Jump to content



Photo

What is a fair tax rate for people on over $1m?


  • Please log in to reply
200 replies to this topic

Poll: What is a fair tax rate for people who make more than $1 Million per year in revenue? (188 member(s) have cast votes)

What is a fair tax rate for people on over $1m?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#46 vanx

vanx

    Neowinian

  • 1,492 posts
  • Joined: 23-April 09

Posted 03 July 2012 - 17:15

The economy decides how much money a person NEEDS to survive.


Since when does it boil down to survival? Life is for living, not surviving.


#47 HSoft

HSoft

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,931 posts
  • Joined: 09-January 08

Posted 03 July 2012 - 17:16

Your example. You compared somebody making $20000 with somebody who makes $1000000.
After 20% taxes the first one keeps $12000.

My mistake. That was a typo. The example should have been 40K at 20% (which would make it 8K taxes), not 20K at 20%.
But to your point (and given the corrected example) it's still a lot easier to live on 50K than it is to live on 32K, but I wouldn't say those earning 50K are rich. It's always going to be easier to live on more money, no matter how much. So unless you make everyone's wages the same, totally level the playing field your statement doesn't really mean anything.

#48 JonathanMarston

JonathanMarston

    Neowinian

  • 999 posts
  • Joined: 21-September 05
  • Location: USA (mid-south)
  • OS: Windows 8 x64
  • Phone: Lumia 920

Posted 03 July 2012 - 17:19

What we need is a flat tax of disposable income. And I don't mean the common definition of disposable income that is total income minus taxes. I mean any income that is above the minimum required to survive. It would be computed as a flat amount per household (say, $15,000), plus an amount per person living in that household (maybe, $5,000/person). This amount would be deducted from taxable income, and the only other deductions would be for charity. Capital gains would be counted as income.

For instance, a family of 4 making $80,000/year would have disposable income of $80,000 - $15,000 flat - $5,000/person * 4 people = $45,000. This would leave $45,000 as taxable income. With a flat tax rate of say, 20%, that means they would pay $9,000 in taxes.

A family of 5 making $40,000/year would have a disposable income of: $40,000 - $15,000 flat - $5,000/person * 4 people = $0. So they would pay no tax.

A family of 4 making $150,000/year would have a disposable income of $115,000 and pay $23,000. A family of 3 making $500,000 would pay $94,000. Someone making $1,000,000/year on his own would pay $196,000.

So in the end, lower class pays no tax. Middle class pays ~10% and everyone else pays ~20%, but after that there is no disincentive for increasing your income.

The other thing I don't think people realize is that rich people do give back. When they go to a fancy restaurant, who gets the money? When the buy a new car, who gets the money? When the build a new house, who gets the money? When they invest their money, who gets it? Rich people pay for the jobs, plain and simple. The government's job isn't to make everyone financially equal, it's to make sure there's a fair marketplace in which to work and invest.

And yes, I do think someone that makes a lot per year should be able to spend that money as they see fit. The people I know that are "rich" spent many years nearly bankrupt as they tried time and time again to find a business venture that finally took off. They took the risk, it paid off. People that stay where they are financially usually never took a risk.

Also, no, I don't think the government should be able to force someone to "share" their money with other people. It's not the government's job to make everyone be nice. Although I strongly believe people that have "made it" should be giving to charity, that should be their choice.

#49 mattmatik

mattmatik

    formerly soLoredd

  • 4,930 posts
  • Joined: 25-November 03
  • Location: California

Posted 03 July 2012 - 17:23

What we need is a flat tax of disposable income. And I don't mean the common definition of disposable income that is total income minus taxes. I mean any income that is above the minimum required to survive. It would be computed as a flat amount per household (say, $15,000), plus an amount per person living in that household (maybe, $5,000/person). This amount would be deducted from taxable income, and the only other deductions would be for charity. Capital gains would be counted as income.

For instance, a family of 4 making $80,000/year would have disposable income of $80,000 - $15,000 flat - $5,000/person * 4 people = $45,000. This would leave $45,000 as taxable income. With a flat tax rate of say, 20%, that means they would pay $9,000 in taxes.

A family of 5 making $40,000/year would have a disposable income of: $40,000 - $15,000 flat - $5,000/person * 4 people = $0. So they would pay no tax.

A family of 4 making $150,000/year would have a disposable income of $115,000 and pay $23,000. A family of 3 making $500,000 would pay $94,000. Someone making $1,000,000/year on his own would pay $196,000.

So in the end, lower class pays no tax. Middle class pays ~10% and everyone else pays ~20%, but after that there is no deincentive for increasing your income.

The other thing I don't think people need to realize is that rich people do give back. When they go to a fancy restaurant, who gets the money? When the buy a new car, who gets the money? When the build a new house, who gets the money? When they invest their money, who gets it? Rich people pay for the jobs, plain and simple. The government's job isn't to make everyone financially equal, it's to make sure there's a fair marketplace in which to work and invest.

And yes, I do think someone that makes a lot per year should be able to spend that money as they see fit. The people I know that are "rich" spent many years nearly bankrupt as they tried time and time again to find a business venture that finally took off. They took the risk, it paid off. People that stay where they are financially usually never took a risk.

Also, no, I don't think the government should be able to force someone to "share" their money with other people. It's not the government's job to make everyone be nice. Although I strongly believe people that have "made it" should be giving to charity, that should be their choice.


So, you want some person or group to decide what it takes for you to survive?

I know one thing, this won't get solved on an internet forum where everyone pretends to be a master economist.

