 2000, when the top tax rate was 39%, through income and then they died that year and they had earned over 20 million dollars of taxable income (to put them into the highest estate tax bracket), and their estate didn’t take advantage of any exemptions, then yes, his argument might make a bit of sense, but since that is a virtual impossibility his argument is totally without merit and in fact deceptive. Actually, the largest aspect of value of estates that are subject to tax is typically appreciation of assets, which is a value that has never been taxed.
"… the death tax can also create a disincentive for seniors who want to save for their children or grandchildren."
This argument is contrary to Bush's typical economic talk, which indicates that spending and participating the economy is important. Which is it? Should the seniors spend their money, thereby fueling the economy, or save their money for their descendants? Again, keep in mind this only applies to estates in the million plus range and that the tax is typically only paid at a rate of 17% and that there are ways to gift a large amount of assets to descendants tax free anyway.
"The punitively high death tax can fall most heavily on small businesses and family farms that are asset rich but cash poor."
"Can" is the key word here. Yes, in theory it can. It is very rare for family farms to owe an estate tax. The fact is that no single example has ever been sited of a family farm that was lost due to estate taxes. The fact is also that over half of the estate taxes in 1999 were paid by only 3,000 of America's wealthiest estates, none of them farms.
http://www.responsiblewealth.org/press/rwnews/2001/estate_tax_nyt_farms.html
"According to a 1993 survey, nine of ten successors whose family businesses failed within three years of the owner's death listed the death tax as a contributing factor."
Well sure, who wouldn't? How big a factor? If you inherit a business and then it fails what are you going to do, say that it was your fault because you don't know how to run a business, or blame taxes? Of course people will blame taxes, but again, Bush states that it was "a" factor. How big "a" factor? For all we know it was the least of which.
"Finally, by encouraging intricate planning techniques to reduce taxes, the death tax has created an entire industry of specialized lawyers and accountants. The added complexity and compliance costs make this one of the least efficient federal taxes."
I'll agree there, but all that needs be done is simplify the tax code, not repeal it. Furthermore, the activity of employing lawyers to assist in tax preparation is a stimulus to the economy in itself. So now what is Bush proposing, cutting jobs in the legal profession in order to save America's wealthiest families billions of dollars?
"President Bush believes that the bias of the death tax against the family farm and family business is the antithesis of the American Dream."
That's all well and good, but the main people affected by the estate tax are not farmers or small business owners, they are the heirs of bankers, real estate tycoons, industrialists, and investors, like Bush himself and the entire multi-billion dollar Bush family.
"Accordingly, his tax relief plan will eliminate the death tax. Eliminating the death tax will allow family farms and businesses to be passed from one generation to the next without having to break up or sell the assets to pay a punitive tax to the federal government. As a result, wealth would be taxed only when it is earned, not again when entrepreneurs and senior citizens pass the fruits of their labors to the next generation."
As a result all wealth can be passed on tax free and the shift of wealth that has taken place in America over the past 30 years that has resulted in the top 2% controlling over 50% of the nations wealth is going to increase dramatically to the point where average Americans will have such a small share the economy that they will be without a political or economic voice.
There is an interesting twist to Bush's closing remark though. He states that money will only be taxed when it is earned. Well, he does have that right because by not taxing inheritance that means that money that is not earned at all will be passed on tax-free. Not only will those who inherit the money not have to earn it, they don't even have to pay taxes on it. May as well just have a successful grandfather, let him pass money to you, invest it in an account that pays dividends, which Bush is going to make tax free, live off a portion of the tax free dividends, and then pass it on when you die. Poof, Bush has just created a plan that allows America's wealthiest families to never have to work again and continuously gain economic and political power.
Aside from that, what would Bush, a 3rd generation millionaire, who was born into a family that made it's money through banking, investing in Nazi labor camps, drug smuggling, the oil industry, illegal corporate dealings, and stealing money from the American people through the Savings and Loan Scandal know about "earning" money? Of course he wants to get rid of the estate tax.
For more on the estate tax, see:
http://www.responsiblewealth.org/tax_fairness/Estate_Tax/Estate_Tax_Myths.html
http://www.responsiblewealth.org/tax_fairness/Estate_Tax/Estate_Tax_FAQ.html
http://www.responsiblewealth.org/tax_fairness/Estate_Tax/Estate_Tax_Family_Farms.html
National investment program
The problem with investment in America and capital gains income is that investment is by and large an activity of the wealthy. Our system has been designed in such a way that the wealthy benefit more from investing and they can more easily invest. It should be no surprise then that 73% of all capital gains income goes to the top 20% of wealthiest Americans. It should also be no surprise that capital gains account for 28% of that segment's income. The bottom 60% of Americans only receive about 14% of America's total capital gains income.
