What should the top federal income tax rate be?

[Gringo]

If you're burning out on polls, ignore 'em!

[jiacinto]

1. I would say 30%

Anything else is unfair

[Gringo]

2. Okay.

Sounds arbitrary, but aren't all taxes pretty arbitrary? :-)

[JanMichael]

5. "Fair"? Is Poverty "Fair"?

Is a massive Inheritance, followed by decades of gluttony, "Fair" when people live on the street or rotting houses?

Is it "fair" when a child goes to bed hungry?

"Fair"?

So a 30% top rate, for the richest of the rich, is "Unfair"?

Hmm....

[jiacinto]

6. Again I think 30%-40% is reasonable

I don't think anyone should be paying 70% of their income in taxes. That's unreasonable. 30% to 40% is more than enough for any one person.

I don't support tax cuts for the rich, but I also don't think it's fair that people should be paying 70% of more of their income in taxes to the government.

I do care about the poor but we also shouldn't tax people to death either. I do think the rich should pay their fair share, but they shouldn't have to give up all of their income to the government either.

[JanMichael]

9. You don't support tax cuts for the rich? Yes you do.

The 2003 tax brackets are as follows:

35%

33%

28%

25%

15%

10%


So what you're proposing, 30% top rate, is even greater than Bush:-)

Also: "I don't support tax cuts for the rich, but I also don't think it's fair that people should be paying 70% of more of their income in taxes to the government."

Um. That isn't the total obligation, just that over an arbitrary amount. "70% or more of their income" sounds like that would be the total income tax obligation.


PS~ Didn't mean to imply that you liked the bad economic points that I mentioned.

[jiacinto]

12. I didn't know--thought the highest rate was 30%

I thought the highest tax rate was at 28%. 35% is reasonable.

But I don't think the rates should go above 40%. I don't think they should go any lower either.

I just have problem with the idea that someone should pay more than 40% of his income in taxes to the government.

[dpbrown]

20. You misunderstand progressive taxes

Even when 70% is the top tax rate, the rate only applies to the amount of income above the threshold. So if the rate is 30% up to the third million, the 70% tax would apply to the amount of income that exceeds the $3 million threshold.

It doesn't mean you're wrong to oppose it, just that you're misstating the issue when you oversimplify it like coming out against "paying 70% of their income in taxes."

Poor people still pay far more, percentage-wise, than rich people do in "regressive" taxes and sales taxes.

[jiacinto]

25. I don't have sympathy for the rich

But at the same time I also don't think that having rates above 30-40% is fair either.

[dpbrown]

31. Like I said, I think your point of view is valid

But that it doesn't serve the debate for you to imply that the highest rate applies to all income, when it doesn't.

The highest rate has always only applied to the amount of income above the threshold amount.

I think it would be far more fair to lower the lowest rates for the poor and middle classes to levels they were at pre-Roosevelt. I don't think people who live paycheck to paycheck should be taxed as much as I think people who hoard money and make money off money should be taxed.

It's in the government's interest to keep money in circulation. Once the ultra-rich get money, it's no longer in circulation.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[jiacinto]

35. Dan--the middle class and poor should have the lowest

rates. I agree with you there.

I do think the rich should pay their fair share. But they shouldn't be paying some of the rates that some DUers want them to either. To me those rates--70% or more--just seem blatantly unfair.

Maybe above a threshold of 5 or 10 million I would have less objection.

[dpbrown]

43. I agree with a high threshold

I think that would lead to less money being "hidden away."

Some of the DUers probably are of the same misconception about the income, and yet favor complete income taxation at a high rate. I'm not for that, but I do favor a very high rate, at some relatively high income rate, applying to the income earned above that level.

I think it helps to keep money in circulation.

I completely oppose the ongoing shift of the income and progressive tax burden to the poor and middle class.

[jafap]

116. seventy percent rate

When I was a senior in high school, before Reagan was elected, and when I was silly enough to believe I might someday make a million dollars - I figured out how much tax a person who made a million dollars would pay. It was something like $670,000, pretty darn close to 70% even though that was only the top rate.
Of course that does not take deductions into account, and $1 million then would be like about $10 million today.
Maybe I live in a low cost area, but I do not see why anybody needs more than $100,000 a year (after taxes). I think that the lowering of the top rates was one of the reasons why CEO pay exploded in the 1980s and 1990s. With the higher rates, there was no point to giving yourself a $30 million salary because most of it would be taxed away, so the CEOs would settle for living on a mere $10 million. Now they have that much more incentive to steal another $20 million away from their workers and investors. I think a 70% rate is plenty generous and a disincentive to steal.

[Chicagonian]

74. a top marginal rate of 70% DOESN'T mean 70% of income

it would be 70% of their income above a certain amount.
If you make $65,000/yr, you pay the same tax rate on your $65,000 income as the rich person pays on their first $65,000 of income.

It's truly amazing how many Americans don't understand graduated tax rates.

[jos]

108. Agree

So many people make this mistake. And the repukes take advantage of that with their propaganda.

[blondeatlast]

123. So true.

Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[Gringo]

8. I think it would be fair

If all the loopholes and deductions for income over say 100k were closed.

[travelsalot74]

48. Penalize the rich, huh?

Less the 1% of all millionaires in this country received wealth through inheritance. The rest worked hard and saved their money. "Fair" is everyone pays the same tax. This is a good example of envy, punish the acheivers in the world because you don't think it is "fair" that they have earned their wealth. Go work hard and save some money, you'll quickly find that any wealth you accumulate will be taxed at a rate that puts the federal income tax to shame.

