I was wondering about this. When I first heard his tax plan I didn't think much one way or another. Then I thought, wait! I'm trying to raise money from the super rich!
Usual republican fearmongering. as Marc Cuban said "No self respected businessman/ entrepenour wakes up a day and says I am not going to build a business and try to make millions b/c my marginal tax rate is %35 instead of %25".
If that extra money taxed gets used for something useful such as building High Speed Rail in California, or jump-starting alternative fuels technology, then it is a win win situation for the economy and for people.
If that extra tax money gets spend in useless wars such as the one in Iraq, that is plain economic destruction.
That's why picking the right president is so important, and makes the huge difference between economic prosperity, or economic destruction.
While I may say, that Bush's tax cut, and flood of money (with low interest rates), left the rich flush with money, who invested in short-sighted and useless economic destructive market. For every house that is in foreclosure, every house/street/building that is left half build, that is all economic loss to all.
While it is a good idea to let markets decide private investments in the long run, sometimes it is necessary for the government to step in, and invest in things that are not profitable in the short term, but have huge positive economic impact in the long run. And if pinching some money away from the private market is necessary, so be it.
> for something useful such as building High Speed Rail in California
According to http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20080121152955... , the system can't pay back the bonds that are currently on the ballot, bonds that cover less than half of the projected construction costs. Since such projections almost always overestimate revenues and underestimate construction costs, the real gap will be even larger.
Some of the tricks used to get the revenues up include high-rises in Fresno and other central CA cities over the train station. That makes a lot of sense in NYC where land is at a premium, but Fresno?
There's a reason why the ballot statement says that the operating costs "[operating] costs would be at least partially offset by revenue from fares paid by passengers" and doesn't mention interest and principle.
I can't find a breakdown for the operating costs on this version of the project. The last time I saw such a breakdown, the projected salaries and benefits of the folks running the trains exceeded the projected revenues....
If high-speed rail in CA made financial sense, why wouldn't a for-profit enterprise be interested in doing it?
