Re: Why I Pay Too Much in Taxes

At 04:46 PM 5/7/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote:
>On Tue, 7 May 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
>
>> At 1:17 PM 5/7/96, Clay Olbon II wrote:
>> >At 5:34 PM 5/6/96, Timothy C. May wrote:
>> >>Also, the effect of inflation has been to inflate salaries and thus inflate
>> >>people into higher tax brackets, even when their "real wages" have not gone
>> >>up.
>> >
>> >This used to be true.  A bill passed during the Reagan administration
>> >indexed the brackets to inflation to remedy this situation.  I don't know
>> >how succesful the bill was in eliminating "bracket creep", but that was the
>> >stated purpose.
>> 
>> No, it _still_ is true. One bill during one administration does not a major
>> change make.
>
>I'm not sure I understand what you mean.  I sent the text of the law to
>the list.  The position that you take (that increse in inflation can send
>you into the next tax bracket) is incorrect.

You seem to be forgetting that one of the provisions of (I believe) the 1986 
tax act was that capital gains would be indexed  for inflation.  However, 
the sleazy politicians only scheduled it (the indexing process) for about 
1990 or so, and by 1990 they managed to get that idiot Bush to agree to drop 
it.  I don't know the details, but this is yet another of the reasons I have 
no qualms about advocating a system for solving the "politician problem" by 
putting them 6 feet under.

Lawyers who profit from an abusive system may disagree, of course.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

On Tue, 7 May 1996, jim bell wrote:

> At 04:46 PM 5/7/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote:

> >I'm not sure I understand what you mean.  I sent the text of the law to
> >the list.  The position that you take (that increse in inflation can send
> >you into the next tax bracket) is incorrect.
> 
> You seem to be forgetting that one of the provisions of (I believe) the 1986 
> tax act was that capital gains would be indexed  for inflation.  However, 
> the sleazy politicians only scheduled it (the indexing process) for about 
> 1990 or so, and by 1990 they managed to get that idiot Bush to agree to drop 
> it.

Considering that there is one bracket for capital gains income (namely
28%) what does this have to do with bouncing you into the next income tax
bracket?

> I don't know the details, but this is yet another of the reasons I have 
> no qualms about advocating a system for solving the "politician problem" by 
> putting them 6 feet under.

And yet another reason you cite which is based on incorrect facts.

> 
> Lawyers who profit from an abusive system may disagree, of course.
> 

So may all individuals who have a clue.

> Jim Bell
> jimbell@pacifier.com

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com