What should be the highest marginal federal tax rate?

[Sbane]

A really vague guideline for what I'd like to see:

0% - <$10,000/yr
10% - $10,000-50,000/yr
20% - $50,000-100,000/yr
30% - $100,000-350,000/yr
40% - $350,000-1,000,000/yr
50% - >$1,000,000/yr

[Ban my account ffs!]

I'd say:

Under the poverty line (which is tied to inflation) 0%

Poverty line to $25,000/year 10%
25,000-$40,000/year 15%
$40,000-70,000/year 20%
$70,000-90,000/year 25%
$90,000-150,000/year 30%
150,000-250,000/year 40%
250,000-500,000/year 50%
500,000-1,000,000/year 60%
1,000,000+ 65%

[CultureKing]

I'd say:

Under the poverty line (which is tied to inflation) 0%

Poverty line to $25,000/year 10%
25,000-$40,000/year 15%
$40,000-70,000/year 20%
$70,000-90,000/year 25%
$90,000-150,000/year 30%
150,000-250,000/year 40%
250,000-500,000/year 50%
500,000-1,000,000/year 60%
1,000,000+ 65%

This one, though for single not joint returns.

[memphis]

I voted greater than 60% but only for people with very bloated salaries. I'd actually consider lowering income taxes if we could substantially increase inheritance taxes. Paris Hiltons really piss me off.

[Torie]

Why not keep it at our levels and toss out the deductions?

What do you think the current level is?

It's 35%. It's really absurd that the top bracket is at around $300,000/yr, too. There's an enormous difference between someone earning $300,000/yr, who lives well but not opulently, and someone earning $1,000,000/yr, beyond which increased income is essentially meaningless in terms of lifestyle.

No, it isn't actually. We have that medicare tax, and itemized deduction phase outs. 

Medicare is only 1.45%. Deductions have nothing directly to do with the tax rate itself, so they're irrelevant for this discussion. (And, in any case, you can't go over the tax rate with deduction eliminations.)

It affects the marginal rate (actually phase outs create a marginal rate bubble). As to medicare, it is  2.9%, but you get to deduct 50% of that, so if you are in a 40% bracket, that is a marginal rate of 2.32% (1.45 + 1.45(.6)).

[Torie]

Over 60% for every dollar earned say over 1.5 million.

I'd probably have it increase pretty severely as you go up the scale...my over tax curve would probably be fairly flat and then increasing sharply as you get over 300,000/year (Joint say 500,000)...I'd also want to throw in cost of living into the equation...300,000 in the Boswash isn't the same as the pissant praries...so if you're living in a cheap area and make a ton of $$ (if that's possible)...jack up the tax.


Someone has to pay for the bloated government they voted for.

What is so magical about 300K under than that few people earn more than that? 

[TeePee4Prez]

Including OASDI?

Anyway without I'd say 42%, but that's for over $3 million.

[bullmoose88]

Over 60% for every dollar earned say over 1.5 million.

I'd probably have it increase pretty severely as you go up the scale...my over tax curve would probably be fairly flat and then increasing sharply as you get over 300,000/year (Joint say 500,000)...I'd also want to throw in cost of living into the equation...300,000 in the Boswash isn't the same as the pissant praries...so if you're living in a cheap area and make a ton of $$ (if that's possible)...jack up the tax.


Someone has to pay for the bloated government they voted for.

What is so magical about 300K under than that few people earn more than that? 

Arbitrary number I used to demarcate some line between the upper middle and upper classes...given my preferences for tax that factors in cost of living, that number (once a study finds the national average) can vary between regions (higher in socal and say boswash for example).

[Хahar 🤔]

Over 60% for every dollar earned say over 1.5 million.

I'd probably have it increase pretty severely as you go up the scale...my over tax curve would probably be fairly flat and then increasing sharply as you get over 300,000/year (Joint say 500,000)...I'd also want to throw in cost of living into the equation...300,000 in the Boswash isn't the same as the pissant praries...so if you're living in a cheap area and make a ton of $$ (if that's possible)...jack up the tax.


Someone has to pay for the bloated government they voted for.

What is so magical about 300K under than that few people earn more than that? 

Arbitrary number I used to demarcate some line between the upper middle and upper classes...given my preferences for tax that factors in cost of living, that number (once a study finds the national average) can vary between regions (higher in socal and say boswash for example).

