Forums | MacLife

user wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

It would be nice if insurance companies would not put the screws to small business ... or anyone else, for that matter ... but, for some reason, the insurance companies seem to be just out to smurf everybody.

Careful now son ... you're edging toward advocating SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.

Is that where everybody smurfs everybody else?

I'm all in!

No, no...everyone gets screwed. It must have been a problem with the translation engine you used.

freecat wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

Technically you might be almost correct, but what tiny percentage of the population was paying that marginal rate ?  That's really going to affect the economy ?

Only the most extreme versions of supply-side economics would claim that it's about affecting the economy in general. The Laffer Curve is, at its most basic level, about the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues. I think if you have a 90% top marginal rate, you can actually increase revenues a bit by cutting that top rate (or eliminating it). It's too much to argue that the economy will improve dramatically, or that revenues will increase dramatically. My point would be that super-high marginal rates are simply wasteful.

Not that I am particularly in favor of confiscatory tax rates I have to wonder how much high rates on ultra high income would effect the econimy. Seems to me the people who get paid that much are primarily of pretty damn questionable relevance like Hedge fund managers and other speculators.
I tend to believe that the econimy would roll along just fine without all the inventive, speculative scams those guys cook up to generate commissions.

More bad news on the economy.

Farmerkev wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

freecat wrote:

I completely disagree. The basic idea is irrefutable. At high enough tax rates, compliance falls, growth stagnates, and revenues fall in real terms. What's arguable is the shape and where the effects actually take place.

Sure, but those tax rates will never be seen in any country.  70% or 80% ?

Come on Jake, it was 70% here when Reagan made his tax cut.
There are many years where it's been over 90%.
Take a walk through history here-
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

that site wrote:

the rate does not take into account all possible exemptions and deductions, so taxes actually paid may have been lower than these nominal rates indicate.

I'm sure the people in this kind of tax bracket have an accountant to check for those deductions.

Therefore, the tax code is creating good paying jobs. 

setta wrote:

user wrote:

We're more like in emo right now.

I'm not native-speaker, what do you mean in emo?

It's a joke relating to a US youth subculture. Google "emo".

setta wrote:

user wrote:

setta wrote:

I'm not native-speaker, what do you mean in emo?

It's a joke relating to a US youth subculture. Google "emo".

Thanks, I found a lot of emo jokes - http://www.innocentenglish.com/best-fun … jokes.html

Do I understand right? Emo joke is a similar one of blond, isn't it?

While I was looking for the info, I found funny video about Emo toy -

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4nRNYG_xM2U

Is this like an emo kid???

Not exactly like blondes, no. The stereotype of blondes is dumb, but emo kids are usually thought of as terribly depressed. No the same thing.

Now I caught the sens! Thanks!