Simple question: What should our top tax rate be?

[BrentWill4U]

I was just wondering what you all thought. For the top income bracket, what should the top tax rate be for federal income taxes?

[dorkulon]

1. 70%

It was higher than that from the '30s to the '60s, and that's what produced the strongest middle class in history.

[Rainscents]

3. Yup...

Agree! :thumbsup:

[TahitiNut]

21. Yup. 70% on dividends and capital gains, 50% on earned income.

No income should ever be taxed at a rate lower than that earned by one's own labors, for the same amounts!

[conflictgirl]

37. I agree with your numbers

I was thinking 50 percent on income, which sounds like a lot, but it would only apply to the very top income earners. People making $10 million a year would still have $5 million a year left to live on at a 50 percent tax rate - you can't tell me that "only" having $5 million a year to live on is in any way going to discourage innovation or any of the other cards people play whenever someone proposes raising the tax rate.

It's absolutely ridiculous that people with multimillion-dollar incomes are complaining about the amount they have to pay in taxes already. And even worse, the people making $100,000 a year think that the 50 percent tax rate would apply to them when we're discussing taxing the top income earners at that rate, so they vote Republican accordingly.

[catmother]

57. you're right. sometimes the dems make it seem that way. i

haven't heard anything recently, but i remember in the past they did consider $100,000 high. start taxing me at 50% and i will change parties.

[question everything]

107. Should not be more than 49.9%

we should not be in a position where people keep less of what they earn.

There, however, other sources of income - dividends and capital gains that have lowered their taxes.

This is the problem. You have one class of people whose income is from working. Their payroll taxes are often higher than their income taxes.

Then you have a second class of people whose income is from investments. Their dividends and capital gains are being taxed less and less and if their estate tax will be eliminated - they will continue to perpetuate their wealth practically tax free.

[bemildred]

2. 95%. nt

[AndyTiedye]

13. Confiscatory Tax Rates Cause Capital to Flee to Other Countries

Our tax rates should be more progressive than they are,
but over 90% is well past the point of diminishing returns.

That is why the 91% tax rate we once had was reduced
to 50% in 1964.

[TahitiNut]

17. Like it's not already? Fine. Let DeVos move to China.

People who want to hire Chinese should move to China. People who want to hire Indians should move to India. I personally don't believe governments should permit massive transnational flow of private monetary accounts, but that's just me, I guess. Such wealth is created by labor and should be kept within the same nation as that labor creating it.

[slackmaster]

79. Not to put too fine a point, but labor is not the only source of wealth

Creation of wealth also depends on financing, i.e. people who already have capital willing to put it to risk by investing in the infrastructure and organization without which the labor could not occur.

[bemildred]

87. Adam Smith disagrees with you.

"The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to aquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose on other people. What is bought with money or with goods is purchased with labor."

"The Wealth of Nations"; Ch. V, 2nd paragraph

Everything is derived from labor.

[TahitiNut]

112. Without the very existence of labor

... even (so-called) 'productive assets' would have virtually no value. Only when a human labor is added to a resource does that resource acquire value. Contrarians often cite gold or diamonds as a 'source' of wealth but ignore both their productive value (realized only when combined with human labor) and the human labor required to mine/smelt/acquire such resources and make them available for productive use. For those who cite their (fictitiously) 'innate' value, I can only point out that such 'precious' commodities attain that (so-caled) value when the aggregation of wealth created by labor (usually of others) in a few hands necessitates some efficient storage/transfer medium - the beginnings of monetarism.

Further, you play the game of assuming a stance in very the 'proof' of it when you talk of those who "already have capital." From where?? (It's easy to 'prove' something when you assume it in the premises of the 'proof.') Again, it's the monetarization of the value created by labor and the aggregation of that value which becomes wealth.

The subjugation of human labor is the foundation of all tyranny!

[bemildred]

49. You asked.

They are all welcome to go to China as far as I'm concerned.

[mcscajun]

4. 70% *would* do *quite* nicely.

A little history on the maximum rate:

During World War I the top rate rose to 77%; following the war, the top rate was scaled down (to a low of 20%):
1918 - 77%
1921 - 50%
1924 - 40%
1926 - 20%

Anyone see a familiar pattern from 1921 to 1926? Tax cut, after tax cut, after tax cut.

1929 - beginning of the Great Depression

1932 - a slew of excise taxes were enacted that year (on lubricating oil, malt syrup, brewer's wort, tires, toilet articles, furs, jewelry, automobiles, trucks, radio and phonograph equipment, refrigerators, sporting goods, cameras, firearms, matches, candy, chewing gum, soft drinks, and electricity.) The goods were either from non-favored industries or were considered "consumption by choice" items.

During the Great Depression and World War II, the top income tax rate rose, reaching 91% during the war; this top rate remained in effect until 1964.

1964 - the top rate was decreased to 70%, and then to 50% in 1981.

1986 - the top rate was reduced to 28%.

During the 1990s the top rate rose again, standing at 39.6% by the end of the decade.

2001 the top rate was cut to 35%.

I think we have some room here for a big increase in the highest marginal tax rate. Of course, the rich would vehemently disagree.

[LuckyTheDog]

5. You first (nt)

[BrentWill4U]

6. One more question I guess I should have added...

At what income for year would you start someone payint the top tax rate?

[devilgrrl]

9. How about $9,000

since that's what most are making these days. Why let those Lucky Ducky's off the hook?

