Harris tax plan - raising taxes on high earners

[Anonymous]

You guys don't understand that the super rich pay the vast majority of all taxes paid? Look it up. Don't make up shit. That's what dems do

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Make all earned income subject to the social security tax and not just the first $168,600. That would fix a lot.

This. This is what I would do if I were president.

+1 and I'm fine with increasing the top marginal tax rate.

Remember the GOP may talk about lowering taxes (although they really mean just for the rich) but their solutions are generally cut taxes for their friends, don't cut spending, grow deficits. No wonder the economy historically has done better under Democrat administrations.

[Anonymous]

Taxes in the US are low compared to most developed countries. This is the way to have the infrastructure that people want.

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20taxes%20at%20all,operation%20and%20Development%20(OECD).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband and I are both high earners and both totally fine with this. My husband grew up poor and was the first person in his family to graduate from college. Without public schools and social programs he never would have gotten out. We're not interested in pulling the ladder up behind us. We can easily afford some extra taxes.

OP here - great that you are fine with it, but I'm not! I feel that I pay way more than my fair share in taxes and not interested in paying even more. I'd much rather see major cuts in spending (I'm sure 20%+ of DoD spending is pure waste, if not more).

What part of you won’t be affected are you not understanding?

The mark-to-market, for example, is only going to apply to billionaires who pay less than 25% income tax. Is that you???

You have to gross more than $500,000 to be affected by the marginal rate increase. If that’s you, meh, you can afford it.

These things are also payfors for tax cuts to working people, which is good for the economy, which means you will do better overall.

She also hasn’t actually put out an explicit tax plan with this level of detail. You are either easily steered by right-wing propaganda or are a lying liar who lies. So which is it — are you a gullible fool or a deceitful shit?

I don't understand what you mean when you say I won't be affected. That was the whole point of my post in the first place - I WILL be affected. I will be paying a significantly higher marginal and effective tax rate.

You saying people in my shoes can "afford it" misses the point and by extension means the government should take everything someone earns except for a few dollars for basic needs.

Over a certain income level, yes, the government should take everything a person earns except a few dollars. A 90% marginal tax rate for the highest earners sounds exactly right.

To the extent you are serious, try to imagine a world where there is no incentive for entrepreneurship. No incentive to get rich. There would be no cell phones, no cars, no medical break throughs, no TV shows, no computers, no nice food for you to eat at the grocery store, nothing nice at all.

All the products and services you enjoy, that create the modern quality of life, are a result of people trying to get rich.

There is plenty of entrepreneurship in countries with higher tax rates than ours.

One big reason why? Universal, single-payer health care. When you no longer have to stick in a job you hate for the health benefits, you will be more willing to be entrepreneurial.

And those people have plenty of money despite the higher taxes. And a healthier public good, which means healthier customers.

So, your bullshit scenario is just that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You guys don't understand that the super rich pay the vast majority of all taxes paid? Look it up. Don't make up shit. That's what dems do

And they still don’t pay enough. They should be paying more.

Remember, taking lower income people off the rolls is a GOOD thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband and I are both high earners and both totally fine with this. My husband grew up poor and was the first person in his family to graduate from college. Without public schools and social programs he never would have gotten out. We're not interested in pulling the ladder up behind us. We can easily afford some extra taxes.

OP here - great that you are fine with it, but I'm not! I feel that I pay way more than my fair share in taxes and not interested in paying even more. I'd much rather see major cuts in spending (I'm sure 20%+ of DoD spending is pure waste, if not more).

What part of you won’t be affected are you not understanding?

The mark-to-market, for example, is only going to apply to billionaires who pay less than 25% income tax. Is that you???

You have to gross more than $500,000 to be affected by the marginal rate increase. If that’s you, meh, you can afford it.

These things are also payfors for tax cuts to working people, which is good for the economy, which means you will do better overall.

She also hasn’t actually put out an explicit tax plan with this level of detail. You are either easily steered by right-wing propaganda or are a lying liar who lies. So which is it — are you a gullible fool or a deceitful shit?

I don't understand what you mean when you say I won't be affected. That was the whole point of my post in the first place - I WILL be affected. I will be paying a significantly higher marginal and effective tax rate.

You saying people in my shoes can "afford it" misses the point and by extension means the government should take everything someone earns except for a few dollars for basic needs.

Over a certain income level, yes, the government should take everything a person earns except a few dollars. A 90% marginal tax rate for the highest earners sounds exactly right.

To the extent you are serious, try to imagine a world where there is no incentive for entrepreneurship. No incentive to get rich. There would be no cell phones, no cars, no medical break throughs, no TV shows, no computers, no nice food for you to eat at the grocery store, nothing nice at all.

All the products and services you enjoy, that create the modern quality of life, are a result of people trying to get rich.

It wouldn’t be a world, only a country. And all the rich people and entrepreneurs here would just leave. Lots of other countries to choose from who understand economics and actually want wealthy people coming in and creating jobs for their citizens.

Thankfully we have rock-solid laws penalizing tax-motivated expatriation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Make all earned income subject to the social security tax and not just the first $168,600. That would fix a lot.

The reason you cannot do that is then their benefits would soar too. And if you object to THAT you just completely changed SS into a pure welfare program and any semblance of bipartisan support for it (which is already tenuous) disappears.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem with "tax the rich" is that there aren't enough rich people. If we accept that we need to balance the budget, tax revenue needs to increase among all income groups, significant spending cuts need to be made (including to Medicare, Social Security, and the military), and inflation will have to continue. This is going to be painful.

The sooner that we start on all of this, the less painful it will be in the long term.