$300,000 is hardly upper-class. Upper-class is, say, $1,000,000 or so.

[12th Doctor]

This is how I would do it.

Basically, the highest rate on incomes of up to $1,000,000 would be 35% (which I would have kick in sometime around 500k).  Once you get up to $1,000,000, you would then be taxed 50% on every dollar you made over that amount, which would be treated as a seperate income.  In otherwords, if you made $1,500,000 last year, you would be taxed $350,000 on the first million you made, and then an additional $250,000 on the $500,000 remaining, for a total of $600,000.  If you made $2,000,000, then your total would be $750,000 and so on.

[Хahar 🤔]

My ideal plan:

Every dollar up to $5,000: Not taxed.
Every dollar between $5,000 and $10,000: 1%
Every dollar between $10,000 and $15,000: 2%
Every dollar between $15,000 and $20,000: 3%
Every dollar between $20,000 and $25,000: 4%
Every dollar between $25,000 and $30,000: 5%
Every dollar between $30,000 and $35,000: 6%
Every dollar between $35,000 and $40,000: 7%
Every dollar between $40,000 and $45,000: 8%
Every dollar between $45,000 and $50,000: 9%
Every dollar between $50,000 and $55,000: 10%
Every dollar between $55,000 and $60,000: 11%
Every dollar between $60,000 and $65,000: 12%
Every dollar between $65,000 and $70,000: 13%
Every dollar between $70,000 and $75,000: 14%
Every dollar between $75,000 and $80,000: 15%
Every dollar between $80,000 and $85,000: 16%
Every dollar between $85,000 and $90,000: 17%
Every dollar between $90,000 and $95,000: 18%
Every dollar between $95,000 and $100,000: 19%
Every dollar between $100,000 and $105,000: 20%

And thenceforth, up to $400,000, after which all income is taxed at 80%.

Thus, someone making $10,000 pays $50 in taxes (0.5%). Someone making $50,000 pays $2,250 in taxes (4.5%). However, someone making $100,000,000 pays $79,838,000 in taxes (79.8%). The tax rate gets ever higher.

[CPT MikeyMike]

Eliminate most deductions, reduce discretionary spending, and find ways to make up revenue (e.g. surcharge tax).

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Sam Spade]

Why not keep it at our levels and toss out the deductions?

What do you think the current level is?

It's 35%. It's really absurd that the top bracket is at around $300,000/yr, too. There's an enormous difference between someone earning $300,000/yr, who lives well but not opulently, and someone earning $1,000,000/yr, beyond which increased income is essentially meaningless in terms of lifestyle.

No, it isn't actually. We have that medicare tax, and itemized deduction phase outs. 

35% plus all other taxes in NY = a tad over 50%, I think 52%-53%.  Just FYI.  Something to keep in mind.

[Bacon King]

I agree with Verily here 100%.

[Bono]

If think a good compromise with those proposing sky-high taxes is to only tax consumption. That way, they can revel in their class-envy, knowing that enjoyment of the money they have us curtailed, and people like me who just want to save for early retirement would be left largely unaffected.

That said, I'd get behind a flat tax of 25% or less.

[King]

Some of these proposed tax brackets in this thread just don't make sense.  After taxes, people who make $1,000,000 would have less than somebody who made $750,000.  That kind of variance in the tax system would completely eliminate the incentive of increased revenue and ruin our economy because business owners will start laying off workers and downsizing, not because it is better for the business, but because the less you own the better off you are in these tax systems. 

I believe the progressive tax system is good idea, but higher incomes can only be taxed so much before it starts to become a bad thing.

EDIT:  Looking at them, Xahar's is the by far the worst and the poor kid calls it an "ideal tax system."

With Xahar's plan, a hard-working Harvard PhD-carrying surgeon who makes $400,000 a year would only receiving a meager $84,000 after taxes while some high school dropout ITT tech state-employed asswipe with a $110k salary would receive $86,900 after taxes.  That's completely absurd.  It's a good thing he stopped at 400k; somebody could win the lottery and have to go on welfare because of it!

