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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (301673)	8/29/2006 3:52:28 PM
From: Taro	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575981

Tim, were those quintels corrected for loss of money value? Typically, what used to be done - and what still takes place in economies run by socialistic thinking like in Europe - is that some income limit set as a threshold for "higher incomes" vs "others", then of course 5-10 years from that, everybody now belong to that "higher income" bracket. Thus, the additional "special tax adder for rich people", 5-10 years later hits 80%+ of all incomes. Those threshold limits seldom are modified so eventually everybody ends up in the top bracket. That is how the sneaking tax increases just went out of control in Scandinavia and other socialistic thinking European countries years ago. I know Ted - and his German friends - believe this is just great, but believe me, this is a prefect application example of the Laffer curves and how over taxation drags down the futures of average people as well. Taro

To: TimF who wrote (301673)	8/30/2006 6:36:56 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575981

Your post was pretty much a non-sequitur. We were talking about the top one percent (not just billionaires) and really more generally about social mobility. And the turnover was not described as a normal annual event for any of the social classes. I provided a lot more information in my post to John, that I linked to in a reply to you, but apparently you had a problem understanding it. Tim, without even reading a single study, the average person knows anecdotally that billionaires are not making then losing their money on a rotating basis at the percentage level Armey is suggesting even in a timeframe as long as nine years. In the last ten years, how many billionaires have you heard that have lost their fortunes and exited the upper class? No doubt that would make the national news. Its true that the top ten or top 25 lists of the richest Americans may change from year to year but those people who get bumped off those lists don't end up on skid row or in a tract home on Long Island. They are still rich.....just not as rich.