Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;V. Kurt Bellman, post: 1983556, member: 71723&quot;]Poor delusional MEC. During the 1950&#039;s, the undisputed heyday of the growth of the middle class, the maximum marginal federal income tax rate was 90%. Kennedy&#039;s famous tax decrease lowered it to 70%. States mostly had little if any income tax. 50% is unthinkable? Hah! Think again, pal. And while you raise marginal rates at the top end, you gradually eliminate the lower rate for capital gains. Income is income. What kind shouldn&#039;t matter. You also lower the corporate rate. By doing that, you incentivize corporations to make profits and reinvest using retained earnings, and disincentivize off shoring.</p><p><br /></p><p>Higher personal rates incentivize hiring additional workers among partnerships and proprietorships because the tax code effectively subsidizes your personnel expansion. Every $1000 you spend on personnel expansion with a 28% marginal rate costs you only $720. With a 75% top rate, that $1000 cash outlay only has a $250 net cost and reduces your existing staff&#039;s burnout and increases their productivity. It&#039;s win, win, win. Plus the more sizable number of employed workers expands your, and everyone else&#039;s, customer base.</p><p><br /></p><p>The only losers are those who have grown up believing that only entrepreneurship is a factor of production worth compensating. They need to be purged of that misconception.</p><p><br /></p><p>Why risk capital? Because even though you can now expect less of a return on investment, it beats eating the stuff. Both the taste and the nutritional value leave much to be desired.</p><p><br /></p><p>Can&#039;t tax our way to prosperity? What say we try it.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in