ES Tax Policy for the wealthy

[Redskins Diehard]

So how much tax is the acceptable/appropriate level for those making over 1 Million a year

[Burgold]

I think it should be a 2:1:1 thing personally. 2 dollars to them, 1 dollar to the government, and 1 dollar to me. This system works out brilliantly even if I become a member to the extreme wealthy class. then it would be 2 dollars to me, 1 dollar to the government, and one dollar to me.

Before I answer seriously are you talking gross or net? Is this before/after deductions? Are we including hidden money, tax shelters, and other nefarious ploys to make it look like they earned far less than they did?

[Mass_SkinsFan]

So how much tax is the acceptable/appropriate level for those making over 1 Million a year

The exact same percentage as the acceptable/appropriate tax level for people making LESS THAN $1000 a year.

This idea that a person should be forced to pay a higher percentage of their income simply because they make a larger amount is absolutely insane in my mind. Even worse, it's SOCIALIST.

[DCsportsfan53]

I'm not sure what the exact % should be but I definitely believe that it should be a graduated scale where those making more pay a higher %.

[chipwhich]

The exact same percentage as the acceptable/appropriate tax level for people making LESS THAN $1000 a year.

This idea that a person should be forced to pay a higher percentage of their income simply because they make a larger amount is absolutely insane in my mind. Even worse, it's SOCIALIST.

Wow for once I am on the MSF bandwagon.

It's sad that the question even is asked.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I'm not sure what the exact % should be but I definitely believe that it should be a graduated scale where those making more pay a higher %.

So you want to PUNISH people for being successful. Sounds like a serious disincentive to success to me.

[Redskins Diehard]

I'm not sure what the exact % should be but I definitely believe that it should be a graduated scale where those making more pay a higher %.

Okay, in the spirit of this thread why don't you give what you think. There is a 10% window to apply

[Redskins Diehard]

I think it should be a 2:1:1 thing personally. 2 dollars to them, 1 dollar to the government, and 1 dollar to me. This system works out brilliantly even if I become a member to the extreme wealthy class. then it would be 2 dollars to me, 1 dollar to the government, and one dollar to me.

Before I answer seriously are you talking gross or net? Is this before/after deductions? Are we including hidden money, tax shelters, and other nefarious ploys to make it look like they earned far less than they did?

Gross pay. Kind of in the spirit of if Tiger Woods makes 10 million in a tournament how much should go to Uncle Sam

[Burgold]

I think about a third is not unreasonable, a third of the true gross minus deductons and whatnot.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I think about a third is not unreasonable, a third of the true gross minus deductons and whatnot.

I think your 33% of the gross is way too high. Though I would prefer a system that does not include deductions and instead takes 10-15% from everyone's paycheck prior to any of the "deductions" we're currently allowed.

[USS Redskins]

I agree with Mass. The idea that someone should pay a higher rate b/c they make more money is so un-american, if you ask me.

The less money the gov't can piss away, the better.

[Burgold]

I think your 33% of the gross is way too high. Though I would prefer a system that does not include deductions and instead takes 10-15% from everyone's paycheck prior to any of the "deductions" we're currently allowed.

Yeah, but that's partially because one of the biggest philosophical differences between us lies in what services the government should actually provide. If the government were truly as bared bones as you'd like and left Americans almost entirely on their own educationally, medically, in providing infrastructure, disaster relief, etc. then a third would be outright robbery. If you believe that we all have a role to play in terms of mutual support, defense and the development of this country and the government is a tool for providing that support than a third is within the realm of reason.

[#98QBKiller]

To throw in my $.02 on the tax fire....I just got a sign-on bonus at my new job and they taxed that **** FORTY PERCENT....I was going to pay off my truck with the bonus but they took almost half of it

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Yeah, but that's partially because one of the biggest philosophical differences between us lies in what services the government should actually provide. If the government were truly as bared bones as you'd like and left Americans almost entirely on their own educationally, medically, in providing infrastructure, disaster relief, etc. then a third would be outright robbery. If you believe that we all have a role to play in terms of mutual support, defense and the development of this country and the government is a tool for providing that support than a third is within the realm of reason.

NO IT'S NOT!!!! No matter WHAT services the government provides, it is NEVER appropriate for the government to take that much of a person's earnings.

You are correct that we have very different views on what the government should be doing with whatever monies it collects, but we will also obviously disagree on where most of those monies should come from. I believe that the MAJORITY of it should come from Service Fees and Tarriffs, not from a blanket tax on citizens. Additionally, the government should not be allowed to collect a single penny beyond its budgeted operating expenses for the year.

