General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat should be the highest income tax rate in the US?
In your opinion. Obviously there are wealth and capital gains taxes that could be considered as well.
21 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
20-25% | |
1 (5%) |
|
25-35% | |
1 (5%) |
|
35-50% | |
3 (14%) |
|
50-65% | |
3 (14%) |
|
65-80% | |
7 (33%) |
|
Above 80% | |
5 (24%) |
|
We need 100% fewer bullshit polls | |
1 (5%) |
|
I like to vote! | |
0 (0%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... higher tax rate.
"Income tax" of course, needs to apply to capital gains.
I went with 65-80.
RKP5637
(67,088 posts)survive. ... otherwise, one has exponential runaway and a severely skewed curve ... with extremely limited buying power, and supply/demand becomes whacked out ... and one ends up with, as another poster stated, a kingdom.
brooklynite
(94,358 posts)I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who increased their net worth by billions annually. They may have billions, but I doubt they accumuluated it that quickly.
Remember, we're talking about income. not wealth.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)"Koch wealth grew from $7.5 billion to $50 billion in 7 years"
That's about three billion a year. Each.
Gates nets even more, so do others.
brooklynite
(94,358 posts)....that in both cases, their wealth is in large part the "paper value" of their stock holdings", but isn't taxable until they cash the shares in.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)End the winner-take-all economy for good.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)The obvious answer is you have to pay taxes on your income instead of spending it yourself.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I blew it.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)But it has to be there, like the high marginal tax rate, to discourage extractive management. If they can't keep it, they leave it in the business. I don't see any real downside unless you are an NBA/TV superstar who might make that much.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)What would have been extravagant 20 years ago would look pretty tiny today, I suppose. But if you set it high enough, there's some merit to the idea, it seems to me.
Actors and Athletes are kind of a special case, because they are almost more commodities than workers, if that makes any sense.
Bryant
bemildred
(90,061 posts)You will have a lot more people working if the few do not have to be paid so much. All that money those CEOs are paying themselves is NOT BEING USED to pay anybody else, or invest in the company, or pay dividends, or pay taxes, it's just for him or her. Why is that a public good?
brooklynite
(94,358 posts)...why should it be limited? Nobody is obliged to buy a tickets to the game or buy into the advertising on my show.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)We're collective enterpreneurs.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)If some company is willing to pay some ridiculous salary to someone who could not possibly earn that wage, so be it. It's an unsustainable practice.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)I have concerns myself, it's a mistake to get too moralistic or ham-handed about it. But on the other hand this current situation does not work so well either, we've worshipped aty the "free market" shrine for 30+ plus years and the Plutocrats have done great and the rest of us have been screwn.
MrYikes
(720 posts)LiberalFighter
(50,787 posts)Besides raising the taxes to higher levels there should be more tax levels. For instance, it doesn't have to have all the income above $400k taxed at 39%. It could be $250-$500k taxed at 38%, $500k - $1 million at 39%, $1 million to $2.5 million at 39.5%, $2.5 million to $5 million taxed at 40%. Have more tax brackets. Have higher rates. If done right it could result in lower rates at the bottom end.
1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)I think that if you earn a dollar you should at least get to keep as much or more of it than you have to give over to the Government.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)am sure there are those here that would support an income cap ( 100% above a certain limit)
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)of generational wealth would go much further in promoting economic stability and social equity.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)I think nationwide breakups is required. Break up the too-rich-to-fail corporations and the too-rich-to-tax families. We created all of it, but they get all the benefit from our labors.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)And THOSE people would spend it and help the eonomy.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)if they were causing hurt to others for their own gain then a penalty tax of sorts should kick in.
Maybe then we can return to being a decent and caring society.
srican69
(1,426 posts)Seriously ...
I wish net taxes ( before you react - I am not talking about the top marginal rate ) (including FICA) were limited to about 20 % .. that would allow me to save a bit more for retirement or whatever ..
but when the tax code allows Mitt Romney to pay 13.XX% ( of what ???) .. and has me paying 15% ( of my full income) in just FICA (I work on a 1099) leave alone federal & state income takes on top of that ...