:sarcasm:

[TahitiNut]

23. How about the salary level paid to the President?

:shrug:

[mcscajun]

33. Just for purposes of the discussion, here's the history on it...

Top Tax Rate and the income threshhold at which it took effect over the years:

1918    77        1,000,000
1929    24        100,000
1942    88        200,000
1951    91        400,000
1964    77        400,000
1965    70        200,000
1981    69.125    215,400
2000    39.6      288,350
2003    35        311,950

More at: http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

Looking at the last time the top tax rate was 70 or greater puts us at 1965; adjusted for inflation, 200,000 in 1965 dollars would be worth $1,261,315.62 today.

So, I'd say that making anyone earning over 1,250,000 pay the top tax rate would be more than fair.

As of 2004, there were 8.2 million U.S. households with a net worth of more than $1 million, excluding primary residences.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/16/pf/millionaire_households/

As to the billionaires?

In 2006, their ranks (worldwide) swelled to 793; their total net worth jumped 18 percent to $2.6 trillion. With 371, the U.S. is the country with the most billionaires...the total worth of all U.S. billionaires combined is $1.1 trillion.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/09/news/newsmakers/billionaires_forbes/index.htm?cnn=yes

[Poppyseedman]

7. 100%

of individual income over $40,000 and $80,000 family income

Income above that is thief from the poor

[eallen]

10. Ah. You want a nation of people who stop working after earning $40K.

Yeah, that will work.

:eyes:

[Poppyseedman]

24. Don't you agree?

"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Any man who makes more than $40,000 is stealing from the poor

[BrentWill4U]

26. No. Marx was wrong.

As unfortunate as it is, people don’t work that way. If you don’t reward hard work and ability, people will stop using hard work and ability.

[Poppyseedman]

29. Marx wasn't wrong, just misunderstood.

With enough time and the right people who are not brain washed by rethugs news media like Fox News and CNN, socialism can work.

It works in Cuba, they have a 100 % literacy rate.

[BrentWill4U]

30. YES!!!!!

There is NOTHING BETTER, then a poor country ruled by a power hungry dictator. Don’t get me wrong, I think we should totally change our policy toward Cuba, BUT there is a reason by MILLIONS have risked their life to get to the US by any means possible. AND WHO are the wrong people? I mean, should they be silenced, as in Cuba?

[Poppyseedman]

31. At least they can read in Cuba

More than you can say about Amerika

[BrentWill4U]

34. Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate

Adult Literacy:

United States: 99.9 Percent
Cuba: 96.9 Percent

[mcscajun]

36. That US figure is qualified further down on the same page.

According to the CIA World Factbook, literacy rate in USA is 99% (cia.gov). In 1992 the USA conducted a big National Adult Literacy Survey. According to the National Institute of Literacy between 21 and 23 percent of the adult population, or approximately 44 million people scored in Level 1 which means that they "can read a little but not well enough to fill out an application, read a food label, or read a simple story to a child".

As it says at the top of that page, "Because definitions and data collection methods vary across countries, literacy estimates should be used with caution."

[ileus]

139. I'm still to know a person who can't read...

[Greyhound]

158. Welcome to DU. I'll bet you that you do know someone that

is illiterate and has successfully concealed it. It is very common here.

[catmother]

68. why don't you move to cuba?

[Cvortex_10]

124. Of course he was wrong. he even counted on...

the labor theory of value, which is just beyond stupid. (see wikipedia for an explanation of what that is).

He tried to make the argument that an items value is determined by how much labor went into making it... Ill be sure to sell that hole I dug in my back yard for a million dollars considering a lot of effort went into making it.

Next I guess you'll be blaming all the dictators that tried implementing that system saying that it was just never implemented right?

Insanity is trying the same thing over and over, while getting the same results... Look at the reality of the countries that tried - notice a pattern?

[eallen]

28. The Socialist Worker's Party is down the hall, to the left.

[mcscajun]

35. It depends greatly where you live if your second statement is true

or not.

$40,000 doesn't get you the same living across the country. In some cities, you'd barely be getting by, never mind trying to take care of anyone else on that income.

[conflictgirl]

38. That depends on the area you live in

Where I live, your statement would absolutely work, because the cost of living is very low. Someone making $40,000 a year could buy a very nice but modest home here. Obviously in places like California that's not going to be the case.

BTW - I'm pretty close to a Marxist, I think he had a lot of good ideas and I scored further left on economics than most here when we did that political compass. But it's just not true that $40,000 is adequate to meet real, basic needs (not wants) in all parts of the country. Something else has to level the economic playing field in the US other than just capping wages at that level.

[catmother]

55. i am almost 65 and my husband is 59. we worked long and hard

all of our lives to make the money we have now and you say we're stealing from the poor.

[slackmaster]

75. The fallacy is that the amount of potential wealth is finite

It's such a crock to say that money you accumulate is necessarily at someone else's expense.

Quite ridiculous, actually. I think it's all a rationalization for a desire to punish those who do well, to bring them down so that everyone is equally miserable.

[flaminbats]

77. indeed..another reason to oppose the national sales tax

the more we allow the national debt to grow, the less all taxpayers will get for their money. if we repeal the Reagan-Bush taxcuts, this reduces the amount of tax dollars wasted to pay interest on the national debt.

if we allow deficit spending to continue, the taxpayers of the future will only be paying higher taxes for no benefits in return.

[jjrjsa]

101. You ARE stealing from the poor...

Why is your labor worth more than the labor of the 70 year old man who right now is having to choose between food and medicine? It's not, you benefited from a system that is set up to thief from the masses.

