What should be the highest marginal federal tax rate?

[War on Want]

...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, say, half of their house for strangers. For the greater good of course.

See this is where it gets very, very stupid with tax arguments. Everybody also looks out for their self interests in the end and if that is true why the hell do conservatives get so pissed off at the rich being taxed more than 50% if it benefits the bottom 30% of society? They still have a good life, with plentiful amounts of money and they are contributing to society.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

0-20,000                    0%
20,000-50,000           3%
50,000-100,000         5%
100,000-200,000       8%
200,000-400,000       10%
400,000-1,000,000    16%
1,000,000-3,000,000 20%
3mil-5mil                    22%
5mil+                         40%

No deductions

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

...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, say, half of their house for strangers. For the greater good of course.

See this is where it gets very, very stupid with tax arguments. Everybody also looks out for their self interests in the end and if that is true why the hell do conservatives get so pissed off at the rich being taxed more than 50% if it benefits the bottom 30% of society? They still have a good life, with plentiful amounts of money and they are contributing to society.

Yeah, that's nice an all until the government starts telling YOU have a good enough life and can sacrifice some more. It's the principle of the matter that counts.

[NDN]

...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, say, half of their house for strangers. For the greater good of course.

See this is where it gets very, very stupid with tax arguments. Everybody also looks out for their self interests in the end and if that is true why the hell do conservatives get so pissed off at the rich being taxed more than 50% if it benefits the bottom 30% of society? They still have a good life, with plentiful amounts of money and they are contributing to society.

Because it's a parasitic relationship. Why should the productive members of society have to shoulder others just because they're poor? There is a good chance many of those people may have had ample opportunities to enrich themselves but chose not to (dropping out, drugs, etc.). I'm not saying we should get rid of welfare entirely or institute a flat tax but there are serious problems with what you just said.

[War on Want]

...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, say, half of their house for strangers. For the greater good of course.

See this is where it gets very, very stupid with tax arguments. Everybody also looks out for their self interests in the end and if that is true why the hell do conservatives get so pissed off at the rich being taxed more than 50% if it benefits the bottom 30% of society? They still have a good life, with plentiful amounts of money and they are contributing to society.

Yeah, that's nice an all until the government starts telling YOU have a good enough life and can sacrifice some more. It's the principle of the matter that counts.

Except the government is elected by the people isn't it? So in reality it is the populace telling you this and if it backfires then many officals will get voted out. Also you have to admit you kinda are living a good enough life if you are rich and this is dictated by much of society.

[War on Want]

...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, say, half of their house for strangers. For the greater good of course.

See this is where it gets very, very stupid with tax arguments. Everybody also looks out for their self interests in the end and if that is true why the hell do conservatives get so pissed off at the rich being taxed more than 50% if it benefits the bottom 30% of society? They still have a good life, with plentiful amounts of money and they are contributing to society.

Because an  parasitic relationship. Why should the productive members of society have to shoulder others just because they're poor? Especially if many of those people may have had ample opportunities to enrich themselves but chose not to (dropping out, drugs, etc.). I'm not saying we should get rid of welfare entirely or institute a flat tax but there are serious problems with what you just said.

It is all philosophical and I also agree that a total welfare state would not work. Honestly I am just arguing for the principle not the idea of uber taxes. Plus lots of the money wouldn't go to welfare at this state but rather development of alternative fuels which would benefit EVERYONE.

[NDN]

...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, say, half of their house for strangers. For the greater good of course.

See this is where it gets very, very stupid with tax arguments. Everybody also looks out for their self interests in the end and if that is true why the hell do conservatives get so pissed off at the rich being taxed more than 50% if it benefits the bottom 30% of society? They still have a good life, with plentiful amounts of money and they are contributing to society.

Yeah, that's nice an all until the government starts telling YOU have a good enough life and can sacrifice some more. It's the principle of the matter that counts.

Except the government is elected by the people isn't it? So in reality it is the populace telling you this and if it backfires then many officals will get voted out. Also you have to admit you kinda are living a good enough life if you are rich and this is dictated by much of society.

On paper it is. In practice it should be obvious it's whatever interests managed to contribute the most to them. And even if that was true, by that logic total confiscation of income/assets would be OK so long as 51% approved. There need to be some limits imposed on taxation and spending.

[War on Want]

...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, say, half of their house for strangers. For the greater good of course.

See this is where it gets very, very stupid with tax arguments. Everybody also looks out for their self interests in the end and if that is true why the hell do conservatives get so pissed off at the rich being taxed more than 50% if it benefits the bottom 30% of society? They still have a good life, with plentiful amounts of money and they are contributing to society.

Yeah, that's nice an all until the government starts telling YOU have a good enough life and can sacrifice some more. It's the principle of the matter that counts.

Except the government is elected by the people isn't it? So in reality it is the populace telling you this and if it backfires then many officals will get voted out. Also you have to admit you kinda are living a good enough life if you are rich and this is dictated by much of society.

