The American Federal Tax System: Fair?

[Kelinfort]

Right...so you'd choose to make less money overall why? Remember it's all just marginal rates, so you're losing half of the income you make above $500,000. This makes no sense.

So, hypothetically speaking, you're saying that losing more than half of my income would be trivial. I think not.

No, I definitely wouldn't work as hard knowing that I'd just be losing most of my money anyway. In fact, eventually I'd probably just move to a different country where the tax income rates weren't so ridiculously high.

Bullshit, you wouldn't uproot your life over a couple grand. You're losing half the income on money above $500,000. If you make $550,000, only $50,000 is taxed at 50%. Stop lying.

[Sanctissima]

So, hypothetically speaking, you're saying that losing more than half of my income would be trivial. I think not.

No, I definitely wouldn't work as hard knowing that I'd just be losing most of my money anyway. In fact, eventually I'd probably just move to a different country where the tax income rates weren't so ridiculously high.

Bullshit, you wouldn't uproot your life over a couple grand. You're losing half the income on money above $500,000. If you make $550,000, only $50,000 is taxed at 50%. Stop lying.

Nevermind, I misread.

Didn't notice the 'above' part. Thought we were talking about taxing over 50% of the entire income, i.e: $500,000 of a $1,000,000 annual income.

That said, for the super-wealthy, i.e: sums like $10,000,000. That would still be a freakishly high tax bracket (assuming you got rid of the cap).

[Kelinfort]

Bullshit, you wouldn't uproot your life over a couple grand. You're losing half the income on money above $500,000. If you make $550,000, only $50,000 is taxed at 50%. Stop lying.

Nevermind, I misread.

Didn't notice the 'above' part. Thought we were talking about taxing over 50% of the entire income, i.e: $500,000 of a $1,000,000 annual income.

That said, for the super-wealthy, i.e: sums like $10,000,000. That would still be a freakishly high tax bracket (assuming you got rid of the cap).

I think Atlanticatica wanted a cap at 55%. An 80% marginal tax rate would actually discourage earning more.

[Jamzmania]

The rich a ready pay a metric fuckton in taxes, plus the fact that they have to pay a greater percentage in taxes than everyone else. Let's also not forget about the large portion of the population that don't pay any income tax.

[Atlanticatia]

The rich a ready pay a metric fuckton in taxes, plus the fact that they have to pay a greater percentage in taxes than everyone else. Let's also not forget about the large portion of the population that don't pay any income tax.

They really don't. Remember when Mitt Romney paid 14% on his $13.7 million of income?


They could definitely afford to fork over at least half.

[Sanctissima]

Nevermind, I misread.

Didn't notice the 'above' part. Thought we were talking about taxing over 50% of the entire income, i.e: $500,000 of a $1,000,000 annual income.

That said, for the super-wealthy, i.e: sums like $10,000,000. That would still be a freakishly high tax bracket (assuming you got rid of the cap).

I think Atlanticatica wanted a cap at 55%. An 80% marginal tax rate would actually discourage earning more.

Eh, that could still backfire.

I mean, the people it would affect in a significantly negative way would be like, less than 0.5% of the entire population, but it could still be an issue. Anyone with a massive income (billionaires, etc.) would ultimately end up losing most of it to taxes. Over time, you'd probably wipe out the corporate class (chances are, billionaires would find life easier as multi-millionaires). So, basically, you'd turn the ultra-rich into just rich. I guess it's debatable as to whether or not that would be a good thing, but it would nonetheless cause some issues over time.

[Jamzmania]

The rich a ready pay a metric fuckton in taxes, plus the fact that they have to pay a greater percentage in taxes than everyone else. Let's also not forget about the large portion of the population that don't pay any income tax.

They really don't. Remember when Mitt Romney paid 14% on his $13.7 million of income?


They could definitely afford to fork over at least half.

Just as soon as everyone else forks over half. It's like, "Hey, congratulations on making it in this world! Now fuck you give us half your money so we can waste it researching make prostitutes in Vietnam."

