>>>Do you think that the guy who makes 10 times more than you should pay 65% tax? :)
>
>... IMHO this is workable unless incomes get completely out of proportion or certain sectors are able to step outside the model by sneakery. At present we are seeing both, meaning that more and more people start to wonder about the benefits of wealth distribution. it's easy to blame "socialists" for this, but they aren't the ones who set up the selfish distorted systems that encourage revolution.

Definately some truth in that. But for most of the industrial times wealth would not erode by itself -
income from certain parts of industry changed drastically, but the erosion of accumulated/previously earned stuff
was the exception (think GB inflating away WWII debt).

IMO we are have been on that slope for the last years. Eroding away private funds will lessen belief in controlling your own future.
A bad trend, there I am with Dmitri and Marcia.

>There may be other reasons to set varying rates. IMHO it makes sense to incentivize businesses that create jobs, creating a taxation advantage for the mostly small businesses if they keep employing. Many of their principals will be amongst the $250K golfing buddies. Now you may see an anomaly in which a lawyer earning $250K actually has less spending power than a $250K business owner who hired staff and paid less tax. However, this is the price the lawyer pays for keeping the Bolsheviks off the streets since he isn;t like to create jobs where it matters. Most likely the lawyer will just charge more fees so they end up with $350K that taxes back to a similar position and the balance is restored.

All for keeping Bolsheviks away - but the way this should be done is handled wrongly often IMO.
Money for nothing just breeds/raises different strains.

my 0.01 Rubel

thomas