We need to bring back that 90% tax on the highest incomes

[Taverner]

Since we can't set a maximum salary (I would love to if we could), the best we could do is say tax anyone who makes over $2 million per year 90% or higher on all income above that

Punish hard work? Hardly. You and I know that guy didn't work any harder to make $2m a year

[Donnachaidh]

1. +1,00000 recs

Especially with that healthcare exec who makes 57K an HOUR.... :grr:

[rhett o rick]

10. Wow, there must have been a lot of unrec's. k&r6. nt

[tex-wyo-dem]

103. I agree completely...

A couple of informative charts to support your arguement...



http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080630/extreme_inequality

[HughBeaumont]

127. Hey, and what happened right after the top marginal rate was lowered to 28% under Reagan?

Oh yeah, that's right . . . a fat long RECESSION.

And McClown wanted to keep Bewsh's tax cuts permanent?

[Overseas]

136. Glad you posted the charts showing what happens

when we follow the GOP (Greedy Obstructionist Plutocrats) tax-cutting policies.


Then you get the flat taxers who think taxing Stephen Helmsley's pay

The UHG CEO's base salary was $1.3 million in 2008, to go along with a non-equity incentive plan compensation worth just over $1.8 million and "other compensation" amounting to slightly more than $119,000. Read more: http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/story/unitedhealth-groups-stephen-hemsley-ceo-compensation/2009-05-14#ixzz0Ug4AD3FW

and my pay at 10% is fair. Hey, you both pay the same percentage, they'd say.

What did Warren Buffet say?

Mr. Buffett compiled a data sheet of the men and women who work in his office. He had each of them make a fraction; the numerator was how much they paid in federal income tax and in payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, and the denominator was their taxable income. The people in his office were mostly secretaries and clerks, though not all.

It turned out that Mr. Buffett, with immense income from dividends and capital gains, paid far, far less as a fraction of his income than the secretaries or the clerks or anyone else in his office. Further, in conversation it came up that Mr. Buffett doesn’t use any tax planning at all. He just pays as the Internal Revenue Code requires. “How can this be fair?” he asked of how little he pays relative to his employees. “How can this be right?”

Even though I agreed with him, I warned that whenever someone tried to raise the issue, he or she was accused of fomenting class warfare.

“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html

[JuniperLea]

2. Indeed

http://www.lcurve.org/

[Vincardog]

3. Add the same to any inheritance over $2M and we are talking.

[Spoonman]

21. Sorry,

FUCK THAT!
Most inheritance in this country is the fruits of hard working blue collar people that were wise with their money.
Why should we punish that?

[we can do it]

43. Over 2 Million? Really?

[Spoonman]

69. Yes, REALLY

My parents did it, and so did most of the other parents in the neighborhood.
ALL of them blue collar workers!

[MajorChode]

105. I agree. It can be done easily

If you invest $5,000 the first year you are employed, increase that amount by 3% every year, and earn an average of 6% interest, you will have $2 million in 47 years. If you already had a good sized nest egg prior to the Clinton years, chances are they did far better.

[eridani]

117. Then, if they are worth $2.3 million, the tax will only be on $300,000 n/t

[Taverner]

178. Exactly - we are talking $2m salary per year

$2 million total? Not the issue...

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

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

[Luminous Animal]

135. You claimed this...

"Most inheritance in this country is the fruits of hard working blue collar people that were wise with their money."

I countered with this which states that 2/3rds of inherited wealth comes from the top 10% of the population which belies your claim:

According to the Cornell study, the richest 1 percent of the population will divide one-third of the worth of the estates, each receiving an average inheritance of $3.6 million; the next richest 9 percent will divide another third for an average inheritance of about $396,000; the remaining 90 percent will share the rest. That means an average inheritance of only about $40,000 for this group.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/22/weekinreview/the-nation-a-windfall-nears-in-inheritances-from-the-richest-generation.html

[Sebastian Doyle]

96. And what about the descendants of Prescott Bush?

You DO remember where his fortune came from, right??



Not to mention the smack peddling and terrorist funding from Poppy.

Should their descendants really be allowed to live off of that in perpetuity?

[Spoonman]

131. Let's apply that to everyone then,

Including the Kennedy's, their fortune was and EVERY descendant of slave owners regardless of party affiliation.

There is no proof of the Nazi relationship, it is nothing more than politically motivated speculation know different than the birther bullshit!

[T Wolf]

145. Bullshit. Read something for a change. Prescott's actions are well-documented.

http://www.geocities.com/bushfamilynazis/

If there was no Nazi connection, why did the US government seize the assets?

Willful ignorance in defense of the BFEE is disgusting, especially for someone purporting to be a Democrat.

[kestrel91316]

150. Don't you dare come on DU and try to defend that fucking Nazi collaborator.

[HughBeaumont]

187. OK, BE incorrect.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x581610#581663

Wow, we're defending the BFEE now.

What's next? Are you going to say job offshoring's a good thing for the economy and we should all just work infinitely harder or learn to live on corn flakes?

[Luminous Animal]

109. 100% untrue...

In all, the 64 million baby boomers stand to inherit an estimated $6.8 trillion between 1987 and 2011. Of course not everyone will benefit equally. According to the Cornell study, the richest 1 percent of the population will divide one-third of the worth of the estates, each receiving an average inheritance of $3.6 million; the next richest 9 percent will divide another third for an average inheritance of about $396,000; the remaining 90 percent will share the rest. That means an average inheritance of only about $40,000 for this group.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/22/weekinreview/the-nation-a-windfall-nears-in-inheritances-from-the-richest-generation.html

[snot]

110. authority? When you say "most,"

do you mean most as in most of the money, in which case like i said, what's your authority; or do you mean, as in the greatest number, in which case you may be right but i suspect we're talking inheritances that couldn't support a family of four above the poverty line for more than a year?

[intheflow]

134. Your blue collar parents made $2 million A YEAR??

Because that's the tax the OP is talking about. I hate to break it to you, but if your parents made $2 million a year as blue collar workers they must have been doing something illegal on the side because that kind of pay has never been available to blue collar workers, anywhere.

[Spoonman]

141. I guess you can't follow a thread very well.

Inheritance is what I was talking about.

I hate to break it to you, but attempting to discredit someone with ignorant statements only has a reverse effect!

