5 ms·

If they give taxes a bump of course, but what if they radically rearrange taxes. There are many voices i hear who believe people above certain limits should be

by err4nt 10y ago

If they give taxes a bump of course, but what if they radically rearrange taxes. There are many voices i hear who believe people above certain limits should be taxed 90% or more, and some cutoff limits Ive heard have been 250k, or even 100k. If you suddenly fell into a 90% taxation bracket would you still be just as happy as today?

mordocai 10y ago
You do realize that, assuming taxes work like they do today, it'd be 90% on the amount over 250k/100k not 90% over the total income? Assuming you realize it, your point must be that only having 10% effective increase in income after you reach the threshold is demotivating, and I would agree.
- err4nt 10y ago
  So a bracket like that which stifles motivation would absolutely hurt industry, economy, and innovation. Its like youre in a race against every other business and country in the world, and you say: "hey, lets put these leg cuffs on! No everybody has a 3 foot stride wehn walking, so its no fair for you to walk fast. These shackles will only restrict your movement if you succeed too much and are able to take bigger strides. The most important thing is to reduce the gaps between winners and losers!" In that race, do you think you stand a fighting chance against unshackled competitors?
Applejinx 10y ago
I can run my business on about 20K a year if I'm frugal. It's another 'laptop' type business and while I can make use of capital to build value, that's not the core business. I would absolutely accept a 100% marginal tax rate on over 100K a year and be happy about it. I live in an area with extremely low cost of living compared to NYC or SV, and I can build mindshare and interact with extremely happy, encouraging customers and become authoritative in my field with or without raw capital. Put it this way. I have personal friends who were names on the back of vinyl record albums when I was a kid. On the whole, they are not over 100k a year either, and some of the things they love and cherish most are not (to them) core businesses earning over 100k a year. If you don't figure you can be happy and fulfilled without millions and billions of dollars, you're doing something wrong. I have no problem with overruling your opinion here, and saying 'you have it wrong, and if you don't understand marginal taxation you're not entitled to opinions about it, still less to scaremonger people over it'.
kohanz 10y ago
> There are many voices i hear who believe people above certain limits should be taxed 90% or more, and some cutoff limits Ive heard have been 250k, or even 100k. Sorry, but I don't believe that there are many voices, in the context of the national conversation espousing such views and they certainly wouldn't get a whiff of being elected if they ran for government. It's hard to not take what you say as fear-mongering when you resort to that kind of hyperbole.

by err4nt 10y ago

mordocai 10y ago

You do realize that, assuming taxes work like they do today, it'd be 90% on the amount over 250k/100k not 90% over the total income? Assuming you realize it, your point must be that only having 10% effective increase in income after you reach the threshold is demotivating, and I would agree.

err4nt 10y ago
So a bracket like that which stifles motivation would absolutely hurt industry, economy, and innovation. Its like youre in a race against every other business and country in the world, and you say: "hey, lets put these leg cuffs on! No everybody has a 3 foot stride wehn walking, so its no fair for you to walk fast. These shackles will only restrict your movement if you succeed too much and are able to take bigger strides. The most important thing is to reduce the gaps between winners and losers!" In that race, do you think you stand a fighting chance against unshackled competitors?

Applejinx 10y ago

I can run my business on about 20K a year if I'm frugal. It's another 'laptop' type business and while I can make use of capital to build value, that's not the core business. I would absolutely accept a 100% marginal tax rate on over 100K a year and be happy about it. I live in an area with extremely low cost of living compared to NYC or SV, and I can build mindshare and interact with extremely happy, encouraging customers and become authoritative in my field with or without raw capital. Put it this way. I have personal friends who were names on the back of vinyl record albums when I was a kid. On the whole, they are not over 100k a year either, and some of the things they love and cherish most are not (to them) core businesses earning over 100k a year. If you don't figure you can be happy and fulfilled without millions and billions of dollars, you're doing something wrong. I have no problem with overruling your opinion here, and saying 'you have it wrong, and if you don't understand marginal taxation you're not entitled to opinions about it, still less to scaremonger people over it'.

kohanz 10y ago

> There are many voices i hear who believe people above certain limits should be taxed 90% or more, and some cutoff limits Ive heard have been 250k, or even 100k. Sorry, but I don't believe that there are many voices, in the context of the national conversation espousing such views and they certainly wouldn't get a whiff of being elected if they ran for government. It's hard to not take what you say as fear-mongering when you resort to that kind of hyperbole.