It's not your fault, you were born into it and you just played by the rules.

[catmother]

110. if you think i'm stealing from the poor, you might be surprised

at the amount of money we give to the poor. i've seen seniors in the drug store asking about the price of medication and then trying to figure out if they could afford it.

we did play by the rules. but we're probably the last generation who will reap the rewards of the american dream. and it wasn't always easy. it was lots of hard work, long hours and kissing a lot of ass in the business world.

my husband still, at times, has to put in long hours -- nights, weekends and he doesn't get paid overtime. it's just part of the job.

[nick303]

126. Pulling our chain, right?

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

73. If I made only $40K I could barely afford my house payments, monthly bills

How the fuck could I save anything for retirement?

What kind of Commie bullcrap are you promoting here?

Oh yeah, it's just plain old Commie bullcrap.

[ileus]

140. Big ole +1 there....

[Terran1212]

46. It definitely can and will in the future, but not now

I think Americans are too profit-oriented for that to "work"; but it's 100% possible of working, no human nature attribute prevents it.

[Terran1212]

47. Between 50-60% at least

That's more than enough to properly fund public services and disallow a concentration of wealth.

[flaminbats]

65. why stop working if there is a net gain?

this may sound crazy, but some people actually like what they do..especially if it adds to their savings! Nobody likes taxes, but nobody likes to be in debt. Everyone likes to be winners in war, but nobody likes to pay for them or die in them.

The best tax system is one that only takes money without causing a net loss in income..ie a progressive income tax. The worst tax system is one that takes money from those who are in debt, and who are only left the option of borrowing even more money to pay a regressive sales tax.

The higher the top income tax rate is, the less people who are struggling just to break even will have to suffer. Few people want problems or the required efforts needed to solve them, but simply ignoring those problems will only make matters worse.

[slackmaster]

78. We have a name for things people do because they like to do them

"Hobbies".

The best tax system is one that only takes money without causing a net loss in income..ie a progressive income tax.

I'm trying very hard to make sense out of that sentence. It's almost 4:00 AM and I am sleep deprived, but I have to conclude it's an oxymoron.

[flaminbats]

111. what about a national sales tax?

if you currently make enough just to break even..and have a family of four, you will only go into debt when paying a 23% tax on net expenditures exceeding $25,660. And that is only if you fill out the correct tax form for the IRS!

Under the progressive income tax..those who are in debt or barely break even just pay the existing taxes on expenditures and local taxes. Those who are millionaires still pay the lowest rate on the first dollars of income and the highest rates on the top dollars they earn. Under the national sales tax they would pay less for every dollar made above the cost of living, while those who are now breaking even would pay more. In summary the progressive income tax raises revenue without reducing the ability of taxpayers to make more, the national sales tax increases the cost of living for those who are struggling to increase their standard of living while reducing the ability of most taxpayers to save money for the future.

And what about those who cannot work, who have cancer, who are on kidney dialysis, and those who pay thousands more for basic medical treatment than they can possibly earn? Under a regressive sales tax these people will only be driven further into debt! No tax is fun to pay..but a progressive income tax is heaven compared to the inflationary hell resulting from a national sales tax.

[BlueAlert]

122. Why should people in debt avoid taxes?

For example, I have a friend who makes just as much as I do (if not more).

I save money and always have an emergency fund.

My friend however lives paycheck to paycheck and just bought himself a sports car to boot, putting him in debt.

Should I be taxed more because I've avoided debt?

[flaminbats]

123. why avoid getting apples from a peach tree?

Not everyone in debt wasted money. Too many people lose their savings to healthcare expenses, natural disasters, and to human error. Regardless of how someone goes into debt, the government will not make things better by taking money from a person who borrowed it!

If your friend is in debt, then he worked just as hard to earn money as you did. If you had enough money left over to pay taxes, then you are clearly doing better than your friend is. That is something to be proud of, not be sad about!

One tax reform proposal that I like which you may support is USA tax. http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1995/vp950502/05020007.htm

[BlueAlert]

148. If we both make the same money....

How am I doing better?

My friend did not need a sports car. He did not need a lot of the stuff he buys. But yet he bought them and brought the debt upon himself. In a case like this one, should we reward financial irresponsibility?

[flaminbats]

149. taxes don't exist to punish or reward people..

they exist to raise revenue for our government. I know someone like me, who makes around $36,000..but is more reserved than me on how he uses his money. I break even every year, but he goes about $3,000 dollars more into debt every year just to cover basic medical expenses.

But we both pay the same amount in income tax despite the fact that he must spend more. How would a sales tax reduce his tax burden, thus putting him less into debt every year?

[eallen]

86. At 100% marginal rate, there is no net gain. At 70%, there is more gain...

At a 70% marginal tax rate, there often is more gain figuring out how to avoid taxes than there is earning the next dollar of income. If you want engineers and surgeons and researchers and entrepeneurs and successful people of all stripes spending their time in seminars on taxes and ensconced with tax lawyers, rather treating disease or working on making a new business, then raise the marginal tax rate to 70%. That will get their attention. And focus it. On the issue of avoiding tax. There is a lot of that even at today's rates. But most people just shrug. If they can keep the majority of what they earn, they figure they're better off focusing on their own career and earning that next dollar, than on saving the lesser part of it that will go to King George. But make it the major part, or two thirds, and every high-wage earner in the nation will become a tax expert. Not to the nation's benefit.

