Glad to have you on board, gomiami. It's always nice to have some logical thinking for a change.

Wylie has been here.

There are a few here that think before posting, but then you get stupid comments like 99% tax brackets.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/27/2018 9:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/27/2018 8:57:00 PM (view original):
I will actually answer it for Sweden myself. They rank 9th on the World Happiness Index. Denmark, Finland, Norway at 1 2 3. All are similar to Sweden in tax structure. The USA is 18th.

That's a nice try but the methodology for the "happiness" report is suspect. The UN is promoting a particular viewpoint on what they consider happiness to be. Social support? Perceived corruption (as opposed to actual corruption?) Come on...

Sure, but it is still a better measure than nothing, right? People in Finland are 'happier' than in the USA or in the Congo.

Posted by strikeout26 on 5/27/2018 9:21:00 PM (view original):
Glad to have you on board, gomiami. It's always nice to have some logical thinking for a change.

Appreciate it. I could probably come up with a set of questions that would catapult Syria to the #1 spot. All data is easily manipulated, especially when circular reasoning is employed from the get-go.

How do you know they're happier? Based on this one report? If they are happier, why are people begging to move to the US?

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.

Taxes shouldn't be used for social engineering.

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.

There is no loophole that allows someone to draw a W2 in California but live in the Caymen Islands and not pay US income tax. *******, you are a financial moron.

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.

I get that. It drives me nuts. I have said many times that we shouldn't have any deductions. The purpose of taxes are to fund the government, not to encourage people to buy a house or electric car. I understand that what I want out of the tax code and what reality is are two different things.

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.

As much as I disagree with you on the other point, this is hard to argue.

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 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.