[Gringo]

77. Who cares how millionaires got rich?

They need to pay their fair share.

"Go work hard and save some money, you'll quickly find that any wealth you accumulate will be taxed at a rate that puts the federal income tax to shame. "

I guarantee you that I work hard, and make a modest income that affords my wife 2 kids and I an old 2 bedroom duplex in Miami. I can barely get my cards paid off, much less save anything. I barely get 5 hours of sleep at night - are you suggesting I get another job to save this money?

Also, the money you save is not taxed, only the interest or capital gains.

You live in a fantasy world if you think your prescription could work for most Americans, since most folks barely make enough to get by. The average savings rate has been below 0% for years now because incomes haven't kept up with the cost of living. I know, because I can splurge on far less entertainment and luxury items than 15 years ago, and I make more money now.

Do you get points for reciting Limbaugh talking points verbatim? Does he give you a discount on the Limbaugh Letter?

[travelsalot74]

85. I don't understand

So how does this affect anyone else but you? If you had more money in your pocket rather than giving it to the government, would you be better off?

How does taxing people who earn more money make things fair? It just sounds like you are jealous.

I am sorry for not clarifying my savings point, only interest, capital gains and dividends are taxed. Kinda makes it hard to grow wealth?

I work hard too. Life is not easy.

It comes down to personal responsibilty. You have made your choices and now have to live with them. This is the price of freedom.

BTW, I really don't care for Limbaugh. My taxation views come from the libertarian party's fair tax plan.

[Gringo]

114. What on earth are you talking about?

"So how does this affect anyone else but you? If you had more money in your pocket rather than giving it to the government, would you be better off?"

I'm not asking for a tax cut. I think I'm better off with decent schools, decent roads and transit, and properly funded services.

"I am sorry for not clarifying my savings point, only interest, capital gains and dividends are taxed. Kinda makes it hard to grow wealth?"

Wah. So you have to pay a little tax on money that earned itself. Maybe you could produce something and sell it, or work for a living. You'll get little sympathy on capital gains from the 70% of Americans that have no investments at all.

"How does taxing people who earn more money make things fair? It just sounds like you are jealous."

It does make things fairER, and I'm not remotely jealous of you or your ilk. I get by just fine on the small income I make, but there are many who make even less, and they are not doing so fine. So, yeah, I think cutting the FICA tax for those folks would be better than a tax cut for the super-rich.

"It comes down to personal responsibilty. You have made your choices and now have to live with them. This is the price of freedom."

You can stick that crap where the sun don't shine. You have no idea what choices I've made. I've played by the rules all my life, Worked my ass off to pay my own way through school, and am didligent at my job. Price of freedom? What the hell is that? Only a republican equates a regressive tax system with "freedom"

[Gringo]

115. I was looking forward to hearing travelsalot's reply

But I guess he had business to attend to. Dixie Chick CD's to steamroll, French wine to flush, "petriotic" rallies to attend...

Anyway, a :kick: for the night owls.

[travelsalot74]

37. You call 30% fair?

Flat tax of 10% is fair, anything more is stealing from people who EARNED the money. Remember, you put your hard work into earning your paycheck, how did the government earn the right to take any of YOUR money?

[Gringo]

46. I am able to earn MY money

Because I am privileged do do so with the protection of the US military, the FBI, the use of federal highways, and the lower prices on goods that those highways facilitate, and a bevy of other government services that make my livelihood within a SOCIETY possible. Doing the same work in many other countries, I would be unable to earn as much I do here. And I don't object to the tiny proportion of its revenue that the government spends helping the poorest of us, since it makes them less likely to rob me, or burn down the city in a riot.

Sorry, but those flimsy Libaugh talking points don't hold water here, or in the real world. Please save them for the EIB fantasy bubble.

[Orangepeel]

112. good answer

n/t

[ieoeja]

51. You want a list?

My country earned the right to take some of my money by defending my freedom (mostly).

My country earned that right by building roads.

My country earned that right by wiping out diseases.

My country earned that right by protecting my rights in the work place.

My country earned that right by ending the cycle of economic depressions and severely lessening the chances of starvation.

My country earned that right by building dams to end floods and provide electricity.

My country earned that right by providing relief in times of dire emergency.

My country earned that right by founding the United Nations and bringing the world short of all out war many times over.


I'm from the United States of America. And the United States of America has done many marvelous things which benefit me today. And I hope my country will do more that will benefit generations yet unborn. For what my country has done, and for what my country may do in the future, I happily give my 18% and would happily give more (particularly if this meant others less able to give could keep more of theirs).

I don't know what country you're from. But it sounds like it must suck. Have you ever considered relocating to the US?

[northzax]

93. ahh, those should all be user fees

think about it. Everytime the militry spends a dollar, itgets divided equally among all Americans. user fees.

Every road should be billed by the quarter mile for all construction and maintenance costs.

in emergencies, the government should simply give regular rate loans to all people who qualify.

Oh, did I mention the Search and Rescue costs? or the upfront fees for the fire department? and the police? if they prevent a crime from happening, they should be able to bill all possible victims of that crime (rapists=all local women, for instance) for their time and trouble.

User fees are the answer to all our problems!

[Augspies]

80. Flat Tax is not fair...Please report to Pre-Calculus

n/t

[travelsalot74]

86. Please explain, Augspies.

I don't understand how making fun of my education has anything to do with a flat tax.
Here is an example in 6th grade math for you.
One person earns 10,000 in a year the other makes 1,000,000, If they both pay 10% in tax, how much will each pay in tax?

[Mechatanketra]

94. Personal inflation.

$10,000 isn't as precious to the second person as $1000 is to the first. The burden of a tax is not how much you spend, but how little you have left.

