What should be the highest marginal federal tax rate? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 09:08:30 AM
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? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
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 4859 times)
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW
« on: July 30, 2008, 05:02:26 PM »

Well over 60.
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 31, 2008, 12:50:20 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.

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.
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 31, 2008, 01:30:45 PM »
« Edited: July 31, 2008, 01:51:24 PM by ޒަހަރު) زَهَـرْ) »

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.
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 01, 2008, 02:26:21 AM »

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.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
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 0.025 seconds with 13 queries.