:hippie:

[flaminbats]

106. who wants to pay taxes?

who wants to have problems to solve?

who wants to have a debt to be payed down?

who wants to pay for medical problems that must be treated?

who wants to work before getting payed?

who wants to worry about those who are suffering?


IMO the first step should be a repeal of the Bush taxcuts, the second should be an increase of the Medicare tax in return for universal coverage, but the 70% tax rate should only be used if the war in Iraq continues and debt still continues to rise with no end in sight. Not to mention that most people will continue to keep most of what they earn..even most who keep only 30% of their top dollars!

[tritsofme]

16. So I guess somewhere around April or May I might as well stop working

And spend the rest of the year on vacaction, if the government is going to take the rest.

[Poppyseedman]

25. No, continue to work

just give anything above $40,000 to the poor. The government can't tax you on income given away

[tritsofme]

42. Well that's nice for you.

But acting in rational self-interest, I think I'll take my $80,000 and enjoy the rest of the year with my family.

Sorry, I'm not a Marxist, I believe that the skills and knowledge I possess are of greater value to society than some other people, and that other people possess skills and knowledge are of a greater value than my own.

[catmother]

51. poppyseedman, i think you're using too many poppy seeds. are

you nuts? we have an income of approximately $160,000 a year. we pay our fair share of taxes and are very charitable people. we're comfortable, but far from rich.

[conflictgirl]

76. With all due respect, that's a very high income

I don't agree with capping wages at $40K a year and I wouldn't support taxing an income like yours at 50 percent, either. But statistically, it's still about three times the median income.

I do think it's interesting that I've never yet met anyone who made a high income who considered themselves "rich". That includes a former friend whose husband made $500K a year (she had the nerve to cry to me one night that he was taking a temporary pay cut to $125K and she didn't know how they would make it on that income!!) and a different acquaintance who owned homes on both coasts in two of the most expensive real estate markets (San Francisco and Cambridge, MA). Neither of those people considered themselves anywhere close to rich.

What is the level someone needs to make for them to consider themselves rich? Is there such a level? I wonder if I talked to someone who actually made a million dollars a year if they would consider themselves rich or just comfortable. I'm willing to bet they would choose the latter.

[lukasahero]

100. To be fair, the folks you know living in the "most expensive real estate..

markets" probably aren't "rich". They may make a lot of money, but if they are paying a mortgage in one of the "most expensive real estate markets", the bulk of the money they make is probably going towards paying for their home (not too mention the generally higher cost of living in said areas). Of course, they could move and buy a less expensive home but then their income would probably drop accordingly.

I guess I just don't see income as the defining measure of wealth.

[catmother]

108. it's a nice income and i'm very satisfied with it. if he never gets

another raise, i will still be satisfied. but we are far from rich. if someone is used to making $500,000 a year and then it drops to $125,000 it can hurt. those people are probably living like they make $500,000. i'm sure they have a high mortgage, etc.

to be honest, i don't know what i would do with $500,000 a year. it would not fit our lifestyle. we saved for years to build our dream home. we only mortgaged $120,000. my husband drives a 2001 toyota tundra and i drive a 2005 mazda miata (both paid for in cash). nothing fancy there. we have no debt except for the mortgage. we finally feel secure enough with the nest egg we're building that we can retire comfortably. we do fear long term illness. my husband is covered on a long term disability policy that costs us $117 a month, but they won't insure me because i have chronic fatigue syndrome, so we live with the fear that if i become ill we could be wiped out.

i don't know what rich is. but we certainly are not and i don't think we should be paying 50% of our income in taxes.

one year when we were still living in new york (1986?) we made about $100,000 between us. our total taxes were $48,000. our accountant said it was ridiculous that we had to buy something. now with a house and a state with lower taxes and a lower cost of living i'm quite happy.

[catmother]

114. in some ways having too much money can be a curse. how much

money does anyone really need? how many houses can you own? how many cars can you drive? i would not want to be rich. you have to look for things to do with your money. i would give most of it to charity. the only comfort of having so much money would be that if you became disabled you could be in a nice place instead of some government-funded dump of a nursing home.

[annabanana]

20. maybe in Tampa. . . . . n/t

[high density]

39. Yeah I'm a single guy making about $40k a year

and I sure do live like a king. I love my gold-plated apartment.

[liberaliraqvet26]

56. 50% Max. EOM.

[eallen]

8. Contrary to the common answer is here, I think it shouldn stay below 50%

There are two, related reasons for this. First, as the marginal tax rate pushes above 50%, there is disproportionate inducement for high-wage earners to focus on cutting taxes over productive work. Every dime spent on tax accountants, tax lawyers, finding non-taxed work benefits, tax dodges disguised as investments, etc., is complete and utter waste to society. That's true also of the money spent on additional tax enforcement. Second, there is a globalization effect from this, in how tax rates affect economic competitiveness between nations, and in where people choose to live, work, and invest. I don't think it is an accident that nations have trended toward the middle on tax rates. An example is the Scandinavian nations, which have decided to moderate formerly high rates.

[hfojvt]

14. I think it was Reagan's reduction of the tax rates

from 70% to 40% that OTOH eliminated a disincentive for outrageous salaries. A CEO making $4 million a year does not have much incentive to "earn" (ha ha ha, as if) another million if he/she knows that 70% (or 80% if you include state and city taxes) is going just be taxed away.

I don't think it is an accident that nations have trended from high rates. It is the result of rich people (Scaife, Koch, etc.) putting out a barrage of anti-tax propaganda and basically taking control of the government. At least in this country, and I would not be surprised if it was true elsewhere.