[blondeatlast]

125. And SPENDING is what drives the economy--not saving and investment.

The lower and middle classes SPEND a higher proportion of their incomes than the wealthy do.

That is why ****'s tax cuts were such a ruse--they can't possibly drive the economy.

I understand economics.
I SURVIVED Reaganomics!

[Gringo]

3. I'm surprised that 19% favor the regressive "flat tax"

Lurkers, perchance?

[sirshack]

4. I wouldn't mind one......n/t

...

[outinforce]

11. Not Lurkers

In order to vote, you need to be registered.

[southernfried]

83. libertarians most likely

but this is not an unpopular notion. I mean, it was one of the options wasn't it ?

[2tb]

99. actually a flat tax has much to recommend it

There actually are several advantages to a flat tax:

1. understandable
2. simple to administer
3. the "tax consequences" of any economic decision are easy to determine

This assumes that the flat tax is truly flat and that deductions/exemptions/credits are not a part of the structure.

It would be pretty simple to introduce some degree of progressivity by having the flat tax kick in only when income reaches a certain level so the working poor would still pay little or no taxes.

Also having a flat tax structure does not imply anything about what the tax rate would be. Thus a flat tax of 10% starting at the first dollar of income or a flat tax of 70% starting after $30,000 would both have the simplicity advantages although they would have a pretty different effect on taxpayers, the economy and government income.

[outinforce]

7. 90 per cent is my vote

I vote for 90 per cent as the top rate.

The rate should kick in on every dollar over $75,000 in annual income.

It is just not fair that people should be able to hold onto more than $75,000 a year when we have kids and old folks starving.

And NO EXCEPTIONS. Athletes and entertainers alike should have to pay the top rate, if you ask me.

[jiacinto]

14. Sorry that's not fair

$75,000 is not as much as you think. Here in DC it is enough to be comfortably in the middle class but not wealthy. $75,000 is not a lot if you live in a big metropolitan area like DC, NYC, Chicago or LA. It is enough to be comfortably in the middle class, but not enough to be smashingly wealthy either. Those people shouldn't be punished like that.

I don't think people should be forced to pay that much to the government. That's simply not fair. No one should give 90% of their income to the government.

[TheUnionDemocrat]

16. "Fairness" has nothing to do with it.

It's all about envy and excuses.

[jiacinto]

17. Envy and excuses?

Go to any big city and you'll find out that if you have a wife and children, $75,000 is not a large sum of money per year to have. While it is enough to have a comfortable middle class life, $75K in a place like DC--assuming the taxpayer has a wife and kids to support--doesn't go as far as you think. It's enough to live reasonably comfortably, but not enough to live luxuriously either.

[TheUnionDemocrat]

23. You missed my point.

I've worked very hard for a long time and now I'm making six figures. Granted, my DEMOCRATIC supported union membership helped me along the way, QUITE A BIT (And I'll FOREVER be grateful for that), but now I'm off the line and in sales...And earning every dollar I get. But here in this thread we have people who want to take my money away in the form of federal taxation. All because they are envious and spend their time making excuses for their own failures in life.

[jiacinto]

28. I think we agree then

I don't think you should pay that much either.

[TheUnionDemocrat]

32. Sales Tax is the way to go.

Someone blows their money, STICK it to them. Someone saves their money (And thus, creates an environment where their children can grow up advantaged) give them a break.

Don't tax food, education and home sales. Everything else if free game. ESPECIALLY things like TVs, radios, cars and other "Toys". If people would simply read more poverty would drop by untold numbers.

Of course that seems to make too much sense.

[wuushew]

38. Sales taxes are highly regressive

Please do not cite some ridiculous web site like Americans for Fair Taxation. If the rich spent in relation to their wealth then they would not be rich.

[TheUnionDemocrat]

44. LOL!

1) I don't know what site you're talking about so I doubt I would have cited it. I'm not one of these link collecting posters. Most times I throw my opinon out there and leave it to others to judge.

2) You think these "Rich" people have all their money stuck in their beds???

Wealth is calculated by what they own as well. (You know, stuff they spent their money on).

[wuushew]

52. Are you not the one who cited the Cato Institute?!

here is the link, i am sure it fits with your views
http://www.fairtax.org/

I believe that taxation is helpful in addressing income inequality in societies. Countries that have a more equal distribution of wealth tend to have better standards of living and in my opinion healthier democracies as well. Income equality in this country reached a peak in 1968 and has gone downhill in the interveaning decades of right-wing lurch. One of the factors that has changed is the nature of the tax structure, the other is union participation a fact that your name seems to honor.

[TheUnionDemocrat]

60. Prove the Cato Institute WRONG.

Yes, I cited them (Without knowing it...I just did a Google search and listed the first link that had multiple, easy to read graphs.

If they're wrong or lying, prove it.

[wuushew]

75. The numbers are probably correct but that doesn't let Cato off the hook

Another journalist incensed by libertarians is Trudy Lieberman, director of the Center for Consumer Health Choices at Consumers Union. She devotes a chapter of her book Slanting the Story, which describes how terrible people with bad ideas “shape the news” and “dominate public policy debates,” to the Cato Institute’s “1993 assault on Head Start, one of the crown jewels of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society” (p. 99). That assault consisted of publishing one policy analysis by John Hood, “Caveat Emptor: The Head Start Scam.”

snip


According to Lieberman, what saved Head Start from Cato’s “assault” was that “the think tank soon turned its attention to Social Security” (p. 113). (A bit more research would have revealed to our crack journalist that Cato published its first book on the case for personalizing Social Security in 1980.) Lieberman portrays the Cato Institute as being like the dastardly Snidely Whiplash, cackling as he ties a damsel to the railway tracks, until his eye is caught by the chance to carry out an even more nefarious deed. The damsel (Head Start) may be saved for now. But beware! “Cato, by its own admission, is in for the long haul. This time destroying Head Start wasn’t worth the effort. But who is to say that Cato won’t try again when Head Start’s sugar daddy leaves office?” (p. 115).


http://www.cyberselfish.com/reviews67.html

[TheUnionDemocrat]

79. LOL!

If the numbers are "Correct" as you say, isn't that ALL that matters concerning this discussion we're having?????

