Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 61

Thread: a millionaire's tax?

  1. #1
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782

    a millionaire's tax?

    in 1960, the top range for progressive income tax was above $400,000. Adjusted for inflation, that's above 3 million dollars a year in today's dollars.

    in 2010 the top range for progressive income tax is above $373,000. that means the 400,000th dollar made by a surgeon is taxed at the same rate as the 4 millionth dollar made by a hedge fund manager.

    is this fair? should there be a higher bracket for the wealthy to at least match what used to be taxed?

  2. #2
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,062
    Quote Originally Posted by bitonti View Post
    progressive income tax..........is this fair?
    No, the Progressive Income Tax is not in any form "fair".

    The only fair tax is a true flat tax.

  3. #3
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    if we are talking about deficit reduction, it starts with raising taxes. prolonging tax cuts only makes it worse.

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    19,179
    Quote Originally Posted by bitonti View Post
    if we are talking about deficit reduction, it starts with raising taxes. prolonging tax cuts only makes it worse.
    Why not simply eliminate child tax credits an refundable earned income credits and also eliminate the deduction for mortgage intereest expense AND tax welfare and food stamp payments. This would raise much more revenue.

    I am kidding of course...the bottom line though is we squeeze basically all the revenue from 10 percent of the people, when do we stop. Also, in 1960 "Taxable Income was computed much differently than today and JFK saw the correct approach and he did reduce those tax rates.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,165
    Quote Originally Posted by southparkcpa View Post
    Why not simply eliminate child tax credits an refundable earned income credits and also eliminate the deduction for mortgage intereest expense AND tax welfare and food stamp payments. This would raise much more revenue.

    I am kidding of course...the bottom line though is we squeeze basically all the revenue from 10 percent of the people, when do we stop. Also, in 1960 "Taxable Income was computed much differently than today and JFK saw the correct approach and he did reduce those tax rates.
    CPA....again.

    Why does the top 10% pay all the taxes? Because they have all the money, silly

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    19,179
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    CPA....again.

    Why does the top 10% pay all the taxes? Because they have all the money, silly
    That's not relevant.... go back to watching Pee wee herman.

  7. #7
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Jets Stadium Section 246
    Posts
    36,924
    How did this country ever stand itself up, gain independence, grow and thrive prior to an Income Tax?

    And why stop at millionaires? Why not just tax billionaires at 90%? Think about how many government studies on cow farts could be conducted at Berkeley with that money!

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Back in the old days when we had high rates of taxes for the rich we also had an unending and extremely high number of tax deductions.

    One of the things liberals today forget about the Reagan tax cuts is deductions for the wealthy were reduced dramatically. Without the income shelters the very rich paid more in taxes even with the reduction in rates.

    This is from a Bill Bradly editorial in the Times on Health Reform a great read if you're interested.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/op...30bradley.html

    In the end, the tax bill passed because each party got something it wanted: Republicans got a lower marginal tax rate, and Democrats eliminated special-interest loopholes. By adhering to the principles of equity (equal incomes should pay equal taxes) and efficiency (the market is a more efficient allocator of capital than Congress), the bipartisan coalition produced a bill that lowered the top tax rate from 50 percent to 28 percent, eliminated $30 billion annually in loopholes and resulted in the wealthy contributing a higher percentage of income-tax revenues than they had before the reform.
    I have no issue with reforming our tax code getting rid of even more deductions reducing cap gains taxes on savings and investing and taxing consumption.

    I'm totally against going back to a more complex tax code filled with special interest deductions and a more complex rate system.

  9. #9
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,062
    Quote Originally Posted by bitonti View Post
    if we are talking about deficit reduction, it starts with raising taxes. prolonging tax cuts only makes it worse.
    I'm sorry, you weren't asking about Deficit Reduction.

    You asked if the Progressive Tax was fair.

    If you're asking about Deficit Reduction, the answer is "Cut Spending/Balance the Spending Budget vs. whatever the reciepts are".

    I would agree, special taxe rates for special/favorite people is a bad idea, and again would suggest a True Flat Tax as the solution.

    Isn't this well trodden ground already? You think taxes should be raised, we know, you've said it repeatedly. Did we really need another thread on that, just to make the same claims you've made 100 times already?

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,165
    Quote Originally Posted by southparkcpa View Post
    That's not relevant.... go back to watching Pee wee herman.
    LMAO! It's not relevant that the income bracket with 90% of the income also pays 90% of the taxes?

    LOL.....

  11. #11
    All League
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,565
    Quote Originally Posted by bitonti View Post
    in 1960, the top range for progressive income tax was above $400,000. Adjusted for inflation, that's above 3 million dollars a year in today's dollars.

    in 2010 the top range for progressive income tax is above $373,000. that means the 400,000th dollar made by a surgeon is taxed at the same rate as the 4 millionth dollar made by a hedge fund manager.

    is this fair? should there be a higher bracket for the wealthy to at least match what used to be taxed?
    Just being American make you richer then 90% of the rest of the world, Bit.
    Therefore YOU should pay more. Please write a check to the IMF for 80% of YOUR income. After all you're rich and we must be fair, right?

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    19,179
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    LMAO! It's not relevant that the income bracket with 90% of the income also pays 90% of the taxes?

    LOL.....
    Let's tax them at 99 percent.

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,857
    Quote Originally Posted by jetstream23 View Post
    How did this country ever stand itself up, gain independence, grow and thrive prior to an Income Tax?

    And why stop at millionaires? Why not just tax billionaires at 90%? Think about how many government studies on cow farts could be conducted at Berkeley with that money!
    The Hampur should start applying for funding - we could do all kinds of crazy sheet.

  14. #14
    All League
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,325
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    LMAO! It's not relevant that the income bracket with 90% of the income also pays 90% of the taxes?