[intheflow]

151. I guess you can't follow your own logic very well.

You had a post deleted in this thread where you said something derrogatory about lazy people who just want to suck off the hard work of others. That's one way an inheritance could be described.

[kestrel91316]

152. You are the one who can't follow a thread. The OP was about MARGINAL INCOME TAX RATES.

Then you go off on some absurd rant about inheritances.

[kestrel91316]

149. Perhaps among the middle class. But not among the uber-wealthy.

They get money primarily by ripping off their employees and investors and customers, or by shifting funds from one shady tax shelter to another.

They can cry me a fucking river.

We aren't talking about taxing small amounts in the tens of thousands (or even hundreds of thousands) like what I inherited from my grandmother years ago, lol. We are talking about taxing the Bernie Madoffs and Bill Gateses at a rate that is more typical of that during the Fifties that the RW worships.

[tridim]

4. I've heard Repukes say this is a bad idea because..

the rich will just continue to find ways to get around it.

Facepalm.

[Taverner]

7. Chances are many would move to Switzerland. Good F'n riddance!

If they don't like it here they can ALWAYS leave!

[Dreamer Tatum]

25. So you're happy with 90% of nothing, then.

Got it.

[Taverner]

26. Someone will fill their jobs, I'm sure of it

I guess for me "Going Galt" is more of an empty threat than it is for you

[closeupready]

144. You believe their threats? When you know they are liars, why?

??

[krispos42]

52. And of course, we'll just have to have an "emmigration tax" for people leaving

Oh, the horror, the horror...

[krispos42]

49. Ah, the same people that want to continue the War on Drugs

Of course... :eyes:

[MindandSoul]

5. I agree: 90% tax for any income over $2 millions a year!

[SalviaBlue]

6. I AGREE!!

[spartan61]

8. Wasn't it St Ronnie who rolled back this tax

on the wealthy back in the early 80s???

[laughingliberal]

170. Actually, Kennedy was the one who lowered the top rate from 90%

Well, technically, he only proposed the tax cut in December, 1962. He was assassinated in November, 1963. Congress passed the tax cut to be signed into law by Johnson in February, 1964.

[T Wolf]

9. INteresting to look back at those "golden" (economic) days of the 50s & 60s. Top rate

was up there and still we all did better.

Now, with the rich paying no taxes, even at the obscenely low rate they have, we have massive economic failure (of us working people) while the rich just get richer.

The rich do not work as hard as real working people - yet they think they deserve to have it all.

Their wealth, almost always ill-gotten, needs to be taken from them - by any means necessary.

[FiveGoodMen]

12. Completely agree.

[Stumbler]

148. "The rich do not work as hard as real working people" Great point

We have public servants, like police and fire-fighters who risk their lives each day for what $40-50,000 a year? Teachers molding the minds of our future in ever-growing class sizes for the same amount. Nurses, working 12-hour shifts, taking over doctor's responsibilities and asked to work for less than they did the year before... Meanwhile, some guy sitting in a posh office transfers money from one account to another, producing nothing of tangible wealth, but is compensated with a 6 or 7-figure salary, and benefits galore.
When I make $25,000 from the sweat of my brow, it's taxed about 30% When some jackass receives a dividend check in the mail for $1 million, it's taxed at no more than 15%. Where's the justice in that? I'm all for 90% on any income over $2 million.

[SIMPLYB1980]

11. I say 70% but somewhere in between would be OK.

:thumbsup:

[redqueen]

13. K&R

[dhpgetsit]

14. The top bracket earners don't do hard work.

Hard work is what low income people do to survive.

History shows that economic stability and strength is built up when the top margin tax rate is over 50%

[Lucky Luciano]

158. It's not about working harder - it is about working smarter

and more cleverly. Sorry, but ditchdiggers will never earn more than someone using their cleverness and people skills to make money.

[pampango]

15. Among other benefits, progressive tax rates lower the incentive to go for the quick buck,

since you'll have to pay most of it in taxes anyway. With higher tax rates in the business world, more effort would be devoted to building employee and customer loyalty for the long run to grow the business into the future. There would be less incentive to squeeze your employees' pay and benefits or rip off your customers since you would have to pay most of the "quick buck" profits in tax anyway.

[clear eye]

16. Just include value of options as income, and you could raise that to $5M

and really get something from the overpaid.

[Taverner]

17. Tht works - kinda - but my problem with taxing options is...

Do you tax them before they sell the options? If so, that can really hurt a lot of middle class families

But tax the profits, and only the profits, and I like

[clear eye]

19. Do the middleclass people have to buy their options?

I meant options given as compensation or bonuses. Does that make a difference?

[Taverner]

22. Ah - OK different story

I was referring to the "Non Qualified" options that you and I would get

Not the free money options Execs get

[Spoonman]

18. The problem I have with

it is simple.
If I invest 10 million into a business, run the business and earn 2 million (20%) from my investment, why should I pay 90% in taxes?
Did the gubment take 90% of the risk with $10 million? NO!

And the inheritance thing, FUCK THAT!!!!!!
My parents NEVER made more than a combined total of $65k a year as a teacher and plant worker.
We grew up in a 1280 square ft house, never had a new car, and they saved their money and invested it wisely so that my sister and I would inherit enough money to "get ahead in life".
I stand to inherit a little over $3 million, and I'll be damned before I give %90 to ANY government!
I'll have them transfer it to an offshore account before they die!

If this is the new democrat party mentality, then good by, and hello independence, libertarian or RNC.
Sorry, but some things around here are just too stupid for words!

[Oregone]

23. Yes go libertarian or RNC

Those are both anti-meritocracy parties anyway

[Spoonman]

34. Anti-meritocracy......

Would you care to elaborate on the applicability of that "label" to Ted Kennedy?

[Oregone]

36. Ted Kennedy was libertarian or RNC?

News to me

[Spoonman]

41. Avoiding the question

only weakens your previous assertion.

The truth is simple, ALL parties and organizations are guilty of plutocracy, nepotism, and cronyism!

[Oregone]

44. And not appropriately taxing inheritance only further promotes that

...which is what those anti-meritocracy parties often aim to do. Yes, the Democrats may be composed of members who were born into the upper caste, but I'm talking about policy aim here. You essentially created a Red Herring, forgetting that Ted Kennedy worked on many programs that could be construed as redistributing wealth from the upper caste to dislodge the ingrained class structure. It seems to be policies like this that you disagree with (and Republicans and Libertarians do as well), but mentioning a successor in a party working to stifle mechanism that contribute to political and economic succession, is well, avoiding the point in the first place.

