"What I particularly abhor is inequality"

[Plane]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Kamen


Dean Kamen is one of my favorites.

He isn't only a good engineer and scientist , he is effective at improving the standard of things he cares about , like dialysis machines and wheelchairs.

He is a leader in whatever field he chooses , from medical devices to clean energy innovations.


And , he is whimsical , inspiring and fun to listen to as he speaks.

That he is also making a mint seems an afterthought.

What happens if you tax Dean Kamen enough that his income is regularized with the rest of us?

At least half of his inventions were not money makers right up front, and some of them may never be. 
Too much progressive tax load would not only prevent Dean from buying North Dumpling , it might also prevent some of his inventing.

  Some research is cheap and some research is expensive , do we really want to ensure that our innovators never leave the bounds of cheap?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Spending money on innovation is one thing, not taxing huge windfalls is something entirely different.

This is not about money spent on research and development. It is about taxing windfalls for the common good at less than a third of their income.

[kimba1]

But taxes only effect profits so the effect maybe notable it's doubtful it'll have that great of an effect to innovation

[Xavier_Onassis]

That is what I say.

I am NOT saying that innovators should not be rewarded. I AM saying that the argument that taxes must be lowered to encourage innovation is basically bogus.

[Plane]

  Taxes are a load to carry.

How can you have a tax on profit that isn't also a load on innovation?

This is not a plea that there be no tax, just please realize that whatever you tax, you reduce, and the only limit on the amount of tax is the death of what you tax.

If you tax innovators , that is fair , but if you overtax them you reduce innovation directly.


 

[Xavier_Onassis]

Profits should not be taxed about 33% or so. At present, the actual taxes paid are under 20%. Tax RATES in the US look high, but there are so many loopholes, very very few pay the top rate.  Mitt Romney paid a measly 14% on an income of millions. The Clintons paid about twice that, as they had fewer loopholes.

[Plane]

. The Clintons paid about twice that, as they had fewer loopholes.

Don't you believe it!

[sirs]

Nor is it a loophole.  Romney has reached a level of success, where his income is strictly from his investments.  That's not a loophole, that's merely how successful he has become, since taxes on investments is less than taxes on income.  Otherwise it disincentivises those to invest.  Those who are still earning money by "working", if that's what you call the Clinton's giving speeches, and being paid bazillions for it, is still taxed as like standard income.  Still, not a loophole, just a convenient, albeit lazy, effort by leftists to try and paint some twisted taxation error, where there is none.  Before Romney became rich enough to live strictly off his investments, all work he performed, and was paid in doing so, was taxed just like you & I

[Xavier_Onassis]

Of COURSE it is a loophole. Romney does not work for his money.

Note that his frequent trips to the Cayman and his tax returns for decades before the only returns he submitted are still a secret.

He is just as likely to use his money to make stuff cheaper in China and put more Americans out of work.

The tax laws are designed to benefit the few very wealthy at the expense of the rest of us. It is pretty much the same as considering hims and hid ilk a charity.

Clinton's taxes are more inline with what he should be paying. This country made him very rich by making him famous, so why should he NOT pay some of it back?

Rpmney was NEVER taxed "like you and I". That is just bullshit: he has always been rich. He  gave back some of his fortune after it was invested and it paid him dividends and interest.

[sirs]

Of COURSE it is a loophole. Romney does not work for his money.

Of course its not SINCE HE NO LONGER WORKS FOR HIS MONEY.  And what he does with his money is his business.  But it'd be a safe bet that he gives exponentially more money, not just total, but a % of his net worth to various charities than you do

[Plane]

  I will be able to retire a lot sooner if investment income is taxed gently.

   And investment is good for industry , so is good for everyone in a round about way for some and directly for those hired or served by the businesses that investment builds up.

     I really wish I had learned earlier in Life about investment , starting sooner makes a lot of difference.

     Why aren't we teaching children what compounding interest does for them , or to them if they get on the wrong side of it?

[Xavier_Onassis]

All you have to do to be taxed gently is to open up a Roth IRA, invest the maximum, pay those taxes ONCE and never again.
That, together with your SS and your government pension could give you more than for not working than you ever earned before.

If you are not taking advantage of the Roth IRA, you have no real right to complain.

But the main argument is not about middle class people like you, it is about the filthy rich, to whom an extra million will not change their lifestyle in any recognizable way.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Mitt Romney paid a measly 14% on an income of millions.
The Clinton's paid about twice that, as they had fewer loopholes.

Oh bullshit.
Typical double-speak like when Hillary attacks "Hedge Fund Mangers"...
but then poor little Chelsea married a Hedge Fund Manager and buys a $10.3 Million Apartment.
The Clinton Foundation hides millions....
Romney is Saint compared to those crooked hillbillies......they are corrupt as hell.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/10/hillary-clinton-foundation-donors-hsbc-swiss-bank

By Election Day 2016, taxpayers will have paid out more than $16 million to fund Bill Clinton's pension, travel, office expenses and even the salaries and benefits of staff at his family's foundation, federal records show. Since he left the White House in 2001, Clinton and his office have received more money through the Former Presidents Act than any other ex-president, according to a POLITICO analysis of budget documents.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/taxpayer-tab-for-clinton-inc-16-million-116008.html#ixzz3iQ9Z05j6

[Xavier_Onassis]

Is it corrupt when hedge fund managers give bazillions to the Republican't Party?

It is, of course possible for Hillary to be in favor of Hedge Fund managers NOT being allowed to declare their salries as capital gains and pay them at the same rate as she and Bill do.

I suppose that your solution to this "corruption" would be for Hillary to forbid Chelsea to marry the hedge fund manager until he stops managing hedge funds and takes a job with Greenpeace.

Could Hillary be jailed if her son-law were convicted of tax fraud?  No, she could not.  The mother is in no way responsible for what her daughter does. Chelsea can marry whomever she wishes.

You do not understand the law, all seem to understand oit the ratbag rights idiotic rantings.

Only if and when Hillary is actually CONVICTED of corruption can you call her corrupt.

I don't think that using a private server for her e mails is a crime of corruption, even if it was illegal.

[sirs]

I don't think that using a private server for her e mails is a crime of corruption, even if it was illegal.

Putting all the deflection efforts aside, this is indeed eye popping.  When Republicans were even thought to have committed a crime, that was simply proof positive of just how corrupt they are.  Here, you have the leading Democrat nominee for President, who xo himself even concedes that yea but even if what she did was illegal, doesn't mean it was a crime of corruption

Yea, let's ignore the fact of the very likely crime itself.  Yea, yea, he'll backtrack and claim he never said what Clinton did was illegal, in which case, I'm going to head him off at the pass and make it clear, that I never said he did.  Merely the implication that IF there was any illegality behind Clinton's e-mailing of classified documents on her private server, that shouldn't brand her as corrupt.

Stunning, albeit not suprising, double standard, if you ask me