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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill/WA who wrote (121111)	3/1/2010 5:27:37 PM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 132070

I tell people about these rates where short term gains and dividends were considered "unearned" income and subject to the highest rate possible, no matter what the marginal rate on your "earned" income. However, I can't complain too much. I made a lot of money during the 60s and through the 80s and kept a lot of it. But when I hear billionaires complain about a 35% marginal rate, I feel like bitch-slapping them.

To: Bill/WA who wrote (121111)	3/2/2010 10:54:49 AM
From: Freedom Fighter	Respond to of 132070

Those tax rate numbers are basically meaningless. There have long been various tax deductions that people (especially the wealthy) used to reduce their actual tax rate. What you might want to look up is the percentage of the economy that is made up by various levels of government (that has been fairly steady) and what the actual effective tax rate was for the wealthy AFTER deductions. IMO, that was a far worse system because people made economic decisions based on tax avoidance instead the needs and demands of society and ROIC. I knew people that bought apartments and kept them EMPTY because the tax advantages netted them money. That's sick. What you want to do is get rid of deductions and implement as flat and low a tax rate as possible. You can always set some level of income below which is non taxable to make it progressive.