[Spoonman]

62. "appropriately taxing"

should never be about redistributing wealth.
Not in a democracy where equality and freedom are the core principles.
The ingrained class structure you refer to IS the red herring.
It does not exist, but you and many others have bought into the politicized version of it.

[Oregone]

70. "equality and freedom" are both suppressed by a caste system

"The ingrained class structure you refer to IS the red herring. It does not exist"

Right...in a country with the lowest intergenerational mobility rate (with the UK) in the industrialized world, there is no class system. You are clueless.

http://www.faireconomy.org/press_room/1997/born_on_third_base_sources_of_wealth_of_1997_forbes_400

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[Oregone]

81. The American Dream is hardly alive in America

Look north to http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/article.jsp?content=20080625_50113_50113">Canada to find it.


Please read:
http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP%20American%20Dream%20Report.pdf

While belief in this American Dream remains a unifying
tie for an increasingly diverse populace, it is showing
signs of wear, with both public perceptions and concrete
data suggesting that the nation is a less mobile society
than once believed. This is not good: the inherent
promise of America is undermined if economic status is,
or is seen as, merely a game of chance, with some having
the good fortune to live in the best of times and some
the bad luck to live in the worst of times. That is not the
America heralded in lore and experienced in reality by
millions of our predecessors.

This site is an excellent resource on intergenerational mobility: http://www.economicmobility.org

You will learn it is not so common in the US anymore.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[Codeine]

101. Dude,

why are you here? These are goofy RW talking points.

[HughBeaumont]

113. Ah. More "bootstrappers" on DU. That's what was missing.

"Horatio Alger", for the most part, is a lottery winning.

Lots of other people who are smart also worked hard and put in long hours. Why are they not at the upper echelon? Does that mean poor people who happen to be smart and put in long hours at what they try to do and accomplish aren't working hard enough, since it's not about luck?

You may not have the audience for the product you thought you would have. Your service may become obsolete literally overnight. What if you don't have the needed start up capital? Tax laws may change. Economic climates change. Something like an unforseen illness, financial setback or workplace accident may happen. A corporation's powerful lawyers could sue your claim to prior art or patent. You may be undercut in price by a corporation. Not even the most fireproof plan can see these things coming.

Saying that luck doesn't factor in veers into the territory of justifying the "Horatio Alger" myth, and in turn, the right wing canard of "ANYone can make it big! The only thing stopping you . . . is YOU". This is not only patently false, it's poisonous. That's just not the way life works anymore. There are many, many reasons people aren't successful that don't always have to do with them, but with circumstances beyond their control.

I'm not saying "Don't thrive for anything better", but know you're playing against a stacked deck. That's not to say the old quote "The secret of a great success for which you are at a loss to account is a crime that has never been found out, because it was properly executed." applies to everyone who was ever successful. But to be successful, some luck IS required. For every person who could at the very least make a living without a corporation's assistance, there are about 10,000 or so that couldn't.

[kestrel91316]

155. ALL taxation amounts to "redistribution of wealth", silly. ALL of it.

Don't come onto DU and start up with anti-tax rants. This is NOT, I repeat NOT, Libertarian Underground.

[Spoonman]

167. "Don't come onto DU and start up with anti-tax rants"

Seeing as our tax dollars are being pissed away by ALL politicians on bullshit wars and other worthless crap, I feel a "rant" is completely appropriate!

If you can't respect my DNC card carrying opinion on that, then too fucking bad for you.

This is not, I repeat NOT the one sided opinion Liberal Underground either!

[kestrel91316]

168. Funny, but I wasn't aware that 100% of the federal budget went to the Defense Dept.

Read the rules. If you do not support Democratic Party principles, INCLUDING TAXATION in order to further our goals, you don't belong here.

Don't come onto DU and spout RW and Libertarian talking points.

[Name removed]

172. Deleted message

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

[dawg]

24. I'm with you, Spoonman ...

And I think the President and most Democrats are with us as well. A $3.5 million estate tax exemption ($7 million for couples) seems reasonable to me. I don't think there is anything wrong with parents wanting to accumulate enough money to guarantee their children an upper middle class lifestyle. It's the permanent aristocracies that the estate tax was designed to prevent. There is a huge difference between the rich (you - ha, ha!) and the super-rich (Steve Forbes).

[dawg]

28. The point shouldn't be to "punish" high-incomers ...

The tax rate should be set at whatever level is needed in order to provide for the legitimate needs of the people. As a liberal (at least by U.S. standards), I believe that should include health care, education, and a strong safety net. But once those needs are met, we shouldn't raise taxes on people any further.

[Spoonman]

38. FLAT TAX

Everyone above the poverty line (adjusted gross income) should be taxed at a flat rate period.
It the only fair solution.
EQUALITY should apply to ALL aspects of our government!

[Oregone]

42. Flat tax isn't "fair".

The flat tax is the brain child of an aborted fetus produced after Glen Beck is raped by Satan.


Why isn't it "Fair"? Well, it doesn't take into account the costs of living and disposable income tax rates. In a flat tax system, you will see those of the bottom paying 100% of their disposable income in taxes. As someone's income becomes arbitrarily close to infinity, their personal tax rate on their disposable income drops to the flat tax rate.


That doesn't sound fair to me.

[krispos42]

50. Have a flat tax with a fat deduction

Say, $75,000 for a single person.


Tax 75% of all adjusted gross income over the 75k mark. Bump it up to maybe 125k or 150k for married couples.

Ta-da! It would exempt probably 65% of the country from paying federal income taxes. I'd go for it!

[Oregone]

55. Instead of depending on an arbitrary deduction that perpetuates the problems on a higher scale...

Just tax everyone according to their ability to contribute unscathed; that being, have the rate correspond to their disposable income. The more people earn, the more the have to put in their bank accounts after living lavishly. You can still tax this and leave them with incentives to earn. Id rather see something like this:



Such that, the area under the graph is equaled to the desired tax revenue for the year.

