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 (748975)	10/23/2013 11:45:58 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573921

Z, The point is not the nominal tax rate; it's the effective tax rate. Even if nobody pays 90%, the effective tax rate for a lot of people is going to be higher than when that bracket is set at 38%. The reason why you don't see the "richest one percent" ever paying the highest nominal tax rates is twofold: 1) They can (and often do) afford to shift their income toward tax shelters. No one EVER voluntarily pays higher tax rates. 2) They can take advantage of as many deductions as possible. Either way, you haven't shown any causality between progressive tax rates and the gap between rich and poor. Just a correlation that means nothing because you choose to ignore the points where they don't coincide (e.g. Clinton's raising of taxes and the rich still getting richer under his watch). Tenchusatsu