WOW!!!!!

[wuushew]

82. But the numbers are from the government not Cato?

Cato is the one framing the nature of the debate? What is your point?

Also you atleast support the headstart program don't you? My point was that the Cato institute must be questioned on many of its views. Its agenda is dangerously slanted toward the right.

Many more objective sources for information exist such as the Brookings institute or the GAO.

[TheUnionDemocrat]

84. Good GOD!!!!!

"Framing the nature of the debate"?????????


HOW DO YOU FRAME SIMPLE NUMBERS???

They are either right or wrong.

[wuushew]

87. How dense are you?

I clearly stated that I believe the Cato Institute has an agenda, that agenda is clearly to the right on many issues be it from national security to the size and scope of government. To you believe that they are providing any information without any editorializing is folly. Also you did not reply to my previous inquires regarding your support of programs like Head Start, the importance of income equality, etc. Intelligent disscusion on DU is incouraged, but I must ask why are you here?


Please take this test as well. I myself have a score in the deep lower left quadrant.


http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/index.html

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wuushew]

100. But look what Cato publishes with "official statistics"...

Here is their take on Raygunomics

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html



Conclusion

The 1980s were years of economic progress, not decline. Real GDP grew by about one-third in the 1980s. The economic gains were widely distributed among income groups, with every income quintile, from the richest fifth to the poorest fifth, gaining ground in the Reagan years.

The Reagan tax cuts were not a primary cause

of the eruption of the deficit in the 1980s. The main two causes were an unexpectedly sharp reduction in inflation in the early 1980s that led to large real increases in federal spending, and a nearly $1 trillion military build-up during the last phase of the cold war.

Most significantly, the economy of the 1980s outperformed that of the 1990s in virtually every measurable category. Economic growth was higher, job creation was faster, incomes rose much faster, and productivity climbed at a healthier pace.

[TheUnionDemocrat]

103. OK fine...

...I give up. The numbers are wrong and the Cato Institute is getting away with publishing false numbers on a public website. It's all a conspiracy against YOU.

Have a great day. :)

[wuushew]

105. Why do you reject the concept of progressive taxation?

In other posts you said that you are not in the brackets that would be subject this higher rate of taxation. Implementing Libertarian alternative taxation plans one would have to insure that adequate funds are raised to maintain current levels of social spending. Basing revenue figures on purely sales tax is a bit speculative. A flat income tax is workable if the rate is set high enough. President Clinton proposed a flat tax rate of 21-23% which was quickly buried by the republicans when it was realized that they would be shrinking the income gap.

[Muddleoftheroad]

126. Flat

Like others here, I too support a mostly flat tax system. A couple points:

* Sales taxes are not only regressive, they discourage spending, so that is a non-starter with me.
* To me a flat tax would still have a floor under which no taxes would be paid. Let's say no taxes on the first $30,000 in income. That eliminates the problems for the poor and still remains fair to everyone else.
* A flat tax would also simplify the tax structure and make the concept of taxes less onerous on all Americans.
* A flat tax would also free up the bureaucracy of the IRS because we wouldn't need to spend so much money on a government agency that would have their efforts suddenly simplified.
* Any tax change would still have to allow two deducations -- charities and homes because it is unrealistic to advocate otherwise.

[zoidberg]

89. Cato was against the war in Iraq

Were you questioning their agenda then?

And you are looking at the world through very hazy glasses if you say that Brookings is less objective than Cato. You might agree with Brookings more, but they are just as partisan.

[wuushew]

96. Pat Buchannan and the Pope also opposed the war

I still question their agenda

[TheUnionDemocrat]

97. You're bashing the Pope now???

You ARE aware that the majority (Fairly large) of Catholics identify themselves as Democrats.

Including JFK and me.

[wuushew]

101. Where did I say I was bashing the Pope?

I said I questioned Buchannan's and John Paul II's agenda. That is truth. I do not agree with many of their beliefs but that is hardly personal attacks against them.

[TheUnionDemocrat]

104. You grouped him with...

...that SICK FUCK, Pat Buchanan.

But you knew that, didn't you?

[JohnKleeb]

110. if thats your point fine

I dont agree with him on abortion and gays. Uniondem I am Catholic and looking at what wu said looks like he just disagrees with the pope on issues which is fine. wu if you are a she sorry.

[JohnKleeb]

109. The Pope's agenda isnt so right wing I am not gonna get mad at you like

union dem did because you may be athiest or non Catholic at least. Just hear me now the Pope's agenda we would agree with the exception of his views on gays and abortion.

[jafap]

118. consider the source

I have my doubts about the numbers. Statistics do not lie, but liars use statistics. Some people use statistics the way a drunk uses a lamppost, more for support than for illumination. Such is Cato Kaelin.
As far as envy goes, I will freely admit to some envy of the rich. I would very much love to win $100,000 in the powerball and use it to buy my freedom from my $13,000 a year job cleaning toilets.
People often blame me for having the jobs I do, but it is not like I have turned down a better one. That, apparently is what my MA in economics and my BA in math is worth. My bad choice apparently was jumping off the good job train because I did not want to work for the military industrial complex. Also, not pursuing my PhD looks bad in retrospect.
Anyway, if you look at the tax tables you should see that the 70% rate is not aimed at the $100,000 person. The 2002 rate was 38.6% on all income over $307,050. Would you object if there was a 50% rate on taxable incomes over $500,000 (note as stated, only the income over 1/2 million would be taxed at that rate), and then a 60% rate at $1 million, a 65% rate at 2 million, and a 70% rate at $3 million.
If so, you have too much sympathy for the devil. I worked 3 years as a no-benefit temp for Kraft foods. Keeping someone in permanent "temp" status provides higher profits for Mr. Geoff Bible (CEO) to take as salary and other investors to take as dividends and capital gains. I call that theft, and not justice. A 70% tax rate would discourage that kind of theft.

[EOTE]

45. Whoaa, sales tax is not the way to go.

Sales tax is a VERY regressive tax. A person making 20K per year might need to spend the entirety of his supplemental income on frivilous things like food and clothing and things for his children. So, in addition to paying payroll taxes and fica and so forth, he's paying an additional 5 (or so) percent on his entire income. A person making 200K per year might only spend 20% of his income on food and other taxable goods and pay 1% of his total income on goods and have a lot more to show for it. Seems the exact opposite of what we want. I say eliminate the sales tax and make the upper bracket something more akin to 50% and implement that at maybe the 500K level.

[TheUnionDemocrat]

63. Did you see what I excluded?

Food, education and home expenses.

That pretty much covers the "Neccesities" for ANY family.

Sorry but I'm not going to subsidize some kid's G.I. Joe with the Kung-Foo Grip. His or her food, education and shelter...NO problem.

[zoidberg]

66. The poster's idea was to not tax food

If you don't tax things like food, medicine, clothing (under a certain cost) and shelter - then I think a sales tax becomes a very fair and efficient tax.

[TheUnionDemocrat]

73. Yeah...

Forgot medicine. Add that too.

[Gringo]

50. Sure fire prescription for a depression

in our consumption-driven economy.

"Someone blows their money, STICK it to them. Someone saves their money (And thus, creates an environment where their children can grow up advantaged) give them a break."

[ieoeja]

61. I'm just the opposite.

I also make six figures and think taxes should be based primarily upon income. For one thing you have to consider incentive. We certainly do not want to give people incentive to cut down on spending as spending drives the economy. Conversely, it would take some pretty high taxes to make someone disinterested in making money.

I do side with you in that some people on here seem to favor taxes that would be high enough to do just that. I'm not sure what I would consider a good ceiling. For one thing this poll doesn't mention anything about deductions. As a home owner my income tax currently ends up being just over 18% of my income. I could certainly pay more.

[travelsalot74]

88. I like what you had to say.

Personal responsibilty.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

122. 75K in Boston supports one person

anything less is poverty, with the cost of housing and cost of living up here. The same goes in Manhattan and the Bay Area. And we have some of the highest taxation in the country.

If there was a way to lessen the number of loopholes that the rich have to avoid taxes, that would be great. It peeves me that after loopholes, some of the rich only pay 5% taxes.

[blondeatlast]

127. Exactly--the first step is to plug the loopholes.

Hell, I'll admit it; I'm no fan of the wealthy. I'll also admit that that dislike comes partly from envy. I'm human, I sin.

But there is no getting around the fact that the wealthy are not paying their fair share. The economy is being driven largely by the lower middle class, who MUST spend a disproportionate percentage of their income to achieve a reasonably comfortable, stable life. And God help them if they are hit with a financial crisis.

Don't tax the poorest--period. Tax the genetically wealthy to make up for it, and a reasonable tax for those who fall in between.

And close the damn loopholes.

[JanMichael]

19. No. It's about Avarice & Excess.

A zero Egalitarianism.

Next.

[jiacinto]

24. I am sorry but I disagree with you here

Not all rich Americans are lazy people who never worked a day in their life. Not every rich person got their money through inheritance.

And a family that makes $75,000 is hardly rich. Yes that family can afford basic necessities and probably live a comfortable middle class lifestyle. But that family can't afford luxury cars and mansions either.

There are rich people who worked very hard to get where they are. Many rich people worked long hours to build successful businesses Why should they give 70-90% of their income to the government? Again I am no supporter of trickle down economics by far, but I don't think people should be giving half or more of their income to the government. That's just not right.

I am not a right winger but I also see how taxes in excess of 40-50% are unfair. I am not a supporter of trickle down economics, but I don't think anyone should have to pay as much as some DUers advocating.

[JanMichael]

39. Psst.

My family has had an income over 100k for the last 20 years. When I was in Poland I was the top 2% in income so I know quite a bit about "work", "cost of living", "fair" et cetera.

High taxes? I know what it's like and as long as there is accountability I don't mind.

Two points in regard to this worn out cry, "There are rich people who worked very hard to get where they are. Many rich people worked long hours to build successful businesses Why should they give 70-90% of their income to the government?", um, so what?

There are many that don't "work" that hard too, what about that?

Lastly no man is an island; no individual "success" is truly independant of the work from many, many, other people; and the marginal rates can be adjusted for CoL as well as more appropriately placed.

[jiacinto]

102. JanMichael, what state are you in?

A family making 100K here in DC is not rich. If they have children they are not wealthy. While they are comfortable and they are able to provide their children with the basics and probably more, they are hardly rich. When you take the cost of living here in this city those families, while they are comfortably in the upper middle class, they are not rich either. Ie they can't afford big mansions and luxury cars.