[krispos42]

56. I think that's too open to manipulation

There will need to be some kind of forumula with complex variables, and that will give the lobbyists of the rich and famous tons of room to quietly turn the system into a bonanza of loopholes.

:shrug:


We want to discourage people from taking too much money out of their businesses, to instead re-invest it in the business. And we definately want to destroy the "managerial aristocracy" and prevent it from rising again.

Under my system, a married couple that makes a quarter-million bucks a year taxable income would pay $75,000 in taxes {(250,000-150,000) x 0.75 = 75,000} for an effective tax rate of 30%. That's after deductions for a mortgage, retirment savings, and offspring. Their unadjusted gross could be over $300,000.

[Oregone]

59. "the lobbyists of the rich and famous tons of room to quietly turn the system into a bonanza of loo"

Ya mean, the same group thats constantly pushing the "Fair Tax"?

[krispos42]

66. Yeah, at something like 15% or whatever

And it starts with the first dollar you make, I believe.

Very regressive indeed.

[dawg]

63. Under your plan ...

The family making 250k would probably pay more income taxes than under the current system. A family making 4mil would pay less. That is my problem with the flat tax.

[krispos42]

106. I don't see how that's possible for the rich family

Let's give it a shot

The family is making $4,000,000 gross. Okay, subtract their deduction of $150,000 (married), two kids @ $6,000 each, $15,000 in mortgage interest, and 2 401(k) retirement plans at $15,500 per adult.

Total deduction: $208,000

Taxable income: $3,792,000.

Tax: 0.75 x $3,792,000 = $2,844,000.

Take-home pay: $1,156,000


:shrug:

Considering the top income tax bracket in the US is 35% (more than $357,701), and the capital gains tax is about half of that, I don't see how the rich family is getting away with less taxation than the middle-class family.

[eridani]

119. The 75% does NOT apply to the entire income!

Just the amount over a certain threshold. In the OP, I think 2 million was mentioned. Therefore the tax would only be 1 million, 344,000

[krispos42]

146. Ah, I see

I was doing the math based on my post, #50 in this thread.




I actually think we need three flat taxes... two on unadjusted gross income of individuals and corporations, earned, unearned, gambling winnings, and inheritances. Those two would be for Social Security and universal single-payer health insurance, and would probably be like 3 or 4 percent each. Even if your company doesn't make any profits you're still paying into the SSA and Medicare-for-all.

Then a personal income tax like I described, and a corporate income tax based on gross revenues and profit margins. Small companies could have high profit margins before being whacked with the higher tax brackets, but as they got bigger the profit margin before the whack would decrease.

[dawg]

58. There must be some progressivity ...

Flat taxes are regressive, even if there are large exemptions. Oregone is right, the exemptions just push the problems higher up the income scale.

I don't know why flat tax proposals have so much appeal, even to some Democrats. All such schemes are regressive; they do not simplify the tax reporting process in any meaningful way, and they all have the result of shifting taxes away from the super wealthy and onto someone else.

If I were king, I would impose three income tax rates: 0% on the amount up to the poverty line; the full tax rate (whatever is needed to fund good government) on incomes above a generous upper-middle class threshold, and half the full rate for everything in between.

[DireStrike]

67. Still regressive and subject to inflation

The ultra-rich would engineer inflation as fast as possible without crashing the system.

No brackets or standards are ever raised to meet even the modest inflation of todays standards.

[dawg]

45. I don't go that far, Spoonman ...

While I don't think it's right to tax the Hell out of people just because they're rolling in the dough, neither do I think it is fair for upper incomers to be taxed as lightly as middle income folks who are struggling to provide for their families.

I do believe that everything below the poverty line should not be taxed at all. However, taxing people just above that at the same marginal rate as someone making millions would be harmful to the vast majority of American families. I also happen to think that it would be regressive and just plain wrong.

I think it would be reasonable to tax middle-incomes at half the regular tax rate. (The regular tax rate being the rate imposed on all earnings above the middle class threshold.)

[Donnachaidh]

72. Flat tax is NOT fair and anyone who thinks it is has a FLAT BRAIN.

:eyes:

[Zoeisright]

77. +1

[Bill219]

122. +2

[gristy]

133. +3

[Taitertots]

87. Anything for ideology

Do you have anything that is not a bumper sticker?

In real life that is going to cause unequal income distribution. Measured with the gini coefficient, we can see that America is very unequally distributed. The "L-curve" demonstrates even more vast disparities in wealth. This creates undue influence within government. It is a deterrent to economic growth. It distorts markets and creates unfavorable outcomes.

I tend to think it matters more if something works than if it contradicts the jingoism you heard from Glenn Beck.

[Sebastian Doyle]

97. Nice post, Steve Forbes

Are you sure you belong here?

[HughBeaumont]

114. Flat Tax. Really now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5860668

A flat tax is a moldy Steve Forbes/Neal Boortz chestnut that lets the rich off even more than they are now.

Ask yourself this: Why does this seem to be an idea that is popular mainly with very wealthy Republicans (particularly "Lucky Sperm Club" Republicans - more on this below) and fiscally comfortable white males?

Who does a flat tax benefit more - the person making $20,000 a year and paying 20%, or the person making $2 million per year and paying 20%? Who needs the money more? Keep in mind that the poor and middle class spend nearly 100% of their money while the rich have the luxury of discretionary income to hoard or invest, whichever they choose.

If you give the lower wage earners a tax break, you need to raise the overall flat tax rate to compensate... which would then hurt the middle class, unless you then give them a tax break as well. Of course, then you have to raise the overall flat tax rate to well over 30%, and (gasp) you're back to a progressive income tax.

And, if you keep it truly flat, you either place a huge burden on the middle class, or you drive the deficit/debt way beyond what we have now. There isn't any revenue to run this country as it is. We're 10 trillion dollars in debt and climbing; that debt is mostly the product of wasteful spending, primarily on tax cuts, war and defense ("defense" meaning: attack sovereign nations that have something you want) by three Republican presidents.

A progressive system taxes the rich more because they can easily afford to pay more. It gives a break to those in the middle and the bottom because to tax them at the same rate as the rich means that they will never be able to raise their standard of living. Simple things that the rich take for granted, such as a college education, would be unheard of for the middle class.

