What level of taxation is too high?

[kpt018]

Billion or more 97 percent

I feel like anything over 10 mil should be taxed at 90 percent

1 mil to 10 mil there is a lot of wiggle room and where I think you would have to hammer out details and i feel like this area is going to have several brackets in it

200 k to a mil should be like 25

100 to 200k should be 15

50 to 100 k 10

50 k below nothing


Im also really pro hardcore estate tax

What's the reasoning behind each of those?

I'm a hardcore estate tax guy too. I would dramatically raise the rates there.

 

[grimballer]

Anything over 5%

 

[Gutter Chris]

What's the reasoning behind each of those?

Im just spitballin in my mind about who can afford to pay what and still not really have their lives effected by the tax increase while still making sure the funding is there

 

[Jack V Savage]

I also think it wouldnt hurt to look into creating some new revenue sources from scratch like maybe pot and coke and what things we can cut to get money instead of just raising taxes as a solution if we are looking to fund massive social programs

I think other revenue sources should be a sovereign wealth fund, a national land-value tax (which, IMO, should carry as much of the load as possible), and taxes on things like carbon emissions, gas, and various socially undesirable activities. And we should greatly raise estate taxes, and cut income taxes from the bottom.

 

[Not A Theist]

Ugh, this is off topic but I can't help but remind people this is always a bad idea but in a time of stagnant wages and growing income inequality the idea that high income earners should pay less and the working poor/middle class should pay more is a REALLY bad idea.

Could you expand upon this? I'm not entirely sure how flat tax results in the rich paying less, unless it's a complex system of loopholes and writeoffs that lower class people don't generally have access to that you're referring to? Not judging whether flat tax is a bad idea or not, just curious on the "pay less" comment.

 

[curryjunkie]

Not sure about the exact number. But at a certain point, people shouldn't get any richer.
Let's say 100 Million everything over that will be taxed or you have to give it away somehow.
Of course, I have no economic knowledge how would that affect the economy.

I just think that as a society it makes no sense to have super Rich people.
I do not see how that furthers mankind.

you commie! dont you know people have ostrich leather jackets to buy?
but seriously, i dont think there should be a limit on wealth, but you shouldnt be able to hire armies of accountants to stash it offshore and avoid tax through loopholes, the higher your income, the higher the flat tax, thats it, no more swerving out of it,no more company cars,company properties for entertaining clients, fuck all that.
and religious organisations and charities should pay a minor tax, say a few percent, but if youre a slimy tv preacher with loads of jets and shit it should be taxed as personal wealth.

 

[kpt018]

Could you expand upon this? I'm not entirely sure how flat tax results in the rich paying less, unless it's a complex system of loopholes and writeoffs that lower class people don't generally have access to that you're referring to? Not judging whether flat tax is a bad idea or not, just curious on the "pay less" comment.

I'm not sure how recent the data is, but I recall reading that the top bracket pays an effective rate around 25% and the next one down is like 20%. Bottom brackets pay nothing or close to it, and so on. It obviously depends on the flat tax rate you consider, but the one proposed by some Republicans is 15%. That would raise the taxes a lot on the working poor and reduce them a lot of high income earners.

 

[Not A Theist]

I'm not sure how recent the data is, but I recall reading that the top bracket pays an effective rate around 25% and the next one down is like 20%. Bottom brackets pay nothing or close to it, and so on. It obviously depends on the flat tax rate you consider, but the one proposed by some Republicans is 15%. That would raise the taxes a lot on the working poor and reduce them a lot of high income earners.

Ah, gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. So it's a combination of loopholes and the proposed flat tax rate being higher for many earners.

 

[Gutter Chris]

I think other revenue sources should be a sovereign wealth fund, a national land-value tax (which, IMO, should carry as much of the load as possible), and taxes on things like carbon emissions, gas, and various socially undesirable activities. And we should greatly raise estate taxes, and cut income taxes from the bottom.

See I think we should be specific with the taxes. As in the coke and weed tax revenue money all goes into the national healthcare fund and may not be used for any politicians pet projects roads schools or anything but health related programs .I think there is a much better chance of it working correctly that way . If more money is being taken in than needed than we can use it for medical research or some kind of creating even more doctors and nurses type program but it stays in the Nhs system.

