What should be the highest marginal federal tax rate?

[NDN]

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?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.