On paper it is. In practice it should be obvious it's whatever interests managed to contribute the most to them. And even if that was true, by that logic total confiscation of income/assets would be OK so long as 51% approved. There need to be some limits imposed on taxation and spending.

Perhaps. I agree with a 60% limit only to be removed in crisis.

[NDN]

Plus lots of the money wouldn't go to welfare at this state but rather development of alternative fuels which would benefit EVERYONE.

Very doubtful. The EPA has already forbidden California and 16 other states from raising their fuel efficiency standards. And Congress has tried to cut tax credits and other benefits for alternative energy research. The government very obviously does not have our interests in mind on this issue.

[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.

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]).

Thats not how a marginal tax system (like the US's) works.  Someone check my calculations here.

Snowguy's tax system.

Poverty line (Let's say 0 for simplicity) 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%

450k Earner...Assuming no deductions, exemptions, credits...I.e. Adjusted Gross=Salary

Pays 10% on the first 25k=2,500
15% on the next 15k= 2,250
20% on the next 30k=6,000
30% on the next 60k= 18,000
40% on the next 100k=40,000
and 50% on the remaning 200k of income=100k

450k Earner pays=$168,750, Net Income after Taxes=$281,250.

550k Earner.


Pays 10% on the first 25k=2,500
15% on the next 15k= 2,250
20% on the next 30k=6,000
30% on the next 60k= 18,000
40% on the next 100k=40,000
50% on the next 250k of income=100k=125,000
and 60% on the remaining 50k of income=30,000

550k Earner pays=$223,750 Net Income after Taxes=$326,250.

Another important calculation:

Average taxes paid as percentage of gross income.

450k earner: 37.5%
550k earner: 40.7% (40.68181....)

So as I've shown what people are actually paying in taxes isn't that close to their highest marginal rate.  Even in a system like this where there aren't special characterizations for capital gains (5/15% gains, 25% Property, 28% collectibles etc).

[opebo]

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 isn't that a dead giveaway that what they have that is valuable is not money but POWER?  In other words 'you can't touch them'?  At least under the current system where they control that which matters.
 

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

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 isn't that a dead giveaway that what they have that is valuable is not money but POWER?  In other words 'you can't touch them'?  At least under the current system where they control that which matters.
 

What possible system could you recommend where someone on top doesn't have power? One has never existed in the existence of humanity.

[opebo]

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 isn't that a dead giveaway that what they have that is valuable is not money but POWER?  In other words 'you can't touch them'?  At least under the current system where they control that which matters.
 

What possible system could you recommend where someone on top doesn't have power? One has never existed in the existence of humanity.

Your point is an excellent one, States; however, the Tsar did get shot. 

I suppose my retort to your fatalistic acceptance of your plight is - 'don't just sit there and take it like a chump'.

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

Kudos to you Fezzy.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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.

One of the few things I think we'll ever agree on.  Though I say no more than 50%.

It seems fundamentally unfair for you not have the majority share of benefit from your work.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Kudos to you Fezzy.

^^^^

Although, don't forget about all the illegals that count on your hard earned money

[opebo]

...Today, the average American in poverty lives a lifestyle comparable to that of the average American family in the 1970s.

That is one of the more ridiculous statements I've seen on this forum Fezzy. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We don't 'give' poor people anything, fezzy, that is the whole point.  We give everything to the elite, with some dribblings for the upper-middle class just to set the system up for hubris based duping.   But all this has to come out of someone's life blood and efforts - these are the workers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Their 'success' is simply political power - ownership - fezzy.  It is obscene to suggest that oppressed people should just be happy with their condition.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Money and power are the same thing, fezzy.  Another way to say this is money is just a representation of power. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, because society is a system in which each of us is a cog, festoon, and while it is natural of  you to want to avoid the issue of the man you're bleeding to gain your advantages, you can see why he might bleat a bit.

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

One of the few things I think we'll ever agree on.  Though I say no more than 50%.

It seems fundamentally unfair for you not have the majority share of benefit from your work.

They don't 'work', Mr. Mod.  They get to keep the majority share of other people's work.

[NDN]

I suppose my retort to your fatalistic acceptance of your plight is - 'don't just sit there and take it like a chump'.

Not everyone can be wealthy, then the super wealthy would be.  Today, the average American in poverty lives a lifestyle comparable to that of the average American family in the 1970s.

I'd dispute that. Study after study has shown that real wages have on average decreased since then for the lower class. If they're enjoying more 'luxuries' than earlier generations, it's because they're borrowing like crazy.

[Ban my account ffs!]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree with this.  Where I work, a book store, the pay is crappy and it's a lot of work (though not necessarily bad work.. it's enjoyable).. but they really work you hard for what they pay you.

You know why they can do it?  Because everybody wants to work in a book store.  I take in about 3 applications a day and I tell every one of them I won't be hiring until fall.