[fordnut]

44. Sales taxes

Why not just do away with income taxes completely and replace it with a sales tax and also do away with health insurance in favor of socialized medicene also paid for with sales taxes.That would be a very fair tax because the more money you make the more a person will spend and the more taxes they will pay also have a higher rate for things not made in the U.S.This would also help Ford and GM be more competitive since they wouldn`t be spending all that money on healthcare of the health insurance companies would go broke,but thats OK I hate them anyway t5hey have robbed people long enough.

[Gormy Cuss]

92. Because sales taxes are inherently regressive.

People with lower incomes spend a higher percentage of that income buying non-discretionary items.

[fordnut]

98. No tax on food

Here in KY there is no sales tax on food.

[Gormy Cuss]

103. Most states don't tax food.

What about toilet paper? detergents? Pampers? Socks and other basic clothes? Gasoline? Appliances? Cars? Gasoline? Some states don't tax other basic necessities like everyday clothing items in order to make the sales taxes less regressive but most do not.

There are plenty of references that explain this concept in more depth so I won't try to re-invent the wheel. If you're interested in reading more, try this link :http://economics.about.com/od/incometaxestaxcuts/a/regressive_tax.htm

or google "sales tax" and "regressive."

[Greyhound]

155. It is everywhere and has been so for hundreds of generations.

The same assholes that owned and ran everything in the 15th century, own and run everything today (their descendants anyway).

[AndyTiedye]

11. I'd Be Willing to Pay Clinton-Era Taxes If We Got a Clinton-Era Economy

That should be enough to implement every social program that a civilized
country ought to have, and still pay down the national debt.

The government was running a

QUARTER-TRILLION DOLLAR ($250,000,000,000) SURPLUS

at the end of the Clinton Administration.

[OnionPatch]

50. I'll second that

One vote for Clinton era taxes.

[catmother]

63. so would i.

[slackmaster]

80. Too bad there would be no guarantee of a Clinton era standard of living

A government running a budget surplus means it took in more tax than it needed, i.e. that taxes are too high. Government is not supposed to operate at a profit.

A government deficit may indicate that government isn't taking in enough tax and/or it's spending too much. OTOH a deficit is not harmful if it is caused by borrowing that pays off down the road.

:nuke:

[AndyTiedye]

95. "All the Social Programs a Civilized Country Ought to Have"

If it wasn't clear, that was meant to imply a very substantial increase from what we
have now.

There was plenty of money for social programs (which the Rethug Congress wouldn't pass)
AND paying down the debt.

Obviously, that portion spent on new social programs would no longer be surplus.

[slackmaster]

104. There will never be universal agreement on what programs should exist

Or how much we should spend on them.

There will always be people calling for more spending, and others saying government has gotten too big.

[flaminbats]

113. a surplus means government takes more than it needs?

then why is our country more than eight trillion dollars in debt? As Clinton left office part of the national debt was being payed down. Since Bush came into office, the debt has more than doubled in size. The more we allow the national debt to grow, the less people ultimately get for their tax dollars. But if a democracy shouldn't break even..then why should we pay any taxes?

And don't forget that the government exists to serve the people and it belongs to the people, this means that the people of a democracy are in debt when the government is..and all the people of a democracy have a surplus when their government does.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/25157.html

[eek MD]

117. You'd be amazed

You'd be amazed at the number of people who don't know the difference between the "budget defecit" and the "national debt".....They have no idea that "cutting the defecit" means that the "debt" is still increasing, but only at a slower rate. Politicians, and especially right-wing blowhards on the radio/TV LOVE to take advantage of this misconception. I hate to judge, but I've found that usually people that repeat that mantra that "the government is making a profit off of us" or "the government is taking in more than it needs" when we're running a surplus are usually either righties, or people who spend an awful lot of time listening to righties.... :)

[RB TexLa]

12. national lottery

with percent of revenue used to annually offset income taxes rates across the board.

[BrentWill4U]

15. A lottery..

Is nothing but a tax on the poor, in my view. It is the government playing on the hopes and dreams of poor people.

[deaniac21]

105. The mathematically challenged perhaps....

[BayCityProgressive]

18. Sorry but

if you want to tax 80% of anything over 40k a yr you would definately lose my vote. I am a full time student and make 46k a yr working full time. That is enough to pay my constant school costs and for a home. I would really have to pinch some pennies to take a 4-5k reduction in pay. I work hard for the money I earn and I am just fine paying the taxes that I do. The national average income is 37k a year. If you taxed heavily anything over 40k, you would be hurting a lot of middle class families.

[RB TexLa]

19. huh?

:shrug:

[BayCityProgressive]

22. Sorry about that!

I was responding to a post further up the chain! Nothing against the lottery idea :)

[Gatchaman]

27. 20% would be fine if you got rid of all the loopholes

all the deductions, taxed capital gains, stock options, and all the other non-paycheck "perks" that the CEO class receive. Hell, 15-17% would probably be plenty.

[AllNamesHaveBeenUsed]

127. So...

I am not the only proponent of a flat tax?

[flaminbats]

128. loopholes are easy to find..

do you want a capital gain to be counted as earned income or simply not taxed?

or are you arguing that taxing a capital gain is another loophole that keeps it from being taxed under the income tax?