This creates a dilemma in the American system because as companies move to become more efficient and cost effective they often do so by eliminating the need for manual labor, which then in turn increases capital gains for the wealthy, while at the same time putting the working class people out of a job, again increasing the polarity where the rich get richer and the poor poorer, which then in turn increases the need for government assistance for the poor, because private industry is eliminating the need for labor. However, we don't want to stop the private industry from becoming more efficient, so what do we do?
The solution is a fundamental change of the American investment system. Right now the American investment system is only amplifying global economic problems and domestic economic problems because it is so disproportionately favorable to the wealthy. This only amplifies economic disparity and ultimately undermines the economy adding to the fluctuations in our economic system.
There are many possible ways to change the system which all need to be explored. The socialist revolution was based on the idea of workers taking control of he means of production. The motivations for these actions were well founded, but the mechanism for doing so has only proven to be detrimental and self-defeating.
They key to human progress and a fair economy is not workers controlling production, it is a greater sharing of the fruits of production in a way that still promotes progress.
One way that this could be achieved would be though a national investment system similar to the concept of Social Security where a flat tax similar to the FICA tax is used and that money is invested in American companies in a federally managed portfolio. Each workers would receive shares in that portfolio based only on the number of hours worked. This means that someone making $5.00 and hour and working 60 hours a week would get more then someone making $500 an hour and working 30 hours a week.
In this way people would be compensated by how hard they work. By using a FICA type system redistribution of wealth would occur whereby the wealthy would receive a smaller return then what they put in and the poor would receive a larger return then what thy put in, similar to the way Social Security works. This would serve to actually stabilize the economy and provide a second means on income for poor and middle class Americans which would be funded by private industry, not the government. This would also increase investment in private industry. At the same time it would create a situation that would alleviate strain on the economy due to the elimination of jobs through mechanization and computerization, and even from jobs going over seas, because a broader range of people would receive benefits from increases in efficiency, not just the wealthy.
Ultimately this will build a stronger economy that benefits everyone at all levels, from the richest to the poorest, and it will reduce the need for welfare programs. Individuals would be able to choose to reinvest the dividend income back into their portfolio or to receive it as income. Individuals would also be allowed to sell their shares. Perhaps regulations would be needed, such as not allowing the sale of shares until an individual has been invested in the system for at least 5 years or something of that nature.
I believe that it will require a plan like to this to really bring investing to the masses and that bringing investing to the masses is essential for long-term economic prosperity and growth in ways that can satisfy American demands without requiring the expansion of foreign investments, yet still allowing for the expansion of foreign investment in healthy ways.
Taxation
Americans have long been subject to class warfare waged by the wealthy, and have now been deeply immersed in the ideas of Supply-Side economics. This is one of the biggest problems in our country and the root of many American social issues as well as our international drive to expand our economy due to it's own internal failings.
Without external economic expansion our system would quickly fail due to the fact that it so strongly favors the wealthy. In order to maintain a system that so strongly favors the wealthy the wealthy have to continuously expand the system, which is why our trade deficit keeps growing.
Without a growing trade deficit reforms would have to place that would rebalance the system to be more fair to all Americans. Conversely, by making the system more fair to all people the trade deficit can likely be reduced. A way to do this without using a planned economy is through tax reform.
This discussion depends on first dispelling some myths that have been created by American leaders in recent decades. The first myth is that all the money that a person receives through employment or business is money they are fully entitled to and that the taking of that money through tax is a form of theft. This is incorrect.
Our system works through a series of independent, individual interactions in such a way that the value of transactions are generally determined by approximation of their value relative to the entire system. Just because you get a paycheck for $1,000 does not mean that your work is actually worth $1,000 to the system, in fact your work may be worth much more then what you are paid, or it maybe be worth less.
Although many people, such as George Bush Jr. claim that "redistribution of wealth" is a horrible thing, nothing is further from the truth. Every transaction in our system is a process of redistribution of wealth. When a corporate CEO fires 5,000 people and then takes home a $30 million bonus, that is redistribution of income(wealth). It's taking money from 5,000 people and giving it to one person. How can George Bush say that redistribution of wealth is bad? What does he mean? He means that at some arbitrary point he wants to say that redistribution of wealth should stop, and that point is at a time when the wealth is shifted into the hands of the wealthy. The redistribution of wealth is a constant process in an economic system and it happens at many levels.
