I was only using 90% because that number has been kicked around this board for several years. Use any number you want - although I am not sure why you think 50% is magic.
The point, jim, is that if most of an investor's profit has to be re-invested back into the business every year to save that profit from being taxed, and the investor doesn't see a return they like, then investment will just stop. It's no longer worth doing.
At least you admit that taxes can be "too high".
Wow... you just don't get it!
You can't see why it has to be more than 50%?
And you think that it means that most of the profits will go elsewhere?
You should study mathematics a bit more, because these matters of confusion to you are shocking!
First of all, If you make a million dollars in a year, and the top bracket starts at one million dollars as our earlier example (the real top bracket is at $370,000), then all that money is taxed at the lower rate. It isn't until you make two million that the higher tax bracket is applied, and only on that amount OVER that first million. If you already made a million dollars, and suddenly you make even more, one has to thank the system that made it possible, and return the favor! When people make "sick" money, it is entirely because of the system that made it possible. NO ONE works so hard to deserve so much more than others. And are you telling me that you wouldn't work as hard because you'd only make $400,000 out of that second million? Isn't $400,000 enough? Isn't that $600,000 a reasonable payment that you should pay for the opportunity to be able to make that much "sick" money?
And the reason it should be over 50%, is because it encourages the entrepreneur to invest the profits in the business or the people, rather than just give himself huge pay raises. In other words, it is precisely BECAUSE most of it will disappear to the government that makes it work to help the state and the people. If he can keep most of the profits to himself, rather than share it with his labor who made it all possible, then it all goes to a select few. This leads to economic "royalty", and they don't work any harder. In fact, they work LESS! They live the life of the extreme elitist. And all because the CEO and the Board can write their salaries off as a tax break, encouraging them to give him a non-deserved pay raise rather than build the business, which is good for both the state and the workers!
If the CEO is encouraged to invest in the business, then it helps everyone, and he is less likely to pompously pay himself more, but possibly even do some PROFIT-SHARING with the workers, which is the RIGHT thing to do!
A top bracket that is designed to catch those "sick" money recipients and encourage profit-sharing and re-investment is the right thing to do.
Why do you think that the average bureaucrat in business now makes so much more than the workers? In 1950, top executives earned 24 times the average worker's pay**, 122 times in 1990 and 550 times in 2009. This is all related to the rightwing's manipulation of the tax system, and it is leading to economic "royalty" which is further attacking America by the way they use the money to propagandize, lie, cheat and lobby for whatever they want (and get away with it).
It is very Un-American, and the top bracket being over 50% would fix this. If you don't support this, then you are just trying to take all the profits for yourself, and are selfishly contributing to what caused the Bush recession for letting him continue his economic policy of lower taxes on the rich, and less programs to help others get a start. It's almost as if the top elitists don't appreciate the infrastructure that we made ... which made them rich faster simply because they already had money in the family to establish the connections and the college degree that daddy bought them. Don't be selfish.