Or we can just continue to ignore the problem and hope it goes away, which is what is likely to happen. I have zero reason to believe that Harris, Trump, or anyone in Congress actually has the appetite to do any of these things, especially making meaningful spending cuts. The future is scary.

That actually isn’t a problem at all. It’s not the number of people, it’s the assets they possess.

And the future is not scary at all. We’re just going to confiscate much of those assets and redistribute them more broadly for the health of the nation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My husband and I are both high earners and both totally fine with this. My husband grew up poor and was the first person in his family to graduate from college. Without public schools and social programs he never would have gotten out. We're not interested in pulling the ladder up behind us. We can easily afford some extra taxes.

You think that’s what federal income tax programs will go towards?

[Anonymous]

Hahaha people thinking this will only happen to the top tax bracket. Taxes need to increase for everyone, especially lower tax brackets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband and I are both high earners and both totally fine with this. My husband grew up poor and was the first person in his family to graduate from college. Without public schools and social programs he never would have gotten out. We're not interested in pulling the ladder up behind us. We can easily afford some extra taxes.

OP here - great that you are fine with it, but I'm not! I feel that I pay way more than my fair share in taxes and not interested in paying even more. I'd much rather see major cuts in spending (I'm sure 20%+ of DoD spending is pure waste, if not more).

What part of you won’t be affected are you not understanding?

The mark-to-market, for example, is only going to apply to billionaires who pay less than 25% income tax. Is that you???

You have to gross more than $500,000 to be affected by the marginal rate increase. If that’s you, meh, you can afford it.

These things are also payfors for tax cuts to working people, which is good for the economy, which means you will do better overall.

She also hasn’t actually put out an explicit tax plan with this level of detail. You are either easily steered by right-wing propaganda or are a lying liar who lies. So which is it — are you a gullible fool or a deceitful shit?

This. And it could be significantly higher than $500k depending on your filing status and amount of credits and deductions you can claim. Additionally, NIIT is based on modified adjusted gross income so is also not kicking in automatically at $400k but at some higher number that then reduces back to $400k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is what is wrong, IMO. DH and I are taxed out of half of our paychecks, while billionaires pay nothing! This is how, no matter the party, they screw us in the middle. Half of my paycheck is going to taxes, and no, it is not ok when the millionaires and billionaires pay nothing.
And then, I had to pay full in-state tuition for my kids, who did not even qualify for any aid from BCS. We don't earn that little, but we sure could not afford full rides, either. If my kids were allowed to take student loans, they would have been forgiven now. But they were not allowed to have that option.
No, it is not better for me under republicans because it is all the same for me, no relief ever. I don't qualify for any housing aid, meal programs, or student financial aid, but I sure can't afford an SFH that is the median price for the DMV.

I agree about the billionaires. Every thinking person does. But you can't make more than $400k and whine about "us in the middle." You just can't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This actually sounds fine to me and I'm a high earner. We have to pay for important programs in this country including defense and infrastructure and social safety net programs that all make this a great place to live. This is all pretty marginal and still makes the US one of the most business friendly countries in the world.

I am fine paying a bit more in taxes especially given how incredibly well I've done personally in the last 3 years.

+1

Spot on

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what is wrong, IMO. DH and I are taxed out of half of our paychecks, while billionaires pay nothing! This is how, no matter the party, they screw us in the middle. Half of my paycheck is going to taxes, and no, it is not ok when the millionaires and billionaires pay nothing.
And then, I had to pay full in-state tuition for my kids, who did not even qualify for any aid from BCS. We don't earn that little, but we sure could not afford full rides, either. If my kids were allowed to take student loans, they would have been forgiven now. But they were not allowed to have that option.
No, it is not better for me under republicans because it is all the same for me, no relief ever. I don't qualify for any housing aid, meal programs, or student financial aid, but I sure can't afford an SFH that is the median price for the DMV.

I agree about the billionaires. Every thinking person does. But you can't make more than $400k and whine about "us in the middle." You just can't.

Making more than 400k and whining about budget says you're bad with money.

My husband and I make about that but we don't buy expensive cars or boats or whatever. I do a lot of donations but I'd be happy to pay more for good schools, clean air and water, and child welfare programs. I don't think I'm better or work harder than people who make less money. I benefited from the social programs created by higher tax rates when I was younger, I'm not going to vote against those opportunities for other kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what is wrong, IMO. DH and I are taxed out of half of our paychecks, while billionaires pay nothing! This is how, no matter the party, they screw us in the middle. Half of my paycheck is going to taxes, and no, it is not ok when the millionaires and billionaires pay nothing.
And then, I had to pay full in-state tuition for my kids, who did not even qualify for any aid from BCS. We don't earn that little, but we sure could not afford full rides, either. If my kids were allowed to take student loans, they would have been forgiven now. But they were not allowed to have that option.
No, it is not better for me under republicans because it is all the same for me, no relief ever. I don't qualify for any housing aid, meal programs, or student financial aid, but I sure can't afford an SFH that is the median price for the DMV.

I agree about the billionaires. Every thinking person does. But you can't make more than $400k and whine about "us in the middle." You just can't.

Making more than 400k and whining about budget says you're bad with money.

My husband and I make about that but we don't buy expensive cars or boats or whatever. I do a lot of donations but I'd be happy to pay more for good schools, clean air and water, and child welfare programs. I don't think I'm better or work harder than people who make less money. I benefited from the social programs created by higher tax rates when I was younger, I'm not going to vote against those opportunities for other kids.

This doesn’t make any sense. Most social programs for kids are provided by states. This post is about the federal income tax. Unless you’re saying you were on Medicare or social security disability as a child, and in that case the programs have only expanded over the last few decades.

So your comment doesn’t make any sense.

Please answer what social programs were created by the federal government through higher tax rates when you were a kid. Waiting for an answer.