I wouldn't care if a millionaire paid a tiny tax bill, if to minimize his tax liability he created a bunch of jobs, invested heavily in green energy, education, or medical research. Recent history, however, has proven the exact opposite happens when you lower the tax rates of the wealthy. The thing about wealth is that it is almost impossible to get (and difficult to keep) without the infrastructure. Therefore, the rich, who benefit the most, should pay the most.

Forbes and the other sons of privilege push this bad idea because of their vastly incorrect belief that they're actually self-made; therefore, they should be exempt from paying taxes.

One online article puts it succinctly:

The simplistic "flat tax" idea is once again rearing its ugly head.

In the U.S. Senate, Arlen Specter proposed a flat 20% tax on earned income (working people's wages), from which rich people's unearned income (capital gains, interest and dividends) would be exempt. Congressman Dick Armey supports similar legislation in the House. Former presidential candidate Steve Forbes (who has exhibited virtually no entrepreneurial innovation in his life and became wealthy by inheriting his late father's publishing empire) made as a centerpiece of his failed campaigns a flat tax scheme that salutes the idle rich (as distinguished from hard-working innovators or entrepreneurs who actually earned their wealth) by exempting UNEARNED income gained as a return on investment (not merely protecting the value of the principal, but allowing those who gain wealth without working for it to avoid taxes while those who work hard for what they gain pay all the taxes).

Since Forbes' plan reduces taxes on the poorest and especially favors the wealthy, but is supposed to be revenue-neutral (no loss of incoming tax revenues), once again it means the middle class working people would be the ones squeezed to make up for benefits to the rich.

[kestrel91316]

157. Flat-taxing people at the bottom will drive many of them into bankruptcy.

But I guess you think that's just tough luck, so long as the uber-wealthy get to keep their second and third and fourth and fifth and sixth homes.

[Raineyb]

176. A flat tax is not EQUAL it's REGRESSIVE.

Perhaps you should take an intro to Economics class. You seem to be completely ignorant of the even basic definitions involved in discussing economic policy.

[Taverner]

181. Worst. Idea. Ever.

Honestly, you're here even though you don't support progressive taxation?

[HughBeaumont]

188. Aaaaand he's a "bootstrapper", and he thinks poor people are poor because they're lazy,

and he believes that Horatio Alger can happen to ANYbody if only they weren't "lazy", and he thinks the Bewsh family wasn't that bad and didn't have historically documented ties to Nazi Germany's corporations and banks . . . what else . . . oh yeah, uses the term "Democrat party". Also probably thinks the fascist "Business Plot" is all a bunch of hogwash even though it DID happen . . . I look forward to the revelations. It's kind of amusing.

[Oregone]

40. "we shouldn't raise taxes on people any further."

That isn't the debate. It isn't about raising taxes in totality, but where to shift the burden. Some suggest those that have more can more easily pay more without having their social mobility suppressed. Once you have enough to meet sustenance needs, and then luxury needs, it is far easier to contribute without ill effects than if someone has trouble putting food on their table.

In many cases, the tax rate on the poor's disposable income is 100%, while the tax rate on the rich's disposable income is no more than 30% or so (thanks to a 15% capital gains tax). That seems like an odd way to raise the total tax revenue.

[dawg]

47. If it takes 90% ...

of upper-incomes to provide for a decent society, then so be it. I contend that it does not require nearly that much.

As for redistributional purposes, I could not agree more that the lower rate for capital gains is being abused by the wealthy and should be reformed. But I do not favor taxing people making above $2 million a year at 90% just to redistribute money back to those making $400,000 a year. That would be pointless. Tax enough to take care of people's realistic needs, but don't take any more than is necessary.

[Raineyb]

175. Taxes are not punishment they are the fee for living in a civilized society

Those who make more use more of the commons the are SUPPOSED to pay more into the upkeep of the commons. Those who espouse the freeloading rich theory of society are selfish gits who have read too many Ayn Rand novels. Here's a hint novels are, by definition, FICTION.

[kestrel91316]

156. We already don't tax inheritances up to $1 million or so. Anybody who

inherits $1 million and can't find a way to make that last the rest of their life has got a serious problem managing money and doesn't need to be handed more of it tax-free, IMHO. $3.5 million inheritance is A LOT OF MONEY, and there probably should be some level of taxation there.

The OP was however, about INCOME TAX on income exceeding $2 million. An inheritance is NOT income.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[Oregone]

76. "FUCK THE GOVERNMENT"

Why do you post here at all?


"I got 1 lucky break in life that would have put me on easy street, and because of the FUCKED tax codes, I got FUCKED."

You sound angry at life. Are you sure you are just projecting?


"I am sick of shit bag, lazy ass, spoiled rotten crybabies that want everyone else's money because they are to lazy, unmotivated, or just plain too stupid to go out and earn it themselves"

Take some of that inherited money and get some good help for everyone's sake before you, or an office building, explodes

[Spoonman]

79. Why do you post here at all?

I'll ask you the same question.
Seeing as you are from Canada, go work on your own problems (you have plenty of them), and leave OUR country to US.
I for one could care less what a Canadian thinks about America.

[Oregone]

84. I am not from Canada. Thanks for playing

As an American, emulating the action of my ancestors and founders of our great nation, I have embarked on a journey to relocate to a land that my children have a higher chance to a greater life than I had. Canada leads the world, with a few others, in upward social mobility and standard of living. To not seek a better life for my children, our own "American Dream", no matter where it would take me, would be un-American in my view.

I also wanted to move from unhinged anti-tax psychopaths. Know of any?

[intheflow]

137. Yikes!

What a xenophobic statement! I care a great deal about what people outside the country think, as they can often see American politics through a more unbiased lens than we Americans can. We often can't see the forest the for the trees, and they, outside our boundaries and away from the American corporate media, can see the whole ecosystem, not just the forest.

[Taitertots]

85. 46% better call the wambulance

If you are so greedy that paying your fair share in taxes is that offensive to you, than you should go to the RNC or libertarian party. The vast majority of people have a much higher tax burden and we are not crying like 10 year old girls about it. Poor little rich man's money has to go to support the systems which makes his wealth generation possible.


I would gladly pay more in taxes myself to ensure a system with progressive income tax was enacted. It would benefit everyone so much it would benefit me and you too. The benefits are more than you pay in taxes, if you weren't so greedy you would see that.


