Taxes - where should top tax rate be set and at what %?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that wealthy do need to pay their share of taxes. I do, and it's how the free world works. Nurses, teachers, laborers are all paying taxes that cover services that we all benefit from. I was at a dinner party the other night and three of the very wealthy men there were bragging that they hadn't paid taxes in over a decade (legally through loop holes). I asked if they were embarrassed that their kids' teachers and the mail man were paying for their snow removal, road maintenance, police protection, fire department etc. They were a little stunned, and I was a little sickened by their attitude. And for what it's worth, one was a Trump supporter and the other two were liberals.

It depends on the "loophole." If their income was derived from municipal bonds, for example, which offer a lower yield with the benefit that they are tax-free, is that not reasonable?

And it's doubtful that they paid *no* taxes. Even if they own stocks of publicly traded companies and have not sold for capital gains, then their companies are paying corporate taxes. They would also be paying taxes on any dividends.

This story sounds a little far-fetched, honestly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that wealthy do need to pay their share of taxes. I do, and it's how the free world works. Nurses, teachers, laborers are all paying taxes that cover services that we all benefit from. I was at a dinner party the other night and three of the very wealthy men there were bragging that they hadn't paid taxes in over a decade (legally through loop holes). I asked if they were embarrassed that their kids' teachers and the mail man were paying for their snow removal, road maintenance, police protection, fire department etc. They were a little stunned, and I was a little sickened by their attitude. And for what it's worth, one was a Trump supporter and the other two were liberals.

I find this hard to believe. First it's a very inappropriate and crass thing to talk about. Second this means all three men haven't had a W2 in over a decade. In other words they don't have a job and live off of investments. If they live off of investments this means they haven't sold stock in over a decade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know there are a lot of high income people on these boards so I'm curious what you think we should do about the problem of income inequality.

There is no such thing as income inequality. There are differences in incomes but to label it inequality is income envy.

My opinion has always been the same, never more than 35%. Capital gains should be indexed according to income levels up to the highest income tax rate but again, no more than 35%. And there should not be a death tax. But if you insist on having one, never more than 35% at very high levels of estate value.

FYI, I have spent the majority of my 30+ years in adulthood in lower to middle income. I am now hitting the 6 figures, but barely, and within 5 years to retirement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Income inequality" refers to household incomes. The biggest contributors to it are the vast increase in single-parent households at one end, and married dual-income households at the other end. The latter is further exacerbated by the tendency for potential high-earners to exclusively mate with other potential high-earners.

No the biggest problem is that the top 10-20% are the only people seeing real wage growth.

While somewhat true, that's a very minor factor compared to what I outlined. Additionally, your claim is a lot less true if you look at total compensation, including the employer share of health insurance, which has skyrocketed. You can't responsibly ignore that.

People do though. Look, the point is, HRC is promising to raise taxes on the rich and her election is basically a done deal at this point. Where do you think the top rate should be set?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Income inequality and marginal tax rates and brackets are unrelated.

How so? The only idea people seem to have for smoothing it out is to redistribute income from upper earners to lower.

People are small minded.

Wealth redistribution through taxation does not address income inequality. High earners will still earn a lot. Low earners will not.

Are you being obtuse on purpose??? Low earners will not care if we go back to the period where top tax bracket is set at 70-90% and they are suddenly getting more out of their tax dollars than upper earners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Married couples earning more than $150k should be paying 45% or 50% on all income above $150k.

Obviously, the brackets would be adjusted accordingly, but that's a rough idea where it should be.

Yes let's kill the middle class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Income inequality" refers to household incomes. The biggest contributors to it are the vast increase in single-parent households at one end, and married dual-income households at the other end. The latter is further exacerbated by the tendency for potential high-earners to exclusively mate with other potential high-earners.

No the biggest problem is that the top 10-20% are the only people seeing real wage growth.

While somewhat true, that's a very minor factor compared to what I outlined. Additionally, your claim is a lot less true if you look at total compensation, including the employer share of health insurance, which has skyrocketed. You can't responsibly ignore that.

People do though. Look, the point is, HRC is promising to raise taxes on the rich and her election is basically a done deal at this point. Where do you think the top rate should be set?

I think it's high enough where it is. And I don't think Hillary has any real intention of raising it on people with taxable income less than say, 450k. And NOT just because of GOP opposition. The Democrats are too reliant on the UMC coastal elites to slam them with higher taxes.

