[Karl_Bonner_1982]

I'm not sure just how far up the income tax brackets should go, but I do agree that $350k is too low for the top bracket to begin. We should distinguish the merely-rich from the super-rich in our tax rates.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fede ... 901021.pdf

This gives a year-by-year history of the income tax brackets. Notice that in the 1960s and '70s the 70-percent bracket started at $200k. In the early '60s this was equivalent to about $1 million in today's dollars. But as the years progressed, inflation caused "bracket creep" so that less-wealthy households were getting hit by the high rates.

I would advocate returning the existing bracket rates to Clinton-era levels (except for the bottom three) and then adding on at least two more brackets on top: incomes above about $800k would be taxed at 45%, and incomes above $2 million at 50%. Then eliminate the overseas tax loopholes. Introduce an element of progressivity to the capital gains tax so that wealthy investors pay a higher marginal rate than middle class mutual fund owners. Legalize, tax and regulate marijuana to provide revenue for drug and alcohol treatment programs. I'm also open to the possibility of a carbon tax, as well as a luxury sales tax at the federal level.

If we combine this with an end to the Iraq war and streamlining of government contracts we should have plenty of revenue to work on health care and providing better assistance programs for low-wage workers and workers who need retraining. There are plenty of areas where government could get the same services for less if they didn't set up expensive Halliburton-style contracts.

[NYYS]

$1,000,001 - $10,000,000: 75%
$10,000,000 and up: 95%

...and all capital goes offshores, good work.

Denmark is a good example of a way too crazy for me welfare state. Unemployment benefits last for four fucking years. Jesus... At least they have completely full employment (<2% unemployment).

a) On a technical note, full employment is a relative term which does not mean "low unemployment." For example, full employment in the US is like 4.8% unemployment or something. I guarantee they don't have full employment right now, no one in the world does.
b) I don't know if this is specifically the case with Denmark, but I have read that a lot of welfare states (and the US I know for sure does) use some counting tricks to keep the unemployment figure low. It's probably much, much higher than that, I wouldn't be surprised if they were counting people on welfare as employed.

[Dr House]

...and all capital goes offshores, good work.

I would also confiscate the capital assets of rich people leaving the country and implement a forced savings regime.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

but I have read that a lot of welfare states (and the US I know for sure does) use some counting tricks to keep the unemployment figure low.

Yes, Stephen T Colbert was the one to inform me about this. They don't include people who have given up on the job search entirely.

[Dr House]

I don't know if this is specifically the case with Denmark, but I have read that a lot of welfare states (and the US I know for sure does) use some counting tricks to keep the unemployment figure low. It's probably much, much higher than that, I wouldn't be surprised if they were counting people on welfare as employed.

I'd heard it was the other way around though. In a lot of states with permissive unemployment assistance the unemployment level is higher b/c people pretend to be looking for work just to collect unemployment benefits.

[Rancid]

I say no way.

The government should be cutting spending period. Bringing back a 70% bracket will just spur the irresponsible runaway spending that is occurring right now. If the government knew how to spend money responsibly, then maybe I'd consider it.

We shouldn't be giving the children in congress a bigger bucket of shit to douse the American people with.

[NYYS]

I would also confiscate the capital assets of rich people leaving the country and implement a forced savings regime.

ha, the government can't even collect all the wealthy's taxes at the currently reasonable 33% (or whatever). What makes you think a 95% rate is going to suddenly be complied with?

[liberty]

Delete sorry

[Holding]

I would also confiscate the capital assets of rich people leaving the country and implement a forced savings regime.

So you'd want to piss off, collectively, the people that own all the guns, media, transportation, utilities, and private armies and then try to start a brutish pissing contest with them?

[Korimyr the Rat]

I think reinstating the 70% is a good idea, but I think there should also be several tax brackets created in-between 35% and 70%. The highest tax bracket really should be reserved for people making considerably more than the highest point of "middle class".

Also really do not think that tax brackets should reach much higher than that. No real point in it.

[liberty]

The constitution says we should tax everyone equally, and for a good reason.

[Korimyr the Rat]

As an equal percentage, or should everyone pay the exact same amount in taxes?

Claiming "equal protection" as Constitutional justification for flat taxes is a truly inspired leap of political fancy.

[Dr House]

I think reinstating the 70% is a good idea, but I think there should also be several tax brackets created in-between 35% and 70%.

Why? Lower-upper class individuals are workers, and in fact do almost invaluable services for us (these are the engineers, surgeons, small-time entrepreneurs, etc.). There's no reason to punish them with high taxes. The only reason I support a 70%-plus top bracket is I want to turn the capitalist upper class into tax fugitives.

[Korimyr the Rat]

I certainly agree with your first point. I don't hate the rich and I'm not attempting to "punish" them. On the other hand, the government does need to be funded and it is important to keep wealth circulating through society instead of simply accumulating at the top.

[Holding]

I want to turn the capitalist upper class into tax fugitives

Why?

[Paradigm]

The constitution says we should tax everyone equally, and for a good reason.

Citation?

[Rancid]

On the other hand, the government does need to be funded and it is important to keep wealth circulating through society instead of simply accumulating at the top.

The government doesn't need more funding, it needs to stop its irresponsible spending. Wealth doesn't just accumulate at the top either.

I don't understand what is wrong with people. Why do some of us think that somehow giving more money to irresponsible assholes in government will make things better. Why do we want them to buy more buckets of shit with our money?

[Korimyr the Rat]

The government doesn't need more funding, it needs to stop its irresponsible spending.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Both are necessary to eliminate budget deficits. Worth remembering that not all government spending is necessarily irresponsible; it is a matter of what the program in question accomplishes and how effectively for the money.

Wealth doesn't just accumulate at the top either.

Observe the change in disparity of wealth and the median income in real dollars over the past fifty years. The facts disagree with you.

[Rancid]

The two are not mutually exclusive. Both are necessary to eliminate budget deficits. Worth remembering that not all government spending is necessarily irresponsible; it is a matter of what the program in question accomplishes and how effectively for the money.

What exactly is it that changes where the government needs to increase the percentage of pay taken from people? What percentage will be enough?

Taxation these days isn't even based on reason, it's just based on feelings. Anyone that supports this bullshit is a traitor to freedom, and all that is good and pure.

[Michaeluj]

Observe the change in disparity of wealth and the median income in real dollars over the past fifty years. The facts disagree with you.

Or we can live without inflation and have workers keep and even gain the value of their pay. After all, it's not like inflation is ruining the value of currency, right? It's not like it contributes to wealth concentration, hmmm?