Posted by cccp1014 on 5/27/2018 7:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/27/2018 5:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/27/2018 4:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/27/2018 2:18:00 PM (view original):
lol. CCCP owned yet again.

IDIOT. Every top athlete would establish residence elsewhere. Every top businessman and top actor. OWNED? Jeez if pro life people saw you they d likely change their minds.

Hey, dummy, you know where you earn the money is what matters right? It doesn’t matter if you live in the Caymen Islands if your paychecks are coming from the work you do for the Lakers in Los Angeles.

Yes and more loopholes would be found. Do you not agree? Why do people establish their residences in Monaco?

You may be the dumbest person on these boards.

Posted by strikeout26 on 5/27/2018 9:44:00 PM (view original):
Taxes shouldn't be used for social engineering.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/27/2018 9:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 5/27/2018 9:44:00 PM (view original):
Taxes shouldn't be used for social engineering.

Too late. We have all kinds of incentives built into the tax code. Deductions, different rates for investment income, property tax caps, etc.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/27/2018 9:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/27/2018 6:15:00 PM (view original):
Sorry, bad_luck, I wasn't ignoring you. By creating a hard cap on income, you create a hard cap on motivation to achieve (for most.) We live in a money economy. Only a saint would continue to reach upward once they reach that $10M level.

Most of us are not saints. What you propose is a great utopian ideal. In reality, it would breed retardation and mediocrity.

It doesn’t create a cap on motivation. $10m is an unbelievably large amount of money. Anyone starting a business would be happy to personally make $10m once, let alone more than $10m annually.

In reality, it would create an incentive to reinvest. We know, for a fact, that cutting upper income tax rates doesn’t encourage owners to reinvest the money back into the business.

But if, for example, you’re a business owner and you project $12m in personal income for a year, you have a choice. You can hang on to the additional $20k and give an extra $1.98m to the feds or you can put that entire $2m back into the company—pay your employees more, buy new equipment, etc. The tax caps the amount large shareholders can extract from the business.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/27/2018 9:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/27/2018 9:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/27/2018 6:15:00 PM (view original):
Sorry, bad_luck, I wasn't ignoring you. By creating a hard cap on income, you create a hard cap on motivation to achieve (for most.) We live in a money economy. Only a saint would continue to reach upward once they reach that $10M level.

Most of us are not saints. What you propose is a great utopian ideal. In reality, it would breed retardation and mediocrity.

It doesn’t create a cap on motivation. $10m is an unbelievably large amount of money. Anyone starting a business would be happy to personally make $10m once, let alone more than $10m annually.

In reality, it would create an incentive to reinvest. We know, for a fact, that cutting upper income tax rates doesn’t encourage owners to reinvest the money back into the business.

But if, for example, you’re a business owner and you project $12m in personal income for a year, you have a choice. You can hang on to the additional $20k and give an extra $1.98m to the feds or you can put that entire $2m back into the company—pay your employees more, buy new equipment, etc. The tax caps the amount large shareholders can extract from the business.

No, it is not...depending on the state you live in.

Besides, a Bachelor degree will cost $10M in about a generation or so.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/27/2018 9:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/27/2018 9:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/27/2018 9:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/27/2018 6:15:00 PM (view original):
Sorry, bad_luck, I wasn't ignoring you. By creating a hard cap on income, you create a hard cap on motivation to achieve (for most.) We live in a money economy. Only a saint would continue to reach upward once they reach that $10M level.

Most of us are not saints. What you propose is a great utopian ideal. In reality, it would breed retardation and mediocrity.

It doesn’t create a cap on motivation. $10m is an unbelievably large amount of money. Anyone starting a business would be happy to personally make $10m once, let alone more than $10m annually.

In reality, it would create an incentive to reinvest. We know, for a fact, that cutting upper income tax rates doesn’t encourage owners to reinvest the money back into the business.

But if, for example, you’re a business owner and you project $12m in personal income for a year, you have a choice. You can hang on to the additional $20k and give an extra $1.98m to the feds or you can put that entire $2m back into the company—pay your employees more, buy new equipment, etc. The tax caps the amount large shareholders can extract from the business.

No, it is not...depending on the state you live in.

Besides, a Bachelor degree will cost $10M in about a generation or so.

There are 330 million people in the US. ~18k file federal taxes with a TAXABLE income over $10m. It’s incredibly rare.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/27/2018 10:19:00 PM (view original):
No problem. For full disclosure, I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I think they are both equally worthless.