Jarhead
Gold Member
- Jan 11, 2010
- 20,670
- 2,378
- 245
The top 10% pay more in taxes than the other 90% combined. They've sacrificed. They've invested. They've risked their money on business ventures, hiring, etc, etc.
With great risk comes great reward. Without great reward, why would anyone take a great risk, such as founding a company like WalMart or Microsoft? Not everyone can be a union gov't employee with a cushy and almost guaranteed lifelong income. Some people roll the dice and start business.
But unless the Great Risk = Great Reward equation, no one would risk inventions, innovations, etc, etc.
You libs just need to get over your extreme envy of the wealthy and realize that.
Innovation and jobs come from rich people and profits. Without that reward, why would anyone do anything more than a stable, gov't union job?
Microsoft was founded in 1976. The top tax rate in 1976 was 70%.
Thanks for making a claim and then proving yourself wrong all in one post.
lol
and thanks to DiamondDave for foolishly agreeing with you.
I guess if we want the kind of 'risk taking' that gave us a company like Microsoft and all the innovation and advancement that came with it,
we should RAISE the top tax rates.
Care to comment on the amounts of deductions, what was considered income, etc?? It was not as simple as a 70% tax rate on the upper earners and companies.... but nice try
Still does not justify unequal treatment based on income or any other basis, by our government, in a supposed free society
You can tell who has been in a position to make financial decisions strictly by their knowledge, or lack thereof as it pertains to operating costs vs revenue...
NYCarbineer....based on his response to my post about tax shelters has absolutely no idea how cost benefit analysis is applied to the decision to "take a risk"...
In other words, he is out of his league with this debate.
Thus why the silliness of his 1976 Microsoft post....
Last edited: