Supply side economics is an epic failure for 99%

[The Dude]

Top 1 percents income fell 17 percent in the recession to 950,000 which is 1990's levels.
Ok I deserved to be mocked by legion, 131 is not a dingleberry on 950,000.

 

[dixon76710]

You posed an extreme scenario and I gave you an example. Why wouldn't someone work one hour a month for $10,000 even if they had to pay 90% tax. They'd still earn $1,000 for the hour. If they earned $100,000 for the hour they could pay 99% tax and earn $1,000. As I said earlier it depends on the job.

Your silly scenario is missing the only really important variable, the amount of investment required. And here you are making pronouncements about the feasability of a business, without the information neccesary to even calculate a return on investment. Believing that the type of work involved is the only determining factor. ABSURD

 

[apple0154]

Your silly scenario is missing the only really important variable, the amount of investment required. And here you are making pronouncements about the feasability of a business, without the information neccesary to even calculate a return on investment. Believing that the type of work involved is the only determining factor. ABSURD

There's nothing absurd about it.

America's highest paid executive took home more than $145.2 million. If we take the standard 2080 hours/yr. (52 weeks X 40 hrs.) that’s $72, 500 per hour. That's what the company paid him.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/dec/14/executive-pay-increase-america-ceos?newsfeed=true

If he was taxed at 90% he'd still take home $7,250 an hour.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Your silly scenario is missing the only really important variable, the amount of investment required. And here you are making pronouncements about the feasability of a business, without the information neccesary to even calculate a return on investment. Believing that the type of work involved is the only determining factor. ABSURD

Does the required investment include taxpayer-funded bailouts?