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 (928491)	3/31/2016 1:14:45 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573530

Only a very few, very responsible and patriotic wealthy paid 90%, Ten. The rest hired 'wizard' accountants that got them deductions and schemes that brought their totals down to 70% or even 60%, and they were SO happy!

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (928491)	3/31/2016 2:03:37 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1573530

90% is silly on a number of levels. One of which being that it reduces the amount of tax revenue received by the government.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (928491)	4/1/2016 1:44:46 AM
From: i-node	2 Recommendations Recommended By TideGlider TimF Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573530

Who paid 90%? That's silly. Taxing income above a certain level at 90% essentially makes it illegal to earn that much. It is an absurd claim. In 1958, according to SOI, the number of people who had ANY income taxed at the 91% would have been significantly less than 10,000. Insignificant. And only income over about 3,000,000 in ordinary income might have been subjected to that tax rate, which means no one came anywhere close to an effective rate close to that. More importantly, in 1958 everything was deductible. There was no at-risk limitation. No passive activity loss limitation. No tax shelter registration. No special rules for partnerships. Hell, you still got basis for non-recourse debt back then. If you had a business that made $10 million, you could offset that gain with capital losses. Today, that capital loss deduction would be carried forward for years. The claim isn't apples and oranges. It is apples and turnips. But it is simple and liberals are down with simple every time.