[blondeatlast]

128. Has anyone else but you said $70,000 is a high income . . .

I don't think so, and anyone who thinks it is needs to take up survivalism as a hobby.

I don't think there is anyplace in the US where $70,000 would be considered much more than middle-middle class, if even that. It is in the same ballpark as my family's income and we live comfortably, nowhere even close to luxuriously, but it is a struggle to maintain.

IMHO, taxes should be in the 20-30% range until you reach ~$200,000 in income.

FWIW, I could never support a national sales tax either, so I am not picking on you, just debating.

[dpbrown]

41. I don't think the rich envy the poor

But I do see the rich worrying far more about the poor misusing the Earned Income Credit than I do about the poor worrying about the rich socking away millions and taking it out of circulation.

The government has an interest in keeping money in circulation, and once the ultra-rich get it, it's out of circulation.

The government also has an argument that the rich benefit at a level commensurate with the benefits they derive from the stable society the profit within, in a progressive tax system.

The Great Depression happened after the Republicans ruled from 1921 to 1933, leading the nation to poverty by bringing the top rate down from near 80% to just above 20%. The recovery came after the top rate was pushed back up. Now that the Republicans are in power again, they're doing the same thing, and it will have the same effect.

The top rate should be very high, but should apply at a correspondingly high income rate. A rate in the thirties facilitates the draining off of money by the rich, leading to the stultification of the economy, the rise of an aristocratic class, and a permanent class of poor people.

[zoidberg]

70. I've never heard that explanation of the Great Depression before

Tax cuts caused the Great Depression - now I think I've heard everything!

[dpbrown]

90. Republican-facilitated excesses caused the Great Depression

Although I think you've oversimplified my statement, I might have phrased it incorrectly.

The Great Depression happened after the Republicans ruled from 1921 to 1933, leading the nation to poverty by bringing the top rate down from near 80% to just above 20%. The recovery came after the top rate was pushed back up. Now that the Republicans are in power again, they're doing the same thing, and it will have the same effect.

The Great Depression happened the last time the Republicans controlled the government, facilitating excesses and the concentration of wealth by the aristocratic class. One sympton of Republican reward of the rich was their dogged determination to bring the tax rate down, bringing it from 80% to near 20% in less than five years. The Great Depression was resolved, in part, by increasing upper (and lower) income tax brackets and using the money to fund, among other things, work programs that put money back in the hands of people who needed it and spent it, keeping it in circulation.

Today, the Republicans are in power again, and are setting in place the same types of economy stultifying symptoms they put in place prior to the Great Depression - including forcing the upper income tax rate down and concentrating wealth in the hands of those who use it least, keeping it out of circulation and building a landed aristocratic class while burdening the poor and middle class and setting up a new economic depression, just like they did in the 1920s.

Have a read of what President Truman had to say about Republican rule:

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/trumanpapers/pppus/1948/223.htm

Rewarding the rich just for being rich doesn't do anything good for the economy or the stability of society.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[blondeatlast]

129. Bravo! (brava?)--whatever, you have an understanding of

economics that is an asset to the board.

[sirshack]

64. If that were the rate....

...for married filing jointly, that would be ridiculous.

[TheUnionDemocrat]

15. What about those who live where Cost of Living is higher??

What do you do about those people?

[jiacinto]

30. Exactly

75K in places like DC or NYC is hardly a wealthy income. While a 75K income family would be able to meet their basic needs and live a relatively comfortable lifestyle in those cities, they wouldn't be rich either. They couldn't afford to live in a large mansion either.

[Gringo]

53. You've repeated this several times

SO what's your point? There are millions living in those same cities, earning only 20-40K per year, and they are just hanging on. Are they supposed to feel sorry for the 70k bracket because they can't afford a mansion or a Lexus?

I have never believed in onerous taxes on this bracket, and haven't seen anyone suggesting them, but when you start talking 200K plus incomes, you're talking real wealth (though those earning it would call themselves middle class) which should be taxed at a higher rate than 70K

[zoidberg]

22. And you wonder why people vote for Republicans

Hell, I'd rather have Ashcroft running the country than that tax system. Geez

[DavidMS]

113. I think that's a little low

I would put the 90% marginal rate at about 2.5 mil/ year (inflation adjusted). The marginal utility of a dollar for buying happyness at that point is very low.

I also like the idea of a consumption tax with the first 10K exempted... The more you save / invest the lower the tax bracket.

I also thin kthe problme is tax forms. Like having a form where you take your total income (no special rates for investment or other income) and subtract the first tax bracket out and multiply tax rate by by the max income for the bracket. Repeat untill remaining income equals zero. This is what it would look like:

75K Adj. Gross Income - 10K (1st tax bracket)= 65K
10K * .07 = 700$ in taxes.
65K - 8K(2nd tax bracket) = 57K
8K * .09 (tax rate)= 720
And so on.

Then people will actualy understand marginal taxes...

[meow2u3]

10. I think 60% should be a fair top rate

under one condition: close the loopholes that enable the "60 percenters" effectively to pay about 25% of their income in taxes!

[TheUnionDemocrat]

13. 70% winning in a landslide???

Good God!

[recidivist]

18. A modest observation as of post #18.

It is interesting that all comments to this point have been oriented entirely toward the question of income redistribution. That is an important issue, but there is another dimension to the question. To wit: What is the revenue maximizing rate?