    LOL.....
    This is really the heart of the debate -- are rich people responsible for paying for everything simply because they're rich?

    They have to educate other people's kids, put food on other people's tables, pay people's medical bills, etc., etc., simply because they can?

    Don't get me wrong -- I fully believe in charitable giving, and do a good amount of it even though I don't make much money.

    But it should be because you WANT to, not because you HAVE to.

    I know it will never happen, but I have NO problem getting rid of S.S., medicare, etc. Make me responsible for my own future. Don't force me to give my money now, knowing that it likely won't even be there when I need it.

    THAT would be deficit reduction, no?

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,400
    Quote Originally Posted by OCCH View Post
    This is really the heart of the debate -- are rich people responsible for paying for everything simply because they're rich?

    They have to educate other people's kids, put food on other people's tables, pay people's medical bills, etc., etc., simply because they can?

    Don't get me wrong -- I fully believe in charitable giving, and do a good amount of it even though I don't make much money.

    But it should be because you WANT to, not because you HAVE to.

    I know it will never happen, but I have NO problem getting rid of S.S., medicare, etc. Make me responsible for my own future. Don't force me to give my money now, knowing that it likely won't even be there when I need it.

    THAT would be deficit reduction, no?
    yes- rich people are responsible for paying everything.....if they don't the almost 50% of the people in this nation who don't pay federal income tax may have to pony up....c'mon man.....

  16. #16
    All League
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Midland Park, NJ
    Posts
    3,704
    Quote Originally Posted by OCCH View Post
    This is really the heart of the debate -- are rich people responsible for paying for everything simply because they're rich?

    They have to educate other people's kids, put food on other people's tables, pay people's medical bills, etc., etc., simply because they can?

    Don't get me wrong -- I fully believe in charitable giving, and do a good amount of it even though I don't make much money.

    But it should be because you WANT to, not because you HAVE to.

    I know it will never happen, but I have NO problem getting rid of S.S., medicare, etc. Make me responsible for my own future. Don't force me to give my money now, knowing that it likely won't even be there when I need it.

    THAT would be deficit reduction, no?
    And Military spending, farm subsidies those are probably bigger issues than the ones you stated except S.S

    Moot point though because I doubt they'll touch any of that at all. Same old same old

  17. #17
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    I'm sorry, you weren't asking about Deficit Reduction.

    You asked if the Progressive Tax was fair.

    Isn't this well trodden ground already? You think taxes should be raised, we know, you've said it repeatedly. Did we really need another thread on that, just to make the same claims you've made 100 times already?
    i did not ask if the progressive tax was fair. I was trying to make a point about how this economy has slanted toward the high earners. and if we are serious about closing this deficit they are the ones who can close it.

    We can go round and round about what is fair but the reality of this world is that 20% of the people have 80% of the assets. And chances are that only 1 in 5 of being in that upper slice.

    As a group, all people think we are richer than they are, and we vastly overestimate the chances of joining the upper brackets. 99% of americans make far less than X million dollars a year.

    what I should have asked was "In the constrains of a progressive tax system, which is very unlikely to change, and given rampant income disparity, should there be another bracket added on for super-high earners?" just adjusting for inflation and for the greater difference between rich and poor.

    Saying cut costs and enact a flat tax is tough to do in the best of times, it's impossible to do now.
    Last edited by bitonti; 11-03-2010 at 10:02 PM.

  18. #18
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Quote Originally Posted by OCCH View Post
    I know it will never happen, but I have NO problem getting rid of S.S., medicare, etc. Make me responsible for my own future. Don't force me to give my money now, knowing that it likely won't even be there when I need it.

    THAT would be deficit reduction, no?
    if a giant part of the budget like 20% got lopped off then yes it would be deficit reduction. It sounds ludicrous but Social Security has as much inertia as the military... as does health spending... as does education... these are all huge chunks of the budgets that are political suicide to cut.

    Congress is more scared of senior voters than they are about a national security threat. It's not right but that's American democracy.

    Tiny cuts to every spending program will not reduce the deficit. in fact, extending tax cuts directly adds to the deficit.

    the only realistic solution is to cut what you can but mostly raise tax revenue.

    or we can just not solve the problem which is what occurred from 2008-2010. further gridlock will not solve the problem. someone should come up with an idea that makes sense. ending SS is not realistic. Ending medicare is not realistic.

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    19,179
    Quote Originally Posted by bitonti View Post
    i did not ask if the progressive tax was fair. I was trying to make a point about how this economy has slanted toward the high earners. and if we are serious about closing this deficit they are the ones who can close it.

    We can go round and round about what is fair but the reality of this world is that 20% of the people have 80% of the assets. And chances are that only 1 in 5 of being in that upper slice.
    As a group, all people think we are richer than they are, and we vastly overestimate the chances of joining the upper brackets. 99% of americans make far less than X million dollars a year.

    what I should have asked was "In the constrains of a progressive tax system, which is very unlikely to change, and given rampant income disparity, should there be another bracket added on for super-high earners?" just adjusting for inflation and for the greater difference between rich and poor.

    Saying cut costs and enact a flat tax is tough to do in the best of times, it's impossible to do now.
    It has so little to do with chance and so much about hard work, education and good decisions.

  20. #20
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Quote Originally Posted by southparkcpa View Post
    It has so little to do with chance and so much about hard work, education and good decisions.
    You mention eduction, the debt load of our graduates is unsustainable.

    opportunity is a huge part. Being born in America is an excellent opportunity but

    even with that relative advantage, having the resources already is key to getting more resources.

    to be clear, im not saying redistribute the wealth, workers of the world unite... im asking the country is nearing default status, how do we fix it? how do we stop this government, from increasing the debt?

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us