What should be the highest marginal federal tax rate?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 12:18:26 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  What should be the highest marginal federal tax rate?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Poll
Question: What should be the highest marginal federal tax rate?
#1
over 60%
 
#2
55%-60%
 
#3
50%-55%
 
#4
45%-50%
 
#5
40%-45%
 
#6
35%-40%
 
#7
30%35%
 
#8
less than 30%
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 42

Author Topic: What should be the highest marginal federal tax rate?  (Read 4736 times)
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 30, 2008, 04:29:26 PM »

Just click a box; don't be shy, and then by all means reveal your choice. Thanks.
Logged
Sensei
senseiofj324
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,532
Panama


Political Matrix
E: -2.45, S: -5.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 30, 2008, 04:31:26 PM »

50-55%
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 30, 2008, 04:35:31 PM »

I'm fine with it at 35–40%.
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 30, 2008, 04:35:36 PM »

60%

That's right.. 60%.  My welfare needs aren't cheap.  So pay up.
Logged
Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,787
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 30, 2008, 04:40:26 PM »

Why not keep it at our levels and toss out the deductions?
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 30, 2008, 04:48:20 PM »

50-55%...tax the hell out of those robber barons. Oh a new income bracket will be necessary for that to occur though.
Logged
DownWithTheLeft
downwithdaleft
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,548
Italy


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 30, 2008, 04:55:57 PM »

Highest: 18%
Lowest: 18%
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 30, 2008, 04:56:49 PM »

50-55%...tax the hell out of those robber barons. Oh a new income bracket will be necessary for that to occur though.

You are going up with each post. Tongue After this poll gets completed, we are going to have another poll by the way, so stay tuned.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 30, 2008, 04:58:33 PM »

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

What do you think the current level is?
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 #9 on: July 30, 2008, 05:02:26 PM »

Well over 60.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 30, 2008, 05:20:08 PM »

50%. I voted for 50-55%. Removing the highest tax brackets has not made any substantial difference in the economy in the past twenty years or so.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 30, 2008, 05:22:18 PM »

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.
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 30, 2008, 05:23:16 PM »

50%. I voted for 50-55%. Removing the highest tax brackets has not made any substantial difference in the economy in the past twenty years or so.

And you could further argue that by taking that money and spending it on programs that benefit us all like renewing and modernizing infrastructure and on creating smaller class sizes... the economy would do better.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 30, 2008, 05:25:18 PM »

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. 
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 30, 2008, 05:30:33 PM »

50-55%...tax the hell out of those robber barons. Oh a new income bracket will be necessary for that to occur though.

You are going up with each post. Tongue After this poll gets completed, we are going to have another poll by the way, so stay tuned.

HAHA I am going to go old school and say 90% next time. Tongue
Logged
bullmoose88
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,515


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 30, 2008, 05:32:48 PM »

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.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 30, 2008, 05:35:11 PM »

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.)
Logged
NDN
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,495
Uganda


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 30, 2008, 05:36:25 PM »

Basically I agree with Straha. Eliminate most deductions, reduce discretionary spending, and find ways to make up revenue (e.g. surcharge tax). If that still wasn't enough then I'd support an marginal tax raise.

Edit: Why did my post get deleted when I tried editing it?
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 30, 2008, 05:39:13 PM »
« Edited: July 30, 2008, 05:41:05 PM by Verily »

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
Logged
Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,787
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 30, 2008, 05:39:35 PM »

Because flat tax schemes work soo well. Roll Eyes
Logged
bullmoose88
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,515


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 30, 2008, 05:40:40 PM »


The normal case cited in favor is Russia...but I wouldn't be surprised to see oil wealth propping up that tax scheme.
Logged
bullmoose88
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,515


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 30, 2008, 05:41:29 PM »

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

Single, or joint return?
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: July 30, 2008, 05:41:53 PM »


The normal case cited in favor is Russia...but I wouldn't be surprised to see oil wealth propping up that tax scheme.

I'm not sure we should be looking to Russia as a model for much of anything anyway, frankly, nor would I trust the numbers put out by the Russian government.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: July 30, 2008, 05:42:36 PM »

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

Single, or joint return?

Single. Obviously you'd have to tweak things around for joint files, widow(er)s, heads of household, etc.
Logged
bullmoose88
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,515


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: July 30, 2008, 05:44:55 PM »


The normal case cited in favor is Russia...but I wouldn't be surprised to see oil wealth propping up that tax scheme.

I'm not sure we should be looking to Russia as a model for much of anything anyway, frankly, nor would I trust the numbers put out by the Russian government.


I don't disagree.  Hell I think any sort of tax scheme could work in russia now with oil as expensive as it is.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4  
« 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 0.052 seconds with 15 queries.