I won't be voting for Hillary, btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Married couples earning more than $150k should be paying 45% or 50% on all income above $150k.

Obviously, the brackets would be adjusted accordingly, but that's a rough idea where it should be.

Yes let's kill the middle class.

It's hardly killing someone to insist that those who have been very successful in this economy pay their fair share toward those who haven't. As a progressive society, this is what we should be striving for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that wealthy do need to pay their share of taxes. I do, and it's how the free world works. Nurses, teachers, laborers are all paying taxes that cover services that we all benefit from. I was at a dinner party the other night and three of the very wealthy men there were bragging that they hadn't paid taxes in over a decade (legally through loop holes). I asked if they were embarrassed that their kids' teachers and the mail man were paying for their snow removal, road maintenance, police protection, fire department etc. They were a little stunned, and I was a little sickened by their attitude. And for what it's worth, one was a Trump supporter and the other two were liberals.

I find this hard to believe. First it's a very inappropriate and crass thing to talk about. Second this means all three men haven't had a W2 in over a decade. In other words they don't have a job and live off of investments. If they live off of investments this means they haven't sold stock in over a decade.

I swear to you this was the conversation. I am no tax expert, but this is what they said. Maybe it isn't true, but they were bragging and proud of how they managed to avoid taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that wealthy do need to pay their share of taxes. I do, and it's how the free world works. Nurses, teachers, laborers are all paying taxes that cover services that we all benefit from. I was at a dinner party the other night and three of the very wealthy men there were bragging that they hadn't paid taxes in over a decade (legally through loop holes). I asked if they were embarrassed that their kids' teachers and the mail man were paying for their snow removal, road maintenance, police protection, fire department etc. They were a little stunned, and I was a little sickened by their attitude. And for what it's worth, one was a Trump supporter and the other two were liberals.

I find this hard to believe. First it's a very inappropriate and crass thing to talk about. Second this means all three men haven't had a W2 in over a decade. In other words they don't have a job and live off of investments. If they live off of investments this means they haven't sold stock in over a decade.

I swear to you this was the conversation. I am no tax expert, but this is what they said. Maybe it isn't true, but they were bragging and proud of how they managed to avoid taxes.

It can be done. For example, if you have substantial and valuable assets, you can get a loan with those assets as collateral at a relatively low interest rate. You live off the loan; value of the loan is not income so there is no income tax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Married couples earning more than $150k should be paying 45% or 50% on all income above $150k.

Obviously, the brackets would be adjusted accordingly, but that's a rough idea where it should be.

Yes let's kill the middle class.

It's hardly killing someone to insist that those who have been very successful in this economy pay their fair share toward those who haven't. As a progressive society, this is what we should be striving for.

It's a misconception that the highly successful aren't paying their fair share. The top 2% (or is it 1%) pay 40% of all federal taxes! and the top 20% pay something like 80%. I'd vote for everyone (other then those under the poverty line) to pay a tiny something and have some skin in the game. As it stands now, almost half the people don't pay any federal income taxes. How about a token payment of $100 per earner?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know there are a lot of high income people on these boards so I'm curious what you think we should do about the problem of income inequality.

Your question totally depends on the tax base. Tax policy is a lot more than just marginal rates. The base matters just as much, if not more. A 90% rate with a porous tax base is worthless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There should be a top tax rate for millionaires of 50 percent. And an estate tax of 75 percent on estates worth more than $50 million.

No loopholes or deductions.

The high estate tax is a little hard to accept if you have already paid your 40% income tax on it. I don't think money should be taxed twice in the same family, but if you have it hidden away free from tax and then it changes hands through death, then maybe.

There are a lot of untaxed capital gains in estates.

Also, the estate tax is probably the most American of all the taxes -- we believe in meritocracy in this country, and we reject aristocracy. So, from that perspective, it's excellent policy. No one should be able to set their children up for life -- they should earn their own fortune.

Also, as a practical matter, it makes far more sense to tax dead people than living ones.

[Anonymous]

It's very easy to pay no taxes if you don't get a W-2. You set everything up as a business, run all passive income (dividends, cap gains, rental income, etc) through the business and charge all your expenses to the business and zero everything out. That's the goal of every CPA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's very easy to pay no taxes if you don't get a W-2. You set everything up as a business, run all passive income (dividends, cap gains, rental income, etc) through the business and charge all your expenses to the business and zero everything out. That's the goal of every CPA.

+1

Exactly. Owners don't pay income taxes. Income taxes are for the proles.