Many wealthy people favor redistribution of wealth only through the private system and not the public system because the private system provides secrecy and is inherently easier to manipulate, and the leverage of wealth tips the scales in their favor. In any capitalist private enterprise system the redistribution of wealth will inherently go from the poor to the rich. In any capitalist system money naturally flows from the disadvantaged to the advantaged. If wealth is not redistributed back to the disadvantaged then the economic system becomes stagnant and to promote growth expansion is generally done by taking in new resources, which may be done by going to war. This is why war was so common in Europe during the Dark Ages, because so many people were poor and they taxed the poor and there was no redistribution of wealth back to the poor so as the fortunes of the wealthy began to dwindle they had to go on conquest to obtain new wealth.
This is why tax reform is essential to building peace, because there is not enough redistribution of wealth in America from the top back to the bottom right now and so as our economy stagnates expansion and conquest of new resources becomes an attractive way bring new wealth into the system.
In addition, many aspects of our system that contribute to the generation of wealth are never paid for by anyone. For example, when a child goes to school and graduates high school knowing how to read and write and do math, that child has not been paid for that. They will likely be paid in the future for work that they do because of that knowledge, but their educated existence also allows other people to engage in commercial activity for which those people are paid, and it allows employers to hire them with a basic level of expectation. For example, Bill Gates would not have been able to become the richest man on earth if there were not many Americans who are well educated enough to know how to use computers. Bill Gates did not pay for the creation of his client base, our society did. Bill Gates was able to become wealthy because of society and all of the expenses that have gone into the creating and maintenance of American society including education, infrastructure, law enforcement, military protection, labor laws that give us time to spend using computers, etc.
In this way we see that Bill Gate's wealth is a product of society, not simply a product of his individual efforts. His accumulation of billions of dollars is only possible because of the efforts of all of the members of society that have created an environment in which he can accumulate wealth. Bill Gates knows this and its one reason why he supports estate taxes and gives to a large number of charity organizations.
The redistribution of wealth is not "stealing from the rich to give to the poor" as so many people claim. It is:
A way to maintain the health of the economic system
A way to recalibrate our imperfect economic system and justly compensate those who have not been properly compensated by the intrinsic functioning of the system
A way to pay for public needs by those who can most afford it
A person's wealth is in many ways measure of the degree to which they have taken advantage of society. Those who have taken the most advantage of our society also have the most responsibility to pay for the needs of society.
This is why graduated taxes are not only essential, but they are also very just. In fact a capitalist system without redistribution of wealth is unjust. The only way to avoid the need for redistribution of wealth through taxation is if people are paid according to the value of their labor in relation to its overall contribution to the entire economic system in the first place i.e. a planned economy, and even that would be insufficient because not all value added to the system comes through paid labor.
Keeping these things in mind, that redistribution of wealth is not only just but all essential to maintain good system health, it is apparent that tax reform is essential in the United States.
It should be understood that our current taxation system is not built on justice or proper compensation, it is built on the encouragement of growth and the encouragement of the collection of wealth. These things are essential for progress, but progress is achieved by allowing the wealthy to gain an unfair portion of social wealth. It is the fact that you can gain more then your fair share that drives progress, but it must be recognized that the wealthy, by definition, do have more then their fair share of the wealth that society has created.
I will again refer back to President Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt stated:
"…the National Government should impose a graduated inheritance tax, and, if possible, a graduated income tax. The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government. Not only should he recognize this obligation in the way he leads his daily life and in the way he earns and spends his money, but it should also be recognized by the way in which he pays for the protection the State gives him. On the one hand, it is desirable that he should assume his full and proper share of the burden of taxation; on the other hand, it is quite as necessary that in this kind of taxation, where the men who vote the tax pay but little of it, there should be clear recognition of the danger of inaugurating any such system save in a spirit of entire justice and moderation."
"In its incidents, and apart from the main purpose of raising revenue, an income tax stands on an entirely different footing from an inheritance tax; because it involves no question of the perpetuation of fortunes swollen to an unhealthy size. The question is in its essence a question of the proper adjustment of burdens to benefits."
http://www.taxhistory.org/TR/1906.htm
Roosevelt argued in favor of a graduated income tax not only on the ability of the more wealthy to pay, but as he says here, on the basis that a graduated income tax is a matter of making the proper adjustments in relation to burdens and benefits.
Roosevelt also states that the current system, the one that was in effect when he wrote this, unfairly put too much burned on the poor and middle class. He goes on to say though that care has to be taken not to put too much burden on the wealthy either.
