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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Koligman who wrote (16642)	4/11/2010 4:45:11 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

they will just buy tax free bonds and pay nothing in taxes and that will cost jobs, since they won't invest in new companies and technologies. Ross Perot said he invests his 4 BILLION in tax free bonds and pays nothing, He said why should I invest it in new companies, because if they fail I lose my ass and if the succeed I end up paying 50% in taxes and have all the headaches. You raise the cap gains tax on the rich it will cost jobs and tax revenues

To: John Koligman who wrote (16642)	4/11/2010 6:26:30 PM
From: Sdgla	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Ok... Now what should those making under your high end tax rates be paying ?

To: John Koligman who wrote (16642)	4/12/2010 12:15:48 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

I consider it ridiculous that guys making 350 million a year are paying 16% rates. I think its a bad idea for anyone to have to pay much more than that rate.

To: John Koligman who wrote (16642)	4/12/2010 10:11:50 AM
From: i-node	Respond to of 42652

I consider it ridiculous that guys making 350 million a year are paying 16% rates. I really don't have a problem starting to jack up rates at the 250k level, and I would ramp them up rapidly at anything over a mil a year.... These kinds of remarks are common from people who haven't the slightest understanding of why things are like they are. What people who bitch about this don't understand is that if you make that guy 32%, funding for state and local governments and infrastructure projects all over America would dry up instantly. It is that lower tax rate that motivates the $350m/y guy to invest his money in tax free securities, without which you would have no public project money. Is THAT what you want?