[sandnsea]

32. 15%-20%

I don't really think anybody should pay more than that in combined taxes, local, state and federal. The whole system is so screwed up though, with so many loopholes and the rest, that it's not possible. I think we should break social security out and remind people that it's insurance, not taxes. And then go backwards from there. Those under the median wage pay no taxes and then we see how much those above need to pay in order to provide a safe and functioning country. And if business isn't going to pay enough for people to support themselves, then social programs are a business subsidy - not a give away to lazy people.

[applegrove]

40. 40% if you got rid of all the loopholes.

[nosmokes]

41. 70% *[b]IF[/b]*

we can also be progressive in our social programs like the scandanavian countries manage to. of course, we'd hafta get rid of all our corporate welfare and our military behemoth to do that, which is fine with me. but 70%, if we have universal healthcare and quality education through 4 years of post HS, be it college or tech school or craft internships, as well as getting our infrastructure back up to speed, 70% would be a bargain.

[eallen]

82. The Scandinavian nations have lowered their marginal tax rates.

[Spinoza]

43. Thats simple.

For joint returns. (Adjust for single)
0-250,000: 0 rate.
251,000-500,000: 5% rate
500,000-1,000,000: 10% rate
1,000,000+: 20% rate.

No loopholes or deductions of any kind. Tax receipts would flood in.

[BrentWill4U]

45. The is the most Republican sounding..

Tax system EVER put forth on the DU..

[The Wielding Truth]

52. I really think we need deductions and exemptions

to encourage funding of charitable,educational,social programs,and the arts.

How many of the truly wealthy would give back without benefit to them? Who would vote or support these programs in congress for spending?I'm just being realistic.

[catmother]

53. i agree. what if we couldn't deduct our mortgage interest?

some people would lose their houses. we used to have more deductions, all interest was deductible, gasoline tax was deductible, medical was deductible subject to 3% of your income. now it's 7-1/2%.

[buzzard]

74. In Canada we can't deduct mortgage interest. n/t

[bunkerbuster1]

85. If we were to eliminate it, it'd be phased out.

As we did with non-mortgage interest, only more gradually. (In the US, we continued to allow deduction for this, only for 80% of the debt the first year, then 60%, and so forth until it was gone in five years.)

We could eliminate mortage interest deductions if we wanted to, humanely, by phasing it in over fifteen years or so.

Not saying it's a brilliant idea, just that it could be done without being too disruptive.

[catmother]

109. i know. my sister lives there. but at least you don't have to

worry about health care. i would gladly give up my mortgage deduction for universal health care.

[AllNamesHaveBeenUsed]

118. Yeah...

I am about to become a 1099 employee. Don't take away my deductions! :spray:

[muriel_volestrangler]

93. Since you've given detailed figures, and you say the receipts

would 'flood in', I presume you can tell us how much the government revenue would be from that tax system, assuming 100% payment? I very much doubt it would get as much as the present system.

[KingFlorez]

48. At least 50%

[catmother]

54. i think it is 50% for the very rich. i recall someone on tv who was

making a lot of money. he said he paid 50% and he didn't mind. but that he would mind 70%.

[bornskeptic]

59. No. The top marginal rate is 35%

Check the tax tables with your form 1040.

[catmother]

60. was that part of bush's tax cut? i thought it was 50%. if he

reduced it to 35% it's no wonder the rich repubs like him.

i have an accountant do ours.

on edit: even with 0 exemptions we always owe the feds a few hundred, but we get a refund from the state. arizona taxes are low. well at least compared to new york where we lived before.

[tritsofme]

61. Bush lowered the top rate from 39% to 35% IIRC. nt

[catmother]

62. yes, your right. i just googled it. that's a real low rate for multi

millionaires. and of course, they have their other loopholes.

i remember during big dawg's first term he raised the amount i had to pay on my social security from 50% to 85%. i was so pissed at him. that's when the repubs came out with "the contract with america". said they were gonna roll back that tax. i'm still waiting.

i didn't stay mad at bill though, still voted for him in the next election.

[AndyTiedye]

96. Most Have to Pay STATE Income Tax On Top Of That

[Clarkie1]

64. 70% sounds about right. What is it now? nt

[catmother]

66. 35% is what it is now. that's the max.

[Clarkie1]

72. That's a travesty. nt

[rman]

83. if you take the tax cap into account, the effective maximum tax is

much lower than 35%

[gulliver]

67. Whatever it was before Junior and his little people took over.

Everything has gone to hell since the little feller took over and started tampering with the taxes. Let's just put it back to the way it was and get some prosperity back in this country. So the simple answer is to kick out Republicans and put things back to the way they were before they broke everything.

[catmother]

69. if only we had a time machine that would take us back to the

clinton years.

[cascadiance]

70. 95% CORRECTIVELY for a few years...

To make up for the robber barons theivery since 1980... And then over time we might bring it down to 70%. Much like JFK brought down the 90%+ top marginal rate when the economy had evened itself out in the 60's to 70%. I would say we'll probably need a corrective period of at least a decade though!

Might have to up the ante on the death tax too once we get in power so that we can nail people that have stock piled their earnings during these last few decades and suddenly have their salaries lowered to $1 like many CEO's have after having their salaries obscenely high for so many years before that.

There was also some loopholes added recently that allowed companies, etc. to move assets/money off shore too without being taxed. I think we should look at those books and retroactively tax those as well.

[BrentWill4U]

81. Man..

Should are motivation really be to "nail people". MOST of these people are actually hard working people who played by the current rules. What I don't get about this discussion is that there is little talk about how much money the government actually needs.

