Пора признательное писать.
"Я, Выбегалло, признаюсь в том, что считаю Сандаля человеком со сдвинутыми мозгами".

Дата, подпись.

Ты так за богатых радеешь - наверное, планируешь и сам забогатеть ?
Ты не рви так сердце - во-первых, можешь не дожить до счастливого события, а во-вторых, разрыв между доходами вершнего 1% и нижних 60% продолжает расти.
--------
Households in the top 1% experienced the by far greatest increases in household income. According to economist Janet Yellen "the growth [in real income] was heavily concentrated at the very tip of the top, that is, the top 1 percent."[33] A 2006 analysis of IRS income data by economists Emmanuel Saez at the University of California, Berkeley and Thomas Piketty at the Paris School of Economics showed that the share of income held by the top 1% was as large in 2005 as in 1928. The data revealed that reported income increased by 9% in 2005, with the mean for the top 1% increasing by 14% and that for the bottom 90% dropping slightly by 0.6%
---------

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3220

Income Gaps Between Very Rich and Everyone Else More Than Tripled In Last Three Decades, New Data Show

The gaps in after-tax income between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the middle and poorest fifths of the country more than tripled between 1979 and 2007 (the period for which these data are available), according to data the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued last week. Taken together with prior research, the new data suggest greater income concentration at the top of the income scale than at any time since 1928.

Тебе, Сандал, возможно и похер, а меня возмущает факт, что CEO просравшей все что можно GM получает в 14 раз больше CEO Тойоты.
Мне как-то не кажется его зарплата заработанной. А тебе ?
И объясняется эта разница отнюдь не рыночными механизмами - обычный такой перелив денег из кармана инвестора в карман управляющего, при содействии board of directors. Что и доказывается приведенными цифрами.

Поэтому я кагбы не вижу проблемы в некотором урезании аппетитов верхнего 1%, и уж точно нет проблем не предоставить им налоговых поблажек.

А насчет налогов ты не волнуйся - общая сумма налогооблагаемых денег в худшем случае осталась бы неизменной, изменилось бы распределение по слоям населения. А уж как богатые умеют уходить от налогов - никакой средний класс так не умеет. Так шта налогов бы собрали больше.

А раз остались при своих - то сам бог велел наложить налоговую лапу на их незаработанные деньги. Ссылочкой не поделишься, сказочник ?

Википедия имеет другое мнение :
William A. Niskanen, one of the architects of Reaganomics, summarizes the policy as "Reagan delivered on each of his four major policy objectives, although not to the extent that he and his supporters had hoped", and notes that the most substantial change was in the tax code, where the top marginal individual income tax rate fell from 70% to 28%, and there was a "major reversal in the tax treatment of business income", with effect of "reducing the tax bias among types of investment but increasing the average effective tax rate on new investment."[2][3] The effect was primarily a change in the composition of tax revenue, towards payroll and new investment, and away from higher earners and capital gains on existing investments, with comparatively small effect on overall tax revenue: the changes "reduced the federal revenue share of GDP from 20.2 percent in fiscal 1981 to 19.2 percent in fiscal 1989," a 1% reduction.

Опять проблемы с матчастью ?

А вот забавная часть - ты, Сандаль, не сойди с ума от противоречивых чувств. Оказываетцца, именно твой герой Рейган захреначил тот страшный дефицит бюджета, об котором ты так плачешь !
---------
In 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the very wealthy, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%.[15] As a result of all this, the budget deficit and federal debt increased considerably: debt grew from 33.3% of GDP in 1980 to 51.9% at the end of 1988 [16] and the deficit increased from 2.7% in 1980 to more than double in 1983, when it reached 6%; in 1984, 1985 and 1986 it was around 5%.[17] In order to cover new federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion,[18] and the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.[19] Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.
---------

Это кагбы говорит нам, что чудес в арифметике не бывает - при понижении налогов деловая активность может повыситься (а может и нет), но в любом случае не компенсирует недобор.

Матчасть, Сандаль ! Учи матчасть !

так где тут про утроение собранных налогов, Сандаль ?

Advocates of the Laffer curve problematically contend that the tax cuts did lead to a near doubling of tax receipts[citation needed] ($517 billion in 1980 to $1.032 trillion in 1990)[citation needed], so that the deficits were actually caused by an increase in government spending. However, an analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities argues that "history shows that the large reductions in income tax rates in 1981 were followed by abnormally slow growth in income tax receipts, while the increases in income-tax rates enacted in 1990 and 1993 were followed by sizeable growth in income-tax receipts.

Не бывает, Сандаль, не бывает чудес :))))

И насчет рейгановского долгого бума :

The following Keynesian interpretation of Reaganomics is given by Paul Krugman:[43]

The secret of the long climb after 1982 was the economic plunge that preceded it. By the end of 1982 the U.S. economy was deeply depressed, with the worst unemployment rate since the Great Depression. So there was plenty of room to grow before the economy returned to anything like full employment.

Речь шла о современной Америке. Которая однозначно находится слева от максимума этой самой кривой.

One study of the United States between 1959 and 1991 placed the revenue-maximizing tax rate (the point at which another marginal tax rate increase would decrease tax revenue) between 32.67% and 35.21%.[17] Pecorino (1995) argued that the peak occurred at tax rates around 65%.[18] Another empirical study found that the point of maximum tax revenue in Sweden in the 1970s would have been 70%.[19]

In 2005, the Congressional Budget Office released a paper called "Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates". This paper considered the impact of a stylized reduction of 10% in the then existing marginal income tax rates in the US (for example, if those facing a 25% marginal income tax rate had it lowered to 22.5%). Unlike earlier research, the CBO paper estimates the budgetary impact of possible macroeconomic effects of tax policies, i.e., it attempts to account for how reductions in individual income tax rates might affect the overall future growth of the economy, and therefore influence future government tax revenues; and ultimately, impact deficits or surpluses. The paper's author forecasts the effects using various assumptions (e.g., people's foresight, the mobility of capital, and the ways in which the federal government might make up for a lower percentage revenue). In the paper's most generous estimated growth scenario, only 28% of the projected lower tax revenue would be recouped over a 10-year period after a 10% across-the-board reduction in all individual income tax rates.
-----------

То есть tax break окупает себя только на 28%. Остальное - сплошные убытки.

О, Сандаль созревает до отказа от уплаты налогов по идейным соображениям ?!!

:)))))

нам будет тебя очень не хватать, Сандаль !
Я бы на твоем месте не ждал, пока IRS возьмет за ж.пу, а сразу эмигрировал в страны без налогов. Сомали, например - отличное место !