Is 39% tax rate for wealthy really fair?

[Anonymous]

I hate the way people who make over certain levels are NOT considered "working families" anymore.

+1 The people I know who are in the upper brackets are not just working; they are working crazy long hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have been poor and I have been rich. Not once when I was poor did I think that the rich owed me anything. Not once when I was poor did I think that the rich should have to pay 50% of their income in taxes as many on this board seem to be advocating. Not once when I was poor did I resent the rich because they had more money than I did. Hell, I wanted to make that kind of money myself And I did what was necessary to get myself out of poverty. I do not understand the anger, the hatred, the envy and the greedy grab for money simply because someone makes the arbitrary decision that a certain income is too much.

Because you came from a time and a family that asked you to work your hardest to make the best of yourself. Most kids whine about going to grade school and parents whine they are overworked in school. If I complained about school my parents said work harder. Not go in and say little Johnny is overworked. Can not concentrate. Please help him. Ugh!! There is a middle ground here people and it isn't the rich having to shell out half their earnings. There IS a way out from poverty. Many just choose not to explore and try. The system will supplement you so long as you meet their criteria. Instead of doing a scale on taxes, lets do a scale on welfare. You get 100% one year, 80% another and force wean them in 5 years. Oh and let's stop deductions in taxes or increases in welfare after 4 kids. Stop popping babies out if you can not afford them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Because you came from a time and a family that asked you to work your hardest to make the best of yourself. Most kids whine about going to grade school and parents whine they are overworked in school. If I complained about school my parents said work harder. Not go in and say little Johnny is overworked. Can not concentrate. Please help him. Ugh!! There is a middle ground here people and it isn't the rich having to shell out half their earnings. There IS a way out from poverty. Many just choose not to explore and try. The system will supplement you so long as you meet their criteria. Instead of doing a scale on taxes, lets do a scale on welfare. You get 100% one year, 80% another and force wean them in 5 years. Oh and let's stop deductions in taxes or increases in welfare after 4 kids. Stop popping babies out if you can not afford them.

Are you aware of how welfare works? There is a 60 month lifetime limit on Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). That is 5 years, just as you say it should be. Within 2 years, recipients are required to have a job. This is already how it works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Assistance_for_Needy_Families

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A better way is to continue to allow loopholes, tax shelters, etc, but to put a hard bottom below which your effective tax rate cannot drop. You can run a tiered structure like a marginal tax rate. If you make 0-$50K, then you can pay no taxes. $50-100K you cannot drop below 15%, $100-250K you cannot drop below 20%, over $250K you cannot drop below 25% or whatever levels you want. Then you won't have these multi-millionaires with 7-10 figure annual incomes paying 5-15% taxes. Then you wouldn't worry so much about the marginal tax rate and tax shelters, etc. And everyone would know that all were paying "their fair share."

Making $50k and not paying taxes? That isn't right. Do you know how many singles make that and live comfortably? Especially in non urban areas.

You missed a line. The numbers I threw out were only an illustration not an actual proposal. The point is that if you want to really avoid people abusing the system and getting away with too much, don't worry about closing loopholes, because they'll find others. Don't worry about something like the AMT which just recomputes how they calculate what they owe. Instead, just put a floor on the bottom level that each income level can hit and then they can use any means that they can to get that low, but won't be able to drop their income lower.

You can make it $0-<poverty level> pays no taxes, <poverty level> - 2x<poverty level> pays 5% and on up. or whatever. The point is that there should be a way to limit how far anyone can drop their taxes.

[Anonymous]

These anti-poor people are not really talking about families on TANF. They're talking about working families who don't qualify for welfare per se, but do qualify (and need) food stamps, housing support, disability payments, WIC.

In other words, they want to take away the programs that help people from becoming so poor they end up in the streets.

Ever been to a country that does that? Not pretty.

[Anonymous]

These anti-poor people are not really talking about families on TANF. They're talking about working families who don't qualify for welfare per se, but do qualify (and need) food stamps, housing support, disability payments, WIC.

In other words, they want to take away the programs that help people from becoming so poor they end up in the streets.

Ever been to a country that does that? Not pretty.

Wow. You are making some huge leaps and generalizations. Refusing to accept that someone should pay 50% of their income in taxes as suggested on this thread, hardly equates to be anti-poor and wanting to throw people on the streets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a democrat, but I'm not sure I understand the justification of the wealthy paying such a high tax rate. Can someone explain this to me? We are middle class and pay about 12%. It seems like 39% is quite high, even for the wealthy. This seems like more than their fair share. What am I missing?

What you are missing is that the wealthy will also be taking large tax deductible items to bring the tax rate down. Twelve percent sounds REALLY low but is that after a lot of deductions? Mortgage interest, child care, health insurance, 401k, etc.?