[British Home Counties]

It is not, no one said it is. But it's a nice sign of protest.

I think X is bad, but most people don't seem to believe that! I will break it. When it's broken everyone will agree it is bad! Then they'll be unhappy because they lost something they valued. I won't be any more unhappy, because I always thought it was bad. In fact I'll be happy, because I was right all along!

Also known as smashing the toys because some other kid likes them. Well guess what? It won't make you happy.

Person A takes his money and moves to Country B
Person C keeps his money (or gives it to the government) and stays in Country D

Person A is not affected by the problems in Country D, because he lives in Country B. Only Person C is affected by Person A's emigration, because their champagne socialism forgot that to keep taking money you need someone to actually take it from.

It would make you happy, because you kept a substantial amount of your income to yourself.

[Atlanticatia]

I think Atlanticatica wanted a cap at 55%. An 80% marginal tax rate would actually discourage earning more.

Eh, that could still backfire.

I mean, the people it would affect in a significantly negative way would be like, less than 0.5% of the entire population, but it could still be an issue. Anyone with a massive income (billionaires, etc.) would ultimately end up losing most of it to taxes. Over time, you'd probably wipe out the corporate class (chances are, billionaires would find life easier as multi-millionaires). So, basically, you'd turn the ultra-rich into just rich. I guess it's debatable as to whether or not that would be a good thing, but it would nonetheless cause some issues over time.

who cares?

Either way, if you earn $20 million, and you only have $10 million after tax, you're still rich and you can afford the tax.

[Jamzmania]

Eh, that could still backfire.

I mean, the people it would affect in a significantly negative way would be like, less than 0.5% of the entire population, but it could still be an issue. Anyone with a massive income (billionaires, etc.) would ultimately end up losing most of it to taxes. Over time, you'd probably wipe out the corporate class (chances are, billionaires would find life easier as multi-millionaires). So, basically, you'd turn the ultra-rich into just rich. I guess it's debatable as to whether or not that would be a good thing, but it would nonetheless cause some issues over time.

who cares?

Either way, if you earn $20 million, and you only have $10 million after tax, you're still rich and you can afford the tax.

They still list $10 million. That ain't a small number.

[British Home Counties]

Eh, that could still backfire.

I mean, the people it would affect in a significantly negative way would be like, less than 0.5% of the entire population, but it could still be an issue. Anyone with a massive income (billionaires, etc.) would ultimately end up losing most of it to taxes. Over time, you'd probably wipe out the corporate class (chances are, billionaires would find life easier as multi-millionaires). So, basically, you'd turn the ultra-rich into just rich. I guess it's debatable as to whether or not that would be a good thing, but it would nonetheless cause some issues over time.

who cares?

Either way, if you earn $20 million, and you only have $10 million after tax, you're still rich and you can afford the tax.

If you earn $100 million we can take $99 million from you because you'd still be richer than 99% of people right? I mean, come on, a million is more than enough to live on.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Eh, that could still backfire.

I mean, the people it would affect in a significantly negative way would be like, less than 0.5% of the entire population, but it could still be an issue. Anyone with a massive income (billionaires, etc.) would ultimately end up losing most of it to taxes. Over time, you'd probably wipe out the corporate class (chances are, billionaires would find life easier as multi-millionaires). So, basically, you'd turn the ultra-rich into just rich. I guess it's debatable as to whether or not that would be a good thing, but it would nonetheless cause some issues over time.

who cares?

Either way, if you earn $20 million, and you only have $10 million after tax, you're still rich and you can afford the tax.

Whether one can 'afford' a tax is a fucking stupid criteria.

The rich a ready pay a metric fuckton in taxes, plus the fact that they have to pay a greater percentage in taxes than everyone else. Let's also not forget about the large portion of the population that don't pay any income tax.

They really don't. Remember when Mitt Romney paid 14% on his $13.7 million of income*?


They could definitely afford to fork over at least half.

