Couldn’t Help But Notice (102207)

Today in 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986 into law. It wasn’t perfect, especially for people in real estate ventures (in fact, it was very unfair to many of them), but it was as close as we have ever been to a flat tax:

Rather, the rates were 15%/28%/33%/28%. The “bubble rate” of 33% simply elevated the 15% rate to 28% for higher-income taxpayers (by reducing allowable itemized deductions — Ed.). As a result, for taxpayers after a certain income level, TRA86 provided a flat tax of 28%.

In the 21 years since, the politicians have gone and ruined the simplicity of TRA86. The only good thing to come out of all the tinkering is the preferential treatment for dividends and capital gains. First done in 1997, and then improved upon in 2003, those changes have improved the investment climate and juiced economic growth.

While keeping that preferenital treatment in place, I see no reason why we shouldn’t return to TRA86’s two-rate structure. The current 10% rate at the lowest taxable income levels ought to be zeroed out, and the 15% rate should apply to all current brackets except the highest, which would be reducted to 28%. Economic growth would be phenomenal.

__________________________________________

Here’s Clueless Bob Reich’s arrogant alternative to the above:

What’s fair? I’d say a 50 percent marginal tax rate on the very rich (earning over $500,000 a year). Plus an annual wealth tax of one half of one percent on net worth of people holding more than $5 million in total assets. Can’t be done, you say? Well, the highest marginal tax rate under Republican Dwight Eisenhower was 91 percent. It dropped under JFK to the 70 percent range. You say the rich will leave the country rather than face a marginal tax of 50 percent? Let them, and take away their citizenship.

Even France has figured out that Reich’s recipe is one for ruin.

Plus, if you want to see billions of dollars migrate offshore overnight, there’s no better way to bring it on than to institute a wealth tax.

__________________________________________

Labeling Alert — The antennae went up immediately in reaction to this Financial Times report:

Far right gains in Swiss election

Swiss politics on Sunday retained the capacity to surprise as reliable projections showed the ultraconservative Swiss People’s party improved its already dominant position as the country’s biggest political group.

The SVP raised its share of the vote by more than 2 percentage points to almost 29 per cent after an acrimonious campaign focused, as in the past, on the party’s core issues of immigration and law and order.

Yeah, those are “obviously far right” causes.

The Wiki entry on Swiss political parties says that the SVP is “right (conservative),” identifies two other parties as “far-right,” and two more as “right.” It seems to me that reporter Haig Simonian is unhappy with the result, and the “ultra” labeling is his petty revenge.

__________________________________________

$31,450 a year for this? Two words: Distance learning.

__________________________________________

Crooks & Liars appears to be a self-description.

__________________________________________

Betcha didn’t know this:

Cars torched in Amsterdam

The death of a Moroccan Muslim by Dutch police sparked a week of riots in Amsterdam.

Several cars were torched Saturday in the sixth night of civil unrest following the death of a 22-year-old Moroccan man who was shot after entering a police station and stabbing two officers, the BBC reported Sunday.

Gateway Pundit and Pajamas Media have more. The New York Times doesn’t.