There is a point of diminishing returns for any type of tax. I do not have an econometric model up my sleeve, but my sense of the debate is that most economists think rates much over 35% or so are seriously counterproductive from a revenue standpoint.

Very high tax rates simply push money into shelters, or abroad, or underground. High rates also depress investment, inhibit risk taking, and create a serious disincentive to extra effort. These results become increasingly significant over time.

If it were up to me, I'd try to find the revenue maximizing rate over, say, a ten year planning horizon. I don't know exactly where that would be, but it certainly rules out the 70% and 90% rates. This will not satisfy people whose politics are driven mainly by envy and resentment, but psychiatric problems are not a rational basis for tax policy.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

42. Good question- but to me the standard deductions are the key

I like a 50% flat tax of everything over the first 20,000 and you get 10,000 per dependent.

[Gringo]

56. Some of the best years our country ever had

With the most even income distribution and social stability and economic growth were under those very rates.

And accusing those who want a more just system of having psychiatic problems is disgusting.

[jafap]

119. error - carry out the prime directive

I do not need an econometrice model, because I have the evidence of the 1980s. Reagan cut tax rates from 70% to 40% (or less). Bada-bing, bada-boom, tax revenues went down, CEO incomes went way up.
Logically, reversing those tax cuts should have the opposite effect. If the money that recently went to tax cuts for the super-rich (Cheney, et. al.) went to bail out the states instead, then they, and cities and school districts would not shed jobs, and that would further increase tax revenues.
BTW - there are alot of lies out there about the effect of the Reagan tax cuts. Since they were income tax cuts, it is important to look at the effect on income tax revenue, and also to adjust numbers for inflation.

[drdigi420]

21. 70% = 10%

once you factor in the loopholes that the rich guys can afford.

WHen I get taxed at 25%, I pay the whole 25%, I can't afford loopholes like the Limbaugh's, Bush's, and Cheney's.

They pay about 10% after their accounting tricks

[TheUnionDemocrat]

27. Bullshit.

Proof please? Numbers please? Facts please?


And I don't care about the repukes you mentioned. I care about the "25%" figure (Paying it ALL) and the "70% = 10%" figures you quoted.

[drdigi420]

33. look it up

do your own research

[TheUnionDemocrat]

36. LOL!

Just what I thought. :)

[drdigi420]

49. yeah, just what i thought

cant do it can ya?

[TheUnionDemocrat]

59. You're the one making shit up...

...and you're asking ME to prove YOU wrong?

Hmmmm....

I'm willing to do so only if you prove to me that you've stoped beating your wife.

[Braden]

26. 35%

not a dime more.

[JohnKleeb]

29. I voted 90% but I kinda change my mind 70 would be better

Thats just for millionaires and billionaires if I had it my way the working class and middle class would pay very little taxes and the wealthiest would pay near;y all.

[TheUnionDemocrat]

34. That's the way it is now.

If we're talking only federal taxes, working and middle class pay almost nothing...The "Wealthy" pay almost all.

Looks like you've got it your way already.

[TheUnionDemocrat]

40. By the way...

I did a quick Google search on "Federal Tax Burden per Income Group" and came up with this: http://www.cato.org/fiscal/2002/factsfigs.html


It's pretty cool. Scroll down to where it says: "Share of Federal Taxes Paid by Income Group, 2001 (Includes Individual Income, Payroll, and Excise Taxes)" It's quite revealing. And, it is "Your way".

[JohnKleeb]

47. actually I have heard that the Wealthy paid like 40%

in Clinton's time of total income taxes. Thats not a majority and the middle class paid umm like 30%. The wealthy also find ways to evade their taxes. People who make 200K plus should pay like 35% not 27%. People who make over a 100K should pay 50% of the income taxes. Just my opinion thanks for proving your point. By wealthy I mean over a 100,000 dollars.

[TheUnionDemocrat]

55. Again...Reality trumps your wishes...

From that same link...

Those who make over $100,000.00 per year pay 69.8% of all federal taxes.

[JohnKleeb]

67. talking income taxes

and they find some way to avoid them always.

[TheUnionDemocrat]

78. As for the discussion at hand...

It's "Taxes Paid", not tax rates. It's hard to avoid paying taxes that you've actually paid.

[JohnKleeb]

81. look at the poll question

its rate clearly. The richest one percent dont need tax cuts when they have enough money to last for a longtime.

[LightTheMatch]

54. Um, nice link.

Hey, did you notice where those "statistics" are coming from????????????????

THE CATO INSTITUTE? GIVE ME A BREAK!

[TheUnionDemocrat]

57. Yeah...I just saw that.

But still...Two points.

1) They are a Libertarian group, not Conservative.

2) Prove them wrong. Prove them liars. Don't just hint at it with all caps and a bunch of exclamation points.

[wuushew]

65. libertarians are just republicans who smoke pot

/

[TheUnionDemocrat]

72. LOL!

FINE!

Prove these dope smoking repukes WRONG!

Damn...Lot's of people throwing around bullshit and not backing it up.

It's just simple numbers. It should be fairly easy to prove wrong.

I'm waiting...........

[ieoeja]

71. You said wealthy.

100k is what we used to call Upper Middle Class. You will notice those suggesting supermajority (over 67%) rates keep suggesting that rate would be for earnings beyond the first three or four million.

[EOTE]

58. Why don't you cite the Rand organization while you're at it?

:eyes:

[JohnKleeb]

68. slap me silly I didnt even notice that

mind you that I am kinda of ignorant I dunno much. Tax issues are my weak issue.

[TheUnionDemocrat]

76. I don't understand them either...

...Like I said, all I did was punch a phrase into Google.