SOMETHING IS SERIOUSLY SERIOUSLY FUCKED UP
The income tax code really socks it to guys like me ... and rich get to do all the whinning
Capital gains rate is the biggest fraud perpetuated on American people ( especially when people get to write off losses against profits in future years) .. I dont get to do SHIT...
closeupready
(29,503 posts)tax rates should rise and fall as necessary.
hay rick
(7,588 posts)Beyond a certain point, 100% plus shipping and handling. Incomes beyond a certain point are not earned in any meaningful sense- think of John Paulson betting against Goldman CDOs that he helped design.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)hay rick
(7,588 posts)101% is a joke but very high top marginal rates are not necessarily outrageous. The top rate in the 50s and 60s was 91% and applied to incomes in excess of $400,000. The equivalent these days would be about $2,000,000.
A couple of points. The top marginal rate applies to income in excess of the selected amount, not income up to that amount. In this era, there might be a top bracket of $10,000,000 or even $100,000,000. Paulson, for example, "earned" $3.7 billion in 2007 by betting against CDOs that he helped put together. He pays 15% "carried interest" on most of his income.
The top marginal rate applies to income, not wealth- so someone like Gates could still acquire a huge fortune- and give it away.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)nobody is discussing increasing the top rate. It's so far off the table it might as well be on Mars.
unblock
(52,123 posts)this gets the economic incentives right. the tax discourages hoarding and encourages employment and income generation, so hiring, working, and investment.
people with little or no wealth are able to keep what they earn as they need it to live on.
people with great wealth are encouraged to earn income to pay their taxes.
one problem is that wealth tax evasion is easier than income tax evasion, because income involves a second party who can report (and gets a benefit from reporting) to the irs.
the bigger problem is that it's a political non-starter. just ain't gonna happen.
aristocles
(594 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)It's pretty much within the internationally normal range, especially when state taxes are added on.
Anyone who wants the rate to be much higher than this will likely be disappointed, because having restored the pre-Bush tax cut top rate of 39.6%, I don't see any indication that Obama wants to push to raise this rate still further.
BTW I am open to eliminating loopholes (especially carried interest) and limiting deductions.
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)But there are some great ideas in this thread. I loved that someone above pointed out the estate tax needs to be much higher. Accumulated wealth passed down seems to unfairly create classes of people in society. IMHO.
aristocles
(594 posts)"Accumulated wealth" is one means recent immigrants have of establishing their families in the United States. This has always been the case, at least since the 1820's.
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)I guess when I hear "estate tax" I kinda think of the rich elites keeping all the $ thru various loopholes & such. As I said, economics are not my strong point. Heck, I'd just be happy if the uber-rich like Romney pay more in taxes than me in all aspects.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)and then figure out how best to fairly divvy up those costs?
I'm not in favor of the government raising someone's taxes just because they have "too much". I believe virtually everyone should pay something, even if they get more back in services than they pay in.
aristocles
(594 posts)That's the problem that hasn't been resolved since 1913.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)IMHO, setting rates on who should pay what amount need to start with the question "How much is needed?" though. Some have suggested that taxation should be based on "how much one needs" or "how much one SHOULD have", but without addressing the question of how much government needs first, it seems to me to be the wrong approach.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)"capital gains" and other special categories for the rich need to be canned. And loopholes allowing people to avoid taxes by use of overseas accounts and other doges need to be ended. If we did that, there would be no need to do any other sort of tax increase.
I am also in favor of an investment transaction tax ($1/transaction) to stop automated speed trading, and hard limits on charitable deductions in estates. Too many charities are simply tax dodges, or ways for the plutocracy to buy influence (like Bill Gates...).
Crepuscular
(1,057 posts)Out of curiosity, how much should Al Gore be allowed to keep from his recent financial gains?
Sold Current TV for a reported $500,000,000.
Acquired $29,000,000 in Apple stock by exercising stock options that cost him $440,000.
So how much of that approx. $530 million should go to Al and how much to the US Government?
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_top_rates
High income people paid much higher marginal rates in the 1950s and 1960s.
We ought to go to that for starters.
We should have more tax brackets for very high income people and we can get a lot of revenue that way.