• Buffett made $62,855,038 last year
    121 replies, posted
[QUOTE=tinos;32765375]I assure you the reason why they don't is less because they think of an abstract crumbling world, and more because they haven't the, skill, knowhow, or determination to "dig their way" out of the bottom. I know plenty blue collard works, heck I'm a machinist, I'm one of them! A lot of them are just plain content with where they are. I guarantee, aside from the lotto players, the 'lucky' are out there striving for that luck you speak of. It's ridiculous you think it is at all right to over tax, or even put a cap on earnings. If the businessman is fallowing all the laws necessary for him to have a successful business in a society that allows nobodies to become somebodies... There is no reason to punish him/her, just because the number in their bank is larger than yours. The only place in major earnings that I draw the line is when work is exported to countries where it could be done cheaper. A corporation should benefit it's country in every way. Providing domestic jobs, even at a higher cost to the business owners. [/QUOTE] Taxes aren't fucking punishment. When will people get this retarded concept out of their heads. Even if there scaling tax up to 50%, or 70%, or 90%, it will be set in such way that you would always be richer than these who make less. The more money you make, the more of it is OBVIOUSLY sourced by effort of other people. One simply CAN'T produce such amounts of worth by his own merit. He instead buys and sells works of others. That's why the money aren't "his". They come from the society, and they partially belong to the society.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32762706]Buffett's one of the good guys[/QUOTE] Moreso just one of the smart guys.
[QUOTE=tinos;32765375]I guarantee, aside from the lotto players, the 'lucky' are out there striving for that luck you speak of. It's ridiculous you think it is at all right to over tax, or even put a cap on earnings. If the businessman is fallowing all the laws necessary for him to have a successful business in a society that allows nobodies to become somebodies... There is no reason to punish him/her, just because the number in their bank is larger than yours. The only place in major earnings that I draw the line is when work is exported to countries where it could be done cheaper. A corporation should benefit it's country in every way. Providing domestic jobs, even at a higher cost to the business owners.[/QUOTE] Taxation is not punishment.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;32765470]Taxes aren't fucking punishment. When will people get this retarded concept out of their heads. Even if there scaling tax up to 50%, or 70%, or 90%, it will be set in such way that you would always be richer than these who make less. The more money you make, the more of it is OBVIOUSLY sourced by effort of other people. One simply CAN'T produce such amounts of worth by his own merit. He instead buys and sells works of others. That's why the money aren't "his". They come from the society, and they partially belong to the society.[/QUOTE] Anything above 50% is incredibly fucking stupid. You're taking away the hard work people put in to make it. If so, the publics opinion will be, 'if we're just gonna get taxed when we become successful, I'm gonna make JUUUST under the above-half-tax-rate mark', and that's detrimental to business because that business that could've potentially made 1000 jobs is now only making 250. You can't penalize people for becoming wealthy through hard work.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32759375]Here's the thing: they don't There are so many loopholes available to the rich that if they really want to, they could get away with paying less than me by the way, he also didn't say "give it to me" like you implied [editline]13th October 2011[/editline] There was a time in America, a very prosperous time for America in fact, where he'd by paying upwards of 80 or 90 percent[/QUOTE] Then we should close the loopholes. Like I said earlier in the thread, I understand the necessity of taxes, I just think we should make the rich pay their bill before we start raising the bill in anticipation of them not paying it.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;32765470]The more money you make, the more of it is OBVIOUSLY sourced by effort of other people. One simply CAN'T produce such amounts of worth by his own merit. He instead buys and sells works of others. That's why the money aren't "his". They come from the society, and they partially belong to the society.[/QUOTE] Put another way this is why the notion of taxes as killing businesses is absurd, because the businesses that exist today are as good as they are in part because of public goods like roads and eduction and a healthy (compared to yesteryear) society and what have you. [QUOTE=Sickle;32765661]Anything above 50% is incredibly fucking stupid.[/QUOTE] We did just fine with a 90% rate under Ike. [QUOTE=Sickle;32765661]If so, the publics opinion will be, 'if we're just gonna get taxed when we become successful, I'm gonna make JUUUST under the above-half-tax-rate mark', and that's detrimental to business because that business that could've potentially made 1000 jobs is now only making 250.[/QUOTE] The thing is, that's never what happens. You can't actually show a correlation between higher taxes and unemployment in the U.S. because, haha, [URL="http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2004/tax_rates_unemployment_correlation.html"]it tends to be the opposite.[/URL] Hell, look at just modern rates and prove how well our steadily lower rates on the top of the U.S. boosted "job creation, because if anything, they harmed it. At best that's a nonargument, at worst, stupid.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32765667]Then we should close the loopholes. Like I said earlier in the thread, I understand the necessity of taxes, I just think we should make the rich pay their bill before we start raising the bill in anticipation of them not paying it.[/QUOTE] Well of course, that should be a given. Fix the loopholes before raising any rates.
