--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon <mdixon.6569@...> wrote: > > I care because if I were a billionaire, I wouldn't invest > any of my money in an economy that was going to keep > demanding that I keep subsidizing poverty.
The stronger the economy, the less poverty there will be to "subsidize." It's called "enlightened self-interest." > When the government subsidizes something, you usually get > more of it. I would invest my dollars where I could make a > reasonable return on my investment. It'll take awhile because things are so drastically unbalanced now, but if they ever do get back in balance, you'll start seeing a more than reasonable return on your investment in the economy (i.e., taxes). In any case, if you were a billionaire, after you'd paid your fair share of taxes, you'd have plenty of money left to invest directly in money-making opportunities. Buffet says: "Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends. "I didn't refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what's happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?src=ISMR_HP_LO_MST_FB http://tinyurl.com/22kzs You really ought to read the whole thing. It's pretty hard to argue with.
