Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : John McCain for President -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chalu2 who wrote (501)	2/21/2000 8:27:00 PM
From: Peter O'Brien	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6579

chalu2, I'll try one more time... You say: "I think the basic error is focusing on one $10,000 tranch of income..." No, this is the ESSENTIAL POINT of my argument, and it is not a "basic error". Again, this is precisely the definition of a MARGINAL TAX RATE. You say: "there are no conditions where taxes exceed income". Yes, that is true of total taxes and total income. I never said otherwise. You seem to be having trouble distinguishing between total versus marginal. But, my point still stands for the $10,000 tranch of incremental income. If the father (with 4 kids) got a $10,000 raise, then $7,100 would be lost to taxes. If the father (with 7 kids) got a $10,000 raise, then $10,100 would be lost to taxes. He would lose all of his raise, and then some! Yes, his total taxes would still be less than his total income, but he would have lost all of his raise (i.e., his incremental income). Finally, I have to say that I find your arguments that "most families are smaller" and "most people make well under 100K" to be extremely weak. Just because upper-middle-class large families are in the minority, does that mean it is "open season" to screw them on taxes with no mercy? I'm beginning to think so.