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: SilentZ who wrote (586431)	9/20/2010 2:17:15 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1574422

Most people who make above $250K in a year don't make that much the next. >Link please. Even if it were true, it would likely just mean that most of the people who make over $250K make just over $250K. And in which case, those people wouldn't be significantly effected. Remember, those tax rates are marginal. So people who made $260K in a year after Obama raised that bracket by 3% would have to pay an extra $300. Big deal. I think the more important question is why do the conservatives on this thread worry so much about the tax rates for the rich? I doubt very many of them [if any] make over $250K.

To: SilentZ who wrote (586431)	9/20/2010 5:08:54 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574422

Z, > So people who made $260K in a year after Obama raised that bracket by 3% would have to pay an extra $300. Big deal. That's a red herring. You could argue for raising the top income tax bracket by 20 percentage points that way. "People who made $260K in a year after Obama raised that bracket by 20% would have to pay an extra $2,000. Big deal." Basically you're taxing "windfalls." That has never been an effective tool for "spreading the wealth" in all of history. But it does lead to very inconsistent tax revenues, which doesn't fit the needs of government very well. Tenchusatsu