What should the highest income tax bracket rate be?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 12:35:50 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  What should the highest income tax bracket rate be?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Poll
Question: Regarding an income tax, I think it should be:
#1
a progressive system with rates between 1% and 25%
 
#2
a progressive system with rates between 1% and 50%
 
#3
a progressive system with rates between 1% and 75%
 
#4
a progressive system with rates between 1% and 100%
 
#5
a flat system with a rate between 1% and 25%
 
#6
a flat system with a rate between 26% and 50%
 
#7
a flat system with a rate between 51% and 75%
 
#8
a flat system with a rate between 76% and 100%
 
#9
there should be no income tax
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 67

Author Topic: What should the highest income tax bracket rate be?  (Read 6582 times)
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: September 28, 2011, 09:14:27 PM »

Um, TJ.  The income tax rates are structured such that the first $8,500 in income is taxed at 10%, then the income after that up to $34,500 is taxed at 15%, then the income up to $83,600 is taxed at 25%, and so on.  It's a continuous line.  I admire the sentiment though.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: September 28, 2011, 09:15:44 PM »
« Edited: September 28, 2011, 09:47:16 PM by TJ in Cleve »

Dang! I did all that for nothing then.

Well, in any event that makes it even more unnecessarily complex, though less ridiculous.

Edit: The graphs should be correct now.
Logged
Link
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,426
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: September 29, 2011, 11:18:11 AM »

A progressive system with rates between 1 and 100%.

We should look to the obvious lesson of history for the ideal top rate - 70%, speaking very conservatively.  Though I would have no objection to 90%

Progressive income tax, with rates going from 0% to 90% (maybe 100% for the most insane incomes). Of course that's not gonna happen in my lifetime.

90 and 100% tax rates?!  Why don't you just throw them in jail while you are at it?  50% is the upper limit of what is reasonable.  If the country can't meet its obligations by confiscating 50% of people's income over say 5 million dollars a year it deserves to go bankrupt.
Logged
Insula Dei
belgiansocialist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,326
Belgium


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: September 29, 2011, 11:38:45 AM »

It's not in as much about the state's obligations, as about the people's needs, you know.
Logged
RIP Robert H Bork
officepark
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,030
Czech Republic


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: September 29, 2011, 01:39:57 PM »

Ideally, no income tax, although I realize that that's currently impossible.

As I've said before, I'd never accept a rate (flat or progressive) higher than 50% for anyone.

Also:

90 and 100% tax rates?!  Why don't you just throw them in jail while you are at it?  50% is the upper limit of what is reasonable.  If the country can't meet its obligations by confiscating 50% of people's income over say 5 million dollars a year it deserves to go bankrupt.

AMEN!
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: September 29, 2011, 03:06:36 PM »

You get big deadweight loss problems with tax rates north of 40%.

It's better to have a lot of smaller taxes. VAT, Sales, SS, Income, Sin, etc than to have a single high tax.
Logged
courts
Ghost_white
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,466
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: September 29, 2011, 03:15:49 PM »

You get big deadweight loss problems with tax rates north of 40%.

It's better to have a lot of smaller taxes. VAT, Sales, SS, Income, Sin, etc than to have a single high tax.
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,714


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: September 29, 2011, 04:31:42 PM »

You get big deadweight loss problems with tax rates north of 40%.

Why is that in particular?
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: September 29, 2011, 05:41:21 PM »

I think economic research tends to point to rates above 50% or so being rather pointless, in the sense that they actually lose the government revenue. The only real point of them is to make people feel better.

So I'd go for a progressive system with the highest rates somewhere around 50%.

I think the problem with continuous functions that people are proposing here might be that it becomes hard for people to understand both the policy debate on taxation and their own budget decisions. 
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: September 29, 2011, 05:45:51 PM »

You get big deadweight loss problems with tax rates north of 40%.

Why is that in particular?

Because, it's kind of a mathematical identity, but deadweight loss increases at a rate of (taxation)^2.

Though I should rephrase, DWL wont occur, more likely the case you'll get evasion.
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: October 14, 2011, 08:43:26 PM »

Consumption tax only. Though taxes are a needed thing for the running of government. Taxing savings is wrong, taxing capital gains is wrong, income tax is wrong. The only fair taxing policy is a consumption tax. The 16th amendments ratification was at best dubious and at worst political usurpation by the cabal that formed the current "national bank" Aka the Federal Reserve.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,509
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: October 15, 2011, 05:18:02 PM »

Generally prefer a progressive income tax system with the top bracket set at 40%.   
Logged
Nichlemn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: October 16, 2011, 09:32:41 AM »

If we're going to have a progressive tax structure, I say we eliminate the bracket system and replace it with a continuous function to determine the rate. I don't think having piecewise discontinuities is a good idea and creates unnecessary distortions, especially when we could just as easily use some other kind of function.

I've always thought about doing that, but I don't know what the exact effects would be, if any.

