3 ms·
The UK in the 70s had a tax rate of 95% thus encouraging payment of much higher salaries to make it worthwhile for talented staff. If the tax rate is thereafter
by vixen99 12y ago
The UK in the 70s had a tax rate of 95% thus encouraging payment of much higher salaries to make it worthwhile for talented staff. If the tax rate is thereafter lowered to something sensible then the differentials are going to be significant. Quite a number of higher earners now have an effective tax rate of 60% which is not exactly low - but that's in the UK.
- danmaz74 12y ago95% is crazy, but today there are lots of multi-millionaire CEOs who as a percentage of their income pay less taxes than their secretaries...
- zo1 12y agoI see no problem with that, that looks perfectly legal. Democracy and legislation has decided that certain forms of income are to be taxed at a lower rate than others. And the CEO does lots of that "other" form of income, hence the lower rate. Why, what problem do you have with Democracy, err, I mean this tax-rate?
- warfangle 12y agos/Democracy and legislation/vested interests and cronyism/
- zo1 12y agoI beg to differ, democracy and legislation allowed vested interests and cronyism to occur/take place/take hold. So it is also to blame for what most, including you, blame on "vested interests and cronyism". Of course, this sort of thing would never happen in a "True Democracy". Maybe they have it in Scotland, run by the Scots, perhaps?
- warfangle 12y agoI wasn't really invoking that fallacy, but congratulations for being aware of it and showing us how smart you are! Ostensibly, representatives and senators decided to modify the tax code in this way. Unfortunately, the commercial entities that wanted it really didn't give them a choice in the matter - so it was no decision at all (reduce them: get re-elected; don't reduce them: don't get re-elected). It all comes down to who holds the purse strings ... on campaigns.