*Not income, such was the effective rate after deductions on Romney's total earning, including capital gains, dividends, and taxable interest as well as income. The former three are distinguished from income for very good reasons primarily revolving around their ability to aid the less wealthy in building wealth and the economic growth/prosperity such engenders.

It's also notable for demonstrating that write-offs (as well as the aformentioned 'former three' items) and the like are a primary factor in influencing effective tax rate. Adjusting the rate is unlikely to affect such write-offs extensively.

[Sanctissima]

Eh, that could still backfire.

I mean, the people it would affect in a significantly negative way would be like, less than 0.5% of the entire population, but it could still be an issue. Anyone with a massive income (billionaires, etc.) would ultimately end up losing most of it to taxes. Over time, you'd probably wipe out the corporate class (chances are, billionaires would find life easier as multi-millionaires). So, basically, you'd turn the ultra-rich into just rich. I guess it's debatable as to whether or not that would be a good thing, but it would nonetheless cause some issues over time.

who cares?

Either way, if you earn $20 million, and you only have $10 million after tax, you're still rich and you can afford the tax.

Not a question of affording it or not. It's a question of whether or not I'd bother being super-rich.

Again, I more or less agree with you in principle (nobody needs that much wealth), but hypothetically speaking, you'd end up wiping out the corporate class (or more specifically, making them less rich). Basically, that means you'd eventually destroy what runs the US economy. You'd need to have a back-up plan (i.e: a new economic structure) when that time came. So, essentially, your Plan A can't work without a Plan B.

[Atlanticatia]

who cares?

Either way, if you earn $20 million, and you only have $10 million after tax, you're still rich and you can afford the tax.

Whether one can 'afford' a tax is a fucking stupid criteria.

I think it's quite a fair criteria. If you earn $10k you can't exactly afford to pay 50% of your income in taxes but if you earn $10 million, you most definitely can.

[British Home Counties]

Whether one can 'afford' a tax is a fucking stupid criteria.

I think it's quite a fair criteria. If you earn $10k you can't exactly afford to pay 50% of your income in taxes but if you earn $10 million, you most definitely can.

of course you can afford to live on $5000 a year. it just means you live with less luxuries. if you go to texas where prices are low and there are virtually no planning laws you can build yourself a hut, live in it, and still have enough to buy food and water every day to survive for a year. or you can invest and grow crops yourself.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Whether one can 'afford' a tax is a fucking stupid criteria.

I think it's quite a fair criteria. If you earn $10k you can't exactly afford to pay 50% of your income in taxes but if you earn $10 million, you most definitely can.

And I'm still correct, whether one can afford something is a fucking stupid criteria for doing it.

[Atlanticatia]

I think it's quite a fair criteria. If you earn $10k you can't exactly afford to pay 50% of your income in taxes but if you earn $10 million, you most definitely can.

of course you can afford to live on $5000 a year. it just means you live with less luxuries. if you go to texas where prices are low and there are virtually no planning laws you can build yourself a hut, live in it, and still have enough to buy food and water every day to survive for a year. or you can invest and grow crops yourself.

the poverty line for a single person is about $12,000 a year so no you cannot. you can survive and essentially be homeless on $5k, sure, but that's not the minimum living standard we should expect in a rich Western country. if you earn $5,000 a year where do you get the money for building materials, crops, and investments?

[InfiniX]

Proprety tax is some dumb shit.

You tax people's asset that they own and force them to sell when they run out of money, or lock them up over it.

[Occupied Deutschland]

...
Because people didn't bother trying to succeed during the 3-4 post-war decades. Marginal tax rates were above 70% during that time, even reaching into the 90s at one point. And yet it was the most prosperous time in American history. When Reagan cut taxes in the 80s, he presumed that people would work harder and the wealth would trickle down. It's clear that that didn't work - trickle down was a failure.

As has been mentioned numerous times, in numerous places, by numerous people across numerous ideological perspectives, the 'marginal tax rates in the 70/90s!' of post-war America is a farce. Because nobody paid that much. They were brought about by the same stupid shit many people focus on today. Raising tax rates while gaping and/or expanding loopholes and write-offs in the tax system were used to make the effective rate much lower.

