History of the Progressive Tax Structure
 

Just a survey.

In your own words what good comes from the progressive tax rate structure?

There must be something or else it would not have been voted in in the first place. It also would not have survived in earnest from 1917-1981 if it was all bad. Rich people controlled the media during those periods just like they do now and they sure didn't like getting taxed. They also tried as hard as they could and often succeeded in getting tax loopholes in their favor. The other side came back with alternative minimum tax.

I'm just curious as to the board members' abilities to see both sides of an issue and at least agree that there are pros and cons. Which side they want is of course subject to differ and can only be resolved civilly by vote.

The Republican vs Democratic shouting match gets old fast. That stuff is available anywhere.

Among the wealthy a generation back, people like Carnegie (and I wish they would learn how to pronounce his name) and others there was this attitude of noblesse oblige. Because they had acquired vast wealth they felt they should not only paay higher taxes but also give to the community, e.g., Carnegie Hall, etc.

The current generation of wealthy people, with a few exceptions, appear to be Randians, i.e., enlightened self interest = greed.

It seems to me that, although a progressive tax system does have its shortcomings, such a system is probably the most equitable way of assessing a levy on the general population. It essentially distributes the burden based on one's ability to pay, the rationale being that those who benefit the most from the system should shoulder the greater burden in paying for it.

Although I understand the argument that such a system penalizes success I don't recall ever hearing of anyone who didn't seek out a higher level of compensation because they would have to pay more taxes as a consequence.

Progressive taxation is hardly perfect but I personally think it's the least abhorrent among the possible choices.

That's pretty much how I see it.

My hometown got the Packard Music Hall, Packard Park and the now defunct Packard Art Museum from the Packard family of automotive fame. The steel barons built some gorgeous parks and man made lakes that still exist and see regular use to this day. (The lakes served a dual purpose. They were primarily built as cooling water reserves for the mills. The recreational use was secondary. It wasn't all philanthropic in nature.:rolleyes:)

These guys today....I'm afraid they think the community exists to serve them.
Actually, if they are as Randian as they appear to be....That is EXACTLY what they think. And, I don't care for them at all.

There is HUGE philanthropy in this country among the rich. All you have to do is look at the credits of any PBS show.

I don't have a problem with a progressive tax structure.

Pete

Have any on the economic hard right chimed in?

I support a progressive income tax, but question whether today's system is indeed progressive for the wealthiest of Americans. Just ask "Mr. 14%," who could become "Mr. 1%" if his tax plan is adopted.

http://img.wpdigital.net/rf/image_29...es08142012.jpg

A progressive tax structure is a way for those who have benefited greatly from living in our system to support it proportionately.

Regards,

D-Ray

We all live in the same system, times are tough. Not fair that only one side
should pay in a bigger percentage while the other can still bask in the former
glory we once enjoyed.
Is there anything in the Constitution that promises all American citizens
a cozy retirement or low taxes for being less productive than their neighbors.

Non sequitur alert.:D