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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: elmatador who wrote (50864)	6/10/2004 6:03:06 AM
From: energyplay	Respond to of 74559

This is what happend to california - progressive taxes, add in dot com stock market profits...the profits go away, the 10 th guy doesn't show up. I printed out a California estimated quqarterly tax form. Max tax rate is about 9.3%. The tax form has NINE spaces to the left of the decimal point- (meaning up to 999 million USD) - I guess they wanted to make sure that Mel Gibson, Larry Flison , and Arnold could fit their payments in the boxes. I stared at this and felt very poor.

To: elmatador who wrote (50864)	6/10/2004 8:29:22 AM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

yup, the 10th guy did capital flight and opted out of the rotten system j

To: elmatador who wrote (50864)	6/10/2004 10:31:27 AM
From: AC Flyer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Now that was a great post, elmat! Would you be surprised to know that in the US, the tax structure is even more unfair (to the wealthy) than in Denmark? In 2001, the top 10% of US taxpayers (i.e. the 10th guy at the table in your story) paid 64.9% of the government lunch check. taxfoundation.org Also, the bottom 29.5% pay zero taxes and many of them actually get paid to eat by Uncle Sam. taxfoundation.org

To: elmatador who wrote (50864)	6/10/2004 4:41:53 PM
From: Night Trader	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 74559

The analogy is superficially convincing but an economy is more complicated than a meal. It would be more apt if the diners received different sized meals according to their wealth. Should not a person who owns a disproportionate share of a society’s assets be expected to contribute more to that society’s expenses? The expense of defense and law enforcement for example is largely about protecting property rights. A wealthier person has a larger stake in the maintenance of that society. Personally though I’d like to see all income and corporate taxes scrapped in favor of a much more efficient national tax on consumption, not just on goods as it is now but also services such as travel, housing etc. The above two paragraphs aren’t contradictory: anyone who doesn’t consume their assets personally is really just managing them as an institution would.