My parents are decently wealthy and I stand to inherit quite a bit. I don't care that I'll have to pay a good chunk of that in taxes. I paid for a community college degree working full time and taking full time courses. Now I'm at a university, and working to get by on my own. I don't want you money and it wouldn't go to me. If anything I would have to pay higher taxes.

[JoeyT]

91. Yes yes.

We all know you're on the intarwebz. Everyone on here has a masters degree and makes a trillion dollars a year.

Your inheritance should be taxed until you don't see a dime of it. You should pay a 90% tax rate.
I'm not suggesting that for everyone, I'm just suggesting it for you.

[eShirl]

125. Why is it that you sound exactly like a Republican?

wow

[Spoonman]

132. Maybe it's you

that forgot what a Democrat sounded like!

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

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

[Raineyb]

177. You have no clue what an actual Democrat sounds like

And if you think one sounds like a Republican it is YOU who are in the wrong location.

[kestrel91316]

162. You earn "six figures" and yet you whine. Here ya go:

:nopity:

Oh, and you got a lucky break that would have put you on "Easy Street"??? Well bully for you! Some of us have had a whole lot of BAD breaks. And we don't appreciate whining from people who get large inheritances and it's STILL NOT ENOUGH.

[Oregone]

75. "a direct result of government infrastructure"

http://www.faireconomy.org/press_room/2004/forbes_400_richest_americans_they_didnt_do_it_alone

Rich dont currently pay 90%. Warren Buffet (mentioned in that article) has an effective tax rate of 17.7%

[Donnachaidh]

82. +1

:thumbsup:

[PVnRT]

57. 90% is a marginal rate

Besides, what you're talking about is capital gains, not income. Try again.

Risk? If you do nothing with that money, you owe no further taxes on it. If you take the risk and it fails, you can write it off on your taxes. If it succeeds, you end up with more money regardless of the taxes, and capital gains taxes are always lower than income taxes.

Try to think next time before you post Randroid nonsense.

[Donnachaidh]

71. Ahh, guess Joe the Plumber finally found DU.

:eyes: :rofl:

[Spoonman]

74. Is that what the gold star

beside your name indicates?
It looks the same as mine, only mines been there 3 years longer than yours!

[Donnachaidh]

80. ....

:rofl:

Neener neener :rofl:

[laughingliberal]

173. My first thought, too! What is Joe the Plumber doing here? nt

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

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

[Mariana]

94. You think high marginal rates and inheritance taxes are new ideas

in the Democratic Party? Really?

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

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

[Codeine]

98. See ya.

Don't let the door hit ya.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

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

[eridani]

118. That would be 90% of 3 million minus 2 million = 1 million n/t

[eShirl]

124. I'll call you the waaambulance, you poor thing.

:eyes:

[closeupready]

143. Goodbye, then.

n/t

[dysfunctional press]

153. whatever the rate- capital gains should be taxed equally with earned wages.

I stand to inherit a little over $3 million, and I'll be damned before I give %90 to ANY government!

and what exactly did YOU do to earn/deserve that money...? :shrug:

[kestrel91316]

154. You don't understand how the tax rates work. We aren't talking about

taxing the entire $2 million at 90%, lol. There is a low rate 15% on the first X thousand in income. Then as the income climbs, the amounts OVER X thousand and under Y thousand are taxed at 25%. Etc. These are what is known as TAX BRACKETS to lay persons like me. What is being discussed is taxing income amounts OVER $2 million at a much higher rate than they are now.

People who make over $2 million a year need to quit the fucking WHINING about paying higher taxes on their upper levels of income.

If you INHERIT $2 million, guess what? That's not fucking INCOME. That's an (drumroll) inheritance. Tax laws are different. IIRC, the inheritance taxes on amounts under $1 million or so are ZERO, dumbass. I don't know at what point you have to pay an inheritance tax, but that tax is ONLY on the amount above and beyond the untaxed amount.

Oh, and BTW, shady transfers of money to avoid inheritence taxes is a federal offense. People do serious prison time for that, lol. One of my clients is an inheritence tax attorney for the IRS, lol, and delights in nabbing filthy rich tax cheats.

[Taverner]

180. EXACTLY!!! Depending on what you spend on, what you did to invest, and what you make otherwise

Your taxable income is extremely variable

[Raineyb]

171. You've certainly shown your true colors with the "Democrat Party" crap.

I'm sure the Libertarian or Republicans will welcome you. Your ignorance of the concept of marginal tax rates certainly will fit right in.

Your ignorance of a concept doesn't make it stupid. Although it cam make you appear so.

[Taverner]

179. YOU are assuming your taxable income would really be $2 million

Come on, you've done your taxes. Since when has Gross income been taxable income?

Investing in small businesses gets you tons of tax write-offs, thus lowering your taxable income

[kjackson227]

20. I agree with that. Also, for those of us middle class/working poor...

and seniors, I'd like to see the credit card, and vehicle interest tax deductions make a return.

[Taverner]

182. Exactly!!!!

[Rebubula]

27. No

90% is ridiculous and would crush our economy as these people would simply move elsewhere and take the business and jobs with them.

I understand the desire to make people pay more, but 90% is out of line.

For example...Professional Sports and Entertainment. Do you think that we would have any of this if this tax rate was put in place? Don't like sports and don't watch TV\Movies you say??? Well, tens of millions do and millions make their living off of these industries - and I do not mean the rich ones, medium income people (agents, ticketbrokers, camera operators, set designers etc) would be hurt the most.

Again...I understand the frustration but this is not the right fix and is very short sighted.

[SIMPLYB1980]

29. Did all the rich people in American run away when it

was 94% during WWII? No they didn't they stayed and kept making lots of money.

[ipaint]

30. Yes and we all know the US economy began in

1964 when it went from 91% to 77% or perhaps it was 1982 when it went down to 59%.

How did we ever live without sports and movies before 1982? :sarcasm:

[slay]

39. Exactly ipaint!

Let the rich fucks move on and let less greedy people take their place. I can't believe people here on DU standing up for the rich assholes who put us in this situation. Some day people will have to overcome their incredible greed and selfishness.

[Spoonman]

33. How dare you

speak with that level of intelligence! :sarcasm:

I hate to see this type of ignorance posted here, it make ALL Democrats look like the economic idiots republicans try to to claim we are!

Once again, "we" keep giving ammo to the enemy.
This is a direct result of the class envy mantra of our party.
Which by the way is filled with some of the richest people in history!

