In response to:
Dont tread on me writes: That's just pseudo-Keynsian drivel. "Progressive" taxation NEVER caused "prosperity"by any means. JFK then RR urged lowering ridiculous top rates, & thus perked up sluggish economies in their respective times.
First of all, as i noted, progressivity in income tax FLATTENS the overall tax burden, as many other forms of taxation are regressive. Second, there is a difference, in JFK's case, between cutting the marginal rate from 90% to 75% and doing what the Reeps are talking about today. As for Reagan, he stimulated the economy through good old fashioned government spending and federal transfers.
For weeks President Obama has traveled the country delivering speech after speech asserting that if implemented, the so-called “Buffett Rule” would “stabilize” our national debt over the next ten years. In reality, however, it would do almost nothing to solve our lingering budget woes or pay off our national debt. Nevertheless, his unrelenting tax-the-rich mantra seems to be resonating with voters. According to the latest Gallup poll, 6 in 10 Americans support the Buffett rule – named for billionaire investor Warren Buffett – a policy that would impose a 30...
As to "flatten"ing "the overall tax burden", so what? The successful pay the other taxes, & a bigger proportion of their income as well. Back before the "reform" of 1986, few if any ever paid the 75% or 90% rates anyway because most in that category could jump the right hoops to qualify for obscure deductions, exemptions, credits, & whatnot.