And if you live in NY or California, once the Feds get their 55%--how much are you going to have after those states take their share?

How is it morally "right" for you decide at what point an individual is morally "wrong" to earn a certain income? What gives you the morally authority to make this judgement and decide how another's income should be allocated? For the poster who claims to be in this bracket, by all means write your check for 50% to the Feds and another check to the state and be done with it. Keep in mind this number wouldn't stay at 50% for long and the cap wouldn't stay at $500k. Some clown would come along and push that figure down to $400, then $250k etc and the 55% fugure will go up. The push to redistribute wealth is never ending.

Anonymous wrote:50% here. I think anyone making over 350k shoul pay at least 50% and above a million should be 55%. It's morally wrong to make that much money and then not expect to pay more.

Somehow I doubt you donate much to charity each year.

Anonymous wrote:50% here. I think anyone making over 350k shoul pay at least 50% and above a million should be 55%. It's morally wrong to make that much money and then not expect to pay more.

I posted the bracket links and your 350-50% and above 1m 55% is very simplistic.

Don't you think that someone has the right to spend it how he chooses.? You take away the charitable deduction and that gives the government total authority to decide how your money should be spent.

Anonymous wrote:50% here. I think anyone making over 350k shoul pay at least 50% and above a million should be 55%. It's morally wrong to make that much money and then not expect to pay more.

agree. and we would among those who pay 50%

50% here. I think anyone making over 350k shoul pay at least 50% and above a million should be 55%. It's morally wrong to make that much money and then not expect to pay more.

Agree treating some one who makes $500k the same as someone making $5M is ludicrous. This would never fly in the lower brackets.

marginal v effective rate
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/12/what-top-1-really-paid-when-top-tax.html

history of tax rates [does not include changes in deductions/credits]-seems there should be more brackets. How odd we had more brackets pre computers!

http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates?op=1

The richest 400 individual taxpayers, with an average income of more than $200 million, pay less than 20 percent of their income in taxes — far lower than mere millionaires, who pay about 25 percent of their income in taxes, and about the same as those earning a mere $200,000 to $500,000. And in 2009, 116 of the top 400 earners — almost a third — paid less than 15 percent of their income in taxes.

From here, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/a-tax-system-stacked-against-the-99-percent/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think 50% with no deductions is a good place to start.

Totally agree.

I guess this is serious. How f---ed up is the discussion in this country when people think it is a good idea to give half of your money to the government? We declared independence from George III for pennies compared to this.

I am sure you mean 50% for everyone--or at least comparable increases for all brackets, right? That would be "fair".

"$10K talking urinal cakes"

Every red cent of the money spent on developing talking urinal cakes is worth it. In fact, they should double it.

Anonymous wrote:I think 50% with no deductions is a good place to start.

Totally agree.

I think 50% with no deductions is a good place to start.