[QUOTE=Sickle;32765661]Anything above 50% is incredibly fucking stupid. You're taking away the hard work people put in to make it. If so, the publics opinion will be, 'if we're just gonna get taxed when we become successful, I'm gonna make JUUUST under the above-half-tax-rate mark', and that's detrimental to business because that business that could've potentially made 1000 jobs is now only making 250. You can't penalize people for becoming wealthy through hard work.[/QUOTE]The salary CEOs take out from their companies are most likely not invested in new jobs.
[QUOTE=Sickle;32765661]Anything above 50% is incredibly fucking stupid. You're taking away the hard work people put in to make it.[/QUOTE] Um I'm sorry but you could attach that crappy ideology even more in favor of less taxes for the poor. Those with much much lower incomes, like around $20,000, work hard for their income, and rely on every dollar to get by, meanwhile those making tens of millions a year are much less reliant on their extra money. If we're going to toss in the argument of "They work hard for their money and deserve it" then the solution is clearly to not tax the lower class at all, because they are having a hard enough time getting by, especially when government programs funded by taxes aren't able to satisfy their needs, because the wealthy are 'entitled' and shouldn't have to give back to the country that gave them the opportunity to make those riches. Or in the case of many of the rich people in this country, worked so hard to inherit.
But then what stops them from moving their funds to Lichtenstein and pulling the middle finger to the tax man in the US? Nothing. In fact the poor should be taxed less. And the rich should be taxed more, but not to the extent that either one equals more than 50% of the initial amount. That's my argument, because it seems pretty damn unfair. Especially if the person isn't a hand-me-down rich guy.
[QUOTE=Sickle;32768225]But then what stops them from moving their funds to Lichtenstein and pulling the middle finger to the tax man in the US? Nothing.[/QUOTE] Theoretically no, nothing stops them, but they have no reason to. They didn't when FDR raised the top tax rate to 94%, and they certainly won't now.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32746749]I really don't like this mindset of people saying "he has it, so let's take it" I understand raising taxes on the rich, but you really expose how greedy and self serving you are when your argument for raising taxes is "HEY THAT GUY HAS LOTS OF MONEY, GIVE IT TO ME". Whether or not you support raising taxes on the rich, they still earned that money, and they still pay their fair share. If you want them to pay a higher share that's totally understandable and I'm not debating whether or not the taxes should be raised, all I'm saying is that whenever someone uses that argument, they sound like a twat. You probably have some money too, give me $10, I'm sure you aren't using it. You'll be able to live without that $10 right? Thanks, then give it to me. Give me that $10 that you earned. Why? Oh, because I say so, and you can live without it.[/QUOTE] what if I stole that 10 dollars from a starving child in Harlem not too far away, along with another 100 dollars which I swindled from poor people then you'd be justified in taking that money from me so long as it's redistributed what job on earth warrants 62 million dollars per year? lifting jet liners with your bare hands and flinging them at asteroids which threaten the planet (and doing it successfully), sure. acting in a movie, catching a ball, creating personal wealth from thin air on wall street, or writing laws in a big white building, not so much worth the income. [editline]13th October 2011[/editline] in fact, that ten dollars (which actually goes to the government) is called taxes
Wait, a rich guy can bear to campaign against rich guys? I love it when people can bear to do things like that.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;32762281]I am not promoting the thought of comunism - that everyone deserves the same amount of money, regardless of what he does, as that DOES promote doing nothing. However, please, don't tell me bussinessmen deserve the MASSIVE money they make, in contrast with all these miners, [b]firemen[/b], teachers, factory workers, truck drivers, and even scientists, who make negligible amount of money compared to the bussinessmen, while their effort and work is clearly significantly more extensive than theirs.[/QUOTE] Off topic: Firemen make great money especially if they have a second job (Where I live it's 1 day on 2 days off so it's easy to have a second job. My dad, for example, is a fireman and he also owns and runs a few apartment buildings. His total worth is probably around $1 million. [editline]13th October 2011[/editline] And he's not even lieutenant.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32768437]Theoretically no, nothing stops them, but they have no reason to. They didn't when FDR raised the top tax rate to 94%, and they certainly won't now.[/QUOTE] Nah, in today's greedy society, there would be looting because it's cheaper and easier to take the latest gadget, than it would be to earn it. Most would have money for food alone, and if you think that'll go over well, you've got higher hopes for Americans (and the world) than I do, that's for damn sure. You are talking about the 1930s. It's considerably easier to move money around these days, and that would most likely happen, along with other schemes unthought of now, [I]just as people ran back in the 30s[/I]. It wasn't so rosy my friend. You are also forgetting about how shitty the great depression was in general. People had nothing, and the govt was taking what it could to fix it's mistakes. So, I'll tell ya what. Donate 90% of your paycheck to charity each month (assuming you even get one), and report back on how awesome your life is. You may have to hit the free library computers to do so, because you probably won't be able to afford the luxury of the internet.
