> Yet the Beatles continued to pump out more than one album a year. I think there are incentives other than money - fame, status, power, creativity, curiosity etc.
While there are other incentives, it's somewhat silly to think that the Beatles were paying the top marginal rate in the US.
Didn't we just find out that U2 has done what the Rolling Stones and others did before them to almost completely avoid tax revenue by carefully picking where their royalties were taxed?
Marginal tax rates rarely affect the super rich. Instead, they hit the merely well off.
That's by design - the "merely well off" collectively have far more money and much less political clout. In fact, you can hit them while claiming to be going after the rich.
While there are other incentives, it's somewhat silly to think that the Beatles were paying the top marginal rate in the US.
Didn't we just find out that U2 has done what the Rolling Stones and others did before them to almost completely avoid tax revenue by carefully picking where their royalties were taxed?
Marginal tax rates rarely affect the super rich. Instead, they hit the merely well off.
That's by design - the "merely well off" collectively have far more money and much less political clout. In fact, you can hit them while claiming to be going after the rich.