wrote in message
...
On Apr 18, 3:31 am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Doug Miller wrote:

Very doubtful. Investment income is taxed at a considerably lower rate
than
wage or salary
income -- with the result that the rich generally pay a lower rate
under the
current system
than do the middle class. Remember Warren Buffet and his secretary?

Those appear to be cherry picked instances though. The IRS figures
show that there are BIG differences in the effective rates between the
top and bottom groups. Also, the bottom 40% actually get access to
credits that result in them having a NEGATIVE effective rate.



The rich do spend more, but I think very few are
spending enough to come anywhere close to making
up the income tax that would be lost.

Take Warren Buffet for example. He's paying around
18%. Even if he spent everything he makes, you'd
have to have an 18% sales tax to equal it. And Buffet
lives relatively modestly. I'll bet he doesn't spend 5%
of what he earns.

He hasn't yet earned most of what he has earned since he takes
relatively little salary and most of his wealth is in B-H stock. These
we will never taxes from because he will most likely hold them until
death and is giving most of it away as a tax deduction. We also wouldn't
see them under a sales tax scenario.

The best specifics I could find was that Buffet had a total reported
income of $63mil and paid $7mil in tax. Even if you had a 20%
sales tax rate, he would have to have spent $35mil to generate a
sales tax equal to what he paid
under the current system. Anyone here believe Buffet is spending
$35mil a year? More likely he's spending just a few million a year,
if that. Meaning under a sales tax based system, he would pay
far less. Take a look at Romney or any other top earner's incomes
that are public and I'd like to see one where a sales tax system
would yield the govt anywhere near the same amount.


The yield would be in eliminating a great deal of bureaucracy and wasted
effort.