Im also not sure what taxing undesirable activities means. Im fine with taxing cigarettes and alcohol and in theory weed and coke but cigarettes are already maxed out , and if you wanna tax pop and what not I think you get into being the lifestyle police and are likely to get your ass voted out of office. You can only harass people so much ( liberals!) before they wont tolerate you and then it no longer matters how correct you are about anything

Im also not sure if a lot of people in our country can bear the cost of increased gas taxes and all the joys that ill come with that. The middle class died and all the gains went to the top so any new taxes should also aim in that direction. Blood from a stone or so they say

 

[kpt018]

Ah, gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. So it's a combination of loopholes and the proposed flat tax rate being higher for many earners.

Well, they pay more due to the progressiveness of the tax code, which I think you understand but just to clarify.

 

[snakedafunky]

you commie! dont you know people have ostrich leather jackets to buy?
but seriously, i dont think there should be a limit on wealth, but you shouldnt be able to hire armies of accountants to stash it offshore and avoid tax through loopholes, the higher your income, the higher the flat tax, thats it, no more swerving out of it,no more company cars,company properties for entertaining clients, fuck all that.
and religious organisations and charities should pay a minor tax, say a few percent, but if youre a slimy tv preacher with loads of jets and shit it should be taxed as personal wealth.

Yeah while I am a socialist at heart there is the whole issue with strict socialist policies not working when acctually implementing them.

 

[Not A Theist]

Well, they pay more due to the progressiveness of the tax code, which I think you understand but just to clarify.

Well yes - under a progressive system, obviously the higher earners pay a higher rate. That's the definition. I was just wondering about the claim of higher earners paying less on a flat system. I think you've explained it well.

Honestly, I'd take those against a progressive tax code a bit more seriously if they were vehemently against the loopholes and writeoffs and all of that that allow for rich people to have an effective tax rate that is lower than the actual tax rate, whereas lower earners don't really have that working for them. The problem is, I never see the argument of "I'm all for flat tax after eliminating all loopholes" - I just see "I want a flat tax! Fairness, freedom, 'Murica! Don't tread on me!". Leaving the veritable tunnel network of looopholes that exists in the tax code while adopting a flat tax rate will just drive another nail into the coffin of the American dream.

 

[Jack V Savage]

See I think we should be specific with the taxes. As in the coke and weed tax revenue money all goes into the national healthcare fund and may not be used for any politicians pet projects roads schools or anything but health related programs .

I think that would be disastrously short-sighted.

Im also not sure what taxing undesirable activities means. Im fine with taxing cigarettes and alcohol

Yes, stuff like that. Sugar can definitely be added to the list.

Im also not sure if a lot of people in our country can bear the cost of increased gas taxes and all the joys that ill come with that. The middle class died and all the gains went to the top so any new taxes should also aim in that direction. Blood from a stone or so they say

Driving imposes costs on the rest of society--traffic and pollution, mostly. Plus parking and roads are huge drains on land usage and roads are a big expense. That's the point--if you tax something, you get less of it. So we should tax things that you either can't get less of (like land) or things that you *want* less of (like pollution). Those are much better than taxes on income, though I think we should discourage extremely high incomes (note that when we had very high taxes on income post WWII, they effectively acted as a cap on income rather than a revenue source, and thus indirectly helped middle-class wages).

Ideally, the primary source of gov't revenue would be the first things I mentioned, though. A land-value tax (it would be great if that could cover all expenses, but that's probably impractical) and an SWF (which I think should just be paid back to the public).

 

[panamaican]

I think our current system works well but it needs to extend the brackets and associated rates higher. It's hard to discuss the proper tax rate for people making $2 million a year because it's such a small percentage of the population. All I know is that it shouldn't be the same rate as people making $600k. Just spitballing, I can't see how a 50% tax on income above $2 million could be considered an unfair rate. 55% for income above 200 Million, 60% for income above $500 Million. Right now they're paying 37%, just like those with a family income of $600k.

