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

[HSoft]

So the problem is stupidity and you propose fixing the stupid people unemployed with Walmart jobs?

Shouldn't the fix be better education?

That's not the whole problem but yes it is part of it. Unfortunately the US teaching system is broken and with the unions, tenure etc. it is not going to be fixed. We are one of the top spenders per student in the world with nowhere near the proportionate rates of education for that spent. The school system needs an overhaul.

[+Eternal Tempest MVC]

That's not the whole problem but yes it is part of it. Unfortunately the US teaching system is broken and with the unions, tenure etc. it is not going to be fixed. We are one of the top spenders per student in the world with nowhere near the proportionate rates of education for that spent. The school system needs an overhaul.

On the flip side, school is too heavy with administration and trying to be run with people that don't understand teaching.

I think the problem in Ohio, is it's based on property taxes, which make wealthier area's have better schools, and also punish the farmers or anyone owning too much land getting taxed heavy.

This has gone to the Ohio supreme court 2 times now and they shot down the funding system and the states tries to patch the law while still dependent on property tax.

Ohio Constitution requires school's to be equal. (Not College, University).

Edited July 3, 2012 by Jason Stillion

[a.mcdear]

Are all the people saying 20-30% from the USA??

[pack34]

Are all the people saying 20-30% from the USA??

Most likely. I personally feel that the ideal situation would be that everyone pays the same percentage but we just don't live in an ideal world. Flat tax rates would hurt the lower class because the bulk of their income barely covers the cost of living and a large middle class is a must for a strong economy so the upper class does need to get taxed at a higer rate.

It also needs to be looked at, what happens to the money that different classes of people earn. The less a person makes, the more of it goes towards living expenses whereas if someone makes over a million dollars a year, a lot of what they make would be sitting in bank accounts and gaining interest. However, with middle and lower class incomes that money gets cycled through the economy at a much higher pace. A larger middle class keeps money flowing which creates jobs.

[thejohnnyq]

On the flip side, school is too heavy with administration and trying to be run with people that don't understand teaching.

I think the problem in Ohio, is it's based on property taxes, which make wealthier area's have better schools, and also punish the farmers or anyone owning too much land getting taxed heavy.

This has gone to the Ohio supreme court 2 times now and they shot down the funding system and the states tries to patch the law while still dependent on property tax.

Ohio Constitution requires school's to be equal. (Not College, University).

Money does mean education and this has been proven over and over again by the #1 school district in Ohio and #43 in the nation (and it has been the top 3 in Ohio for 20 years). Wyoming spends near the bottom in Ohio per student. We have a local school district tax, and spend about $6k less then Cincinnati School does per student and in many cases $10k less then many other school districts in local counties including competing 'high end districts'.

We average over 98% parent involvement in the education system. The DOE noted that "Wyoming is what schools should and must be", they were amazed that parents of preschoolers turned out for a seminar for 4-6 graders parents on what it takes to have your students succeed, during a level 3 snow emergency (no travel allowed), 700 parents showed up where only room for 250 was planed. That is the difference.

[Angel Blue01]

I don't think I can describe it in percentages, whatever it takes to reduce their income to less than $1 million. No one should make that much for themselves, if they want to give the excess to charity that's great, but they can't keep it.

[Anibal P]

I don't think I can describe it in percentages, whatever it takes to reduce their income to less than $1 million. No one should make that much for themselves, if they want to give the excess to charity that's great, but they can't keep it.

And who are you to tell them what's "enough"? It's not your money they earn, you should not have a say in how much they pay in taxes, it's their money, no the governments either, the Gov works for us, not the other way around

I don't get why Americans are so enamored with Marxism, it doesn't work, never has, never will, even the Countries that had "lite" marxist/socialism are moving away from those tendencies because it doesn't work

[Veiva]

The thought train of no one deserves their earned money above the random oddball $1 million mark is just tragic. In all honesty, I would love for everyone to get the job they want, afford themselves the education they deserve, and not have to worry about money (as would most others wish for such a paradise). . . but that's not possible as it stands.

I also find the fact that the government can manage money better than the rich absolutely laughable. In fact, I don't think anyone can manage money for the better of humankind except the most strongwilled of the poor (beware: that's a gross exaggeration). The poor that has to budget month-to-month and yet always makes ends meet. Not the ones that live above their means, of course.

You can curse those who are rich, and envy their position, but that's not gonna get you very far. Although the American dream is mostly dead (go from nobody to Bill Gates, basically), this does not mean that one cannot succeed even if odds are against them.

Look at all the successful small businesses. Joe and Bob have a great idea, they research the market while working a normal job or pursuing a hard degree. They manage their free time to create some mega-useful business for their community or some other audience. Who are you to say that they don't deserve their income because of the success of their niche? Saying that no one needs $1M (such an arbitrary number as well!) is such a cop out. They may be able to survive with 10% of that, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve it.

[Anibal P]

The thought train of no one deserves their earned money above the random oddball $1 million mark is just tragic. In all honesty, I would love for everyone to get the job they want, afford themselves the education they deserve, and not have to worry about money (as would most others wish for such a paradise). . . but that's not possible as it stands.

