Do you support a 70%+ tax bracket for top earners? (4 Viewers)

porculator

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 10, 2003
Messages
6,142
Ratings
7,408
Age
34
Offline
I'm definitely OK with adding higher tax brackets. Kinda dumb that the highest one is only $500,000.

The past has shown that doing this won't hurt the economy. Rich people will still be rich, and they'll still spend. They just won't squirrel away as much.

That said, in the past it wasn't as easy to just funnel your money to some other country that won't tax it as much.

As far as the actual percentage, its kind of a moral question of how much are you OK with taking away from people. I think if most voters knew where they should really be channeling their frustrations, they'd be ok with 70%.
 
Banned #5

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
8,954
Ratings
7,415
Offline
I'd be open to it.

America, along with plenty of countries have fairly high upper end tax brackets and there needs to be a re-balancing of the consumption and investments side of the US economy and tax rates are one way to achieve that.
 
Admin #7

Saint_Ward

The Great Eye is ever Watchful
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
40,537
Ratings
33,247
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
How does that fix our spending issue?
It doesn't, but it would at least close the deficit gap, and possibly allow for some much needed temporary infrastructure spending.

But we can tackle both issues at the same time. We can't always be in deficit spending, especially when the economy is roaring.

to the OP, I'm not sure about 70%. I don't know what the right top marginal rate would be, but I do think more tiers, the higher you go, is ok. I don't mind spreading them out a bit below 500k. meaning, have the top two tiers start at higher values than now.

I was going to try to build some curves showing how wages vs tax bracket end up looking (as a curve), and show some different models. I just need to have some time to think about it.
 

50_Saint

"Da Enligtened One"
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Messages
1,928
Ratings
1,485
Age
32
Online
It doesn't, but it would at least close the deficit gap, and possibly allow for some much needed temporary infrastructure spending.

But we can tackle both issues at the same time. We can't always be in deficit spending, especially when the economy is roaring.

to the OP, I'm not sure about 70%. I don't know what the right top marginal rate would be, but I do think more tiers, the higher you go, is ok. I don't mind spreading them out a bit below 500k. meaning, have the top two tiers start at higher values than now.

I was going to try to build some curves showing how wages vs tax bracket end up looking (as a curve), and show some different models. I just need to have some time to think about it.
I certainly appreciate your honesty!

How do you suppose we ask the roughly 55% of households who pay for 100% of the federal taxes to pay more? Also, what do you do about the other 45% who pay no federal taxes?

And for semantics sake, I am aware everyone pays federal tax in their paychecks. I am talking about returns.
 

Taurus

More than 15K posts served!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 20, 1997
Messages
24,579
Ratings
12,194
Age
50
Location
Yacolt, WA
Offline
I certainly appreciate your honesty!

How do you suppose we ask the roughly 55% of households who pay for 100% of the federal taxes to pay more? Also, what do you do about the other 45% who pay no federal taxes?

And for semantics sake, I am aware everyone pays federal tax in their paychecks. I am talking about returns.
We don't. We ask the top .1% to pay more and leave everyone else alone.

Unless you, yourself are a millionaire, it's in your best interests to stop fighting the class war for them. I guarantee they aren't fighting for us.

To the OP: Hell yes. With a special punitive incentive to keep that money in the US. Move your money out? Lose triple in damages. Same for corporations.

I'd also set up a tax break for companies that actually give out raises to the workers instead of just the C-suites. A big incentive if your C-suites earn less than five times the average wage. Big enough to make shareholders sit up and take notice.
 

Tapxe

Coalescing the vapors of human existence
Joined
Jul 19, 2001
Messages
20,905
Ratings
50,278
Location
Now
Offline
I certainly appreciate your honesty!

How do you suppose we ask the roughly 55% of households who pay for 100% of the federal taxes to pay more? Also, what do you do about the other 45% who pay no federal taxes?

And for semantics sake, I am aware everyone pays federal tax in their paychecks.
Your premise is incorrect. You state that it will impact 55% of the population. However if the 70% kicks in high enough, then it won't be 55%. I'll leave it to the economists, but it seems somewhere north of 500k is where you get to the 1% mark. I'd want it to be much higher than that so that you are only touching the top .5% or something, but again, lets use sound fundamentals from recognized professionals to determine.
 

WhoDatPhan78

Definitely not part of the deep state.
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
8,532
Ratings
17,006
Offline
I support a much more progressive tax system than we have now. It should be much broader than just the income tax though.

I think the estate tax should be more than it was pre trump. We didn’t earn our parents fortune or misfortune, and our kids didn’t earn ours. I think something like allowing up to 250k per heir and taxing the rest at 100% is reasonable. A rich person’s children already benefitted from that wealth throughout their life. If they can’t turn that head start into a successful adult life then too bad.

Hereditary wealth is just a watered down monarchy.

Everyone should have access to food, clothing, shelter, health care, and education through 4 years post high school.

This creates a framework for a country to get the most out of it’s people. People are a nations most important resource, but instead, we often treat them like a burden.

People usually become what they expect. Treat a person like they are a burden and that’s what they will become. Treat them like an investment and they will grow.

You can’t quantify the benefit of investing in people.
 
Last edited:

Saintamaniac

Purple & Gold for Life
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
3,363
Ratings
6,244
Age
49
Location
Laplace, LA
Offline
It gives us enough money to pay for infrastructure, education and healthcare instead of just the military and corporate subsidies.
Even cutting the corporate welfare would be a huge start. Let's call it what it is. It's a corporate hand out to corporations who don't need it. It's welfare for the rich and it's worst than welfare for the poor.
 

Tapxe

Coalescing the vapors of human existence
Joined
Jul 19, 2001
Messages
20,905
Ratings
50,278
Location
Now
Offline

coldseat

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
8,344
Ratings
13,773
Age
43
Offline
I will be honest, a 70% tax rate make me cringe. I know that only impacts a small amount of people who can easily afford to pay it, but It still feels wrong to me to have any government take more than 50% of a persons earnings (any persons earnings) without a strong justification for doing so, and only for as short a period of time as necessary.

In general though, I think a government should only take from its' citizens what it needs to run efficiently and to work for the benefit of the citizens. I don't know what that top marginal tax rate would be to accomplish that, but I know we have to address a lot of issues. So it makes perfect sense to increase that top tax rate.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 2, Guests: 1)



Saints Headlines (The Advocate)

Headlines

Top Bottom