4 ms·
> Why would the next generation want to take up that room? Are you seriously asking why anyone would consider a career in which they are "only" able to keep 27
by msbarnett 11y ago
> Why would the next generation want to take up that room?
Are you seriously asking why anyone would consider a career in which they are "only" able to keep 27% of any money above $10 million they make in a single year?
You're incredibly out of touch if you don't think most people would kill for that opportunity.
> Would you take up a career where despite long & expensive education, long hours, hard work, and lives-in-your-hands responsibility, you kept just 27% of your income?
Yes I would absolutely do that for the privilege of keeping only 27% of anything more than $10 million a year I make. This is an incredibly good problem to have.
> would you put in a million dollars of effort to net a quarter of that in return?
This is not how marginal tax rates work. Consider putting down Atlas Shrugged and consulting a remedial math textbook.
- ctdonath 11y agoWould you put in $100M effort & risk where you'd need a 4x return on investment just to break even? As I work to make my owns end meet, I'm quite aware of the consequences of having a ~50% tax rate, putting out $X00,000 effort just to net half that. And yes, I'm quite aware of the technical errors in my presented math. This is a casual forum, not a peer-reviewed paper. What baffles me is how others here won't do the remedial math showing that a 100% tax rate on everything over $1M wouldn't come close to paying for what Bernie et al promise and those here expect as obvious (never mind the always-neglected effect high taxes have on high productivity).