Preferred Individual Top Income Tax Rate

[Senator Napoleon]

It should not exceed 50%, but the brackets should be structured in a way to make taxation progressive and fair.

[© Tweed the Younger]

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.

or a confiscation.

[opebo]

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.

With the kind of 100% tax I envision, they wouldn't be able to barter or emigrate afterwards.  Or do any further crimes of any kind, if you see what I mean.

[I left.]

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.

With the kind of 100% tax I envision, they wouldn't be able to barter or emigrate afterwards.  Or do any further crimes of any kind, if you see what I mean.

I see you've learned to avoid death points?

[cavalcade]

Federal 40%, and let the states sort it out from there.

[RomneyGekko Situation Hairgel]

Federal 42%.  No caps on SSI/Medicare.  Exempt Self-Employment taxes up to $20,000 to encourage hiring.

[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?

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.

Everyone wouldn't get poorer, just the rich. And I don't see the problem there.

[Putting the 'red' in 'redneck' since 1991]

49% on all income over $1,000,000,000.

[I left.]

49% on all income over $1,000,000,000.

How many people do you think would be affected by this?

[Green State]

90%

The rich only get their  money through manipulating it and using the middle & poor classes!

[opebo]

90%

The rich only get their  money through manipulating it and using the middle & poor classes!

Good man!  Welcome to the forum - love the signature.

[MilesC56]

70% seems fair to me.

[Governor Scott]

About 43% or so.

90%

The rich only get their  money through manipulating it and using the middle & poor classes!

I don't entirely disagree, but I think it's safe to say: troll confirmed.

[ModerateCoward]

about 80  or so

[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.

Everyone wouldn't get poorer, just the rich. And I don't see the problem there.

Lol. You would reduce overall economic growth, thus making everyone poorer. As I pointed out rates above 50% are generally revenue-reducing, meaning that their negative effect on GDP are fairly substantial.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

About 50% or so but you would have to consider the whole tax code and I would envision significant changes to it at all levels.

[phk]

Depends on how things are going.

[realisticidealist]

Like most economic issues, I try not to weigh in unless I have seen empirics/regressions/econometrics and understand the theory behind it. I am not yet to this point on taxes. What I can say is that basing tax rates on personal whimsies or some misplaced moral sentiment is both short-sighted and destined for many unintended consequences. I neither believe inherently in soaking the rich nor defeating some tyrannically vampiric government, though I believe that the income tax is an important and necessary tool at the government's disposal. There are many variables to consider, from the width of the brackets to their height to their multiplicity (though I intuitively prefer an upward-sloping continuous function rather than a piece-wise one for a number of reasons), not to mention various different institutions levying said taxes.

If someone like Beet or phnkrocket or ag want to chime in, I'm all ears, but forgive me if I disregard the notions of non-economists or at least of non-quantitatively-based individuals.

[Gustaf]

Like most economic issues, I try not to weigh in unless I have seen empirics/regressions/econometrics and understand the theory behind it. I am not yet to this point on taxes. What I can say is that basing tax rates on personal whimsies or some misplaced moral sentiment is both short-sighted and destined for many unintended consequences. I neither believe inherently in soaking the rich nor defeating some tyrannically vampiric government, though I believe that the income tax is an important and necessary tool at the government's disposal. There are many variables to consider, from the width of the brackets to their height to their multiplicity (though I intuitively prefer an upward-sloping continuous function rather than a piece-wise one for a number of reasons), not to mention various different institutions levying said taxes.

If someone like Beet or phnkrocket or ag want to chime in, I'm all ears, but forgive me if I disregard the notions of non-economists or at least of non-quantitatively-based individuals.

One of the problems with income tax is that it is one of those taxes that hurt the economy the most. After a lots of back and forths on the issue I think that it has been settled that there is a  fairly high intertemporal elasticity of labour supply on the macro level (I want to emphasize that I think this to be true, because I suspect I was given a biased perspective on this by my education). Thus, higher taxes on income mean fewer hours worked and thereby lower GDP.

This effect becomes especially marked at high marginal rates, which is what I've been saying in this thread.

There are still plenty of reasons to have income taxes, of course, but it is rather dubious to have them at the high rates some people here seem to want.

[Pacific Councillor Big Wiggly Style]

Little late to the party, but I'd say somewhere between 22% and 28% sounds about right. I support a flat tax, of course.

[Supersonic]

I think it's currently 45% in the UK currently, cut from 50% in March.

Though if I had my way, I'd lower it to 40%, with the chance of further reductions depending on the state of the economy. Ideally, it could be 35%.