Preferred Individual Top Income Tax Rate

[Frodo]

As far as the United States is concerned, what would be your preferred top individual income tax rate? 

[Assistant to the Regional Manager Cathcon]

It seems wrong for the government to take the majority of wealth of any man under taxes. So I put 40.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

70% seems fair. The top rate was greater than or equal to that from 1936-1980.

[President Marokai]

I feel like I've seen this question asked a million times, but 60-70%. The issue for me is not the rates themselves, necessarily, but the amount of brackets and how progressive the overall income tax system is. Right now, it's not very.

[shua]

30%. If you reduce tax expenditures, this could bring in more revenue than currently even though the rate is lower.

[fezzyfestoon]

30%. If you reduce tax expenditures, this could bring in more revenue than currently even though the rate is lower.

That has never and will never happen. It's just an untruth at this point. A novel concept that has been proven time and again to be inaccurate.

[shua]

30%. If you reduce tax expenditures, this could bring in more revenue than currently even though the rate is lower.

That has never and will never happen. It's just an untruth at this point. A novel concept that has been proven time and again to be inaccurate.

How so? The Simpson-Bowles Commission suggested an even lower rate. There are plenty of generous deductions and credits out there that go to high income earners. There's just not the political will to reform them.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

30%. If you reduce tax expenditures, this could bring in more revenue than currently even though the rate is lower.

That has never and will never happen. It's just an untruth at this point. A novel concept that has been proven time and again to be inaccurate.

How so? The Simpson-Bowles Commission suggested an even lower rate. There are plenty of generous deductions and credits out there that go to high income earners. There's just not the political will to reform them.

Well, obviously there are plenty of deductions that need to be gotten rid of. Romney can deduct mortgage interest, but someone making $75k can't deduct student loan interest? Ridiculous.

Anyways, obviously taxing capital gains the same as earned income would raise a ton of taxes.

[fezzyfestoon]

30%. If you reduce tax expenditures, this could bring in more revenue than currently even though the rate is lower.

That has never and will never happen. It's just an untruth at this point. A novel concept that has been proven time and again to be inaccurate.

I dunno. The Simpson-Bowles Commission suggested an even lower rate. There are plenty of generous deductions and credits out there that go to high income earners. There's just not the political will to reform them.

No, no, nevermind. I was thinking of something else.

[shua]

30%. If you reduce tax expenditures, this could bring in more revenue than currently even though the rate is lower.

That has never and will never happen. It's just an untruth at this point. A novel concept that has been proven time and again to be inaccurate.

I dunno. The Simpson-Bowles Commission suggested an even lower rate. There are plenty of generous deductions and credits out there that go to high income earners. There's just not the political will to reform them.

No, no, nevermind. I was thinking of something else.

Yeah, I can see how my terminology could be misunderstood.  Lowering the top individual income tax rate by itself from where it is now isn't going to increase revenue (though a case might be made for the corporate rate, but even that is far from certain).

[bullmoose88]

It seems wrong for the government to take the majority of wealth of any man under taxes. So I put 40.

Just because the top marginal rate could be >50% doesn't necessarily mean the income tax robs one of the majority of his wealth.

[Assistant to the Regional Manager Cathcon]

It seems wrong for the government to take the majority of wealth of any man under taxes. So I put 40.

Just because the top marginal rate could be >50% doesn't necessarily mean the income tax robs one of the majority of his wealth.

Well a majority of yearly income.

[bullmoose88]

It seems wrong for the government to take the majority of wealth of any man under taxes. So I put 40.

Just because the top marginal rate could be >50% doesn't necessarily mean the income tax robs one of the majority of his wealth.

Well a majority of yearly income.

Or the majority of his/her income.  It can, but we'd have to know more about that person's yearly income and the actual tax rates etc.

[Gustaf]

I think there is a general consensus that tax rates above 50% don't really generate any revenue. I guess that if one really loves redistribution it can still make sense to support it though.

[opebo]

I think there is a general consensus that tax rates above 50% don't really generate any revenue. I guess that if one really loves redistribution it can still make sense to support it though.

Precisely!  Which is why my top rate would be, in a sense, 100%.

[t_host1]

25 and 10, everyone pays the same amount on their accrued adjusted income.

[Hatman]

How much does the highest salaried person make? Whatever % would leave that person with 200k/year sounds good. No one needs more than that amount.

[Torie]

How much does the highest salaried person make? Whatever % would leave that person with 200k/year sounds good. No one needs more than that amount.

So you want a marginal tax rate of 100% for income in excess of 200K per year?

[muon2]

How much does the highest salaried person make? Whatever % would leave that person with 200k/year sounds good. No one needs more than that amount.

So you want a marginal tax rate of 100% for income in excess of 200K per year?

Sounds like the Occupy plan. A hard cap on income from all sources is needed mathematically to achieve the wealth disparity reduction they espouse.

[Redalgo]

50% would be my preferred individual top income tax rate, if all else was just as I want it to be. In a country like the United States I would be willing to go higher only for redistributive purposes.

[Torie]

How much does the highest salaried person make? Whatever % would leave that person with 200k/year sounds good. No one needs more than that amount.

So you want a marginal tax rate of 100% for income in excess of 200K per year?

Sounds like the Occupy plan. A hard cap on income from all sources is needed mathematically to achieve the wealth disparity reduction they espouse.

It would be a great way to turbocharge the barter system.

On a side note, when Ingmar Bergman realized that his marginal tax rate in Sweden was 101%, he emigrated.

[Hatman]

How much does the highest salaried person make? Whatever % would leave that person with 200k/year sounds good. No one needs more than that amount.

So you want a marginal tax rate of 100% for income in excess of 200K per year?

I guess that's one way of looking at it. But, I would only say approaching 100%, but never at.

[I Can't Get That Sound You Make, Out Of My Head]

50%, though in the States it should be a little higher to solve budgetary problems.

[Gustaf]

How much does the highest salaried person make? Whatever % would leave that person with 200k/year sounds good. No one needs more than that amount.

So you want a marginal tax rate of 100% for income in excess of 200K per year?

Sounds like the Occupy plan. A hard cap on income from all sources is needed mathematically to achieve the wealth disparity reduction they espouse.

It would be a great way to turbocharge the barter system.

On a side note, when Ingmar Bergman realized that his marginal tax rate in Sweden was 101%, he emigrated.

He was actually arrested by the police in the middle of a rehearsal at the theatre. Then he left the country in protest. Astrid Lindgren, author of Pippi Longstocking and other children stories, wrote a story about the 100%+ tax rates she was paying, which is often credited with contributing to the centre-right finally winning in 1976.

I don't fully understand why people think equality is so important that it is preferable to make everyone poorer just to achieve it.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

Firstly I want to know the situation re tax credits.

Secondly I want to know the situation re taxes other then income taxes.

Assuming both are identical to the present situation in America... probably no lower then 40%, maybe 50%. At the same time I'd be increasing the tax rates on the middle class... because mathematically speaking you can't levy enough money through income taxes on the top few percent to make a dent in the deficit... the middle class is where most of the income is.