[Zerogouki]

Good idea or bad idea?

I vote good idea only because the USA is hemmorhaging money right now and Congress refuses to cut spending.

[Dr House]

Good idea, same reason.

We need to cut spending anyway, and almost every last bit of spending that's been passed or proposed so far is useless.

The US economy is heading off a cliff fast, and the idiots in Washington on both sides are doing nothing but push it down

[Aekos]

Bad idea. How the fuck do you justify taking 70% of what someone earns, no matter how much?

[Zerogouki]

What the hell are you talking about? Do you even know what a tax bracket is?

[Aekos]

Now I do . It's Spanish.

[Zerogouki]

Here's a clue for you: people are sorted into different income tax brackets based on their income. The poorest people pay 0%, the fairly poor pay 30%, and the rich pay 50%. Prior to the Reagan administration, we had a 70% tax bracket leveled against the uber-rich. I'm talking about reinstating this 70% tax bracket on the uber-rich, not on everyone.

[sploop!]

Excellent idea. It would get my vote.

[dwix]

I think it could be looked into. Maybe a way to exempt investments, or certain investments, so that there is still incentive to earn but not to sit on wealth.

[NYYS]

Truly horrendous idea. Not only does this discourage actually paying taxes (you'd have to be kidding yourself if you thought people wouldn't just evade), it also discourages people like me from attempting to reach that bracket. I would have no reason at all to be working my ass off right now, as after a point my quality of life would cease to increase. It would be more important to me to find a job with minimal hours and responsibilities. Finally, the people that are that rich are wealthy enough to not have to work. I don't know why any of them would continue with the stress of working some ludicrously important, stressful job and only gain 30% from it when they could very easily retire.

[Dr House]

I don't know why any of them would continue with the stress of working some ludicrously important, stressful job and only gain 30% from it when they could very easily retire.

People who reach the kind of position that makes them that kind of money are generally not in it for the money, they're in it for the power. That's why they work so hard they don't take the time to actually enjoy the money. Congressmen work every bit as hard as CEOs do, yet their salary is in the low six-figure range.

Besides, don't worry Yankees. Most likely you're gonna end up paying "just" AMT anyway.

[Paradigm]

Most people who are that wealthy tend to have a lot of their money in the stock market anyway.

[NYYS]

People who reach the kind of position that makes them that kind of money are generally not in it for the money, they're in it for the power. That's why they work so hard they don't take the time to actually enjoy the money.

I disagree. At the end of the day if they're not gaining anything from it there's no reason to stick with it. I'm sure the power is nice, but if enjoying their money is forced on them by a new tax bracket they'll take it.

Congressmen work every bit as hard as CEOs do, yet their salary is in the low six-figure range.

Come on House, you know how much work goes in has nothing to do with the compensation. It's supply and demand. Very, very, very few people can run a company or perform brain surgery. I would suggest far more people are capable of giving their political opinions.

Most people who are that wealthy tend to have a lot of their money in the stock market anyway.

Which would be a decent argument for raising the capital gains tax on the wealthy (not that I would advocate that, either), but not a personal income tax.

[Sephardi]

Partial History of
U.S. Federal Income Tax Rates
Since 1913
Applicable
Year Income
brackets First
bracket Top
bracket Source
1913-1915 - 1% 7% IRS
1916 - 2% 15% IRS
1917 - 2% 67% IRS
1918 - 6% 73% IRS
1919-1920 - 4% 73% IRS
1921 - 4% 73% IRS
1922 - 4% 56% IRS
1923 - 3% 56% IRS
1924 - 1.5% 46% IRS
1925-1928 - 1.5% 25% IRS
1929 - 0.375% 24% IRS
1930-1931 - 1.125% 25% IRS
1932-1933 - 4% 63% IRS
1934-1935 - 4% 63% IRS
1936-1939 - 4% 79% IRS
1940 - 4.4% 81.1% IRS
1941 - 10% 81% IRS
1942-1943 - 19% 88% IRS
1944-1945 - 23% 94% IRS
1946-1947 - 19% 86.45% IRS
1948-1949 - 16.6% 82.13% IRS
1950 - 17.4% 84.36% IRS
1951 - 20.4% 91% IRS
1952-1953 - 22.2% 92% IRS
1954-1963 - 20% 91% IRS
1964 - 16% 77% IRS
1965-1967 14% 70% IRS
1968 - 14% 75.25% IRS
1969 - 14% 77% IRS
1970 - 14% 71.75% IRS
1971-1981 15 brackets 14% 70% IRS
1982-1986 12 brackets 12% 50% IRS
1987 5 brackets 11% 33% IRS
1988-1990 3 brackets 15% 28% IRS
1991-1992 3 brackets 15% 31% IRS
1993-2000 5 brackets 15% 39.6% IRS
2001 5 brackets 15% 39.1% IRS
2002 6 brackets 10% 38.6% IRS
2003-2009 6 brackets 10% 35% Tax Foundation

Holy shit the 40s and 50s were insane. Over 90%? Holy shit.

[Dr House]

Holy shit the 40s and 50s were insane. Over 90%? Holy shit.

We had to pay back all the money we borrowed to finance WWII.

[Zerogouki]

Ack, I wrote my previous message incorrectly! And the edit button disappeared! It should have gone like this:

the poorest people pay 0%, the fairly poor pay 10%, the middle class pays 30%, and the rich pay 50%

Fixed.

[Dave]

The ~90% tax rate was rather easy to avoid, as there was no Alternative Minimum Tax until the 1960s. And the AMT still resulted in a reasonable consolidated rate.

A 70% tax rate is far too high to be effectively collected, to say nothing of the likely negative economic consequences. A top rate between 40-50% would be more reasonable.

[Anikdote]

I think it's a terrible idea. I'd have to dig them up again, but I've seen several charts measuring revenue received at the federal level compared to marginal tax rates and regardless of how high the marginal rate the revenue remained stagnant relative to GDP. Taking more money out of the pockets of some of the biggest spenders seems counter productive. Even if the money isn't spent, and is instead invested the amounts they're able to invest make it possible for those further down the income scale to garner loans.

Of course I'll never agree to any hike in the income tax because I think it ought to be abolished entirely.

[foilist13]

Did none of you notice how the economy jumped immediately after Reagan took office and lowered the taxes. When you raise taxes the rich do everything in their power (which is considerable) to avoid the tax, be it move, find loop holes, or otherwise evade. The more you lower the tax, the sooner they stop giving all their money to lawyers and just pay it.

[Cartertonian]

I sincerely wish there was a 'Kindergarten' sub-forum for people like me who haven't got a fcukin' clue!

What I don't get is (tax evasion notwithstanding) what's wrong with a flat rate tax for everyone?

Let's say it's 10%.

Someone who earns 10,000 pays 1,000

Someone who earns 100,000 pays 10,000

Someone who earns 1,000,000 pays 100,000

So the top, million-dollar/pound/whatever, earner is paying A HUNDRED TIMES the tax of the little guy.

How is that wrong?

[PredatorOC]

How is that wrong?

Because leftists are weak and insecure and do not wish to see anyone succeed. It is the nature of lesser creatures to attempt to suppress the ûbermensch .