Tax Poll: What rate do you think this couple should pay?

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thought experiment: Would Steve Jobs have been less inclined to be creative if he could not have made so much money?

I've asked versions of that question many times. "What?! The tax rate on my next $100 million will be 10% higher?! Fuck it - I'm outta here."

The other night, Jon Stewart asked O'Reilly whether he'd really quit if he could only make $2 million per year instead of 3. O'Reilly had a hard time keeping a straight face when confronted with the stupidity of that idea.

Thought experiment: how much of Jobs' $6 billion in net worth did he get to spend? And when he was dying, what did he choose to do, quit to enjoy his riches or keep on building products?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thought experiment: Would Steve Jobs have been less inclined to be creative if he could not have made so much money?

I've asked versions of that question many times. "What?! The tax rate on my next $100 million will be 10% higher?! Fuck it - I'm outta here."

The other night, Jon Stewart asked O'Reilly whether he'd really quit if he could only make $2 million per year instead of 3. O'Reilly had a hard time keeping a straight face when confronted with the stupidity of that idea.

Thought experiment: how much of Jobs' $6 billion in net worth did he get to spend? And when he was dying, what did he choose to do, quit to enjoy his riches or keep on building products?

He could have quit after his first $100 million. But he did not.

[Anonymous]

I think that you should be taxed one way on income, another way on savings/investments etc.. if you are working poor, middle class and moderately rich (under 1 million). Over a million perhaps a bit more on savings/investments since they are sort of the gift that keeps on giving ....like a magic cooking pot

I like child credit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a conservative but I think we need to go back to Clinton-era tax rates. Why? because of math and because I am terrified by the deficit.

You're awesome. Signed - a liberal who feels the same way

Can you hear my "Amen!"?

xo,
Another liberal

I'm the conservative who posted that - to go back to Clinton-era rates. But I also want to cut the F out of the budget. Raise the SS/Medicare eligibility age, trim defense, etc. Hopefully you can give me an Amen to that as well.

Trim defense as long as it's the pork Congress writes in, such as the costly, forced relocation of Crystal City defense jobs to the Alexandria MARK center. All politics: not on Metro, security an issue, snarled traffic, etc..... http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/12/mark-center-security-a-serious-issue/.
Unfortunately, trim defense is now "get rid of military retirement and health care". Health care, housing and retirement are presented to recruits as part of salary. Fine, get rid of them and significantly raise base salary. There are families in the military on WIC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a conservative but I think we need to go back to Clinton-era tax rates. Why? because of math and because I am terrified by the deficit.

You're awesome. Signed - a liberal who feels the same way

Can you hear my "Amen!"?

xo,
Another liberal

I'm the conservative who posted that - to go back to Clinton-era rates. But I also want to cut the F out of the budget. Raise the SS/Medicare eligibility age, trim defense, etc. Hopefully you can give me an Amen to that as well.

Trim defense as long as it's the pork Congress writes in, such as the costly, forced relocation of Crystal City defense jobs to the Alexandria MARK center. All politics: not on Metro, security an issue, snarled traffic, etc..... http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/12/mark-center-security-a-serious-issue/.
Unfortunately, trim defense is now "get rid of military retirement and health care". Health care, housing and retirement are presented to recruits as part of salary. Fine, get rid of them and significantly raise base salary. There are families in the military on WIC.

I don't get the Mark Center comment. The move is part of BRAC, which is the way congress started reeling in pork. It is designed to save money. Perhaps it is inconvenient for you but that is the thinking that causes us to have a sprawl of bases that should've closed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh for f****'s sake, tax rates are marginal. Marginal. That means that you pay x percent on the first slice of income up to a certain amount, then a higher percentage on the next slice up to a higher amount, etc.

So even if the rate were 50% for HHIs above 250k, that would mean you would pay 50% of whatever you earn above 250k, not 50% of the whole amount.

On top of this, you have to take into account capital gains rates of 15% only, which dramatically lowers the rate rich people pay since so much of their wealth is from capital gains. I believe the WP published the effective tax rates for several brackets a few months ago, and the top 400 incomes paid something like 16% effective rate (probably due to the fact that almost all their income is from capital gains at 15%).

And then add deductions and credits to all that and your question is really pretty moot.

Are you just a b**h in real life or just being obstructionist? Did you not read the original post? We all KNOW that tax rates are marginal. This isn't about that. This is just about a broader view of what people think is a fair amount of their income that they should pay. Go play in another sandbox, preferably alone.

OP's post doesn't give any indication that he/she knows tax rates are marginal. Nobody pays the rates he's suggesting.

[Anonymous]

I think the "rate" discussion is a red herring. The real argument is deciding what counts as income.

-- Wages (sure)
-- Common interest income (CDs, savings accounts)?
-- Profit from selling a house
-- Capital gains
-- Inheritance

It seems to me that "flat taxes" and 9-9-9 plans are really about codifying the idea that unearned income, especially capital gains and inheritance, are no longer considered "income." Since these are the major sources of wealth for the super rich, they don't mind everyone else bickering about rates.

Perhaps I'm unqualified because I've never had gains from selling a house, selling stock or getting an inheritance but those things sure seem like "income" to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a conservative but I think we need to go back to Clinton-era tax rates. Why? because of math and because I am terrified by the deficit.

You're awesome. Signed - a liberal who feels the same way

Can you hear my "Amen!"?

xo,
Another liberal

I'm the conservative who posted that - to go back to Clinton-era rates. But I also want to cut the F out of the budget. Raise the SS/Medicare eligibility age, trim defense, etc. Hopefully you can give me an Amen to that as well.

Totally on board with both of these - with the understanding these are ALL Clinton-era rates - all brackets, not just the top. No sacred cows - the pain has to be shared. The tax increase and the budget cuts need to be in tandem - you don't get one without the other. And I think the budget cuts need to equal the CBO score of the additional revenue from the tax increase. So hypothetically if we collect $700B in additional tax we need to correspondingly cut $700B from all programs. Total 1.4 B swing in the deficit reduction.

A Conservative

[Anonymous]

That should be $1.4 T - sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Totally on board with both of these - with the understanding these are ALL Clinton-era rates - all brackets, not just the top. No sacred cows - the pain has to be shared. The tax increase and the budget cuts need to be in tandem - you don't get one without the other. And I think the budget cuts need to equal the CBO score of the additional revenue from the tax increase. So hypothetically if we collect $700B in additional tax we need to correspondingly cut $700B from all programs. Total 1.4 B swing in the deficit reduction.

A Conservative

Since Obama offered a 3 to 1 ratio of budget cuts to tax increase and the GOP candidates refused to say they would accept even a 10 to 1 ratio, you're a flaming Liberal!

[Anonymous]

my guess is this family pays the AMT regardless of deductions.