But I wouldn't say the owners of the store are really keeping a majority of our work.  Profit margins are pretty slim in the book business.  First, 60% of that book goes to the publisher... so you have to keep the lights on, the building cool and comfortable, and pay the employees off that 40%.

And we have to compete with stores like Wal-Mart that can buy 100,000 copies of a book at a much higher discount and then sell them for "30%" off the cover price.. because they have all sorts of other stuff they can mark up higher.. so the profit off the books is really just marginal.. but it's enough to put guys like us out of business.

Oh well.. they pay 70% of the premium on my health insurance and they have a good retirement plan and a profit sharing program.. not bad for a family owned book store chain.

Oh.. and as far as retail goes.. book store customers are by far the best.

[A18]

I think there's an unfortunate tendency, in discussions like this, to ignore the difference between having a large income and being wealthy.

Anyway, less than 30 percent. But I'm presupposing a drastically smaller government.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I suppose my retort to your fatalistic acceptance of your plight is - 'don't just sit there and take it like a chump'.

Not everyone can be wealthy, then the super wealthy would be.  Today, the average American in poverty lives a lifestyle comparable to that of the average American family in the 1970s.

LOL.

What NDN said is correct though, Real Wages have pretty much stagnated since the age of Reaganomics. Most of the expansion of consumerism was made through debt which will have paid off sometime and creates in the future a completely unsustaible situation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wonderful. I'll remember that line whenever I work for Hallmark.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you implying that wealthier people have higher standards of "happiness" than those that are poor? Fantastic.

Tax distrubtion is pretty inefficient anyway. Better go loop-hole and evasion busting. I would also like to make Tax Migration illegal too but given that large parts of the world economy depend on the super-rich paying even less in Tax it is probably best not to touch it.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah yes, Human Nature. The ultimate loser in arguments. Reminds me of the people back in the 1830s who believed that human beings couldn't possibly travel on trains as they go too fast for the fragile human skull. Furthermore it isn't true, most pre-agrarian societies are non-hierarchial such as the Bushmen of the Kalihari and the Mbuti of the Congo Jungle and most Paleolithic societies (perhaps all, not fully clarified on this). Hierarchy only emerges with the invention of agriculture. So hierarchy is not part of Human Nature; neither is "Capitalism" as "capitalism" didn't exist until c800yrs ago. They were invented.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Income? No, Class is a better indicator. One's Material reality makes your view of existence and so on. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"earned it"? LOL. Remind me again who works harder, Paris Hilton or Bolivian Tin Miners? Who is rich?

And before you add anything Hilton is hardly the exception to the rule. IIRC of the 500 richest people in Britain a very high percentage are from aristocratic backgrounds, go to the right schools, connections, etc. Visionaries like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are the exceptions, not the rule. Anyway I'm particularly fond of the idea that people (and here I show I'm not America) who "work hard" should become rich anyway. People who want over 1 million dollars a year are particularly psychologically disturbed individuals anyway. And many are pretentious buffoons anyway.

And then there is stuff like this.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What? "Power" is a pretty nebelous concept anyway. The idea that the wealthy contain no "power" is LOL though.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Success? Now that's something which requires comparsions.

On a side note, Phillip is actually right. Wealth takes account of one's whole assets aswell as income.

[NDN]

More than 76 percent of households carry debt. Of that, according to the US census on average people carry $8,000 in credit card debt alone (actual number is much higher). Again, if people have more TVs or other non-necessities they are buying them almost entirely on borrowed (non-existent) money. Although a lot of that is actually being spent on necessities like health-care or college tuition.

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

More than 76 percent of households carry debt. Of that, according to the US census on average people carry $8,000 in credit card debt alone (actual number is much higher). Again, if people have more TVs or other non-necessities they are buying them almost entirely on borrowed (non-existent) money. Although a lot of that is actually being spent on necessities like health-care or college tuition.

Where do they learn their spending habits from? People just follow their leaders.

[NDN]

I'd blame the leaders for subsidizing some of it, like the housing mess. And the culture for encouraging idiots to buy things like $200 sneakers to 'one up people' even if they're on welfare. On the other hand between health-care costs skyrocketing, student loans, gas/car costs, etc. a lot of that is unavoidable.

In any case when household debt as a percentage of household income is well over 100%, it should be obvious that there is a serious problem there.

[bullmoose88]

Anyway, less than 30 percent. But I'm presupposing a drastically smaller government.

Interesting answer.  I guess my question would be, if I can word it properly, assuming political forces or considerations prevented you from shrinking the government (or having an unbloated government)...what would be your highest marginal rate with a bloated debt carrying government?

I mean, I advocate a pretty high top marginal tax rate on the very top incomes.  I, unlike some here, don't wish to penalize the rich but at least I'd hope that would generate the revenue to well...pay for the $hit we're just borrowing for.  Like Phillip, with a smaller less debt saddled government, the rates would be much much less.