#50 HSoft

HSoft

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,931 posts
  • Joined: 09-January 08

Posted 03 July 2012 - 17:26

What we need is a flat tax of disposable income. And I don't mean the common definition of disposable income that is total income minus taxes. I mean any income that is above the minimum required to survive. It would be computed as a flat amount per household (say, $15,000), plus an amount per person living in that household (maybe, $5,000/person). This amount would be deducted from taxable income, and the only other deductions would be for charity. Capital gains would be counted as income.
etc.

This is actually a good suggestion however I could see mass fights over what is classed as the minimum to survive figure (even though it would be the same for everyone). Just the way politics works

#51 Aethec

Aethec

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,218 posts
  • Joined: 02-May 10

Posted 03 July 2012 - 17:27

Why would anyone earn one million dollars per year?
What can one human do that is so important it justifies paying him/her $1m?

#52 simplezz

simplezz

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,263 posts
  • Joined: 01-February 12

Posted 03 July 2012 - 17:36

Millionaires don't pay taxes didn't you know? They use shell companies and because laws are skewed in favour of corporations, they hardly pay a penny.

#53 DrakeN2k

DrakeN2k

    Neowinian

  • 1,138 posts
  • Joined: 04-December 10

Posted 03 July 2012 - 17:36

Why would anyone earn one million dollars per year?
What can one human do that is so important it justifies paying him/her $1m?


Super hero :p

#54 JonathanMarston

JonathanMarston

    Neowinian

  • 999 posts
  • Joined: 21-September 05
  • Location: USA (mid-south)
  • OS: Windows 8 x64
  • Phone: Lumia 920

Posted 03 July 2012 - 17:42

Why would anyone earn one million dollars per year?
What can one human do that is so important it justifies paying him/her $1m?


Well, let's take the CEO of WalMart, Mike Duke who gets paid about $18 million / year. WalMart has 2.2 million employees. He is responsible for keeping WalMart going so that 2.2 million people have a job to go to every day. He doesn't get paid for what he physically does, as much as for the responsibility that he takes on. WalMart has a yearly revenue of $447 billion. At $18 million / year, they're paying Mike Duke 0.004% of their yearly revenue.

I don't know about you, but I'd gladly pay 0.004% of my yearly income if someone else would take the responsibility of making sure my household kept running smoothly...

#55 vanx

vanx

    Neowinian

  • 1,492 posts
  • Joined: 23-April 09

Posted 03 July 2012 - 17:51

Why would anyone earn one million dollars per year?
What can one human do that is so important it justifies paying him/her $1m?


Why should a private company justify salaries of its employees to anyone other than management/board of directors/shareholders?

#56 +Bryan R.

Bryan R.

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,617 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 07
  • Location: Palm Beach, FL

Posted 03 July 2012 - 18:21

Why would anyone earn one million dollars per year?
What can one human do that is so important it justifies paying him/her $1m?

This is absolutely scary thinking.

#57 shakey

shakey

    It's soooooo Educational

  • 11,021 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 04
  • Location: Austin, Tx

Posted 03 July 2012 - 18:23

Well, let's take the CEO of WalMart, Mike Duke who gets paid about $18 million / year. WalMart has 2.2 million employees. He is responsible for keeping WalMart going so that 2.2 million people have a job to go to every day. He doesn't get paid for what he physically does, as much as for the responsibility that he takes on. WalMart has a yearly revenue of $447 billion. At $18 million / year, they're paying Mike Duke 0.004% of their yearly revenue.

I don't know about you, but I'd gladly pay 0.004% of my yearly income if someone else would take the responsibility of making sure my household kept running smoothly...


Actually, Mike Duke has hired a good amount of other people who do all the micromanaging. He just handles the bigger choices, bank roll, and bigger bonuses. Normally, the higher up in a good company you go, the less you actually start having to do. Mike Duke isn't walmart. They just buy bulk crap to sell at a good price. Walmart is comprised of a ton of underpaid people, all helping those at the top get richer, while those under them stay in the same place they have been. Business models like this don't actually help your agruments, as it only helps show why there is such a huge gap in classes. Those who make the company what it is, the whole back bone you could say, get paid the lowest amount possible, while those at the top, get paid in sums that most can't even imagine.

#58 Enron

Enron

    Windows for Workgroups

  • 10,747 posts
  • Joined: 30-May 11
  • OS: Windows 8.1 U1
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 900

Posted 03 July 2012 - 18:26

I think Bill Gates should decide how much millionaires pay in taxes.

#59 +Bryan R.

Bryan R.

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,617 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 07
  • Location: Palm Beach, FL

Posted 03 July 2012 - 18:26

Actually, Mike Duke has hired a good amount of other people who do all the micromanaging. He just handles the bigger choices, bank roll, and bigger bonuses. Normally, the higher up in a good company you go, the less you actually start having to do. Mike Duke isn't walmart. They just buy bulk crap to sell at a good price. Walmart is comprised of a ton of underpaid people, all helping those at the top get richer, while those under them stay in the same place they have been. Business models like this don't actually help your agruments, as it only helps show why there is such a huge gap in classes. Those who make the company what it is, the whole back bone you could say, get paid the lowest amount possible, while those at the top, get paid in sums that most can't even imagine.

I'm pretty sure that the people considering Wal-Mart a career are the ones who certainly won't be starting up any business of their own. Ever. It's people like Mike Duke who actually create jobs for those who don't have the capacity to do any better. Believe it or not, there are people who just don't have the know-how to do anything else. It's the ones who do that should bear the fruits of their "labor". After all, he is employing 2.2 million people and effectively helping the economy. Guess what happens when the top makes more money? They open more stores... and employ more people...

#60 ccoltmanm

ccoltmanm

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,140 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 09
  • Location: Oak Forest, IL

Posted 03 July 2012 - 18:47

Leave it up to individual states. Federal taxes are one thing.