Andrew Mellon, the same man who also has ties to the fascist powers of Europe and was also our nation's treasurer and one of the founders of Supply-Side economic theory, made another argument in regard to taxes, which is worthy of consideration as well. Mellon stated:
"The fairness of taxing more lightly income from wages, salaries or from investments is beyond question. In the first case, the income is uncertain and limited in duration; sickness or death destroys it and old age diminishes it; in the other, the source of income continues; the income may be disposed of during a man’s life and it descends to his heirs.
Surely we can afford to make a distinction between the people whose only capital is their metal and physical energy and the people whose income is derived from investments. Such a distinction would mean much to millions of American workers and would be an added inspiration to the man who must provide a competence during his few productive years to care for himself and his family when his earnings capacity is at an end."
Here Mellon argues that it is fair for income tax on labor (earned income) to be lower then income tax on investments (capital gains).
In terms of justness this is definitely correct. Earned income should be the least taxed form of income, precisely because it is earned, and a person is limited in how much they can earn by the hours in a day that they are able to work. With capital gains a person can earn income while not even working and the theoretical limit on how much you can earn in virtually infinite (well its limited by our economy).
However, what we have seen is that if the government taxes in this way, which is just, then it is not as beneficial to the economy, so we have made compensations that are not just, which allow favoritism towards the wealthy, in order to promote growth of the economy.
There is a third thing to consider as well, and that is sales tax. Sales tax also taxes the poor at a much higher rate then the wealthy. This is because poor individuals spend a higher percentage of their money then wealthy individuals.
The table below shows Consumption Rates for 1998:
Income Class
Expenditure to Income ratio
Less than $10,000 2.07
$10,000 to $20,000 1.31
$20,000 to $30,000 1.08
$30,000 to $40,000 0.91
$40,000 to $50,000 0.85
$50,000 to $75,000 0.80
$75,000 to $100,000 0.70
$100,000 and over 0.67
http://www.ustreas.gov/ota/ota85.pdf
What this shows is that spending as a percentage of income goes down as income goes up, which should be common sense. This shows those making under $30,000 a year spending more then what they earn, which can be due to not reporting all income and/or the use of credit.
This also means that tax cuts for the wealthy may be less effective then tax cuts for the poor and middle class because the poor and middle class spend a larger portion of their income, and by doing are more active in the economy.
It also shows that sales taxes tax the poor at a higher rate then the wealthy relative to income.
All of these things need to be kept in mind when designing tax reform.
What I have attempted to establish here is that a graduated income tax is certainly justifiable and that taxing capital gains at a lower rate then income is not necessarily just, but it is deemed important to promote growth. It is also important to note that while a graduated income tax may tax the wealthy at a higher rate based on income, that sales tax taxes the poor at a higher rate based on income.
With all of that in mind, what needs to be done in order to reform our tax system and promote good economic health for our country is to greatly increase the marginal income tax rate and capital gains taxes should be graduated as well based on combined income.
The income tax brackets that I propose would be something like this:
Here is my tax plan:
My plan
$0-$30,000 - 10%
$30,000-$60,000 - 15%
$60,000-$100,000 - 20%
$100,000-$170,000 - 25%
$170,000-$300,000 - 30%
$300,000-$500,000 - 35%
$500,000-$1,000,000 - 40%
$1,000,000-$1,500,000 - 45%
$1,500,000-$2,000,000 - 46%
$2,000,000-$2,500,000 - 47%
$2,500,000-$3,000,000 - 48%
$3,000,000-$4,000,000 - 49%
$4,000,000 and over - 50%
Current Plan
$0-$27,050 - 15%
$27,050-$65,550 - 28%
$65,550-$136,750 - 31%
$136,750-$297,350 - 36%
$297,350 and over - 39%
Bush plan
$0-$6,000 - 10%
$6,000-$27,050 - 15%
$65,550-$136,750 - 31%
$136,750 and over - 33%
The way that capital gains would be taxed is that anyone who’s combined earned income and capital gains income is under $300,000 a year would have their capital gains taxed at the rate equal to their earned income and capital gains combined. Anyone who's combined capital gains and earned income is over $300,000 a year would simply have their capital gains taxed as 30%. The current capital gains tax is 28%.
By taxing dividends in the manner that I have proposed low income earners would not be penalized for capital gains income in the way that they are now, making capital investment more attractive to lower income individuals, as well as lower tax rates which would free up more capital for investing, purchasing, and saving.
This type of taxation would promote a healthier economy by placing a more fair tax burden on those receiving extremely high income, opposed to the current plan and Bush's plan that sets a low top margin which effectively create a flat tax for the wealthy. At the same time a plan like I proposed would create a tax cut for everyone making under $500,000 a year.
© 2001-2009, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
vBulletin® v3.7.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.