NY Times Op-Ed: Tax Wealth, Not Income

[Warren DeMontague]

32. I do find it fascinating that now that the top marginal rate is likely to go back to 39%

all sorts of people are desperately pulling all sorts of creative "alternatives" out of their rears.

Robert Samuelson's idea of a "good deal" on taxes sounds oddly like something coming from someone who thinks Romney won the race:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-the-fiscal-cliff-deal-we-need/2012/11/18/3870f9c6-3014-11e2-9f50-0308e1e75445_story.html

Republicans accept immediate higher taxes on the “wealthy” — couples with more than $250,000 of income and singles with more than $200,000. Obama won the election, and that’s his minimum demand. However, it doesn’t require permanently increasing today’s top 35 percent tax rate to 39.6 percent. Instead, Obama accepts a one-year surtax or limit on deductions. During that time, Congress and the administration pledge to pursue a tax overhaul that would cut the top individual and corporate income tax rates to 30 percent.

Yes, how reasonable, Bob- let the top rate go back to pre-Bush levels for one whole year (!!!) after which, of course, we HAVE to find a way to get the rates for the poor oppressed top bracket (the so-called "wealthy" harumph harumph because no one can afford that 2nd house in the Hamptons on a measly impoverished 250K a yr harumph harumph) back down lower than they already are- say, 30%, slobber slobber drool drool.



How about this: We have an income tax in place. Large transfers of money (as opposed to assets) are ALREADY reported to the IRS. Raising the top marginal rate is a fairly simple matter, and wouldn't require any fancy new reporting or ideas.