[QUOTE=tinos;32773333]Nah, in today's greedy society, there would be looting because it's cheaper and easier to take the latest gadget, than it would be to earn it. Most would have money for food alone, and if you think that'll go over well, you've got higher hopes for Americans (and the world) than I do, that's for damn sure. You are talking about the 1930s. It's considerably easier to move money around these days, and that would most likely happen, along with other schemes unthought of now, [I]just as people ran back in the 30s[/I]. It wasn't so rosy my friend. You are also forgetting about how shitty the great depression was in general. People had nothing, and the govt was taking what it could to fix it's mistakes. So, I'll tell ya what. Donate 90% of your paycheck to charity each month (assuming you even get one), and report back on how awesome your life is. You may have to hit the free library computers to do so, because you probably won't be able to afford the luxury of the internet.[/QUOTE] 1) Nobody in the relevant income bracket would be thus affected by a 90% income tax, because it's not a flat 90% across everyone, including the people for whom 90% leaves below the poverty line (or even middle-class income lines). 2) I don't think you actually understand how taxation on goods and properties and investments and business benefits and charity writeoffs and everything else change the real impact of such a tax on the relevant income bracket. 3) There have been 90% tax rates in the U.S. after the 1930s. Way to completely fuck that one up.
[QUOTE=tinos;32773333] So, I'll tell ya what. Donate 90% of your paycheck to charity each month (assuming you even get one), and report back on how awesome your life is. You may have to hit the free library computers to do so, because you probably won't be able to afford the luxury of the internet.[/QUOTE] 90% hurts me a hell of a lot more than it hurts someone making 60 billion. Is this you supporting a regressive flat tax or something
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;32774213]1) Nobody in the relevant income bracket would be thus affected by a 90% income tax, because it's not a flat 90% across everyone, including the people for whom 90% leaves below the poverty line (or even middle-class income lines). 2) I don't think you actually understand how taxation on goods and properties and investments and business benefits and charity writeoffs and everything else change the real impact of such a tax on the relevant income bracket. 3) There have been 90% tax rates in the U.S. after the 1930s. Way to completely fuck that one up.[/QUOTE] This goes back to my point in the very first post, it hurts those trying to get ahead. 90% is 90% no matter how you want to look at it. Anyone within that bracket might as well stop what they are doing because it wont be worth the effort. All I can see is jealousy, lack of confidence, and the want for free handouts in your idea of basically capping income at any tax bracket. If you want to give your money away to an entity that has a history of poor money decisions, go for it. But leave others to do what they please with what they earn. I'll build with mine.
[QUOTE=tinos;32774747]This goes back to my point in the very first post, it hurts those trying to get ahead. 90% is 90% no matter how you want to look at it. Anyone within that bracket might as well stop what they are doing because it wont be worth the effort. All I can see is jealousy, lack of confidence, and the want for free handouts in your idea of basically capping income at any tax bracket. If you want to give your money away to an entity that has a history of poor money decisions, go for it. But leave others to do what they please with what they earn. I'll build with mine.[/QUOTE] Are you mentally deficient or just willfully ignorant? That whole bit you did up there about "the 30s were different man!!" has no bearing on the tax rates of the time because that top rate stayed at around 90% for quite a while past those times: [img]http://i.imgur.com/PQ5Vd.png[/img] Want for free handouts? Jealousy? You're a joke.
