Top marginal tax rates

[PETRUS]

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Top earners should be taxed at whatever rate maximizes revenue.

Comments?


(On edit - The question was inspired after reading this: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/09/what-you-add-is-what-you-get/)

[ErikJ]

1. Restore 90% top rate

It got us out of the WW2 debt which was much higher than today GDP wise. And the economy was the best in US history in the 50's and 60's.

90% also keeps the banksters and others honest keeping greed in check. Instead of paying outerageous 8 figure salaries, they plow the money back into their corporations which creates jobs.

[PETRUS]

4. ...

According to the research cited in the piece, something in the 70-80% range maximizes revenue. That is, tax receipts would actually be lower if the top marginal rate was set at 90%. (Perhaps they're wrong.) And I suppose you might have reasons to support a higher rate in any case.

[JHB]

5. At this point I'm inclined to err high and scale it back if necessary

At very least, ask high and bargain down.

[SoCalMusicLover]

2. Will NEVER Happen

I am 46, and I am certain that we will never see even a 50% top rate in my lifetime.

"THEY" who make the rules, and THEY who have the money and power, will NEVER allow rates to go up significantly, if at all.

My prediction is that President Obama extends the * cuts a couple of more times, and if he's ever able to increase the top rate during his 2nd term, it won't be more than 5%-10% at the most. It will still be well under 50% very likely.

[PETRUS]

3. You could be right.

Right now it's hard to imagine otherwise. But I was more interested in people's opinion of the idea, not the likelihood of it becoming policy.

[SoCalMusicLover]

6. It's A Sound Idea

It would solve A LOT of problems with our economy.

[PETRUS]

9. Thanks for coming back.

Very few have chimed in with an opinion, so thanks. It would be interesting to know how much of DU agrees with you.

[SoCalMusicLover]

11. I Think 90% Is Excessive

It just seems like it's completely unrealistic to think that TPTB will ever allow it to be so high.

Honestly, 90% is higher than necessary. But something more progressive than is currently in place is essential. The top rate should be at least 50%.

I think progressive is the key. Unfortunately, the wealthiest Americans are only concerned with how much money they can stuff in their pockets. How many homes they can acquire. How many cars they can fit on their oversized driveways. How many generations of offspring they can cover with their wealth.

I long for the day when the top 1% are all crying about how they have to quit their jobs, because they are suddenly paying more in taxes. It's a joke.

[Egalitarian Thug]

7. Much more helpful than income taxes (although I favor those being raised), would be a confiscatory

inheritance tax. The only way to prevent the generational accumulation of wealth, and the resulting insulation from and eventual control over, society as a whole, is to ensure that as each generation passes most of the accumulated wealth goes back into the system.

Workers produce, the rich extract.

[B2G]

10. The problem with a confiscatory income tax are twofold.

One, it's a double tax. That seems wrong to me.

Two, and the more problematic in my mind, is the impact it would have on smaller family businesses and farm. Most of their 'wealth' isn't liquid...it's in the form of assets needed to run the business. They wouldn't have enough left to continue functioning.

[Egalitarian Thug]

12. Not income, inheritance. Specifically inheritances so large that they skew the economy

toward dominance by the hoarders of capital. Capitalism is merely a system of currency control to facilitate a peaceful and orderly society, we have come to think of it as the end in itself. It is a means to simplify complex transactions and coalesce sufficient reserves of production to create/build things too big foy anyone or individual community to do themselves. It is not a political or religious philosophy.

The old Small Family Business and Farm canard? Please.

You've certainly been here long enough to know that these are mythical creations of the ruling class. They are unlikely and extreme examples dredged up to distract us from doing what must be done to preserve community. Further, there are many more equitable ways to deal with the few extremes that will inevitably crop up. An illiquid family business large enough to fall under the inheritance tax can be dealt with easily through a partnership, as just one example.

You're saying that we should continue in a system that has a 100% failure rate over the course of centuries, and continue the misery of tens of millions here and billions abroad, to avoid any hint of discomfort to a few individuals. That's counter-productive.

[HooptieWagon]

8. OK, it wasnt 90% in the 60s....

because Kennedy led the charge to reduce it to 67% shortly after taking office.
If the top rate were only raised to the Reagan-era levels (42%?), that would address a very sizeable portion of the deficit.
What is interesting, is that back when the top rate was 90%, individuals still only amounted to 33% of income tax revenues... corporate income taxes were the remaining 2/3. Now, despite a top individual rate of 35% ( and dividends and capital gains at only 15%), individuals pay 67% of income tax revenue and corporations only 33%. Given record corporate profits, numerous tax loopholes, and excessive CEO pay.... certainly raising corporate taxes and closing loopholes, eliminating dedictions, should be on the table.