ESPECIALLY if we're talking about a system like you prefer, where people like me (and most of the Wealthy, I suspect) are currently forced to pay for programs from which we will never benefit.

[Bang]

30 to 40%.

However, I am not so naive to not realize that the wealthiest of us have the money to pay accountants and lawyers to find every reason for them not to pay.

So it's kind of pointless since the majority of them won't pay a fraction of that.

~Bang

[ntotoro]

30 to 40%.

However, I am not so naive to not realize that the wealthiest of us have the money to pay accountants and lawyers to find every reason for them not to pay.

So it's kind of pointless since the majority of them won't pay a fraction of that.

~Bang

All they have to do is up their charitable donations or raise prices for whatever services they charge and they'll recoup any tax hike pretty well immediately. No to mention stuff like buying another home, another jet for "work" purposes, etcetera and so on.

Trying to make the middle class feel better by saying you'll unfairly increase taxes for those who (for shame) are successful is a sheep in wolf's clothing, really.

[Koolblue13]

It should be whatever my broke ass pays. That number should be less than 10% of our earnings though. Let the military have a bake sale like the schools do and then see how much Imperial Nation Building they can do.

[SnyderShrugged]

zero % is the only acceptable level for anyone. There are plenty of other taxes and fees that we pay, no need to have an income tax that pays for nothing.

(If "Income" is defined as profits, as in what a corporation makes, how can there be personal "income" in your paycheck where you traded your labor for a wage?)

[Mass_SkinsFan]

However, I am not so naive to not realize that the wealthiest of us have the money to pay accountants and lawyers to find every reason for them not to pay. So it's kind of pointless since the majority of them won't pay a fraction of that.

All they have to do is up their charitable donations or raise prices for whatever services they charge and they'll recoup any tax hike pretty well immediately.

It's these sorts of reasons why I believe we need a FLAT tax system with NO deductions. The taxes would be the FIRST thing removed from a paycheck and with the flat rate there would be no need for the IRS since there would be no refunds or payments needing to be made in mid-April.

Of course that only works if we only allow the government to tax income ONCE, rather than multiple times as we currently do with the capital gains, death, and other taxes.

[Bang]

It's these sorts of reasons why I believe we need a FLAT tax system with NO deductions. The taxes would be the FIRST thing removed from a paycheck and with the flat rate there would be no need for the IRS since there would be no refunds or payments needing to be made in mid-April.

Of course that only works if we only allow the government to tax income ONCE, rather than multiple times as we currently do with the capital gains, death, and other taxes.

I agree. a flat tax is a fine idea. As I tried to put forth in my initial post, I get sick of people dodging their taxes.

Society is not free, and the services we take for granted are wide and varied. Those who feel they are simply too privileged to pay their taxes make me ill.

~Bang

[Heidenreich]

Everybody at 16%

[SkinsHokieFan]

17 percent, no deductions for anything

If you make 10 million dollars a year from rents, stocks, working, whatever, 17 percent

The tax code should be no longer then to fit on a matchbox

[SnyderShrugged]

I agree. a flat tax is a fine idea. As I tried to put forth in my initial post, I get sick of people dodging their taxes.

Society is not free, and the services we take for granted are wide and varied. Those who feel they are simply too privileged to pay their taxes make me ill.

~Bang

But the vast majority of our current society is not paid for by the personal income tax. I could actually understand your point if we knew where the revenue for the income tax specifically went to.

We know it doesnt pay for infrastructure, social security, defense, programs, etc because the other taxes and fees specifically pay for them.

So what is the problem with fighting against a wasteful tax that carries no definable benefit for anyone?

[Mass_SkinsFan]

If you make 10 million dollars a year from rents, stocks, working, whatever, 17 percent

I definitely disagree. Income should only be allowed to be taxed ONCE. The first time it comes into an individual. Income from stocks, rent, sale of private property, etc... should not be able to be taxed AT ALL. Only initial income should be allowed to be taxed.

[Destino]

So you want to PUNISH people for being successful. Sounds like a serious disincentive to success to me.

No I want to tax disposable income more heavily. The disincentive argument is stupid. Would you want to make less to have a smaller tax burden Mass? You think Dan Snyder sits around considering leaving it all behind and managing a McDonald's in order to pay less in taxes?

People forget that in our tax system you do pay the same taxes as everyone that makes less than you on that amount. Someone making 30k pays the same taxes on that first 30k as a person making 1 million.