I also find the fact that the government can manage money better than the rich absolutely laughable. In fact, I don't think anyone can manage money for the better of humankind except the most strongwilled of the poor (beware: that's a gross exaggeration). The poor that has to budget month-to-month and yet always makes ends meet. Not the ones that live above their means, of course.

You can curse those who are rich, and envy their position, but that's not gonna get you very far. Although the American dream is mostly dead (go from nobody to Bill Gates, basically), this does not mean that one cannot succeed even if odds are against them.

Look at all the successful small businesses. Joe and Bob have a great idea, they research the market while working a normal job or pursuing a hard degree. They manage their free time to create some mega-useful business for their community or some other audience. Who are you to say that they don't deserve their income because of the success of their niche? Saying that no one needs $1M (such an arbitrary number as well!) is such a cop out. They may be able to survive with 10% of that, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve it.

The American dream is dead BECAUSE of Marxist leanings of the Left, the dream is that if we work hard enough you can be successful, the Left rather hate on those that are successful while doing NOTHING to help the "poor" they rile up all the time, look how far Obama has gone with this Marxist class warfare stance of his, that should be the thing that clues the smart people that it's a bad idea

[Stoffel]

The American dream is dead BECAUSE of Marxist leanings of the Left, the dream is that if we work hard enough you can be successful, the Left rather hate on those that are successful while doing NOTHING to help the "poor" they rile up all the time, look how far Obama has gone with this Marxist class warfare stance of his, that should be the thing that clues the smart people that it's a bad idea

So you think it's a bad idea that the government would provide good education and good healthcare for everybody, paid for by the tax payer?

That way even the poor have a good chance of a decent education and might not need welfare later on.

[ANON86364]

It's pointless to have 1 billion walmarts open up, if it only means people will still be living on as minimum of minimum wage goes. But if we do your reasoning, its good enough to have everyone at the bottom with a few at the top... Do people really not understand the situation? Have all the jobs in the world come available... but if the pay doesn't ever change for the workers, and only for those at the top, the problems will never go away. I really hope you are not entering this debate with such small views....

I'm beginning to think you're arguing for a utopia where everyone is skilled and everyone gets paid enough to be satisfied. Unfortunately, not only is this impossible because all animals are naturally selfish, but because not everyone will have the same potential. The less monetary incentive you give people for being successful, the more you shift the responsibility of job creation to the government. No person will have the motivation to create jobs when there isn't monetary incentive to do so.

Reasoning wont get you far on this site anymore.

In every damn thread you say something similar. Stop your egotism and at least give some respect. No one here has done anything to you personally.

[fintechfooty]

Who cares? The way I see it personally is that money is a distraction in life and people don't seem to understand that clearly. The tax problem will always be a tax problem because the only people who seem to truly notice is/are the people who earn less! So many of these rich people tried and tested out ideas before they were truly successful. It is easy to look at someone who earns 1M and say he should pay more in taxes, but I bet if you struggled your way up to the top, worked for 15 years, finally started making money, would you personally want the government to tax you more for an idea you spent years trying to establish? I guess that would depend on your personality.Government my friend cannot enforce a personality. So honestly, so long as the Government can provide social services to the public, nobody should complain.

I say this because about a month ago, I got this feeling that I wanted to become rich. Ever since, I've been trying to invest and learn about stocks and etc and it's not easy at ALL. I mean you really need to have a vision, an idea, a plan, and I mean it's tough!

I think it's just easier to say forget about this thread and focus on what you have because honestly opportunity is everywhere. Take Steve Jobs, just one example, he apparently started building Apple computers by hand in a garage. I bet he didn't sit there and think, how much should other people be taxed, so that I can live in a great world. He took initiative!

I don't mean to go off topic or anything, just asked the same question to some friends last week with a strong discussion! I know this is a topic that is just asking for a simple question, so heres the answer now:

[Rippleman]

It's interesting to see the different opinions of everyone on this board. In the end I wonder how many of us think if having a "billion" dollars should be a crime to humanity. The accumulation of wealth only hurts society as a whole. The billionaire (who legally attained his wealth) deserves everything he wants for sure... but at what cost to others? A single mom working 2 jobs with 2 kids to support could use a "hand up" (notice NOT hand-out). imagine how awesome her life could be by the billionaire giving just 1% of his income for 1 single day. Would be life changing for sure. I wonder if any individual really really needs/wants/deserve a billion dollars?

[ANON86364]

It's how capitalism works and it's gotten us this far. Is it perfect? No. But I think some people here confuse issues caused by capitalism with issues caused by corruption in government.

If someone has a completely new economic system that solves all our problems I'm sure we'll hear about it here first :rolleyes:

[syobon999]

There should be no pay to the government, everything you buy already has taxes....

[ArialBlue]

^

That would not be fair actually.

It's how capitalism works and it's gotten us this far. Is it perfect? No. But I think some people here confuse issues caused by capitalism with issues caused by corruption in government.

If someone has a completely new economic system that solves all our problems I'm sure we'll hear about it here first :rolleyes:

Any pure system actually doesn't exist outside of theory as it fails in practice.

Hybrid systems work best.