[HughBeaumont]

121. You know, because that's what WE should all do . . . .

. . . listen to the opinions of people who supported a party that did nothing but aid and abet looting, pointless invasions, risk-shifting and speculation with OUR tax dollars.

[kestrel91316]

165. Male, Texas, 1200 posts in 6 years. Hmmmmm......

The Libertarian and Greedy Old Perverts Parties are thataway, dude >>>>>>>>>>

[Taitertots]

51. Oh no there won't be hollywood and pro sports

Your justification for propping up oligarchs is that we might lose professional sports?

[PVnRT]

61. 90% is a MARGINAL RATE

You are taxed at 90% for income in EXCESS of a certain (very high) amount. Christ.

[Dreamer Tatum]

31. You think *Congress* would do this without putting in loopholes?

No way. No way whatsoever.

I'd be content with elimination of the cap on FICA withholding. Assuming $2MM/yr in W2 income, that's around $140,000 in incremental receipts. If you want to be realistic about increasing income taxes, that's the best way to do it.

[donheld]

32. Here and now

[slay]

35. I couldn't agree more!

Tax the rich fuckers who have ruined this country with no care at all for the people. Even at 90% they'd still be rich fuckers. We LET them make that much money - it's not a fucking right - especially when they abuse it with offshore tax shelters and using it to prop up the Republican party of the rich and stupid. TAX THE FUCKERS INDEED!!!! I am so sick of the Ultra-rich while others LIVE IN TENTS - it makes me sick. :puke:

[Cleita]

37. Yes, we do.

Allowing 10% of the people to own 90% of the wealth makes us a third world country. Wealth needs to be distributed and taxing the rich is one way of doing it.

[Hidden Stillness]

46. Low Taxes on Rich People and Corporations=Recession and Poverty

This is exactly the point--that the economy really started to crumble and collapse when everything, the laws and regulatory system, taxes, everything, shifted from the interests of the general population and society, to the interests of corporations and rich people. What they want ALWAYS hurts the rest of us. The incomes of employees are taxed at a certain rate, on 100% of the paycheck; the incomes of the rich (income tax, not payroll tax, as for middle class and poor prople), are taxed at a lower rate, and only some 37% (or whatever it is down to now) is even taxed. Rich people paid by salary are taxed, so they convert their earnings to stock dividends, and are not taxed at all--on and on, the scams go. Corporate profits, inheritance, all these things are taxed at minimal levels, and there are endless reduction, conversion, shelter and "swap" schemes to reduce it to nothing, or to receive subsidies; they do it all the time.

America worked better when these people were heavily taxed like the rest of us, and the money was used for infrastrucure, to pay for unemployment benefits, food stamps, welfare, Medicare/Medicaid, all the other programs that the American people need from time to time. I read a study several years ago on why the economy was so strong during the 1950s despite two Republican-caused recessions during the middle of the decade, which because things were basically strong, ended quickly. It was because business profit-margins were so tight, so small, (because of high taxes, better wages and benefits, etc.), that they did not fuck around with mergers and aquisitions, stock schemes, purchasing things only to sell them and take a fake "loss" on taxes--all the crap they do now rather than work--and lobbying was then illegal. They spent much more of their small profits on their own businesses--on new equipment, product improvements, etc., and less on speculation because they didn't have the extra money to fuck around with, as they do now. They economy worked on a real basis then.

Also, for those "worried" that the rich people will leave and not pay taxes--asshole, they do not pay taxes now, that is the point; and they are nothing but a total drain on the economy and on society. We don't even have a Government anymore.

[Hannah Bell]

65. "Low Taxes = Recession and Poverty" - yep. it's the economic structure

of banana republics; concentrates money at the top, & those at the top offshore it or put it into speculation, since there are no good income generating investments in real things--precisely *because* the top has most of the money, so the rest don't have much disposable money to buy things.

[krispos42]

53. We also have to stop differentriating between earned and unearned income

Unearned income (like dividends and other capital gains) is taxed at a rate half that of earned income.

This is what Bush's "economically-stimulating tax cuts" actually changed... it slashed the tax rate on unearned income.

[laughingliberal]

174. This, IMHO, punishes work

Wages are taxed more than dividends and capital gains. Repubs love to talk about taxes that "punish success" or "punish wealth." It's past time we started beating the drum about punishing work.

[HamdenRice]

54. There's a stealthier way to do this, which also used to be in the tax code

Make corporate incomes over a certain amount non-deductible to the corporation.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[jinto86]

90. Then what would be the point of say... a doctor working more then 10 hours a week?

If he will have 70,000 if he works 40 hours a week (will make 20,000 for an extra 200,000 made) and 50,000 if he works 10 hours a week, why bother working more then 10 hours a week? Taxing the insanely rich I can get (until the pull their money out of America, and along with them jobs) but taxing someone making say 75,000 or even 100,000 a year that much will just lead to them working less which is a waste of human capital, which for many professions we desperately need.

[Luminous Animal]

112. You don't tax the entire income at the top rate...

It's like this:

Say you make $250,000 and the top tax rate is 90% for those making over 200,000.

For example (and this is just for simplicity's sake)
The first $10,000 you make isn't taxed at all.
The next $20,000 you make is taxed at 10%
The next $20,000 is taxed at 10%
The next $20,000 is taxed at 25%
The next $20,000 is taxed at 35%
The next $20,000 is taxed at 45%
The next $20,000 is taxed at 55%
The next $20,000 is taxed at 65%

and so on and so on. So matter what you tax bracket that you are in, you will come out ahead.

[jinto86]

160. Well thats not what the person ahead if me suggested

Beyond that, there would still be doctors taking a lot of time off (just like I have heard rumors there are now) because at that point there would be no point in making more then 200,000 a year. The difference between 200,000 and 250,000 would be a whole 5,000 dollars. Would you be willing 520 hours (figure about 10 hours a week) to work for 5,000 dollars spread out over a year if you were making that much?

[DireStrike]

64. We need a tax that asymptotically approaches 100%

There is nothing anyone can do to deserve that much wealth, and no reason for them to have that much. They will still be able to buy most of their toys and status symbols at greatly reduced prices. They will, however, have far less political power. This is also a good thing. No individual should have more political power than any other, except elected or duly appointed office holders.

