[sixmil]

Instead of flattening the income tax down to zero, I think you would probably have more success by eliminating tax brackets from the bottom to the top, one by one. Note that this would also be a tax cut for everyone who pays taxes, since everyone has income in the lower bracket.

Anyone listen to Bob Brinker? He doesn't buy the-tax-cut-for-the-rich rhetoric, but he does make a good case that the tax cut could have been better directed toward those with a higher propensity to spend.

Conspiracy theories tend to persist because there is a kernel of truth, however small. I think this is the case here as well.

[supercat]

Instead of flattening the income tax down to zero, I think you would probably have more success by eliminating tax brackets from the bottom to the top, one by one. Note that this would also be a tax cut for everyone who pays taxes, since everyone has income in the lower bracket.

What makes the most sense is to give tax cuts to people who will respond by imcreasing the taxable portion of their income. Unfortunately, if cutting the marginal tax rate from 50% to 33% on someone with $1,000,000 of taxable income results in them shifting their investments so as to have $1,600,000 of taxable income, liberals will complain that the measure cost even more than the $120,000 they predicted--$192,000 to be precise. Never mind that the tax cut meant the government got $528,000 in revenue instead of $500,000.