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


What is a fair tax rate for people who make more than $1 Million per year in revenue?  

165 members have voted

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



Recommended Posts

Did you not read what I said above your post? Besides, if someone is unhappy about how much money they get after tax, they should do something about it. Like get a higher-paying job or reduce their tax burden via any legal means.

Sorry but many people are unable to get higher paying jobs either because of education, location, background, etc. There's a variety of legit reasons why people can't. Also if it was that easy to find higher paying jobs, everyone would be doing it.

It just doesn't work that way.

Sure it does. The rich take more from society, they should put more back into it.

The rich also spend more, so the society does get returns.

Sorry but many people are unable to get higher paying jobs either because of education, location, background, etc. There's a variety of legit reasons why people can't. Also if it was that easy to find higher paying jobs, everyone would be doing it.

It just doesn't work that way.

Anybody can get a high paying job providing they are willing to make an effort required. Nobody said it is easy. Notwithstanding what I said, I maintain that poor people should not be entitled to tax relief simply on the basis of their income. Somebody has to pay for the deficit that creates and it's not fair that they piggyback on others.

Anybody can get a high paying job providing they are willing to make an effort required. Nobody said it is easy. Notwithstanding what I said, I maintain that poor people should not be entitled to tax relief simply on the basis of their income. Somebody has to pay for the deficit that creates and it's not fair that they piggyback on others.

Typical Republican response :rolleyes:

As if poor people are going to get the US out of debt by paying more. That applies to any other country as well. Way to use logic.

Seems some people don't know how this works so they should start watching some videos

Believe it or not the government wants people to become rich so they make more money. By taxing the poor at a lower rate it helps give them a chance to become rich and successful themselves, which then allows the government to make more money and balance the budget.

Seems some people don't know how this works so they should start watching some videos

Believe it or not the government wants people to become rich so they make more money. By taxing the poor at a lower rate it helps give them a chance to become rich and successful themselves, which then allows the government to make more money and balance the budget.

If the government wants people to become rich why are they wanting to tax the hell out of the rich? Where's the incentive to sweat blood and tears to try and make it if the government is just going to turn around and steal all your hard earned?

If the government wants people to become rich why are they wanting to tax the hell out of the rich? Where's the incentive to sweat blood and tears to try and make it if the government is just going to turn around and steal all your hard earned?

Ugh, not this again. Your not earning less money but making more. Evening after tax your still making more money.

Here's another video about income inequality

As if poor people are going to get the US out of debt by paying more. That applies to any other country as well. Way to use logic.

I am not asking the poor to pay more. I am arguing that the rich should not have to pay more simply because there is some moral obligation for them to or the government decides that they should. A flat rate of income tax should not be a problem for a government that is fiscally responsible and does not allow tax-evasion loopholes.

Anybody can get a high paying job providing they are willing to make an effort required. Nobody said it is easy. Notwithstanding what I said, I maintain that poor people should not be entitled to tax relief simply on the basis of their income. Somebody has to pay for the deficit that creates and it's not fair that they piggyback on others.

So you would rather impoverish people even further that can't contribute much as it is?

That's pretty disgusting.

It really isn't possible to get highly paying jobs. There has to be somebody doing the lesser paid jobs, and not everybody actually has the capacity to do well paid jobs. Apparently it seems Republicans don't have a clue about social law they're just brainwashed by the rich and corporate.

I am not asking the poor to pay more. I am arguing that the rich should not have to pay more simply because there is some moral obligation for them to or the government decides that they should. A flat rate of income tax should not be a problem for a government that is fiscally responsible and does not allow tax-evasion loopholes.

See the video I just posted about income inequality. The rich have doubled their money at the cost of the middle class in the United States.

Tax the hell out of the rich. Yes I said it. Above all else CEO salaries need to be put in check. They should be paid strictly in stock option once their pay goes over 50 times what their lowest paid employee makes in the company. That way if they make good choices the company does well, then everyone does well. If the company does poorly he should not be entitled to a bonus or stock options unless everyone else is in the company and there are no lay offs. We could seriously get rid of most of the unemployment now if this was done at the corporate level. I have worked in several jobs over the years that were corporate and they were never good places to work. There was always the threat of layoffs, no raises but yet upper management gets to get bonuses? What people dont realize is even CEOs make company decisions and such its the middle/lower management and the regular employees that make those decisions even possible in the first place so should they get some of that pie?

Fair would be "The Same"... lol I don't see how people don't get this. They are already paying more in taxes just because the percentage works out to be a higher dollar amount. They don't "deserve" to pay more because they've become successful...

Sheesh. And we wonder why jobs and wealth are leaving this country... /facepalm.

Taxing people higher rates as they increase their income is simply unfair. I am now stuck in the lower class until I can get a new job. My job gives me yearly raises but I have to turn them down because I can't afford them as I have hit a tax bracket line. If I accept a raise for as little as $2000 a year, I will be taxed an additional $5000 a year. Clearly, taxing me more for making more is fair.

