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

[HSoft]

It is the poor semi skilled workers that make the rich all the money so why should the rich not be taxed more??

Who's employing all these semi skilled workers? Other poor people?

[vanx]

Like the example done before, if I live on $30K a year and I get taxed at flat 25% rate, and so does the person who earns $1M, I'll have to survive on $22.5K, while the millionaire has $750K to blow.

Who are you (or government, for that matter) to decide how much money a person should live on? If you are unhappy with the salary you earn, do something about it.

[Stoffel]

I see the American dream is still alive.

Don't touch the rich, because someday I might be rich and then I don't want anybody touching my money.

How about sharing? The world would be a better place

[Anibal P]

I'm still in favor of a flat 17% on EVERYONE, broken down however you want between the State and the Fed

[HSoft]

I see the American dream is still alive.

Don't touch the rich, because someday I might be rich and then I don't want anybody touching my money.

How about sharing? The world would be a better place

Actually it wouldn't be. If everybody earned the same then there is no incentive to go to university and get a good education, no incentive to push yourself to work harder so you get that promotion. Infact, there would be no incentive to work at all if the government is just going to give you the money and the whole system would break down.

[BoredBozirini]

I see the American dream is still alive.

Don't touch the rich, because someday I might be rich and then I don't want anybody touching my money.

How about sharing? The world would be a better place

Futurama anyone? Anyone?

Who are you (or government, for that matter) to decide how much money a person should live on? If you are unhappy with the salary you earn, do something about it.

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

[Stoffel]

Actually it wouldn't be. If everybody earned the same then there is no incentive to go to university and get a good education, no incentive to push yourself to work harder so you get that promotion. Infact, there would be no incentive to work at all if the government is just going to give you the money and the whole system would break down.

I'm not saying that the government should just keep giving money away to those without a job. What I am saying is that if you make +$1000000 a year you can pay a little bit more taxes. It's not going to hurt you. But they could use that extra money for schooling and health care. Everybody should have equal chances at good education and descent healthcare. With that good basis more people will have a chance at success in life.

[+seb5150 Subscriber²]

Neither ;) It's hilarious that you genuinely think that people would favor being in the lower class, just because they get less than what they deserve from the company directly plus tax benefits or other forms of governmental support to make it "more" for "nothing". :p Glassed Silver:mac

There are generations of people that have known nothing other than welfare and it's like that because the government makes it easier for them to do nothing and collect a paycheck along with free food than it is to get a job and earn their pay. When the system pays you to stay home, pays you to have more kids, pays you to do nothing for years, you will get a large percentage of people in that system that will stay in that system.

Welfare is supposed to be a temporary state, a helping hand to those who have run into hard times, not a lifestyle choice. I have no problem with my tax dollars helping those in real need. I have a big problem with my tax dollars subsidizing someones poor decisions and lifestyle choice.

Back to the original question... Flat tax. A flat tax with no loopholes is the only truly fair system but you'll never see that in the USA. A flat tax system would remove the ability of the government and politicians to pick winners and losers and bestow favors to constituents and industries.

[spacer]

A flax tax only benefits the rich. A progressive tax structure benefits everyone.

The biggest problem with current tax law (and there are MANY) is that there are tons of loop holes and shelters that people can use to cheat the system. Ideally, the only tax shelter that should exist is giving money to charity.

[Lovell]

Why keep working or advancing you're company if you don't make anything over a million? it's all fine saying **** the rich but then what? whether we like it or not it's this greed that has advanced our civilization so fast in the last 100 years.

[HSoft]

I'm not saying that the government should just keep giving money away to those without a job. What I am saying is that if you make +$1000000 a year you can pay a little bit more taxes. It's not going to hurt you. But they could use that extra money for schooling and health care. Everybody should have equal chances at good education and descent healthcare. With that good basis more people will have a chance at success in life.

They do pay more in taxes as it is. Even if it was a flat tax they would still pay more. Correcting someones example above of 20% flat tax, if you earned 20K then you would pay 8K in taxes but someone earning 1m would pay 200K in taxes. 25 times more than you would pay.

[4CxbqFxVnstmA Veteran]

Rich people get their money directly or indirectly through extracting it from the labour of the poor. It's a myth to think anyone's worth the salaries bankers, CEOs and their ilk pull in.

This is one reason I voted for a high tax on money earned above 1 million. Few of these modern-day robber barons are as generous with their money as Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, so it is the government's job to help them learn the value of civic duty.

[Stoffel]

They do pay more in taxes as it is. Even if it was a flat tax they would still pay more. Correcting someones example above of 20% flat tax, if you earned 20K then you would pay 8K in taxes but someone earning 1m would pay 200K in taxes. 25 times more than you would pay.

But it's much easier to get by with $800000 then with $12000

[HSoft]

But it's much easier to get by with $800000 then with $12000

Where do you suddenly come up with 12000? Did anyone in this thread actually go to math class?

[M_Lyons10]

same rate as everyone else. Everyone should pay the same percentage. Just because you have more money, doesn't mean you should have to pay a bigger share of your money than everyone else. But, they should have to pay it, there should not be tax shelters or other loop holes that allows them to pay less.

Exactly. Same taxes and same deductions. I don't feel it fair to charge them a higher percentage just because their successful. They're already paying more than the rest of us just because the percentage amounts to a larger chunk of money. This is fair. And I also feel that everyone should pay some taxes... It's absurd to think that some people are contributing nothing to these services and programs that they take advantage of.

[Buttus]

The only way a flat tax would work without screwing the majority of workers is by only taxing those who are in the upper class. Like the example done before, if I live on $30K a year and I get taxed at flat 25% rate, and so does the person who earns $1M, I'll have to survive on $22.5K, while the millionaire has $750K to blow. A flat tax only works if you tax those who earn considerably more than the poverty line, and let everyone else be untaxed.

right, it sucks, but it's fair and it has to be done. I don't make millions, so i agree, it would be hard to do. But we can't keep spending and not pay now, because if we don't, 3 generations from now won't be able to fix things

[Stoffel]

Where do you suddenly come up with 12000? Did anyone in this thread actually go to math class?

Your example. You compared somebody making $20000 with somebody who makes $1000000.

After 20% taxes the first one keeps $12000.

[thealexweb]

A fixed rate of 20% for everyone would be fair.

[Glassed Silver]

Guys, I didn't even poke the "welfare" (unemployment) topic, all I meant was lower tax rates and other benefits for the less rich people.

Jesus...

Read how I talked about the govt balancing the unfairness of the company that you get a paycheck from.

Although, I definitely think there are more incentives to work than just having a roof above your head and something to eat.

Luxury?

Better items you can buy?

Pleasure to work?

etc (there is lots more)

There will always be people trying to slip through a system to suck it dry, but that can't be helped a lot. (well I know it "can", but I don't think that the "effective" approaches sound very good).

Hope I didn't open Pandora's box... (I know I did, hope this doesn't get too stretched though)

Glassed Silver:mac

[jerzdawg]

As mentioned plenty of times, the tax rate (on salary) is not the issue here. The issue is with tax rates on other "earned income". I forget which politician recently released his tax records and it showed like 90% of his income was from investments which is taxed considerbly lower then his tax rate for an actual job. Unless the tax rate is changed on this "other" category then not much will change.

[vanx]

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.

[HSoft]

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.

[JonathanMarston]

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.

[mattmatik]

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.

[HSoft]

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