4 ms·

This is a false equivalency. There would still be entrepreneurs if our top tax rate was twice as a high as it is now, or more. Everyone wants to get rich, and e

by hooande 13y ago

This is a false equivalency. There would still be entrepreneurs if our top tax rate was twice as a high as it is now, or more. Everyone wants to get rich, and everyone believes that they need eleventy billion dollars in order to be happy. But most entrepreneurs and inventors make things because they like to make things. Most successful ventures start with a question, "Is X possible?" or "Wouldn't it be cool if...?". Some of the people who ask these questions also put a lot of focus on money because it's a convenient measuring stick for success in our society. This doesn't mean that paying slightly more in taxes would cause them to stop wondering and experimenting, though it might seem that way. I find it hard to believe that there would be no facebook if Mark Zukcerberg was worth $15B instead of $30B, or no Apple if Steve Jobs had paid a few billion more in taxes. If money is the ultimate goal, then why are so many billionaires joining Bill Gates in giving their fortunes away? During Eisenhower's time the top tax rate in the US was over 90%. We didn't become the Soviet Union, gravediggers didn't strike and innovation continued. I don't know if a 90% tax rate is necessarily socialist, but it wasn't the end of capitalism either. The idea that higher taxes stifle innovation is unproven and unproductive. If the super rich were willing to pay just 10% more, perhaps the super poor would have the opportunity to hold up their end of the deal as well. This real estate issue and the other symptoms of income inequality could become manageable problems instead of simmering conflicts.

tracker1 13y ago
I think I would probably draw the line at 50% ... if more than half of what you bring in is taken away, I just feel that's too much... That said, I would probably tax everyone at 50%, nuke corporate taxes, and ensure laws that ensure disbursements from companies to shareholders (that is then taxed, without exception)... from that, I would reduce military spending, cut most social services, and cut everyone a check for the same amount each month based on the revenues/spending. Corporate person-hood, and corporate taxes don't really make so much sense.. I'd be in favor of limiting corporations, and pushing for disbursements to the owners... Limiting corporations from holding onto unutilized and under-utilized assets and capitol. Make it work, or give it back to the shareholders/owners. I think that these things could really simplify legal/tax structures, and reduce a lot of government bureaucracy... Some people just wouldn't work.. more power to them. Some people will want more, and there will be competition in the workforce... I'd also be in favor of either open trade, or trade sanctions with countries that don't have similar environmental protection requirements to our own. Yes, that means that smart phones may double in price, but I think actions like that would help a lot more than simply putting up military bases all over the world.
- Shinkei 13y ago
  It sounds so simple to have a flat tax, but actually it hurts lower earners disproprotionately because they are using a higher percentage of their income for living expenses rather than luxury. In other words, 50% of 50,000 per year is more difficult to budget than 50% of 2,000,000 per year. Plus this whole issue of 'companies returning money to shareholders' is again only favoring the rich. It will be a long time before any significant portion of my income comes from dividends and capital gains. To make money in this way, you have to have a huge amount of capital invested already. Just to prove this point, if you made a very nice 10% per year before taxes on your investments, you would have to have 100,000 invested to make an extra 10,000 per year. If you are only making 50,000 per year, that would take a 20% contribution to your pre-tax retirement account for TEN years before you reached that level of invested capital. Sure, it would happen a little faster because of compounded interest and reinvested earnings, but I think my point is clear.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    If you read carefully, parent included a stipend ("cut everyone a check for the same amount each month based on the revenues/spending"). Flat tax plus a stipend produces a progressive overall tax rate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax#Flat_tax_with_negative_income_tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax#Flat_tax_wi... Edited to add: It's worth noting, though, that you can't produce every possible progressive tax rate curve with this method. It's certainly possible to prefer some curve that is unattainable this way. But a simplistic "a tax flat in dollars is regressive in utility" isn't applicable.
    - spikels 13y ago
      I always liked the basic income plus flat tax combination - simple and fair. Due to the means testing of various aid programs the tax system if often regressive and always confusing for low income earners. Exactly the opposite of what we should all want.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
saalweachter 13y ago
The top tax rates also do not serve as a disincentive to all types of investment and entrepreneurship. For instance, consider Mark Zuckerberg. By and large, Mr. Zuckerberg will owe his taxes when he decides to cash out. But why should he cash out? An entrepreneur can build a multi-billion-dollar company up from nothing, earn a comfortable salary doing it, and as long as he is reinvesting all of the business's profits and not cashing out, not pay significant taxes!

by hooande 13y ago

tracker1 13y ago

I think I would probably draw the line at 50% ... if more than half of what you bring in is taken away, I just feel that's too much... That said, I would probably tax everyone at 50%, nuke corporate taxes, and ensure laws that ensure disbursements from companies to shareholders (that is then taxed, without exception)... from that, I would reduce military spending, cut most social services, and cut everyone a check for the same amount each month based on the revenues/spending. Corporate person-hood, and corporate taxes don't really make so much sense.. I'd be in favor of limiting corporations, and pushing for disbursements to the owners... Limiting corporations from holding onto unutilized and under-utilized assets and capitol. Make it work, or give it back to the shareholders/owners. I think that these things could really simplify legal/tax structures, and reduce a lot of government bureaucracy... Some people just wouldn't work.. more power to them. Some people will want more, and there will be competition in the workforce... I'd also be in favor of either open trade, or trade sanctions with countries that don't have similar environmental protection requirements to our own. Yes, that means that smart phones may double in price, but I think actions like that would help a lot more than simply putting up military bases all over the world.

Shinkei 13y ago
It sounds so simple to have a flat tax, but actually it hurts lower earners disproprotionately because they are using a higher percentage of their income for living expenses rather than luxury. In other words, 50% of 50,000 per year is more difficult to budget than 50% of 2,000,000 per year. Plus this whole issue of 'companies returning money to shareholders' is again only favoring the rich. It will be a long time before any significant portion of my income comes from dividends and capital gains. To make money in this way, you have to have a huge amount of capital invested already. Just to prove this point, if you made a very nice 10% per year before taxes on your investments, you would have to have 100,000 invested to make an extra 10,000 per year. If you are only making 50,000 per year, that would take a 20% contribution to your pre-tax retirement account for TEN years before you reached that level of invested capital. Sure, it would happen a little faster because of compounded interest and reinvested earnings, but I think my point is clear.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  If you read carefully, parent included a stipend ("cut everyone a check for the same amount each month based on the revenues/spending"). Flat tax plus a stipend produces a progressive overall tax rate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax#Flat_tax_with_negative_income_tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax#Flat_tax_wi... Edited to add: It's worth noting, though, that you can't produce every possible progressive tax rate curve with this method. It's certainly possible to prefer some curve that is unattainable this way. But a simplistic "a tax flat in dollars is regressive in utility" isn't applicable.
  - spikels 13y ago
    I always liked the basic income plus flat tax combination - simple and fair. Due to the means testing of various aid programs the tax system if often regressive and always confusing for low income earners. Exactly the opposite of what we should all want.
    - dllthomas 13y ago

saalweachter 13y ago

The top tax rates also do not serve as a disincentive to all types of investment and entrepreneurship. For instance, consider Mark Zuckerberg. By and large, Mr. Zuckerberg will owe his taxes when he decides to cash out. But why should he cash out? An entrepreneur can build a multi-billion-dollar company up from nothing, earn a comfortable salary doing it, and as long as he is reinvesting all of the business's profits and not cashing out, not pay significant taxes!