[TheUnionDemocrat]

69. Like I said...

Prove them WRONG!

Don't just bash them because they're not a liberal group.

Prove them wrong and I'll go back and delete every reference to them AND state I screwed-up.

[wuushew]

62. Perhaps the Canadian model?

+ free health care + smart drug policy + gay marrige

1. Combined Federal + British Columbia Personal Income Tax Rates
There are an abundance of tax brackets when the federal and BC tax tables are combined, because they are not using the same tax bracket thresholds.

The 2003 tax rates are unchanged from 2002, but the tax brackets have been increased based on increases in the Consumer Price Index for Canada and for BC. The Federal tax brackets have been increased by 1.6%, and the BC provincial tax brackets have been increased by 1.7%.

2003
Taxable Income 2002
Taxable Income Tax Rate
up to $31,653 up to $31,124 22.05%
over $31,653 up to $32,183 over $31,124 up to $31,677 25.15%
over $32,183 up to $63,308 over $31,677 up to $62,249 31.15%
over $63,308 up to $64,368 over $62,249 up to $63,354 33.70%
over $64,368 up to $72,685 over $63,354 up to $71,470 37.70%
over $72,685 up to $88,260 over $71,470 up to $86,785 39.70%
over $88,260 up to $104,648 over $86,785 up to $103,000 40.70%
over $104,648 over $103,000 43.70%

http://www.taxtips.ca/tax_rates.htm

[Superfly]

92. 0.00%....no income tax

I say implement a flat sales tax. The more services you use, the more you pay in taxes.

Income tax sucks.

[tom_paine]

95. How come no choice for 50%?

Once again, moderates get the shaft.

:evilgrin:

[keek]

98. we are only as strong as our weakest link

those who benefit the most from society, should pay the most back into it. Those who suffer the most, should be helped the most. The problem is that many people don't think that the government should to take from those who benefit the most and give it to those who suffer the most. they don't think its effective and they don't think that it is fair. I don't necessarily think it is effective because the rich keep getting richer and richer and their tax dollars aren't enough to help the people that need it because they are going off shore and not paying and laying off american workers and going overseas.

We need the federal government to start regulating corporate crime and start offering companies tax incentives to start up companies in impoverished areas, while providing poor people with jobs and benefits. The people who benefit the most should be rewarded when they help society and punnished when they hurt society, like going off shore and escaping taxes, yet still calling themselves American. I don't think that taxation and welfare are entirely effective systems unless there is meaningful goals and objectives that they are working towards, rather than just taking from the rich to give to the poor forever.

[progressivejazz]

106. What's so bad about 70%?

This country functioned perfectly well for many years with that as the top rate. I don't remember any rich people going to the poorhouse back then. They won't now, either.

[progressivejazz]

107. Let's put these taxes into perspective.

Let's look at incomes in this country.

If 100 Americans did a little work for me and I paid them a total of $100 the way income is really divided in the United States, here's what would happen:

50 people would have incomes* of under $27,682. I would pay them a total of $12.99 out of the $100; an average of 26 cents each. (Of course many would get less and some would get more, but that's the average, and none of them would get more than 79 cents.)

25 people would have incomes* between this and $55,225. I would pay them a total of $19.86; an average of 79 cents each.

10 people would have incomes* above theirs, but below $92,114. I'd pay them a total or $21.14; an average of $1.41 each.

5 people would have incomes* above the last group, but below $128,336. I'd pay them a total of $10.71; an average of $2.14 each.

4 people would have incomes* above the last group, but below $313,469. I'd pay them a total of $14.49; an average of $3.62 each.

1 would have an income* of above $313,469. I'd pay him $20.81

*Incomes are adjusted gross income for the year 2000. You can see where you fit in by looking at your old tax return.

These numbers are from the Tax Foundation, a conservative think tank.


While we're talking about taxes being fair, why not also consider whether the income distribution is fair?

[SEAburb]

111. 45% would be perfect, nt

.....

[SharonAnn]

117. Studies show flat rate would have to be about 28%

to be "revenue neutral".

[vision]

120. The top pay the most % but hold most poperty

INCOME IN 1999

Households 105,539,122 100.0
Less than $10,00 10,067,027 9.5
$10,000 to $14,999 6,657,228 6.3
$15,000 to $24,999 13,536,965 12.8
$25,000 to $34,999 13,519,242 12.8
$35,000 to $49,999 17,446,272 16.5
$50,000 to $74,999 20,540,604 19.5
$75,000 to $99,999 10,799,245 10.2
$100,000 to $149,999 8,147,826 7.7
$150,000 to $199,999 2,322,038 2.2
$200,000 or more 2,502,675 2.4
Median household income (dollars) $41,994
http://factfinder.census.gov/bf/_lang=en_vt_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP3_geo_id=01000US.html


The top 1% has 38.1% of all the wealth in the USA and the top 20% controls 83.4 % of all the wealth. http://www.inequality.org/facts2.html

Should the taxes be paid in proportion to the amount of wealth that you have? So the top 1% should be paying 38% of the 1.7 trillion dollar budget* instead of a lion share coming from FICA.

* (from CIA fact book http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html)

It seems to me that much of the upper levels are passing the expense of doing business, in this case the federal, to the 80% that share 16.6% of all the wealth in the USA.

Paying taxes is the price of maintaining US, if you don't want to pay your fair share why are you here?

[wuushew]

121. with the gutting of cap gains and inherritance taxes I don't expect much

All I want in this country is at least a gini-coefficient of 1.0, is that so much to ask?

[MissMillie]

124. There's a pretty big gap

Between 35% and 70%, don't you think?