Originally Posted by
RAKIdaRHINO
a) retirements funds arent hand outs, they are "pre-paid" for by the beneficiary. (in reality, one doesnt pay for his own benefits but in turn is paid for by the next in line)
b) increased taxation doesnt remove incentive to increase profits, if they did profits by default cant be considered to be incentives in first place. The relevant issue is profit/time calculations and for one making +250k a year a taxation of the income exceeding that amount is very much so profit/time effective even if you ended up paying 50% tax on it. If we however assume that its NOT and that people will decrease production to "optimize" (has nothing to do with optimization really since yous till make more) the profit/time by staying below 250k the market by definition opens up for new players (at least if were going to use the same models that youre using). So, if company X chooses to stay below 250k to not pay taxes someone else will take over their surplus share of the market and guess what. Someone still has to do the job.
So in scenario a they keep going for more profits simply because its still worth the time and money invested because it makes sense to do so regardless of taxation.
In scenario b they choose not to do so which means someone else will step in and take over the demand that the company deemed unwanted.
I think its amusing how people are trying to spin it around like the 250k thingie is something disastrous for the average joe when the average joe would never dream of getting there in first place. The companys making large profits today will keep making large profits even if slightly smaller and the added costs of taxation are hardly that big to really tip the scale in the larger picture either. I personally think that incentives programs under the current economic system would be preferable though in terms of getting the world back on "course" again.. at least if we want to keep up with the same bs as before :)