[British Home Counties]

of course you can afford to live on $5000 a year. it just means you live with less luxuries. if you go to texas where prices are low and there are virtually no planning laws you can build yourself a hut, live in it, and still have enough to buy food and water every day to survive for a year. or you can invest and grow crops yourself.

the poverty line for a single person is about $12,000 a year so no you cannot. you can survive and essentially be homeless on $5k, sure, but that's not the minimum living standard we should expect in a rich Western country. if you earn $5,000 a year where do you get the money for building materials, crops, and investments?

minimum living standard is as subjective as affordability of a tax. it's a point of view not a realistic measurement of any economic value.

crops do not cost millions, you're only feeding yourself. you could probably survive with seeds in the summer and buy from shops in the winter. what investments? and building materials can be gathered. $5000 can be lived on. alternatively you can squat and still have a shelter.

[Sanctissima]

the poverty line for a single person is about $12,000 a year so no you cannot. you can survive and essentially be homeless on $5k, sure, but that's not the minimum living standard we should expect in a rich Western country. if you earn $5,000 a year where do you get the money for building materials, crops, and investments?

minimum living standard is as subjective as affordability of a tax. it's a point of view not a realistic measurement of any economic value.

crops do not cost millions, you're only feeding yourself. you could probably survive with seeds in the summer and buy from shops in the winter. what investments? and building materials can be gathered. $5000 can be lived on. alternatively you can squat and still have a shelter.

You realize that's a pretty miserable standard of living you're talking about, yes?

[British Home Counties]

minimum living standard is as subjective as affordability of a tax. it's a point of view not a realistic measurement of any economic value.

crops do not cost millions, you're only feeding yourself. you could probably survive with seeds in the summer and buy from shops in the winter. what investments? and building materials can be gathered. $5000 can be lived on. alternatively you can squat and still have a shelter.

You realize that's a pretty miserable standard of living you're talking about, yes?

no one said it isn't, but you can survive on it.

[Sanctissima]

You realize that's a pretty miserable standard of living you're talking about, yes?

no one said it isn't, but you can survive on it.

Sure, you can survive.

Although with that low a quality of life, and with little if any chance of rising above it, you'd probably consider jumping off the nearest bridge and ending it all.

[Atlanticatia]

the poverty line for a single person is about $12,000 a year so no you cannot. you can survive and essentially be homeless on $5k, sure, but that's not the minimum living standard we should expect in a rich Western country. if you earn $5,000 a year where do you get the money for building materials, crops, and investments?

minimum living standard is as subjective as affordability of a tax. it's a point of view not a realistic measurement of any economic value.

crops do not cost millions, you're only feeding yourself. you could probably survive with seeds in the summer and buy from shops in the winter. what investments? and building materials can be gathered. $5000 can be lived on. alternatively you can squat and still have a shelter.

I'd say using the 'federal poverty line' where one can only barely afford housing, food, etc - the basic essentials - as a determinant for one's ability to pay tax is a good starting point.

[Romalae]

You support widening the US budget deficit? How is this a good thing?

It is not, no one said it is. But it's a nice sign of protest.

You said you supported it, so it's not exactly farfetched to assume you must've thought it was a good thing.

I don't consider the intentional extraction of wealth to be a sign of protest; rather, I consider it to be an exploitative, greedy pursuit.

Also, if wealthy people are "completely barricaded" with taxes at this point in time, then what would you say about the pre-Reagan era top marginal tax rates? There is certainly little comparison to today.

That they were too high and stifled growth.

That's counterfactual. The quarterly GDP growth in the US was quite high in the 50s and 60s. Growth was not stifled. By and large, the era was a time of economic expansionism.

Source?

Seems I was wrong, taken directly out of Wikipedia, or I just misunderstood it. Either way a 35% tax rate is already one of the highest on Earth.

But it's the statutory rate, not the effective rate. The statutory rate is not actually what's paid; the effective rate is. 35% is also on the high end of the statutory range. The range is from 15%-35%.