A combination of lots of heavy socialized services and controlled capitalism seems to be the best system.

Correct me if I am wrong here.

[Noir Angel]

No, the poor shouldn't be entitled to anything like that. You deserve what you work for. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor doesn't solve anything. Actually it makes it an incentive to be in the lower class. Very very bad idea.

Which would work great if the romanticised argument that your kind uses so frequently about hard work were true, but in reality a guy that works sweeping a road for 5 bucks an hour works just as hard if not harder than the millionaire that sits on his arse in an office ordering other people around.

[123456789A]

Which would work great if the romanticised argument that your kind uses so frequently about hard work were true, but in reality a guy that works sweeping a road for 5 bucks an hour works just as hard if not harder than the millionaire that sits on his arse in an office ordering other people around.

I've learned that you make more money when you have more people under you to do your work for you so you look better. I think it's called being a "manager" or a "director" or "delegating" or something like that. It's easy money if you have business sense and like stepping on the little guys as you climb your way up the ladder.

The guy sweeping the road doesn't get any recognition, but the road "manager" gets to say "Hey, see that clean road right there? I did it."

I worked with a lot of power hungry fools like that.. try to get everyone to work as a "team" and then turn around and claim credit for entire projects on their resumes.

[seta-san]

Uh ok...

Lack of understanding, or arrogance?

i know women who passed up good promotions because it would cut into their child support/alimony check. Even in normal circumstances most people wouldn't want to be in the poverty class. But people in the lower middle class might actively attempt to keep their income under the next higher tax bracket.

[Dashel]

I like the idea of a fixed tax rate for everyone but I also agree with a progressive tax rate. I do think poorer people should pay less taxes but everyone should pay some tax, get their feet in the game. As for the rich, I would say 25%, a quarter of what they earn. The biggest problem in the US is the tax code and the amount of loopholes there are.

Its interesting that we come from different angles and can be in agreement here. I think a progressive system of tax does make sense, there is a difference between your first dollar and your last. I would however even go as high as 30% (per the poll), if the starting point was at least a million. The current 250K entry is far too low. A 'flat' progressive three or four tiered system if you will. Its the deductions that allow for such social meddling, drop em.

[seta-san]

Which would work great if the romanticised argument that your kind uses so frequently about hard work were true, but in reality a guy that works sweeping a road for 5 bucks an hour works just as hard if not harder than the millionaire that sits on his arse in an office ordering other people around.

the millionaire is typically not only reponsible for himself but possibly thousands of other employees and not to mention the shareholders. That guy sweeping the road might indeed physically work harder but the consequences of his actions carry far less weight. If that millionair manager screws up people can be out of jobs, shareholders lose money, and government investigations can be involved.

[Noir Angel]

the millionaire is typically not only reponsible for himself but possibly thousands of other employees and not to mention the shareholders. That guy sweeping the road might indeed physically work harder but the consequences of his actions carry far less weight. If that millionair manager screws up people can be out of jobs, shareholders lose money, and government investigations can be involved.

The fact that Donald Trump has bankrupted 3 businesses and is still as rich as hell would tend to disprove that assertion. Not all millionaires that are in their position are in it because they're better than everyone else.

[seta-san]

The fact that Donald Trump has bankrupted 3 businesses and is still as rich as hell would tend to disprove that assertion. Not all millionaires that are in their position are in it because they're better than everyone else.

did i ever say they are better than everyone else?

No.

And on Donald Trump. His company went through Chapter 11. This is debt reorganization. Not out of business. Chapter 13 is out of business.

[Veiva]

The fact that Donald Trump has bankrupted 3 businesses and is still as rich as hell would tend to disprove that assertion. Not all millionaires that are in their position are in it because they're better than everyone else.

Not to pick on your particularly, but this kind of argumentative response ticks me off slightly. Just because of an example or two you're suddenly correct..?

Although you may argue Donald Trump is rich despite being a "mediocre businessman," this does not suddenly mean all businessmen are mediocre. That's a fallacy if I've ever seen one.

Look at all the businesses that are managing to survive despite harsh economic situations. There's too many to list! Yes, they may have to lay off people, but when business picks up and they can't manage with their lower amount of employees, they'll likely hire more and expand.

While I do agree that there is generally always someone more suitable for a position, it's a matter of fact that life isn't the most fair. If every business waited for or hired the most suitable, there would be less jobs now than there ever have been. Someone has to manage employees, be it three or three hundred, and most people are not cut for the job. Those who are and step up are now responsible for these employees. If they make terrible decisions, the company would be in grave danger of some sort of intervention. That's not good.

On a side note, do you think even three people can organize themselves efficiently and stay in a job without any form of leadership? Someone needs to take initiative. Should this person be paid more? That's a difficult question where one-size-does-not-fit-all, but I tend to believe, yes. Again, be it three or three hundred, that person has much more responsibility on his plate than those he manages (read: this is true for many fields [tech firms, real estate], but not all [medical, law enforcement, etc]).

[ANON86364]

And again we go around having to say hard work is not defined by how much sweat you accumulate. It's skilled vs unskilled. Blue collar vs white collar. Not everyone has the same potential.