If they get taxed as you think is reasonably , why should anyone be anything like productive?
================================================
I suppose you think that Leonardo da Vinci would have dedicated himself to painting houses if it had payed better.
The truly creative are the inventors, the writers, the artists. They are never paid as much as those who make the really big bucks. Bill Gates BOUGHT the beginnings of MS DOS from some other guy for a pittance. He was not the creator. Only on rare occasions do the actual creators benefit from theior creations in any way commensurate with the benefit of their inventions. Hedgefund managers, CEOs, even a number of performers would have gone nowhere without others who did the truly creative things.
This is a bogus argument,
Ayn Rand was creative when she wrote We the Living. Read it, there is some really good prose there.
Atlas Shrugged is the work of a hack, high on Bennies and in love with herself. NO comparison.
No one wants to turn the US into North Korea, only into something as happy and pleasant as Denmark, where everyone can obtain an education commensurate with their talents and therefore can make a maximum contribution to society.
I observe that the people who make this "you have to pay for creativity" argument are never creative people, generally they are others who hire them. How is raising a CEO's salary from 1.5 million to $3.0 million going to make him more creative? There is an absolute limit to the amount of income that will make a person feel satisfied and decently compensated, unless they are some sort of ultra-competitive greedhead. We seem to have more greedheads in this country than creative people. Or perhaps is simply appears that way because greedheads think they are number one and insist on waving their giant rubber finger egos around, while a lot of creative people tend to ignore publicity entirely.
We had plenty of creativity in the US when the maximum tax rate was much, much higher. How much do you suppose Hemingway earned, or any of the Nobel laureates or even Sinatra? The people who are bitching about their creativity being diminished are not the creative ones. Dwight Eisenhower took to painting after he retired. Do you suppose that he would have spent his life watching TV had he not been able to sell his paintings?
I sure don't. People create most often to satisfy themselves. We should encourage creativity, but lowering tax rates on incomes over 400K is not going to do that, nor is raising them going to end creativity. It will have no real effect at all.