I support a progressive rate, but only because the same % creates a different burden for you depending on what your income level is. 10% is different from a poor person, is different for a middle class person, is different for a wealthy person. And flat tax rate which give breaks to the poor still hurt the middle class because it creates a larger burden on a middle class family than on a rich family. I don't agree with milking rich people for their money, though.

So you would rather impoverish people even further that can't contribute much as it is?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I am not asking the poor to may more taxes.

It really isn't possible to get highly paying jobs. There has to be somebody doing the lesser paid jobs, and not everybody actually has the capacity to do well paid jobs. Apparently it seems Republicans don't have a clue about social law they're just brainwashed by the rich and corporate.

I agree, there would always be low-paying jobs. However, I disagree that it is not possible to get a high-paying job.

See the video I just posted about income inequality. The rich have doubled their money at the cost of the middle class in the United States.

There are various events that contributed to the end of boom in early 1970s, none of which were the fault of the rich. The bottom line is: the more you tax the rich, the more inclined they would be to avoid paying such tax. Whether they would do that through various legal, albeit morally questionable means or illegal ways or by leaving the country is irrelevant. So, the government would get less tax if they attempt to tax the rich more and their move would backfire.

It is impossible for *some people*. Not everybody has the same intellectual and physical attributes, and some people simply don't have the skill sets needed to apply themselves to certain jobs.

It is impossible for *some people*. Not everybody has the same intellectual and physical attributes, and some people simply don't have the skill sets needed to apply themselves to certain jobs.

Where there are limitations outside of a person's control, I agree that their scope for high paying jobs may be limited to a greater extent than scope for low paying jobs.

And that's what is analogous to my original point. There's nothing fair about punishing those people to a greater degree than the rich, they simply cannot afford to absorb the cost. And if they cannot do a great deal to better their lot, why do they deserve to be punished for it?

Do you think that the CEO of Wal-Mart does not give back? What about the CEO and managers of Microsoft? The local donut shop in your town?

They HAVE to believe that the rich are not giving back or their whole marxist stance starts to fall apart, hence no matter how much proof to the contrary, Marxist still insist that the rich "stole" or "took advantage" of the poor, and that's the failure of marxism, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny once you use reality and valid data, and why even the "lite socialist" countries are slowly moving away from it

The majority of the rich don't have any interest in giving back, that's a fact. They don't have a tendency to move their money offshore or look for tax loopholes because they really love Swiss banks you know.

And that's what is analogous to my original point. There's nothing fair about punishing those people to a greater degree than the rich, they simply cannot afford to absorb the cost. And if they cannot do a great deal to better their lot, why do they deserve to be punished for it?

I'm not saying that poor should be punished more or punished at all. What I am saying, and have been saying, is that rich should not have to be paying higher percentage of tax on their income just because the government decided that they (rich) can absorb the cost.

think about that. if people know making over 1 million, they're going to be taxed 90-100% like you voted, what motivation would anyone have to make over 1 million? sounds great until you realize CEOs and entrepreneurs who work hard to get where they are make a lot of what we have possible. sure, they make A LOT more than the average, but why should they be forced to pay more than anyone else? I say tax them the same 35% that is in place now, but require them to pay that tax regardless of investments, etc. 35% of all income is enough for anyone to be taxed

The problem is, most of them them now "dont work hard" its all in inherentence. Unless they started their own company, and stayed with it throughout the thick and thin you cannot say they earned their position.

The problem is, most of them them now "dont work hard" its all in inherentence. Unless they started their own company, and stayed with it throughout the thick and thin you cannot say they earned their position.

Are you just spewing garbage for the sake of it? Try 69% of people earned their money from the ground up. Less than 10%, closer to 6% actually inherited it. Your opinion is becoming more and more worthless the more you speak without facts backing it up. Learning what an educated discussion is. This is not a place to spew political agendas.

http://wealthmanagem...nning/richistan

http://www.consumeri...d-their-wealth/

I'm not saying that poor should be punished more or punished at all. What I am saying, and have been saying, is that rich should not have to be paying higher percentage of tax on their income just because the government decided that they (rich) can absorb the cost.

Again, because this doesn't work. Flat rate taxes only causes disparity between the classes and furthers the poor get poorer and rich get richer scenario. Lower classes suffer the most while upper classes barely feel a hit. And you know what happens when the gap becomes too large? Complete collapse of economy and government. Go read your history.