[KillCapitalism]

68. 90% rate over $2M income is not a bad thing.

Thank about it, if you're already pulling down $2M/yr. in income, you're going to be living the good life.

I don't want to hear anyone say "But if they live in NYC or San Francisco, they'll be in poverty on only $2M/yr!"

[Vidar]

86. K&R

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

93. I was just talking with someone

last night who pointed out during the Eisenhower years (I know, it's ancient history to some) the tax rate was at 90% for those earning more than 2 million. :)
I like the idea! Once a person gets to a certain level of income the day to day things needed for life are more than satisfied. Meaning even taxed at 90% they aren't going to go hungry, lose their home or worry about a doctor bill...........

[ctaylors6]

169. I think it was about 90% for $400,000 (married) in Eisenhower yrs

That would be about $2,889,217 in today's dollars using CPI inflation calculator: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

Historical tax rates here: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

In 1941, the highest marginal rate was 81% on $5,000,000 (married). That would be about $73.5m. Can't imagine there were too many people in that category. :)

[nadinbrzezinski]

95. I wish I could recommend this more than once

and at the VERY LEAST 70%

[MindandSoul]

99. Not setting maximum salaries. . . but how about setting a ratio between the lowest and the highest?

We may not be able to set salaries. . .but how about setting an acceptable ration between the lowest paid full time worker in a company and his/her highest paid worker?

I read somewhere that 10 years ago, the ratio for the lowest pay to the highest pay was about 200.
Today, it appears to be over 400! How about setting a ration around 150 to 200?
That is. . .if the lowest paid full time employee made $30,000 a year, the highest paid employee (including CEO) couldn't make more than . . ..$6 million per year???? Doesn't that seem fair enough????

[Greyhound]

115. In Japan, the ratio is about 40:1 and I've never seen a Japanese executive begging at an off-ramp.

[JHB]

159. Maybe in some form, but there are ways around it...

You'd have to find a way to prevent organizational shuffling to circumvent the limit -- for example, pulling all the executives into an (on paper) separate Managment Services company, and their secretaries, receptionists, etc., work for an Office Services contractor, etc. -- so instead of a single company you have network of "independent contractor" bubbles, with the ratio limits applicable within each little bubble but not between them and thus letting the big bubble at the top dodge any sharing.

[tex-wyo-dem]

102. deleted

[BrklynLiberal]

104. OK with me.

[LatteLibertine]

107. The way the system is rigged now

I have to agree.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

[Obamanaut]

120. But first - stop every single one of the conflicts the US is involved in,

bring ALL the troops home, begin the process of closing ALL the military sites in all the other countries.

Otherwise, our elected officials will toss this new-found tax influx down the same rat hole they've been using for years.

[Bill219]

123. +1

[1]

126. hell yeahs! anyone that makes more money than me. you are responsible to pay!

hell yeah. fuck yeah!

make more? pay more.

that includes all y'all.

give it up you stingy motherfuckers. making more than me fuckers that you are.

and you know who you are...

[One_Life_To_Give]

129. Boom for Lawyers?

Tom Brady Inc, Tom Brokaw Inc, Terresa Heinze-Kerry Inc.

Making just one change like the rate won't accomplish much other than moving the income from one place to another. Either way Brady etc are going to have their personnal security people, staff taking care of their properties etc. The money coming in just won't be personal "Income".

[Kansas Wyatt]

130. And rewrite the tax code to ONLY allow them deductions for...

Providing jobs and/or bettering this nation in some way.

That is the part the teabaggers miss about the rich getting tax cuts in their stupid trickle down theory.

The higher rates forced the rich to reinvest back into this country.

[sofa king]

138. It is, after all, wartime.

And I think that 90% should be on all income over 200K, not $2 million, and in this case it should be extended for each year that the U.S. is in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Philippines, and continued for each year that the tax was not in place during those wars.

And I'll go a step farther, too. I want to see a draft enacted, a draft which conscripts only the children of Members of Congress, and any corporate board member or executive officer in the defense industry. I want to see all bonuses to defense executives confiscated during wartime, and, like Smedley Butler suggested, I want to see their base pay reduced to that of a buck-ass private.

And I'll go further than that, too. I'd like to see all the sequestered wartime income held, to be disbursed as development funds to the countries we attack, so that the bastards who started these wars also have to pay to fix the places we destroy.

All wars, no matter how small or splendid, wind up being negative net losses for all participants. The only reason contractors are getting fat right now is because our system is gamed to divert imaginary profits to a select few. Then we all have to pay for it, and only those weasels get over.

Over the course of my life I've seen dozens of happy, deceptive catch lines written out on walls and on the sides of defense industry trucks, saying trite and empty things like "Peace is our Profession." Well, dammit, it's obvious that peace is only their profession if there is no profit in war. So it's high time we take the profit out of war.

[jpljr77]

139. I philosophically disagree. I don't think the Fed Gov't should ever take more than 50%

I know that we need it right now, but that's my opinion.

Instead, just treat capital gains and other investment income as normal income and tax accordingly.

[byronius]

140. FDR, I believe, suggested a 100% tax rate on yearly incomes over a million dollars.

So we make it ten million. Fair.

[Taverner]

185. It has to be a variable - based partly on the economy, partly on inflation, and partly on need

[closeupready]

142. +1

n/t

[valerief]

147. But, but then that money will be put back into the business instead of

exec off-shore accounts. More money in the business will mean hiring more people which will pump money into the Treasury and into circulation via purchases. More purchases means more jobs and it's an endless cycle!!!!

What about the rich? Don't they have rights, too?
:sarcasm:

[bluestateguy]

161. Good luck with that, really.

Can I interest you in some tickets to a World Series game featuring the Chicago Cubs and the Seattle Mariners?

[NeedleCast]

164. No. Ridiculous.

[marlakay]

166. Check history of how much money congress used to make

The early presidents and congressmen were not rich. Now look at who leads us now. They all are rich.

Does that answer why that will NEVER pass???

Its the same reason election finance will never pass.

[Taverner]

183. I thought the founding fathers were rich landowning gentry?

[Thickasabrick]

184. Disagree - I haven't gone that socialist yet. Maybe 60-70 would be good.

[Thickasabrick]

186. I just had another idea - normal tax rate but - NO DEDUCTIONS!! nt