 

[MeatheadMike]

Could you expand upon this? I'm not entirely sure how flat tax results in the rich paying less, unless it's a complex system of loopholes and writeoffs that lower class people don't generally have access to that you're referring to? Not judging whether flat tax is a bad idea or not, just curious on the "pay less" comment.

Since our tax system is progressive, everybody, including the rich already benefit from lower tax rates on the initial amounts of money they earn. They currently only pay higher tax rates for the amount that is over the certain thresholds defined as the tax brackets.

In order to collect the same amount of money with a single flat tax rate, the tax rate would inevitably have to be higher for the people who don't make any money beyond the current lower tax bracket thresholds, and lower for those who make most of their money beyond the higher tax brackets.

 

[nostradumbass]

Is this "jobs for all" horse shit just busy work with no productivity from which people can never be fired or do the fuck ups keep getting passed from meaningless job to meaningless job? Not a goddamn penny for that nonsense .

How about a flat tax? I'll pay what you're willing to have jacked out if your own paycheck instead of a bunch of do nothings demanding from me what they want to be exempt from.

 

[kpt018]

Is this "jobs for all" horse shit just busy work with no productivity from which people can never be fired or do the fuck ups keep getting passed from meaningless job to meaningless job? Not a goddamn penny for that nonsense .

How about a flat tax? I'll pay what you're willing to have jacked out if your own paycheck instead of a bunch of do nothings demanding from me what they want to be exempt from.

You literally sound like a drunk old guy that doesn't know how anything works and also doesn't take even slightest amount of time to try and understand how things work but still feels compelled to share his opinion.

I mean, none of us are experts on most of this stuff but Jesus man make an attempt.

 

[kpt018]

I think our current system works well but it needs to extend the brackets and associated rates higher. It's hard to discuss the proper tax rate for people making $2 million a year because it's such a small percentage of the population. All I know is that it shouldn't be the same rate as people making $600k. Just spitballing, I can't see how a 50% tax on income above $2 million could be considered an unfair rate. 55% for income above 200 Million, 60% for income above $500 Million. Right now they're paying 37%, just like those with a family income of $600k.

The thing I am hoping to get out of people, particularly lefties that want these programs, is how much of a tax increase are they willing to tolerate? I know you're on the right and probably disagree with these programs, unless I'm wrong there, but this is a question that a moderate or a right winger would pose to lefties pushing for huge government programs.

 

[sub_thug]

Well, I'm not committed to the idea of expanding the scope of the federal government to get further involved in the things in the OP, but I will play this game a little on where the tax levels could be.

Hard to pin down. I'm in favor of a flat income tax with a different way of paying property taxes. It was something that I heard from @Jack V Savage, so I can't take the credit for it, and it's a solid concept. The idea is that you would pay an increased level of property taxes, probably based on some evaluation of the total value of things like homes/land, boats, and other large items (probably not your primary work vehicle, as we want to incentivize you to have a job). This helps ensure that people can't carry over losses from the previous year and pay no taxes while still being super rich, hide your income in Caribbean banks to avoid paying taxes, and other practices. I'm not one of those people who hates the rich for being rich like a lot of people seem to, but they shouldn't be able to game the system so that they can pay less than others. I understand that there are still a lot of things to work out to ensure that higher taxes aren't passed onto renters, that the cost of housing doesn't become so high that no one actually seeks to own a home, that owning/renting an apartment or condo in Manhattan is very different than owning a few acres of land in Wyoming, etc., but it provides a frame of reference to reduce the tax burden on most people without creating a system that tries to wallop you for stepping into the next tax bracket.

 

[nostradumbass]

You literally sound like a drunk old guy that doesn't know how anything works and also doesn't take even slightest amount of time to try and understand how things work but still feels compelled to share his opinion.

I mean, none of us are experts on most of this stuff but Jesus man make an attempt.

You made one of the dumbest threads in a while asking what people would like the government to take out of their check for some absurd "jobs for all" shit. Not my fault you smoked weed and started fantasizing about some utopia where everyone depends on the government for everything. Answer your own retarded question, cause all the left wing answers here are what they'd like other people taxed at.

I don't know how anything works, but you think the government that horribly mismanages the money they already get should take more so they can assign people jobs that aren't based at all on productivity, skill, reliability would be a good use of spiked tax rates?