Crockett wrote:If we're going to throw money at failed businesses to stimulate the economy (never to see that money again) why not just give EVERYONE $4000. I mean, if we all had an extra $4000 we'd spend it right? And wham-o, economy problem solved.
That's an excellent point, Cricket. The taxes on the top income bracket used to be 91%. People pretty much universally register shock at such a thought, but keep in mind that it isn't 91% of your TOTAL income, but just 91% of your income over a certain level. Adjusted for inflation, let's say $20 million?
The point of a 91% income tax isn't to punish hard working folks, as Rush Limbaugh might suggest, because if you think about it there really aren't any hard working folks making $20 million/year. Think of it as more of a salary cap. There's really no point in making more than $20 million/year because the government will just take it all anyway... you might as well spread the wealth a bit. Give your employees a raise. Let the shareholders earn a bit more. You know how much your 401k would grow if CEO's and traders weren't robbing the piggy bank?
Last year a hedge fund manager registered a record (and staggering) $6 billion in profits... for himself. Even if he were paying 91% taxes on all of his income over $20 million that would still be one hell of a paycheck. How would you like a share of that in your 401k?
Punishing success? More like punishing EXCESS.
Economies trickle up, not down. Every economist that doesn't currently work for the Heritage Foundation seems to understand this.