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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (15760)	4/22/2017 12:03:52 PM
From: Lane3	2 Recommendations Recommended By i-node TimF Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 365066

Rat's OK with 99% on earnings over $1B. He knows he wouldn't have a hard time living on $10M. I remember those high tax rates well. And I remember the discussions about incentives. Even at the rates my colleagues and I paid early in our careers, a percentage somewhere in the thirties, there were negative incentives to work. People would actually turn down overtime. I recall watching a lot of professional tennis and the commentary about how the Scandinavian players, with their tax rates in the nineties, were expatriating. That was a long time ago and my recollections are fuzzy but I do remember enough to know that tax rates affect production incentives. There is a point at which marginal tax rates discourage income production. Surely your billionaire would reduce his effort at some point or take his money somewhere else. I sure wouldn't expend a billion dollars worth of effort or risk for a mere ten million in income. Wherever that inflection point is, it's well below 99%. At some point, tax rates kill that golden-egged goose.