
03-17-2009, 05:19 PM
|
|
Guru
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,102
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjohns
(1) Since my previous post in this thread (to which you were responding here) was solely concerned with the subject of corporate taxes, it does seem passing strange that you would have suddenly changed the focus of the discussion to that of taxation upon "low earners" versus taxation upon "relatively high earners"; and this, in turn, in contradistinction to taxation upon "very high earners."
Perhaps, upon further consideration, you may also notice this apparent disconnect.
(2) There is an enormous difference between percent and percentage point. In fact, they are nowhere close to representing a similar amount--let alone an identical one.
As a case in point, I would note that a PGA professional who managed sand saves in only 50 percent of his attempts in 2007, but who improved that number to 60 percent in 2008, experienced just a 10 percentage-point improvement in that particular stat; but he simultaneously experienced a 20 percent improvement.
To speak breezily, therefore, of a "a 4-1/2% tax increase" is to badly misunderstand this important distinction.
|
Sorry, didn't realize we were no longer discussing the OP.
Why would corporate tax increase be of much concern. 60% of the corporations were avoiding taxes through loopholes anyway, with such things as the "retention bonuses" much in the news today! The concern is to close those loopholes!
Letting the Bush tax cut expire in 2010 means we return to the socialistic days of Clinton when the tax rate was 39.6 % versus the capitalistic rate of 35% under Bush's tax cut. Spin that however you wish but don't forget to factor in the real socialist part of our history when the tax rate for the wealthy averaged 80%, from 1940 until 1980!
Last edited by catawba; 03-17-2009 at 05:20 PM.
|