[bullmoose88]

Some of these proposed tax brackets in this thread just don't make sense.  After taxes, people who make $1,000,000 would have less than somebody who made $750,000.  That kind of variance in the tax system would completely eliminate the incentive of increased revenue and ruin our economy because business owners will start laying off workers and downsizing, not because it is better for the business, but because the less you own the better off you are in these tax systems. 

Do you have an example here?  Because with marginal tax rates both the 750k earner and the 1M earner pay the same amount of tax on the first 750,000 of income (assuming each has the same type of income)...its for the additional 250k where the 1M earner pays more...the 1M earner still nets more money than the 750k earner.

[King]

Some of these proposed tax brackets in this thread just don't make sense.  After taxes, people who make $1,000,000 would have less than somebody who made $750,000.  That kind of variance in the tax system would completely eliminate the incentive of increased revenue and ruin our economy because business owners will start laying off workers and downsizing, not because it is better for the business, but because the less you own the better off you are in these tax systems. 

Do you have an example here?  Because with marginal tax rates both the 750k earner and the 1M earner pay the same amount of tax on the first 750,000 of income (assuming each has the same type of income)...its for the additional 250k where the 1M earner pays more...the 1M earner still nets more money than the 750k earner.

Yeah, I just made up 750k to 1 mil, but still there are some areas where the value of thousands of dollars is lost.  (Snowguy's where a 450k earner at 50% [225k] makes more than a 550k earner at 60% [220k]).

[??????????]

However, someone making $100,000,000 pays $79,838,000 in taxes (79.8%). The tax rate gets ever higher.

Indirect tax on the poor. No free person should EVER pay more then 45% of their income in taxes.

[War on Want]

However, someone making $100,000,000 pays $79,838,000 in taxes (79.8%). The tax rate gets ever higher.

Indirect tax on the poor. No free person should EVER pay more then 45% of their income in taxes.

Why? Because you say so.

[Хahar 🤔]

Some of these proposed tax brackets in this thread just don't make sense.  After taxes, people who make $1,000,000 would have less than somebody who made $750,000.  That kind of variance in the tax system would completely eliminate the incentive of increased revenue and ruin our economy because business owners will start laying off workers and downsizing, not because it is better for the business, but because the less you own the better off you are in these tax systems. 

I believe the progressive tax system is good idea, but higher incomes can only be taxed so much before it starts to become a bad thing.

EDIT:  Looking at them, Xahar's is the by far the worst and the poor kid calls it an "ideal tax system."

With Xahar's plan, a hard-working Harvard PhD-carrying surgeon who makes $400,000 a year would only receiving a meager $84,000 after taxes while some high school dropout ITT tech state-employed asswipe with a $110k salary would receive $86,900 after taxes.  That's completely absurd.  It's a good thing he stopped at 400k; somebody could win the lottery and have to go on welfare because of it!

I'll admit: I spent all of five minutes on it.

[NDN]

However, someone making $100,000,000 pays $79,838,000 in taxes (79.8%). The tax rate gets ever higher.

Indirect tax on the poor. No free person should EVER pay more then 45% of their income in taxes.

Why? Because you say so.

So you'd be happy to have half of what you earned go to people you don't know then?

[??????????]

However, someone making $100,000,000 pays $79,838,000 in taxes (79.8%). The tax rate gets ever higher.

Indirect tax on the poor. No free person should EVER pay more then 45% of their income in taxes.

Why? Because you say so.

No, because if you raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations all they do is pass the extra costs on to me and you. And no individual, no matter how much they make should EVER give more then half of what they make to the government, it's not morally, ethically or constitutionally right.

[War on Want]

However, someone making $100,000,000 pays $79,838,000 in taxes (79.8%). The tax rate gets ever higher.

Indirect tax on the poor. No free person should EVER pay more then 45% of their income in taxes.

Why? Because you say so.

So you'd be happy to have half of what you earned go to people you don't know then?

If it benefits all of society, yes.

[??????????]

...no individual, no matter how much they make should EVER give more then half of what they make to the government, it's not morally, ethically or constitutionally right.

I wonder how some of the people in this thread would feel about being made to give up half of their house or belongings to strangers. For the greater good of course.

Actually, I was reading about this new home mortgage bailout plan and according to the paper, under a govt backed mortgage, if you sell your house before 5 years 50% of the home value goes to Uncle Sam. So, we are well on our way to the "greater good".