What percentage should the rich pay in taxes?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Income tax should be abolished.

Failing that, a flat tax of $1,000 per employed person.

Wait a flat fee Good incentive to never get a job or only hire off books, i guess

The absolute best taxation system I can think of is a national sales tax as the only form of tax at all.  That way, there are no loopholes, there is no filling out forms, and everyone, even those who acquired their money illegally, pays.

[Antonio the Sixth]

99% top marginal rate.

[RFayette]

I don't think we should have an income tax at all; I'd rather just have a flat sales and capital-gains tax. 

[DC Al Fine]

You guys have to remember that if we taxed the rich at 100% (those making over $1MM a year), the take would only be $616 billion, which is no where near enough to fund anything like universal healthcare, etc.

Ah yes, but a 100% tax is not supposed to be a revenue raiser; but like a carbon or tobacco tax - a way to discourage an undesirable activity.

... You think it will discourage people from going after and/or accepting a higher salary?

Corporations are currently engaged in an arms race, giving executives a huge amount of cash because everyone other company is doing. That means a) companies became more top heavy and less efficient and b) the public sector can no longer compete for talent (unless it follows suit and awards ridiculous salaries for its top brass as well, which nobody wants).

While I'd love the left to give tax professionals like myself some additional business, such a measure is unlikely to be ineffective even by sin tax standards. A CEO is not a guy making $45,000 a year, and can take all sorts of measures to defer or avoid income tax.

The people who will be worst hit by this tax will be the people not quite rich or sophisticated enough to hire a tax planner.

I don't think we should have an income tax at all; I'd rather just have a flat sales and capital-gains tax. 

Capital gains are income.

[DC Al Fine]

To answer the OP, top marginal rates start to become counterproductive and produce negative side effects if they go much over 50%. I don't really see a need for punitive taxation, so a 50% combined top marginal rate is about as high as I would go.

[Frodo]

Assuming we are referring to the personal income tax, about what they are currently paying (~40%).  I see little point in raising it higher. 

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

You guys have to remember that if we taxed the rich at 100% (those making over $1MM a year), the take would only be $616 billion, which is no where near enough to fund anything like universal healthcare, etc.

Ah yes, but a 100% tax is not supposed to be a revenue raiser; but like a carbon or tobacco tax - a way to discourage an undesirable activity.

... You think it will discourage people from going after and/or accepting a higher salary?

Corporations are currently engaged in an arms race, giving executives a huge amount of cash because everyone other company is doing. That means a) companies became more top heavy and less efficient and b) the public sector can no longer compete for talent (unless it follows suit and awards ridiculous salaries for its top brass as well, which nobody wants).


While I'd love the left to give tax professionals like myself some additional business, such a measure is unlikely to be ineffective even by sin tax standards. A CEO is not a guy making $45,000 a year, and can take all sorts of measures to defer or avoid income tax.

The people who will be worst hit by this tax will be the people not quite rich or sophisticated enough to hire a tax planner.

This doesn't seem to answer my point Just has the standard, "oh capital flow and hurts the middle incomes" response. Just set it as ratio if the overall cap tax is too awful, so nobody in one company/organisation can earn more than 15 times the bottom rung (and cap bonuses, severence packages etc. to prevent people walking round it).

If the capital flows, it flows. The country will live.

[Kingpoleon]

Is this total tax burden, or just the federal income tax burden?  Putting aside the rate structure, as a general rule, I would prefer that the total tax burden of anyone not exceed 50% of their income.

[Pyro]

Abolish the class system.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I think the top tax rate is fine where it is, though we do need to institute the buffet rule. I'd be willing to sign a 45% top rate (or similar surtax), but I don't think it's needed to balance the budget.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Ideally, 0% (would abolish the income tax, and promote sales taxes, or in Australia's case, the GST plus whatever states want to do) as main method of taxation.

[Orser67]

I'd want the top federal income tax to be around 50% for those making around $1 million per year (2 million for couples), with an AMT of around  40% for those people. I'd also want to have a progressive estate tax starting at $1 million.

[Torie]

To answer the OP, top marginal rates start to become counterproductive and produce negative side effects if they go much over 50%. I don't really see a need for punitive taxation, so a 50% combined top marginal rate is about as high as I would go.

Would you favor say a top marginal rate (and this is for all taxes combined, not just federal), that goes a bit higher than 50%, say to 55%, until such time as the 50% number is hit based on all taxable income (and that means with all schedule A deductions phased out), rather than just the top marginal rate? I don't have a problem with a guy earning 2 million, paying half of that amount in total taxes (federal, state and local). But I would not want to go higher than that. This metric does not represent that much of a tax increase on very high income earners than the present regime, at least for those who don't game the system playing hard the deduction game, e.g. taking deductions for charitable contributions of highly appreciated art works, where they escape paying capital gains on such art, while taking a deduction for its full fair market value. Also the pension deductions should be cut back for such high income earners.