[QUOTE=tinos;32774747]This goes back to my point in the very first post, it hurts those trying to get ahead. 90% is 90% no matter how you want to look at it. Anyone within that bracket might as well stop what they are doing because it wont be worth the effort. All I can see is jealousy, lack of confidence, and the want for free handouts in your idea of basically capping income at any tax bracket. If you want to give your money away to an entity that has a history of poor money decisions, go for it. But leave others to do what they please with what they earn. I'll build with mine.[/QUOTE] How do you get "capping income" from tax brackets They don't do that [editline]14th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafanx13;32775033]Are you mentally deficient or just willfully ignorant? That whole bit you did up there about "the 30s were different man!!" has no bearing on the tax rates of the time because that top rate stayed at around 90% for quite a while past those times: [img]http://i.imgur.com/PQ5Vd.png[/img] Want for free handouts? Jealousy? You're a joke.[/QUOTE] Let's use what 1932 used
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32776767]How do you get "capping income" from tax brackets [/QUOTE] Because 90% of someones work is for something other than themselves. Thats slave labor, it'd be better to stay in a lower bracket, indirectly capping income. Looking at your chart, and accounting for inflation, if your company had a good year, and you made $3m, you'd be forced to donate 2.7m to the govt. leaving you with $300k. I'm sure most people would get rid of a lot of it by the end of the year as business expenses, but if you are not developing a new product at that time, you're shit outta luck. It's gone. As a company you should have every right to build wealth, save for the future, and for other projects, 90% would not allow for this. You shouldn't have to scrounge every year because the govt jacked you the year before. And if you're the owner of some successful company, you should have every right to pay yourself handsomely without major consequence. I also hope you are planning on raising the current brackets with your magic plan here, (although I still think it ridiculous at any bracket). As they currently are, someone making 400k (which I feel many of us could attain with hard work) would be left with 40k at 90%. You wouldn't even be able to put a downpayment on a home for that, where I come from. And even if it wasn't 90% at the 400k mark, it would probably be around 40-50%, depending on where you put the 90%, and that is still huge. Have you ever done your taxes and looked at the numbers? It's robbery as it is. But, apparently you guys have some devotion to giving the govt a ton of money. I come to my conclusions of jealousy because you obviously don't see yourselves making much money in the future. You are expecting others to pay for your future needs. You also have higher hopes for the govt's future spending than I have, and I applaud you for that, I guess. This is all I'm going to say on the issue.
[QUOTE=tinos;32779044]Because 90% of someones work is for something other than themselves. Thats slave labor, it'd be better to stay in a lower bracket, indirectly capping income. Looking at your chart, and accounting for inflation, if your company had a good year, and you made $3m, you'd be forced to donate 2.7m to the govt. leaving you with $300k. I'm sure most people would get rid of a lot of it by the end of the year as business expenses, but if you are not developing a new product at that time, you're shit outta luck. It's gone. As a company you should have every right to build wealth, save for the future, and for other projects, 90% would not allow for this. You shouldn't have to scrounge every year because the govt jacked you the year before. And if you're the owner of some successful company, you should have every right to pay yourself handsomely without major consequence. I also hope you are planning on raising the current brackets with your magic plan here, (although I still think it ridiculous at any bracket). As they currently are, someone making 400k (which I feel many of us could attain with hard work) would be left with 40k at 90%. You wouldn't even be able to put a downpayment on a home for that, where I come from. And even if it wasn't 90% at the 400k mark, it would probably be around 40-50%, depending on where you put the 90%, and that is still huge. Have you ever done your taxes and looked at the numbers? It's robbery as it is. But, apparently you guys have some devotion to giving the govt a ton of money. I come to my conclusions of jealousy because you obviously don't see yourselves making much money in the future. You are expecting others to pay for your future needs. You also have higher hopes for the govt's future spending than I have, and I applaud you for that, I guess. This is all I'm going to say on the issue.