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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (585863)	9/16/2010 4:49:26 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574001

Ted, > They just made the rich richer. Tax cuts had little to do with the rich getting richer. I predict that if the tax cuts expire for those making $250K or more, the rich will continue to get richer. Not for one minute do I believe tax cuts are the only way the rich are gaming the system. But why make it easier for them? And you'll continue to blame it on conservatives, thinking that we just don't "spread the wealth" enough using bigger government. Wouldn't you if you weren't so partisan? Its conservatives who don't want the tax cuts for the rich to expire. I would be stupid not to blame them.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (585863)	9/16/2010 4:51:49 PM
From: Bill	Respond to of 1574001

I predict that if the tax cuts expire for those making $250K or more It's actually $125K. (The $250K is for a couple.)

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (585863)	9/16/2010 7:09:31 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1574001

“Tax Cuts for the Rich” Posted by Jonathan on September 15th, 2010 (All posts by Jonathan) The mega-wealthy don't care much about tax rates cause they can shift income, assets, and purchases to avoid taxes as easily as Kerry can berth his yacht in Rhode Island. And as easily as the yacht buyers shifted their yacht buying to Europe when the US slapped a luxury tax on yachts in 1990. That’s the term the Left and the media use. Even conservative media people and some Republicans use it. It’s wrong. It’s not the rich. It’s people who want to be rich. It’s people with high incomes. It’s people running small businesses as LLCs and Sub-S corps that get funneled into the same tax category with people making high salaries. These people are working like hell to use their limited capital as efficiently as possible, to get the highest possible return. The successful high-earners among them are some of the most creative and productive people in our society. They create the jobs. The best of their small companies eventually become large companies and create tremendous wealth for their founders, shareholders, employees, contractors, suppliers and customers — all of us. The higher we set the rates at which we tax these highly productive people on their incomes and capital gains, the lower will be the returns they earn on their capital and therefore the less they will invest. The less they invest, the less they will create. The less they create, the less wealth there will be for all of us. Scrooge McDuck, sitting on piles of idle money, isn’t affected by high income- or cap-gains tax rates. Nor is he creating much by keeping his money idle. But a guy who has most of his net worth tied up in a successful business has a lot to lose and will be trying to earn the highest possible return on his capital and effort. Make him a target, reduce his returns by singling out high earners for tax-rate increases, and he will invest less and work less, and therefore will create less and hire less. We should be encouraging such people, not looting their capital to buy votes. chicagoboyz.net ............ Andrew_M_Garland Says: September 16th, 2010 at 3:47 pm Repealing the 1990 Luxury Tax on Yachts The US in 1990 carried out a tax-raising experiment, applying luxury taxes to the first sale of expensive cars, private airplanes, and yachts. The tax on yachts was “only” 10% of the sale over $100,000. As it happened, boat building was concentrated in Maine, and decreased demand cost 200,000 jobs in boat building of all types. Buyers switched to buy their boats in Europe. The revenue increase was tiny, and clearly this was a tax only on the rich. [ Yes, taxing the rich's luxury items cost non-rich Americans jobs. It happens all the time, its just it was easy to see with the luxury tax. ] Bush the senior arranged to repeal those taxes in 1993. The significance here is that the damage from this specific tax was clearly visible, in a concentrated industry within a few states. The tax was repealed because there was no confusion about its obvious and unintended effects, and there was organized opposition which affected a few key senators. The Obama tax increases on the rich will have similar effects. Unfortunately, those effects will be diffuse among many types of luxury goods, and much larger. People will be unemployed without knowing why, and recovery will be slowed or stopped.