4 ms·
I think we all know a ten-point swing is not forthcoming. Especially looking back, it's not like this is the first time someone's run the numbers... And most o
by htfu 7y ago
I think we all know a ten-point swing is not forthcoming. Especially looking back, it's not like this is the first time someone's run the numbers...
And most of the piece is spent arguing against something somewhere between an aside and a strawman, then towards the end they admit as much(!), but have nothing substantial to add.
Whether your gut agrees with the "message", rhetorically it's just really awful.
- refurb 7y agoMaybe. Another thing that jumped out to me is why the top 400? Why not 500? Why not 100? 400 is an odd number to choose. We know the very top earners tend to be cases of windfalls. You sell your company, you offload all your shares, you sell a ton of land. Those can have odd tax implications. My guess is that they cherry picked the top 400 because it supported their conclusion. And the tax rates were a 1-off event that doesn’t normally happen.
- htfu 7y agoHow are you commenting on something like this without knowing about Forbes 400? Are you serious?
- refurb 7y agoHuh? The Forbes 400 have a number of non-Americans on the list. They don't pay US taxes at all. And doing a study where you look at the top 400 because "Forbes has a list of 400" makes zero sense. Hack job!