[/QUOTE] I genuinely hope that's all you have to say on the issue, because you're so misinformed and deluded that it's just hilarious. You don't even know what taxes you're talking about. Individual income taxes, which is the taxes that were as high as the 90% or whatever it was earlier in the century, are personal income taxes, as in, on your own personal income. It didn't deter business and make people not want to do anything, and if you genuinely believe that, then I honestly don't think you'll ever understand. Look at it this way. If you're rich, and you pay a high tax rate, wouldn't you want to make more money, so you'd have more money leftover? I don't understand how you think taxes discourage people from making more money, that's just a dumb thought. And on your little assumption that anyone can make 400k? I don't know where you think that money is coming from, but a majority of us will never see that kind of income. Oh, sure, those in business can bust their asses moving up the chain, but you have to realize that so is everyone else, we can't all hold those positions, and unfortunately, some people are going to be stuck at certain points, because the company can't just promote people out of there. It's naive to think that this is some fairy tale where everyone can succeed and if someone doesn't well they must be a liberal lazy person. And desiring higher taxes isn't a devotion to just giving the government money, it's a desire for our government to actually be able to run the country. You do know the government's biggest source of income is taxes right? Because I don't think you appreciate that giving tax cuts for the super wealthy hurts the entire country, because then the federal, state and local governments don't have the funds to do what they need to. Also I love the personal jabs at people, saying they are just jealous. Jealous of what? I have goals of making a decent living, but I also believe people need to pay a fair share of their income, where people who make more, have more to give. It's not like taxing the wealthy more is going to suddenly make them poor, or make them stop working. That doesn't even fucking make sense. Furthermore, as someone in college with loans out the ass, I don't expect anyone else to provide for me. I expect to get a career after college and make money, pay off my loans, and try and survive in a world that frowns upon the middle class. You're making ignorant assumptions about people, and it makes you look like an ignorant asshole, and you apparently are trying to come off that way, so nice job. Lastly, yes, I'd like to think we should have high hopes for the government's future spending. I'd like to think that the tax issue will be sorted out, so that the government can continue programs that help those in need, as well as allowing them to keep things running. If you think those in need are just lazy, then you clearly have never been in that position, and therefore you have no right to make assumptions about their situation. Please, let that be all you have to say on this issue.
[QUOTE=Tigster;32780073] Please, let that be all you have to say on this issue.[/QUOTE] It won't be, he's already stated in this thread that he's an "investor" with pie-in-the-sky dreams of being the 1% some day. Of course it won't happen, but he's already drank the American Dream Kool-aid so he's gone
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32780101]It won't be, he's already stated in this thread that he's an "investor" with pie-in-the-sky dreams of being the 1% some day. Of course it won't happen, but he's already drank the American Dream Kool-aid so he's gone[/QUOTE] Well, that's just hilarious
Taxing the rich isn't going to fix shit. Increasing their taxes will just take that money and dump it into the Defense budget if you'll recall. Like I said elsewhere, we need to do two things: 1) Fix the loopholes. 2) Offer tax breaks as an inventive to put more money in the pockets of the working class in the form of benefits, raises, and hiring more employees. That way, people won't be afraid to spend, the rich can remain rich, and increased spending from the lower class as well as higher wages means more tax revenue will start trickling in.
One thing that throws me off is that people don't understand that a lot of modern taxation is based around influencing companies to stay or come to America. We want investors and we want rich people here because, even if they hold 90% of their 100 million dollar fortune, that's a size able chunk of money they invest into the economy, and some amount of that is taxed and a further amount is used to grow business. With a 90% or similar tax rate, you just influence businessmen to find another country to operate from. We don't live in a world like the 40s, where there's only one industrial hub to work out of. The world was in utter chaos at that time and if you were a businessman, the US was the only stable country in the world. That's not even close to the case anymore. I think I speak for everyone on the forums when I say no multi millionare should be paying the same dollar value in taxes that someone making 60k a year pays. I can't comprehend wanting a 60% or higher bracket, though. It really doesn't matter if they could or should be living with less than their income. Unless you can reliably determine, somehow, that they didn't "earn" or "deserve" their income, that bracket seems insanely arbitrary and, once again, would be detrimental to attracting foreign investment. On another level I disagree wholeheartedly with the idea that the government inherently deserves X% of someones income beyond necessities such as road repair and basic functionality, but I know I disagree with a lot of the board on that issue. I'm just a strong proponent of small government.
