Reply #20: Sure

[davekriss]

But let's hope the accounting that leads to after-tax dollars take into account the many things that our democratic and societal institutions contributed to that windfall. One example: The entrepreneur would not have the opportunity to create that value if the U.S. armed forces did not secure and maintain economic liberty. We could work our way through a list and see what's left over for that mythical hard-working inventor.

The inventor can keep $5,000,000 on his last $50,000,000 in compensation, I have no problem with that.

Tell me, just what the social-economic value is that a hedge fund director personally contributes that justifies $200,000,000 in compensation. Sure, you'll say if anyone wants to pay that person that much, it is their right. So be it. But it is our right to collect as taxes what we democratically choose to collect, too. I don't think the hedge fund director occupies the moral high ground in this argument.

One thing not said so far: From 1970-1980, earned income was treated preferentially over un-earned income. Most of that period saw a top rate on earned income (salaries and bonuses) of 50% for every dollar earned above $1,000,000 (today's dollars). During the same period the top rate on unearned income (interest, dividends, capital gains) was 70%. The regressive inversion of preference is one of the legacies that followed that period. Now capital gains is preferentially treated while the working man has to pay at a higher rate. One of the successes of Movement Conservatism is to convince the working man to sweat a little more while the country club set hits another nine holes. "Now watch this swing," Bush says while inwardly giddy over the travesty! Class war, and the working class stiff is clearly losing...