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.

TheManWithAUsername wrote:...
Re category #3, if Bill O'Reilly or some overpaid CEO decides that it's just not worth it to work anymore, they can make room for someone more industrious, and we're all the better off.

Amen to that. There are people doing or producing things we can't do without -- police, firefighters, farmers, teachers, ... I don't think any of them fall in category 3. If we are deprived of the O'Reilly show or some hotshot stock manager, we'll survive.

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

I'm pretty exactly with takoma.

I can't tell you "fair" rate for any particular person or bracket. There are many things I think the gov't should be doing, provided it can do them without discouraging individual effort too much. There is a minimum standard of living that I think we should allow. There are luxuries that I consider so ridiculously extravagant that I don't care if anyone is effectively denied them.

Putting that together, I would 1) calculate the desired budget; 2) not tax anyone below the minimum standard of living; 3) tax income above the level of great extravagance at nearly 100%; and 4) tax everyone in between as necessary.

That assumes all categories of taxation considered together.

As I think about it, I may support a flat tax for category #4.

Re category #3, if Bill O'Reilly or some overpaid CEO decides that it's just not worth it to work anymore, they can make room for someone more industrious, and we're all the better off.

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.

Amen, brother/sister!

I'd also really like the feds to follow the GAO suggestions. There is so much duplicative work.

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.

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

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

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.

Being a taxation relativist, I'd say there is no correct rate for a single isolated income. I believe in a progressive tax, with marginal rates that rise as income rises, and that are high enough, but no higher than enough, to support a government that does what its citizens need done.

That last five-word phrase is intentionally vague.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Are you including or excluding social security and medicare?

Including this, 3x my church tithe=30%. All I get from that is 52 sermons and organ music.

Are you including or excluding social security and medicare?

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.

Boring.

We keep talking about fairness and having a tax rate that doesn't allow wealthier people to have a lower tax rate than a middle class family etc. SO here is my hypothetical family. They earn a gross of $250,000. What total rate, what total percentage of their income (ignore all deductions or credits etc for the purpose of this) should they give to the federal government. So if you think it's 25% its a gross amount of 25% of their income ($62,500). So here is how we should do this:

Percentage: 25%,35%,50% whatever
Party affiliation or political ideaology:
Simple reason for answer: Please don't go all tea party or occupy wall street, keep it simple and don't hijack.

GO.....