[QUOTE=tinos;32779044]Because 90% of someones work is for something other than themselves. Thats slave labor, it'd be better to stay in a lower bracket, indirectly capping income. Looking at your chart, and accounting for inflation, if your company had a good year, and you made $3m, you'd be forced to donate 2.7m to the govt. leaving you with $300k. I'm sure most people would get rid of a lot of it by the end of the year as business expenses, but if you are not developing a new product at that time, you're shit outta luck. It's gone. As a company you should have every right to build wealth, save for the future, and for other projects, 90% would not allow for this. You shouldn't have to scrounge every year because the govt jacked you the year before. And if you're the owner of some successful company, you should have every right to pay yourself handsomely without major consequence. I also hope you are planning on raising the current brackets with your magic plan here, (although I still think it ridiculous at any bracket). As they currently are, someone making 400k (which I feel many of us could attain with hard work) would be left with 40k at 90%. You wouldn't even be able to put a downpayment on a home for that, where I come from. And even if it wasn't 90% at the 400k mark, it would probably be around 40-50%, depending on where you put the 90%, and that is still huge. Have you ever done your taxes and looked at the numbers? It's robbery as it is. But, apparently you guys have some devotion to giving the govt a ton of money. I come to my conclusions of jealousy because you obviously don't see yourselves making much money in the future. You are expecting others to pay for your future needs. You also have higher hopes for the govt's future spending than I have, and I applaud you for that, I guess. This is all I'm going to say on the issue.[/QUOTE] Oh man, that's a good one, it really is. You manage to demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge with regard to how income taxes work and how 'much' of your income goes to them, so here, I'll lay it out: Say you're making $400,000, you'd fall into the $250,000+ tax bracket of 1944, with a 94% rate. This basically means that you are taxed 94% on every bundle of $250,000, so: $250,000 x .94 = $235,000 In actuality you'd be paying what you call "~58% of your income", income tax doesn't translate to "% of all money you make".
[QUOTE=tinos;32779044] I come to my conclusions of jealousy because you obviously don't see yourselves making much money in the future.[/QUOTE] Yeah. I'm not delusional like you. I'm sorry that I want to work doing something I enjoy rather than being a greedy fuckhole who's only goal in life is to hoard as much money as possible.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;32782431]Yeah. I'm not delusional like you. I'm sorry that I want to work doing something I enjoy rather than being a greedy fuckhole who's only goal in life is to hoard as much money as possible.[/QUOTE] I've hit a pretty good medium. I love accounting, and it just so happens that there's a lot of money in it. win/win
[QUOTE=Regulas021;32781862]One thing that throws me off is that people don't understand that a lot of modern taxation is based around influencing companies to stay or come to America. We want investors and we want rich people here because, even if they hold 90% of their 100 million dollar fortune, that's a size able chunk of money they invest into the economy, and some amount of that is taxed and a further amount is used to grow business. With a 90% or similar tax rate, you just influence businessmen to find another country to operate from. We don't live in a world like the 40s, where there's only one industrial hub to work out of. The world was in utter chaos at that time and if you were a businessman, the US was the only stable country in the world. That's not even close to the case anymore. I think I speak for everyone on the forums when I say no multi millionare should be paying the same dollar value in taxes that someone making 60k a year pays. I can't comprehend wanting a 60% or higher bracket, though. It really doesn't matter if they could or should be living with less than their income. Unless you can reliably determine, somehow, that they didn't "earn" or "deserve" their income, that bracket seems insanely arbitrary and, once again, would be detrimental to attracting foreign investment. On another level I disagree wholeheartedly with the idea that the government inherently deserves X% of someones income beyond necessities such as road repair and basic functionality, but I know I disagree with a lot of the board on that issue. I'm just a strong proponent of small government.[/QUOTE] I don't think anyone is arguing for a 90% tax rate. I'd be cool with 50% which is pretty similar to all of Europe. You mentioned something about rich people going somewhere else, but if the taxes are similar to Europe where would they go? They're certainly not going to go to Somalia just so they don't have to pay taxes. [editline]14th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Tigster;32782449]I've hit a pretty good medium. I love accounting, and it just so happens that there's a lot of money in it. win/win[/QUOTE] I'm into Programming, so I'd be pretty middle class but I'm not going to be making six figures. And I don't want to start my own business, so while my boss would make tons of money off my work I'd have to deal with a mediocre income.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.