I think that moderation is the key to this as to many other things. As best I recall Britain reached a point where its top tax rate was over 90% -- this was back in the 70s, and that is why people like Mick Jagger and John Lennon moved elsewhere. Clearly, such a tax structure is a disincentive to increased earnings. However, if you tax everyone at 20% -- let's say -- this is a much greater burden on some people than on others.
On Feb 8, 2008 6:32 PM, Matt Quackenbush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "A regressive tax system does not mean and likely would not result in low > income earners paying more taxes than the wealthy, only that the effective > tax rate relative to income or consumption would be a larger tax burden to > low income earners." > > Given the definition on the Wikipedia page, the effect of which is summed up > by the above quote, a regressive tax is extremely appealing to me. It means > that the more I make, the less tax affects me. That's hellabetter than > being taxed more (in terms of %) just because I'm more successful than I was > the year before. Gives me even more motivation to better my income. > > > On Feb 8, 2008 7:13 PM, Dana wrote: > > > Here is a primer that may help: > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_Taxes > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:253805 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
