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: Nicholas Thompson who wrote (597056)	1/6/2011 10:20:58 PM
From: steve harris	Respond to of 1573073

we're making progress... how do you define "rich"? I define rich as wealthy, not someone with a high income. I know poor people you'd consider rich based upon their income...

To: Nicholas Thompson who wrote (597056)	1/7/2011 12:15:10 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1573073

Nick, > Compare that to what many consider our best years, the 50s when tax rates reached 91%. Fine, raise the top tax rate to 91%. Watch as tax revenues disappear. How many rich guys will expose their flow of money to such punitive tax rates? The answer is zero. Try again, but next time, think about what you advocate first. Tenchusatsu

To: Nicholas Thompson who wrote (597056)	1/7/2011 1:34:42 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1573073

Compare that to what many consider our best years, the 50s A lot of times people look back with nostalgia, forgetting some of the bad things, but remembering the good. when tax rates reached 91% With very little income actually subject to that rate, and with growth improving after the rate was cut (to 70%). Back then the top rate only a few people had enough income to hit the top rate. Those who did could deduct a lot of their income (for example all interest was deductible, not just mortgage interest), realize compensation in other ways then cash, which didn't get taxed (special luxurious facilities for executives, company cars, health insurance benefits from companies becoming common, expense accounts more common and less restricted then they often are today. Not only where there such broad exclusions from taxes, the high rates give people more incentive to use them, to lobby for more, or to illegal evade taxes. Such high rates are not just economically harmful, but are below the revenue maximizing rate, lower rates bring in more revenue (I'm not claiming this is universally true, at lower rates it typically isn't) Rich people depend on our society to make what they do All economic activity depends on the context where it happens, but society depends on entrepreneurs and businessmen, and investors, and wealthy professionals as well, and it benefits from their activities even before considering any tax payments they make. There is no issue of, as some people say, "giving back", since they didn't take in the first place, as a whole they create wealth (there are of course thieves, rent-seekers, and frauds, but those don't go away because you raise taxes, in fact bigger government increases rent-seeking, and higher tax rates increases at least tax fraud).