People need to use calculus to find out how much tax they owe.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,419
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: October 16, 2011, 05:45:25 PM »

Besides, if you put this sort of thing to an explicit vote, as mentioned above, I suspect we will see that most people want a low tax society, and therefore lower government spending than currently.

Only in the US, where people have been brainwashed by the anti-State propaganda for decades.

Also, LOL at the idea that "low taxes=low government spending." Have some of us learned nothing from Reagan and GW Bush?
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: October 16, 2011, 05:48:40 PM »

Besides, if you put this sort of thing to an explicit vote, as mentioned above, I suspect we will see that most people want a low tax society, and therefore lower government spending than currently.

Only in the US, where people have been brainwashed by the anti-State propaganda for decades.

Also, LOL at the idea that "low taxes=low government spending." Have some of us learned nothing from Reagan and GW Bush?

Ah yes, what low taxes those were!!!
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: October 16, 2011, 09:39:22 PM »

If we're going to have a progressive tax structure, I say we eliminate the bracket system and replace it with a continuous function to determine the rate. I don't think having piecewise discontinuities is a good idea and creates unnecessary distortions, especially when we could just as easily use some other kind of function.
I've always thought about doing that, but I don't know what the exact effects would be, if any.
People need to use calculus to find out how much tax they owe.

No they wouldn't, just algebra. All you would have to do is type the function into a calculator. No derivatives or integrals would be necessary. The calculation would actually be quicker than the current one.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: October 16, 2011, 09:56:39 PM »

I don't really care, I just want the people alive now to pay more of their fair share instead of pushing more and more off onto future generations.
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: October 24, 2011, 09:27:04 PM »

Depends on the circumstances, doesn't it? And also what you're trying to do. I think it's fairly clear, though, that the top rate should be significantly higher than the rate which ordinary people pay. There's also no point having a billion and twenty three different rates.

At the same time, of course, tax havens should be nuked.

I don't understand why British law permits tax exile. Nuking might be a bit far, but I would certainly support an invasion of Liechtenstein.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: October 25, 2011, 06:00:06 AM »

I think economic research tends to point to rates above 50% or so being rather pointless, in the sense that they actually lose the government revenue. The only real point of them is to make people feel better.

Actually no, the point to high marginal rates is neither raising revenue or 'making people feel better', it is to try to reduce the power of the elite.
Logged
Nichlemn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: October 25, 2011, 08:25:47 AM »

I think economic research tends to point to rates above 50% or so being rather pointless, in the sense that they actually lose the government revenue. The only real point of them is to make people feel better.

Actually no, the point to high marginal rates is neither raising revenue or 'making people feel better', it is to try to reduce the power of the elite.


Heaven forbid Bill Gates have more money for his foundation. I assume that's not what you mean by the "power of the elite", but I'm not sure exactly what it might be and what is so dangerous about it. If it's to do with political or media influence, things like campaign finance laws seem far more effective.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: October 25, 2011, 08:50:52 AM »

I think economic research tends to point to rates above 50% or so being rather pointless, in the sense that they actually lose the government revenue. The only real point of them is to make people feel better.

Actually no, the point to high marginal rates is neither raising revenue or 'making people feel better', it is to try to reduce the power of the elite.


lol. It isn't, because it doesn't. The traditional elites were a lot more powerful back in those days than they are now - largely because they have the resources to game a complicated tax code.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: October 25, 2011, 11:57:47 AM »

lol. It isn't, because it doesn't. The traditional elites were a lot more powerful back in those days than they are now - largely because they have the resources to game a complicated tax code.

Absolutely ridiculous, Gustaf.  Power is precisely and exactly the amount of money you have.  If you have more money, you have more power.  They have more money now, relative to their subjects.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: October 25, 2011, 12:21:02 PM »

lol. It isn't, because it doesn't. The traditional elites were a lot more powerful back in those days than they are now - largely because they have the resources to game a complicated tax code.

Absolutely ridiculous, Gustaf.  Power is precisely and exactly the amount of money you have.  If you have more money, you have more power.  They have more money now, relative to their subjects.

But you yourself, I imagine, would agree that most wealth is inherited and not earned in the form of an annual salary, correct?

True power wouldn't even be subject to income taxation.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: October 25, 2011, 01:24:10 PM »

But you yourself, I imagine, would agree that most wealth is inherited and not earned in the form of an annual salary, correct?

nothing in my post mentioned a 'salary', Frn.

True power wouldn't even be subject to income taxation.

oh good lord man.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,419
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: October 25, 2011, 06:02:11 PM »

I think economic research tends to point to rates above 50% or so being rather pointless, in the sense that they actually lose the government revenue. The only real point of them is to make people feel better.

Actually no, the point to high marginal rates is neither raising revenue or 'making people feel better', it is to try to reduce the power of the elite.


lol. It isn't, because it doesn't. The traditional elites were a lot more powerful back in those days than they are now - largely because they have the resources to game a complicated tax code.

The current tax code is incredibly complicated and full of loopholes.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.057 seconds with 15 queries.