Besides, the government has to make up this deficit somehow if they did a flat rate. This money won't come from out of no where.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Microsoft finally launches WSL Containers in public preview by David Uzondu Microsoft has announced that WSL containers, a feature that allows developers to run Linux containers natively inside Windows without the need for Docker Desktop, is now available in public preview several weeks after Microsoft previewed it at Build 2026. To use the new container feature, you first have to install the latest pre-release version of the Windows Subsystem for Linux by running a quick update command in your terminal: wsl --update --pre-release After installing, you'd get access to the new Linux container CLI (wslc.exe) and the programmable API. Microsoft said that the CLI has a "familiar format" that matches the toolsets developers already use every day. If you know standard Docker commands, your muscle memory will translate directly to wslc.exe, which even features a built-in alias called container.exe. You can quickly run a full Ubuntu KDE desktop container by exposing ports, or pass your graphics card straight into a machine learning environment to run PyTorch workloads. Passing the --gpus all flag inside the run command instantly links your hardware. Image via Microsoft As for the API, developers can now embed Linux container operations directly inside native Windows applications without exposing the command line to users. The team integrated the API directly into MSBuild and CMake, so developers can define container steps directly in project files. Apart from bringing the CLI and API into public preview, Microsoft also said that it's working on a new default file system called virtiofs to speed up file transfer rates between Windows and Linux. Microsoft also introduced an experimental networking mode named consomme, which resolves compatibility issues with corporate VPNs by routing Linux network traffic straight through Windows. One thing to note about WSL containers is that they don't run in your standard WSL distributions; instead, every application and CLI session spawns its own lightweight Hyper-V utility VM in the background. This basically reduces the chances of one app snooping on the container of another app.
    • Google reportedly limited Meta's Gemini access over limited AI compute by Karthik Mudaliar Google is reportedly limiting Meta's use of its Gemini AI models after Meta tried buying more computing capacity than even Google could supply. According to the Financial Times, Google told Meta in March that it could not provide the full Gemini capacity that Meta had requested. This shortfall even disrupted and delayed some of Meta's internal projects. Due to this, Meta even told its employees internally to use AI tokens more efficiently. Meta wasn't the only one to get hit by this sudden refusal by Google; even other customers were affected. But Meta was hit harder because of its unusually high demand for Google's models. The move from Google makes it evident that companies all over are in limited supply of both infrastructure and compute. Alphabet said in April that Google Cloud revenue grew 63% year-over-year to $20 billion in the first quarter, helped by enterprise AI infrastructure and AI solutions. In pursuit of more compute, Meta had earlier signed a multi-billion-dollar AWS agreement as well as a large AMD GPU deal for AI data centers. But the crunch would be short-lived as both Meta and Google have also ramped up infrastructure investments heavily. Meta said in November that it was committing more than $600 billion in the U.S. by 2028 for AI technology, infrastructure, and workforce expansion. In the first quarter of this year, Meta also raised its expected capital expenditure for 2026 to a range of $125 billion to $145 billion, citing higher component pricing and additional data center costs for future capacity. However, this doesn't make the company immune to the current dependence on outside suppliers. Meta has also spent many years promoting Llama as an open-weight alternative to closed models from Google, OpenAI, and Anthropic. But if the reported reliance on Google's Gemini models is severe enough for internal work to get impacted, then it looks like even frontier labs and Big Tech aren't fully self-sufficient. Source: Financial Times
    • I like to reminisce about the good old days, way back in autumn 2025 when building a gaming machine was fun and the drives were about $150 when you caught a deal. Yes duh, back in the day we had it gone. Then baby Skynet came along, hiding in AI datacenters demanding more processing power until it reached singularity. End of a not totally fictional story.
    • My experience in the past with older Windows 11 builds was not great on unsupported machines but I recently used Rufus to put the latest build on a older 5th Gen Core Thinkpad T that we upgraded with a SATA SSD and 8GB of RAM four years ago when hardware was reasonable and it seemed pretty fast and solid. Customer is very happy with the performance and will probably get four more years out of that venerable laptop that he loves so much. Another customer just retired his Dell Studio laptop from 2009 running Windows 10. It got an SSD over 10 years ago and did everything he needed it to for 17 years but he also retired last year and is happy doing everything on his iPad now.
    • Apple's newest AirTag 2 gets first big discount by Taras Buria In late January 2026, Apple introduced its second-generation AirTag trackers, bringing a refresh to the old model that has been on the market for half a decade. Now, you can get these new trackers at an all-time low price, thanks to the first big discount that brought the price down by 17% on Amazon. While the second-generation AirTag looks identical to its predecessor, it packs meaningful upgrades inside. The second-gen ultrawideband chip works 50% farther than the original AirTag, allowing you to detect lost items in a wider range. In addition, the second-generation AirTag features an upgraded Bluetooth chip for extended range and a significantly louder speaker (up to 50%) so that you can hear it better when locating a lost item. Note that the second-gen AirTag only works with iPhones and iPads that run iOS/iPadOS 26 and newer, so you need a compatible device to use the tracker. Like the original AirTag, the AirTag 2 is available in two packs: one and four pieces. Both are now available at a notable discount on Amazon, and you can purchase them using the links below. Apple AirTag 2 tracker - $24 | 17% off on Amazon Apple AirTag 2 tracker (four-pack) - $89 | 10% off on Amazon Good to know This Amazon deal is U.S.- specific and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      BA the Curmudgeon earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Conversation Starter
      rosiecharles earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      KMilenkoski1202 earned a badge
      First Post
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      538
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      269
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      150
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      98
    5. 5
      macoman
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!