On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 20:16:14 -0400, Tom Littleton wrote:
On 9/30/2010 8:04 PM, wrote:
While it is true that the "technical" top tax bracket was 91% (on "net taxable
income"), the loopholes were, well, more the rule than the exception, so very
few actually paid 91%.
also, the 91% was only over the threshold, and as you point out there
were loopholes(not that there aren't now). Still, look at it this way:
when something like that is in place, the emphasis on the quick killing
(a la hedge fund and other money 'managers') for the massive annual
income is lessened. Loopholes or not, if you report an income of, say,
800 million, I'll bet a few hundred don't get loopholed out of the
amount in the 91% bracket.
Anyone who has the slightest interest in "earning" 800 million as individual
income in a year, be it today, yesterday, or in the 50s likely isn't going to
care about tax brackets. And AFAIK, there aren't a whole lot of folks in that
category, anyway. IAC, you couldn't run fast enough to give me 800 million a
year - I don't need it and don't want the headaches (and probable heartaches) it
would bring. That's one of things I don't understand about Buffett - people go
on and on about what a great guy he is because he's giving away billions. Um,
well, yeah, but he's keeping a few, too. What "normal" person would even want
(and by that, I mean have the desire to personally strive to acquire it) a
single billion? If one has even one billion in readily-convertible "cash," it
could be very conservatively invested and produce an annual income of 50-100 mil
a year. WTF could a sensible, rational person do with even that income? If
he's so wonderful, why didn't he take less (personal) profit all along and
"share the wealth" all along, or, give much of it to charity all along? Granted,
there are a few out there that, from a single source, wound up in a situation
where they literally can't give it away fast enough (ala many of the Walton
family and to a limited extent, Gates), but these little ****asses like
what-his-nuts from Facebook, etc., there's got to be something seriously wrong
with their makeup, at least IMO. But that said, I still don't think that they
ought to carry a hugely disproportionate share of the tax burden.
Suddenly, long-term capital gains look like
wise things to aim for, and folks start planning long term strategies,
which benefit the nation. That is precisely the economic model that was
in effect in the 50's and 60's. Then the 'business management' types
took over, looked for easy, fast profits, and we all suffer, to some extent.
On the other hand, your example of France taxing everyone is only
pertinent insofar as France provides social benefits to all that are
unheard of in this nation. Whether that model is sustainable can be
debated, but despite some Eurozone issues,
the Scandanavian societies seem to pull it off without too much effort.
WHAT? First of all, you're taking about countries that wouldn't even rank in
the top five, population-wise, of US states (and I'm not sure that even Sweden
would be in the top 10 - I know Denmark and Norway wouldn't be, and depending on
your definition of "Scandinavia," Iceland has a population you could in fit into
a smallish Holiday Inn...and it managed to bankrupt itself). In fact, I don't
think the population all of "Scandinavia," even including all potential
countries that could be included, would even equal CA, TX, or NY. Not that a
smaller population is a bad thing - in fact, it can be a great thing. Plus,
those populations are about as homogeneous and "native" as they come - there
are, what, 27 "foreigners" in all of Scandinavia, whatever countries you include
out of the possibles (and yeah, I know, that's not literal, but still...).
IAC, pick your medicine - the taxes in Denmark are, IIRC, the highest in the
world - the gov takes something like 99 cents of the first dollar and then gets
out the shears to cut your share from the remaining "penny." ****, you'd have
rioting in the streets if you suddenly tried to tax those in the US ala Denmark.
Norway has more oil than 17 Arab sheiks and have the population of about N.
Dakota (again, yes, hyperbole, but still...). And yet, they have still had
their share of "entitlement"-related woes, as has Sweden. The simple fact of
the matter is that the idea of "the Scandinavian (and/or "Nordic") Model" is
largely myth, esp. outside of "Scandinavia," but it hasn't been completely shown
as such in "common knowledge" because it hasn't completely failed _yet_. If you
want to see an epic failure, try to apply it to the US. Oh, true enough, if,
say, Vermont suddenly seceded, it might work for a few years there, but in the
entirety of the US (or the Eurozone, etc.)? No way, no how. And the even
simpler fact is that some socio-capitalist "Utopia" cannot exist, long-term,
because it would be populated with people.
TC,
R
Tom