[cascadiance]

97. Keep in mind this is for the top marginal rate, not all of us.

Much like the "death tax" which affects a fraction of a percent of Americans at all, this 95% tax rate would affect that same fraction. The same ones that have been the crooks and who've been trying to take over our government. Yes, I do think they should be punished, and that we should get back some of what they stole from us over the last few decades. We don't live in a feudal society.

We did have a top marginal rate back in the 60's of over 90% from the FDR years. I'm not advocating this as a permanent solution, but as a corrective measure for now until the wealth gap is back in safe levels again. If the wealthy don't like it, they can lose their citizenship and move elsewhere. When it gets down to it though, most will realize it is this country that gave them their wealth, their friends, and their livlihood, and they'll stay here, even if they are paying out more. We just need them to function as citizens, not as overlords.

[BrentWill4U]

157. I just don't think we should focus on nailing people..

One, it just creates an endless cycle. Next, MOST of the rich are NOT bad people. MOST of the rich are talented people, who work hard, and who happened to be at the right place at the right time. Now, this is NOT to say I don't think taxes needs to be raised. We have a huge debt and if we don't watch ourself, we will default and EVERYONE will fill that pain.

[taught_me_patience]

71. 50%

Starting at 250k for a married couple or 125k for an individual.

[bunkerbuster1]

84. Around what it was under Clinton.

IIRC, around 39.6% for incomes above 180K (single filer) or 240K (joint filer).

That was easy. Next!

[ProfessorGAC]

88. 40% With No

Exceptions for income over a cap of $5 million, no matter the source. NO EXEMPTIONS! In fact, the federal revenue would go up by enough to cover 80% of the current deficit. The rest of the deficit could be eliminated by impeaching Silverspoon and ending our adventure (our $2 billion per week adventure) in Iraq.
The Professor

[ProfessorGAC]

89. Dupe

Sorry

[kentuck]

90. 90%

And if the Democrats ever regain power, they should seriously consider restoring our tax rates to the old progressive scales.

[devilgrrl]

91. What do you think the top tax rate should be?

After your done painting us into corner of course......

[BrentWill4U]

129. What do I think?

I think they should make the first $60K tax free for all individuals and the first $120K tax free for all joint filers. (I would also get rid of ALL other forms of federal taxes) Above that, we should pass a law that allows the rate to go up or down, depending on what the OBM determines will be needed to keep a balanced budget each year. The only way to go into debt should be by vote of 3/5th of Congress. If people actually saw what would be needed to fund government and were punished for, we might be able to keep spending under control.

[Nimrod2005]

94. 21%...............NT

[Finder]

99. I like the national sales tax idea.

With every citizen receiving a rebate in advance to cover necessities. A national sales tax at around 20percent to cover SS, Medicare, ect, would work. Even for states with income and/or sales tax, a person would never pay more than 35 percent total.

Unfortunately, because a group of rightwingers have put it forward, nobody will give the idea the time of day.

For example, most of us would pay 6.00 tax on a 30.00 dollar pair of shoes, yet those who spend 600.00 for a pair of pradas would pay 120.00 in tax.

We would pay .40 cents on a 2.00 can of tuna where others will shell out 10.00 in tax on a can of 50.00 caviar.

[dorkulon]

115. There's a reason right-wingers like the idea.

Because it's the most regressive tax possible. Rich people spend a much smaller percentage of their income than the poor. A national sales tax would place the tax burden squarely on poor people, and the rich would benefit immensely. Dumb idea.

[Finder]

119. Where do you think the tax burden is now?

It is not on the rich.

[dorkulon]

121. And?

The remedy is to worsen that situation?

[Finder]

135. It would not worsen the situation. It does reduce the...

bureaucracy.

[flaminbats]

145. Reagan and Bush both said cutting taxes would do this..

but bureaucracy has only grown, and after cutting taxes the Bush solution to terrorism is to create another department! But who cares about the cost?

[flaminbats]

120. it might work, but 20% is a bit high..

in addition to the income tax and the payroll tax the national sales tax could be an effective way to pay down the national debt, while reducing the need to increase the payroll tax to keep Social Security solvent for babyboomers.

IMO the repeal of the Bush taxcuts along with a 5% national sales tax is an effective way to go. I think giving a rebate for this sales tax would work if it isn't the only method of raising revenue.

[Finder]

134. The proposed Fair Tax would abolish payroll taxes...

so paychecks would not have any fed taxes withheld including SS and Medicare.

The proposed rate is 23 percent. Every citizen would get a check at the beginning of the month that would cover tax on necessities. It would be administered by the states--SS dept would cut the checks. Individuals would not have to file fed returns...the burden would be on businesses.(who already report to the state)

[flaminbats]

136. sorry, but a 23% rate won't pay for it all..

it might cover some of the discretionary expenses of the federal government, but in terms of covering Social Security, Medicare, and military expenses..only a much higher sales tax would do that. And a high sales tax would wreck the economy, put more Americans in debt, and force those who are in debt to borrow even more money just to pay taxes when buying basic necessities!

As I pointed out earlier..a lower sales tax might be useful in helping to pay down the national debt, but only alongside the existing taxes now being paid.

[Finder]

137. Why don't you think 23% would cover it?

The taxes on basic necessities would be covered by the prebates.

[flaminbats]

138. why do you think 23% would cover it?

