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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (28429)	5/14/2008 11:37:08 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

" I DO think it's more egregious though when a CEO makes MILLIONS for essentially driving his company into the ground and I try not to own the stocks of any companies that do that sort of thing." I agreed, I vote against any officer that runs for the board, where's the oversight

To: RMF who wrote (28429)	5/15/2008 11:58:50 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

The number of ways to avoid paying the full amount of the top rate was greater. Also the higher rate gave more incentive to avoid the rate. And the top 70% (or higher at some points) rate only kicked in at an income level that few people reached. A lot more people have the income to reach today's top rate, and in particular a lot more people have the income to hit the 2nd from the top rate which is only 2% less. The 70+ percent rates of the past where high enough to probably be at the point of the laffer curve where tax cuts did directly and fairly quickly "pay for themselves", when taxes are that high the incentive to avoid them is massive.