The top tax rate should be....

[quinnox]

Your poll question for today. What would you set the absolute top rate at for taxes?

[abelenkpe]

1. Economic crisis calls for bold measures

And last time I checked rich people were still fabulously rich under Eisenhower.

[Scuba]

2. What taxes? Payroll? Capital gains? Sales?

[ThomWV]

3. I say 50%, and here is why I believe that is high enough

First off I think that Government must be able to tax as much as is required to pay for the services the people demand (and receive). But I also believe that the Government should never be able to take more of a person's earnings than is kept. In short I don't believe the Government is ever entitled to more of the fruits of your labor than you are. The highest rate that meets my requirement is 50%.

[PETRUS]

4. How would you feel about it if the top MARGINAL tax rate is higher

But the effective taxes on total earnings is 50% or less.

[ThomWV]

9. Well, I suppose you'd have to take the marginal rate to 99% to get even close

But it was the marginal rate I was talking about. I don't care if its a man's first earned dollar or his last, I do think his society had a right to more of the results of his labor than he is.

[PETRUS]

11. Could be, I'm not an accountant!

I have follow up questions:

Do you believe that our economic system assigns value accurately. That is, do you believe that all the money people have (or don't) is fairly "earned."

Given that 5% of the population controls 70% of the wealth, and money effectively wins political office 90% of the time, do you think it's appropriate to adhere strictly to the logic of "you got it (somehow), you should keep at least half of it."


(You can probably infer this, but my point of view is that no, our economic system does not assign value appropriately, and that democracy is too important and power is too corrupting to allow massive wealth to accumulate in a few hands no matter how impeccable the economic logic is that drives those results.)

[ThomWV]

15. Nope, not even close.

If you mean assign value in a monetary sense, so as to ask what is something worth, then there are all sorts of pretty well known but never enumerated costs that are excluded from an items total. The cost of medical care resulting from exposure to industrial contaminants might be one example, air and water pollution another, and so on.

But there are the other reasons we have to value things that are even far less representative of reality too. Ask any 16-year-old why they just have to have so and so and you'll see what I mean. Well, we adults aren't much better. I think I can compile much of this thought into a single name: Edward Bernays.

[alc]

5. 30%, no loopholes, first $100k exempt

I assume you're talking fed income. Not including state, city, fica, gas, etc.

[Zoeisright]

13. I like that idea. I've never understood why exemptions are so low.

Well, I know why, but it's very unfair.

[saras]

6. It's not about "afford it", it's that above a certain income, you CAN'T earn it and MUST steal it

[smokey nj]

10. Fran Lebowitz put it this way: "You don't EARN a billion dollars, you steal a billion dollars.

You EARN 10 dollars an hour." Sam Seder interviewed her last Thursday for his anniversary show. You can listen to it here, the interview starts at about the 1 hour mark:

http://majority.fm/2011/11/17/thursday-november-17-2011/

[NYC_SKP]

7. It's about loopholes. Close them and end other breaks and it wouldn't have to be particularly high.

But it's hard to say how high.

I tend to agree with comment above, about 30 percent with first 100K untaxed.

I want a big fat middle class!

[RickFromMN]

8. It's a question of how much money does one really need. One can't take it with one when one dies.

Most rich can, and do, pass their wealth down to their children and grandchildren.
The rich will say this is fair...but is it really fair?

Conservatives argue for equality of opportunity, and say they don't want equality of results.
Does a son of a poor person have the same opportunity as the son of a rich person?
Is the playing field level when the rich can invest $100 million in their son's start up company?
Is the playing field level when a rich person's son inherits a large corporation from his dad?

[dawg]

12. As low as possible ...

consistent with a functional government, strong safety-net, strong national defense, and a progressive system of taxation.

I wish we could do it with the current top rate. We cannot.

I have no desire to soak the rich. I do think they need to pay a higher percentage than the middle-class. And I do think the tax rates should be set high enough to sufficiently fund the government.

High taxes on the rich are not inherently good. But they need to pay more than they are currently paying.

[Odin2005]

14. 50% on top incomes, 60% on capital gains.

[Selatius]

16. Technically speaking, the US had over 90% tax rates on the top 1% of income earners under FDR.

We were fighting the twin dragons of the Great Depression and World War 2. The money had to come from somewhere to mobilize the population and pay for the New Deal and the war effort in both the Pacific and European theaters of battle.

[CanonRay]

17. I actually wanted 91%

but I'll settle for 90

[TheKentuckian]

18. I think this is a real and knowable number, versus an ideological position.

At some point we get the maximum value, it may change slightly depending on circumstances but generally there is a sweet spot and I know that today's levels are too low and actually act as a reverse incentive to invest, fuel income disparity, and generally inhibits the circulation of money through most of the economy. I also believe that at some point taxes are too high and again inhibit investment. I think Kennedy was correct when he reduced the top rate from the 90% neighborhood.

My guess has long been about 65% and that is where we should start and adjust up or down as reality dictates. Maybe we find that 54.7% works best or maybe 69% is the magic number, maybe it is 72% or 44.3% but we know that what we have is a fucking mess and 90% is not optimal as an incentive on return to get as much commerce flowing as possible. It just isn't and pretending it is helps keep the right wing race to zero going because history tells us with reasonable certitude that if we too high we get diminishing returns.

We've got a lot of history and data, supercomputers, and trained economist. We could get a handle on this if the extremes along with those at and around the status quo didn't dictate this debate.

We also need new and more brackets. The guy making a million and the guy making a billion are further apart than a guy making a 100 grand and the million dollar earner. Sure as hell the guy making 300k and the guy making a billion are many worlds apart.

[Ganja Ninja]

19. The top tax rate should be linked to the unemployment rate.

Think about it. Why should the rich invest in this country when high unemployment means low taxes?

I propose the top tax rate be linked to the unemployment rate like this:

If the unemployment rate is 20% or higher the top tax rate would go to 80%.

If the unemployment rate is 5% or lower the top tax rate would be 35%

The top tax rate would be figured like this: (Unemployment rate - 5) X 3 + 35 = Top tax rate

Example:
Unemployment at 14% - 5 = 9
9 X 3 = 27
27 + 35 = 62% top tax rate

[trackfan]

20. The marginal rate should be 100% on anything after $20 million. n/t

[slackmaster]

21. Yes, we need to make sure the government has plenty of money to spend on illegal wars

:eyes: