A lot of the current witch-hunt after the ultra-wealthy was partially precipitated by the Bernie Madoff scandal, and a vengeful spirit of going after the "fat cats" in the scandal's aftermath.
I am in no way suggesting that Madoff should have evaded justice, or that there wasn't rampant corruption at many levels leading up to the financial system collapse that happened in Fall 2008.
Likewise, I don't necessarily have a great deal of sympathy for those that deliberately hid assets in offshore accounts specifically to evade tax penalties. But I think it's worth considering why these individuals chose to move their assets offshore in the first place. Could it be that the whole "tax the rich" drumbeat has gone a little too far? By most measures, 5 percent of the U.S. population is responsible for 54 percent of the tax revenue.
More...
Can anyone really blame them for wanting to hide their assets from such a rapacious, ravenous government? Although this concept may seem illogical to our progressive friends, could it be possible that we might actually increase revenue if the burden on the top earners weren't so onerous?
There will always be some individuals that will find every trick in their CPA's books to whittle their tax burden down to as low as it can go. But perhaps if the burden was spread more equitably across the general population, the wealthy wouldn't be quite as inclined to skirt the rules. I'll admit that maybe I have it all wrong, and the capitalist pigs will do all they can to screw Uncle Sam at every turn and opportunity, regardless of how fair and equitable the rules are.
But what if our tax structure was re-thought to reward capital investment in businesses, incentivize hiring new employees, and invest in product research and development? Not as a one-time stimulus, but permanently?
I am not an economist, an accountant, or a financial analyst, so maybe my ideas are as wacky as the current, drastically inequitable tax structure. Anyone care to weigh in?
0 comments:
Post a Comment