[valiumcheepval]

Creepy.

[Deseassaugs]

The hard truth is they are not or as Warren Buffet said "there is something wrong when I pay a lower tax rate then my secretary." A combined total tax rate of 17.1% is entirely insufficient and they need to be paying double that, easily.

[xFZ3k8Mw]

And in terms of taxing the extreme rich is that they can evade tax because they are not really bound by international borders, and there's always some tax haven out there. However this could be a problem if they wish to do business in much higher tax economies so it is hard to catch them until there are more comprehensive international treaties on this matter, and I just don't see that happening any time soon.

[Aminkaoo]

It is funny when I talk to my father about the 70s when the upper level tax rates were really high. He laughed and said no investment seemed silly since if it tanked it didn't really cost you much so you could do all sorts of high risk ones. And most people in his group did. All that investing helped lower unemployment which eventually led to surpluses.

[abouthotels]

Yep. dat too. But a lot of companies back then also gave a lot of it back in salaries and bonuses figuring better to give to employees then uncle sam.

[flower-buy]

Please define "fair"....

[cigattIcTot]

Also instead of taking money out of a business a business owner usually reinvested it to expand the business rather then taking so much of it out as personal income. The tax rates were so high keeping it in the company often seemed like a good thing to do.

I repeat my above comment. Is the claim that investment is a Giffen good?

[Anakattawl]

I am not surprised at all. People are stupid mules.

The fact that we did not follow you into socialist utopia might lend to you giving pause to think that maybe you aren't a good picker of winners.

[yxn2dC07]

Reinvestment isn't necessarily the best way to use capital. It seems to me that a tax structure that encourages profits to be poured back into a company rather than taken out and applied to another purpose would stultify an economy.

Let's say you have a profitable accounting firm in a small town. Since there's a limit to the market's need for accounting services, and since there are very few capital intensive aspects of accounting (no heavy machinery or the like), reinvesting profits might lead to a less ideal outcome than taking those profits and investing them in another venture, or depositing them in a bank.

Very true. That said, the accounting firm could open up a second office in a different market. There are pluses and minuses to the incentives of both tax system layouts.

[Imihooniump]

It is funny when I talk to my father about the 70s when the upper level tax rates were really high. He laughed and said no investment seemed silly since if it tanked it didn't really cost you much so you could do all sorts of high risk ones. And most people in his group did. All that investing helped lower unemployment which eventually led to surpluses.

I'm lost as to what this means. Maybe I'm just not understanding sarcasm over the internet.

If the personal income taxes were so high, that would have mitigated their personal investment (if that's what you're referring to as investment) return obviously since they would have had less after taxes to invest. If, on the other hand, you're referring to what Oerdin said, and it's business owners taking less out for their personal income (or I guess shareholders agreeing to lower or no dividends) and instead re-investing retained earnings, that re-investing only has value to the shareholders/owners because it is hoped it will make money (expected present value calculations here). All it is is postponing the receipt of (hopefully greater) income which will be taxed. I could be wrong but you'd have to have expectations for lower tax rates in the future for what you and Oerdin said to make sense.

[minowz]

I'm lost as to what this means. Maybe I'm just not understanding sarcasm over the internet.

If the personal income taxes were so high, that would have mitigated their personal investment (if that's what you're referring to as investment) return obviously since they would have had less after taxes to invest. If, on the other hand, you're referring to what Oerdin said, and it's business owners taking less out for their personal income (or I guess shareholders agreeing to lower or no dividends) and instead re-investing retained earnings, that re-investing only has value to the shareholders/owners because it is hoped it will make money (expected present value calculations here). All it is is postponing the receipt of (hopefully greater) income which will be taxed. I could be wrong but you'd have to have expectations for lower tax rates in the future for what you and Oerdin said to make sense.

Ah, so you did learn some economics in school...

[aceriscoolon]

I could be wrong but you'd have to have expectations for lower tax rates in the future for what you and Oerdin said to make sense.

yep

[Speareerfug]

Basically, this thread is primarily about peoples perceptions, people's perceptions of people's perceptions.

JM

[cwgwowcom]

No because it was just a summary and not your perceptions.

You could have just as well said 'people think things'.

Can you give any insight? Maybe say what your own perceptions are?

JM

[HagsPusia]

Given that the marginal tax rate for bottom earners is negative already, I don't understand your statement.

[Smittoh]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_Income_Tax_Credit

[BGThomasis]

Okay, I guess the focus can stay on raising taxes for top earners