The problem with any sales tax is that simply raising the rate will not raise revenue, especially when providing prebates for basic necessities. A prebate means the government is using borrowed money to help broke taxpayers provide more revenue. ok..:eyes:

A national sales tax will raise the cost of living, make it harder to save money for the future, and make it harder for hard working individuals to increase their standard of living! But raising the top tax bracket of a progressive tax always raises revenue, while even a top tax rate of ninety percent would still leave the very wealthy with 10% of every top dollar they earn. At the same time those who make little or no profit wouldn't be taxed more every year for money they simply don't have.

[Finder]

141. Read up on the Fair Tax and prebates first please.

There are some real concerns/debates but not the ones you are stating.

If the more money you make/acquire causes you to pay more taxes...does that not challenge the idea of equality?

[flaminbats]

142. everyone pays the same rates for the same amounts earned..

a rich person pays the same amount for those first dollars of income as a poor person. A poor person pays the same amount for every dollar earned in the top bracket as a rich person does. In other words, under a progressive tax system..we would all pay the same amount if we all made the same income. In a perfect world equality would be a way of life and government wouldn't exist.

http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm

[Freddie Stubbs]

102. As high as is necessary to fund governemnt services

If you want more services, raise the taxes. If you want less, lower them. Balance the budget like is was during the late 90's.

[TheFarseer]

116. 40% worked for Clinton

or rather 39.6%, but round to the closest %, I say. The key is to tax all income at the same rate. Why should dividends and cap gains be taxed less than someone who was working for a W2? Why is the government telling people how to earn a living? I sure as hell don't think a savings account should be taxed differently than a stock investment. I also think that for the inheritance tax. Tax it at marginal income rates. Why should that be treated different than anything else? Then put the inheritance exemption at something that would keep most small businesses and farms together and index it to inflation.

[SoCalDem]

125. First $50K exempted, top % the math wizards can work out

:)

[Hippo_Tron]

130. I honestly don't know what it should be

Should it be higher than it is now? Yea, probably. Sit me down with a good economist who will tell me that lower taxes are good for the economy and then let me ask him how is it that the economy was doing just fine in the 50's and 60's when we were taxing the rich at 70-90%. When I do that, I will have a better answer to this question.

I do know, however, that there are plenty of things that we can do to generate more money to pay down the debt and increase domestic spending that don't involve increasing taxes. These include...

1) Actually making corporations and the rich pay their taxes

My favorite thing is how Bush attacked Kerry by saying "The rich always get out of paying their taxes, so to finance his healthcare plan, working Americans are going to have to pay." Gee George, whose fault is it that the rich get out of paying?

2) Slowly start phasing out the military industrial complex

Hard to believe that it was a Republican president who warned us about this one. Military spending is so much more expensive than domestic spending, it's ridiculous. People bitch all of the time about money wasted on welfare because people abuse the system. Sure, I don't like money wasted on welfare either, but the money that we waste on welfare doesn't even come close to the money that we waste on military spending that we simply don't need. Of course the media frames the debate and tells us to only complain about welfare and not about pentagon spending.

3) Eliminate earmarks and force side projects to actually go through the open legislative process

Pretty much same as the above.

[SensibleAmerican]

131. A flat rate of 30% if you got rid of the loopholes and eliminated FICA

n/t

[flaminbats]

132. eliminating FICA will only produce a massive loophole..

the FICA tax brings in more than enough revenue to fund Social Security, and abolishing it would even make the deficits under Bush look respectable!

Without a FICA tax how would you fund Social Security or Medicare? How would a single flat tax rate pay down a national debt that results in yearly interest payments high enough to drag our government further into debt every year?

[BrentWill4U]

133. Simple...

You make it high enough so that it covers everything. FICA money that goes into the government is the same as income tax money that goes into government. However, FICA is VERY regressive.

[SensibleAmerican]

152. I would fund it through the income tax

You may have to raise my top rate to do that, I don't know. However, I'd much rather have a porportional tax rather than one progressive tax and one regressive tax.

[rucky]

143. Keep it the same & remove the loopholes. n/t

[robcon]

144. Never, ever above 50%

Even at that level it seems high.

[BrentWill4U]

146. I do agree with the GOP on one thing...

It is YOUR money. Not the GOVERNMENTS.

[flaminbats]

147. except the GOP doesn't believe this

modern Republicans share the communist view. Government must always be obeyed, leaders make the rules, patriots never complain, lower taxes create more revenue, healthcare is not a right, liberalism is immoral, freedom isn't free, Darwinism is Christian, equality is an impossible dream, terrorism is worse than war, murder is killing the unborn, trees only get in the way, being healthy means hurting others, helping the sick and poor only feeds laziness, efficiency is spending more than you have, unspent money is only wasted, a free market must have corporations, life isn't a birthright, the Confederate flag is more American, slaves and land are only property, faith is blind obedience, that conserving natural resources is just a nutty dream, that owing money is impossible, and God is defined only by the Bible.

[BrentWill4U]

150. I did say that it is the

ONE THING

[flaminbats]

151. but Republicans don't believe that..

"It is YOUR money. Not the GOVERNMENTS." that is the heart of liberalism, not the GOP.

Republicans believe the government doesn't belong to the people, but that our country and citizens belong to the government.

[BrentWill4U]

153. I didn't say that followed through with it..

Are really believed it.. I said they SAID it. If they followed through with it they wouldn't be wasting my money on bridges to no where.

[BrentWill4U]

154. Oh wait..

I guess I did say that. Never mind. Miswrote.

[flaminbats]

156. ok...lesson learned..............

I guess :argh: