How much should rich people pay in taxes?

[ringmastery]

Not every rich person inherits their wealth, which makes things complicated.

A lot of lawyers, bankers, doctors, making six figures, work damn hard for that money....years of school and years of 70, 80, 100+ hour weeks.

[Dark Angel]

1. Just keep the estate tax

Because without it, stock can be passed from generation to generation without ever getting taxed, until it's sold.

I obviously have more respect for lawyers, bankers, and doctors who earn their money, compared to someone who just inherits it.

[Dark Angel]

2. In terms of the marginal tax rate,

I think around 40% is fine for the top rate. It worked fine under Clinton. I don't think the top rate should ever be higher than 50%. Anywhere in between 40% and 50% is fine for that top rate. It could even be floating.

[BOHICA06]

3. And if a trust fund ...

dishes out $1,000,000 to a fortunate son whose major skills is telling the difference between single-malt scotch, it will be taxed at the same rate as the small plastic bag manufacturer that works 70-80 hours per week to get a third production line going and who employs 125 people if she manages to clear $1,000,000 after expenses.

My answer - 33%

[Dark Angel]

4. I think 33% is too low

The top rate is at 35% now, and look at the deficits we have. Bush wanted it to be 33%, but there was no way Congress was going along with making the top rate 33%. I think 40% is fair.

[BOHICA06]

5. Perhaps

but I'd offset this by running the cap on SS from it's paultry 80 -something thousand up to $250,000 and means test both SS & Medicare.

[Dark Angel]

6. Means testing is unfair

It is patently unfair to means test a program that people have paid into. If you want to means test the prescription drug program, fine, but don't means test Social Security.

People had no choice but to pay into social security, so how is it fair for you to take their retirement money away?

I would much rather raise the income tax rates than raise the SS rate or means test it. The SS cap increase would hurt the working poor more than an income tax increase.

[BOHICA06]

10. How would raising the Cap,

that is the income level where you stop paying into SS hurt the working poor? And for someone recieving $100,000 plus from pensions, IRAs, 401Ks, etc - what do they need with the $20,000 or so from SS - when the working poor needs a solid SS system just in order to live. Anyone looking at SS as retirement is aiming awfully low.

[Dark Angel]

15. It's not about what someone needs

It's an issue of fairness.

If someone paid into SS, they should be able to collect from it. Otherwise, you're not running a pension system. You're running something entirely different. Do you think people are going to be eager to report their income if they know that their Social Security will DEFINITELY not be there when they retire? I just think means testing is unfair.

[BOHICA06]

20. Pension System???

That implies money put away and invested and safe. Try ponsie scheme - where current and future payees pay those that have stopped paying in.

[Dark Angel]

22. That sounds very Republican.

Advocating means testing and referring to social security as a ponzi scheme. While it may be true that Social Security is a ponzi scheme, I don't think it's unfair to expect that money you paid in should be received at retirement, if the system is still operational(which it is).

[camero]

26. Fairness

Fairness is people who can take care of themselves taking care of themselves and not being wealthy and taking gov't funds. They should be reserved for those who can't take care of themselves.

[Dark Angel]

28. Fine

Then don't make them pay into the Social Security system.

[camero]

31. They don't now.

Why the cap?

[Dark Angel]

35. That's inaccurate

It's inaccurate to say that they don't pay into SS. They may not pay SS on all of their income, but almost everyone who works in this country legally pays into Social Security, unless they have some other government pension plan. If the cap were to lifted, then the benefit limits would have to be raised also. For example, if you raised the cap to 200,000, then the people who paid the most into SS would have to start getting 50,000/per year from SS at retirement, instead of 20,000.

[Dark Angel]

30. I would also note

that the Republicans have been trying to institute a means test on Social Security for years, and it has been the Democrats who have stopped it. There may be something to that, camaro.

[camero]

34. Prove it

They've been pushing for the privatization of SS. Have a link for that? :eyes:

[Dark Angel]

36. Yes

Let me find one for you.

[Dark Angel]

40. I am working on finding that link, but, for now,

here is a vote on TABLING the Kennedy amendment which would strip means-testing provisions out of the bill

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00113

This site explains the vote better than I can:

http://www.concordcoalition.org/congress_outreach/1997_scorecard/description_senate97.html

11. Means Test Medicare Part B Premium Subsidy

The spending cut reconciliation bill reported by the Senate Finance Committee included a provision to increase Medicare Part B premiums for individuals over $50,000 and couples over $75,000 in income, effectively means testing the 75% premium subsidy offered by Medicare. The Concord Coalition Citizens Council believes that the health insurance of affluent retirees should not be subsidized by poor and middle income workers, particularly in the voluntary part of Medicare. Sen. Kennedy (D-MA) offered an amendment to delete this provision, and Sen. Roth (R-DE) moved to table (kill) the amendment.

The fiscally responsible vote on the motion to table the Kennedy amendment was YES. The motion was agreed to, 70-30 (R 49-6; D 21-24) on June 24, 1997. Subsequently, the provision was dropped in conference with the House and the Administration. (Roll call vote #113)

See? Republicans voted 49-6 to support the means-testing of Medicare part B. Democrats voted 21-24 against supporting the means-testing of Medicare part B.

Let me explain the social security means testing history to you now. I am not sure if it has ever actually come up for a vote, but I can probably find you statements of Republicans supporting means testing it, and Democrats opposing means testing, if you want.

I also think that this vote is a good indication of which party favors means-testing Medicare/SS benefits, and which party doesn't.

If you think that I am bullshitting you, and trying to hide from my claims, let me assure you that I am not. I am working hard to find the Social Security means testing vote, if in fact, there was one.

Thanks.

[camero]

43. Repubs wanted that because

Medicare was the way to Universal Health Care. Which Dems are for.

Reagan wanted to totally eliminate SS. He didn't get his way thankfully.

[Dark Angel]

44. No, Repubs wanted it because they

were trying to save money. Which is the same reason they want to means test SS.

[camero]

55. Link?

:eyes:

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[camero]

59. Haha

You couldn't find a link to back up your contention. That's all. :D

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[camero]

63. So where's the link?

Leaving a post unanswered doesn't mean anything. You said you would get a link showing the repubs wanted to means test SS. Which I have yet to see.

And getting all huffy over a few roll eyes means maybe you should grow a thicker skin.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dark Angel]

67. But, since I'm a nice guy,

here are some links for you.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2003/09/29/daily51.html

East Valley Republican Congressman Jeff Flake wants a means test to be applied to a massive new Medicare prescription drug benefit being considered in Washington.

Flake said means testing the drug benefit will help control costs of the bill, which could total trillions of dollars.

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article2884.html

With varying amounts of vitriol, all of the Democratic presidential candidates paint Republicans as the party of the rich. Yet the Democrats' focus on so-called "tax cuts for the rich" ignores the spending side of the ledger, where Republicans are increasingly shortchanging the middle and upper classes by promoting government programs that withhold benefits to otherwise qualified people above certain income thresholds.

I know that this is a right-wing source, but it makes the correct point that REPUBLICANS ARE DOING IT TO CONTROL COSTS. It doesn't matter if it's Medicare, tax credits, social security, or anything. Republicans are the ones who are trying to means test everything.

I don't expect an apology, although I think I deserve one from you. I was not stalling or anything because I didn't have the links. I just didn't see the point in rewarding your rude behavior towards me.

[camero]

78. From the original bill

Social Security was intended to relieve poverty among the elderly. Not to make the rich richer.



http://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/fdrbill.pdf


(c) Furnishes assistance at least great enough to provide,
when added to the income of the family, a reasonable
subsistence compatible with decency and health.

The original bill also specified who was eligible for Social Security in the definition of wages.

(6) The term wages shall mean the total of every
form of remuneration received by an employee from an
employer, whether paid directly or indirectly by an employer,
including salaries, commissions, bonuses, and the
reasonable money value of rent, housing, lodging, board
(except in the case of board, the total money value shall
not be included unless such total value is in excess of $10
for any calendar month), payments in kind, and similar
advantages; but it shall not include any such remuneration
received by a nonmanual worker who is employed at .a
monthly salary of more than $250 a month.

[Dark Angel]

68. HERE IT IS AGAIN:

Just in case you don't see it below:

here are some links for you.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2003/09/29/daily51.html

East Valley Republican Congressman Jeff Flake wants a means test to be applied to a massive new Medicare prescription drug benefit being considered in Washington.

Flake said means testing the drug benefit will help control costs of the bill, which could total trillions of dollars.

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article2884.html

With varying amounts of vitriol, all of the Democratic presidential candidates paint Republicans as the party of the rich. Yet the Democrats' focus on so-called "tax cuts for the rich" ignores the spending side of the ledger, where Republicans are increasingly shortchanging the middle and upper classes by promoting government programs that withhold benefits to otherwise qualified people above certain income thresholds.

I know that this is a right-wing source, but it makes the correct point that REPUBLICANS ARE DOING IT TO CONTROL COSTS. It doesn't matter if it's Medicare, tax credits, social security, or anything. Republicans are the ones who are trying to means test everything.

I don't expect an apology, although I think I deserve one from you. I was not stalling or anything because I didn't have the links. I just didn't see the point in rewarding your rude behavior towards me.

[Dark Angel]

69. links again, just so you can't accuse me of not producing

Just in case you don't see it below:

here are some links for you.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2003/09/29/daily51.html

East Valley Republican Congressman Jeff Flake wants a means test to be applied to a massive new Medicare prescription drug benefit being considered in Washington.

Flake said means testing the drug benefit will help control costs of the bill, which could total trillions of dollars.

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article2884.html

With varying amounts of vitriol, all of the Democratic presidential candidates paint Republicans as the party of the rich. Yet the Democrats' focus on so-called "tax cuts for the rich" ignores the spending side of the ledger, where Republicans are increasingly shortchanging the middle and upper classes by promoting government programs that withhold benefits to otherwise qualified people above certain income thresholds.

I know that this is a right-wing source, but it makes the correct point that REPUBLICANS ARE DOING IT TO CONTROL COSTS. It doesn't matter if it's Medicare, tax credits, social security, or anything. Republicans are the ones who are trying to means test everything.

I don't expect an apology, although I think I deserve one from you. I was not stalling or anything because I didn't have the links. I just didn't see the point in rewarding your rude behavior towards me.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dark Angel]

71. Here's something else that I'm reposting so you can see it

http://pages.prodigy.com/steiner/Pensions.htm

Here are important excerpts I think you should read:

There are equally serious objections to introducing a means test for Social Security benefits. A means test, any means test, always implies a stigma. The great strength of the American Social Security system, which has made it the most popular and respected social program in history, is that there are no complications, conditions, or special exceptions. Like the right to vote, it is simple to understand and open to all. Its simplicity of concept has contributed to the smoothness and efficiency of its operation, which are unparalleled in government programs. The introduction of a means test would greatly complicate the administration of the system. Indeed, an entirely new administrative substructure would have to be added, including an investigative branch. The added expense would inevitably cancel out part of the savings, as would the cost of the additional prison cells presumably needed to accommodate detected violators.

However, the worst effects would be in the form of imponderables. There would be a generall loss of confidence in the Social Security system. If benefits can be cut once they can be cut again. Beyond this, if the government can abandon a commitment because it is convenient to do so, then it can abandon other commitments as well. What effect would this have upon the government's ability to borrow at low interest rates?

I think these are important points

[Dark Angel]

73. Hey camero

Are you also in favor of making higher income veterans pay for health care?

I mean we can just screw them. Let's just tilt the tables SO much that everyone moves out of the country except for the bottom 1%.

[camero]

80. Mr. Greenspan, is that you?

That's the same thing that the right wing says. If we tax the rich, they will run away. The US is where the action is. Sorry I don't buy that line.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[camero]

76. Camero is looking for links

Thank you. Attacking my integrity will get you nowhere.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[camero]

83. Did you actually look at what I put up?

Didn't think so. More attacks eh?

[Dark Angel]

84. Yep, I did.

But, it doesn't apply here. Since those salaried workers have been paying into SS for years. you can't just go back to the original bill and use that as a basis for your arguments, considering that Social Security has changed a little bit since 1933.

[camero]

85. ah

But we can go back to original intent. As a poverty program. Not a money market fund. The rich already have those.

[Dark Angel]

86. Then why make them pay into it?

If it's a poverty program, why make every single person pay into the fund? Why not just take it out of general revenues, like AFDC, and WIC?

[camero]

87. Socail Security is already in general revenues

If you didn't already know that. There is no "lockbox".

[Dark Angel]

88. I know that,

but we can pretend, can't we?

Seriously though, Social Security SHOULD be put in a lockbox. That is actually a Republican idea, but it's a good one. We should not be allowed to spend Medicare or Social Security surpluses. Those programs are too precious to spend on other things.

[camero]

89. Oh so we can pretend there is a lockbox

but we can't pretend that the inequality in wealth should be reduced, eh?

[Dark Angel]

90. It should be reduced,

but not with Social Security? I'm on DU, aren't I? Of course I'm concerned about the inequality in wealth. ANd like you said, it's partly because of our tax system not being progressive enough.

SO LET'S MAKE IT MORE PROGRESSIVE! But don't take people's social security money. Because if the government can renege on promises to the wealthy, it can renege on promises to the poor too. And don't think it won't.

[camero]

91. The gov't already reneges on it's promises to the poor

Social spending is the first thing to be cut always. The right wing starve the beast. Yes, let's make it more progressive, alot more progressive.

[Dark Angel]

92. That's a little different

The poor weren't promised benefits. They did not directly pay anything into the programs like WIC, etc. and while these programs are great and do great things, I don't really think you can compare them to Social Security in terms of how they are paid for, and people paying into them.

[camero]

93. Payroll taxes ring a bell?

You pay payroll taxes from the first dollar earned. There is hardly anyone alive who has never worked.

[Dark Angel]

95. Payroll taxes go to pay

their future social security and medicare benefits, since most don't pay any federal income tax.

[camero]

97. Sales taxes?

Yes?

[Dark Angel]

98. Are you gonna enumerate every tax?

You say payroll, I shut you down. You can say sales taxes, but sales taxes are collected at the state level, and not used for federal programs like Social Security.

Next you could say gas taxes. But gas taxed are used for highway maintenance and building.

Next you could say phone taxes. But these sometimes go to improve our telecommunications infrastructure.

Like I said, you can list lots of taxes. But the rich pay all of these too.

Name me a tax that the poor pay but the rich don't. Can't do it, can you?

[camero]

99. All those taxes are claimed as business expenses

So no, the rich do not pay them. Sorry :eyes:

[Dark Angel]

32. I'm not against a progressive tax system,

but how can you not see that it is wrong to tell someone that if they pay into a system, they will get money out of SS at old age, unless they make above a certain income, and then they are ineligible?

[camero]

37. SS is not seperate

and never has been. The system relied on everyone paying into it. The original bill left out gov't employees, public officials and salaried workers making over $250 a month.

[BOHICA06]

38. If you understand that

there's no there, there - then it is not unfair to say to those that have the means - Thanks - for saving your fellow citizens and thanks for your forethought and effort.

I working so someone can say thanks to me in the future.

[Dark Angel]

39. YES, there is.

That is completely immoral to do this to social security. Social security was never supposed to have exceptions and loopholes like all other kings of government programs. FDR did not intend it to be that way.

[BOHICA06]

50. FDR is dead, and things change

Except for corporate pension systems and government pensions there were few (or no) vehicles for the middle class to establish personal pension programs.

While corporate systems seem to be getting raided - it is much harder - if you are paying attention to raid your diversified 401K or IRA.

For SS - lets keep it - means test it - and iterate to pensioners that after about 4 years they are living on someone else's labor.

[Dark Angel]

53. hah

you can't use that argument to pensioners that after 4 years they are living on someone else's labor and expect them to buy it and give up SS. Because it was THEIR labor that paid for people before them to receive SS. That's the nature of the ponzi system. So you can't just go down the line and pick out people and ask THEM to give up their FAIR SHARE. I can't believe you think this is fair.

[BOHICA06]

56. You get it ....

as established and administered - SS is nowhere near "Fair". That is why you can't set up a Ponzi scheme - it is unfair (and illegal). And if it is unfair - no one is entitled to a "Fair Share"

Most folks are grown ups and can take the bitterness that is going to have to happen soon to fix the problem.

[Dark Angel]

57. There are other ways to fix it

Like increasing the cap.

[BOHICA06]

60. Good, you're half-way

there, add means-testing and we can pull this unfair 70-year old dog along for another few decades.

[Dark Angel]

62. No

If we increase the cap enough, then we never have to worry about SS again, in my opinion.

I do agree with you that Social Security is a disaster zone, btw.

[BOHICA06]

64. And a minefield too.

Not too many politicians want to play there.

So - we're going to raise the cap - okay, do we have the votes?

[Dark Angel]

65. No, we don't have the votes

We're probably about 25 votes short in the House, and 3 short in the Senate.

[Dark Angel]

70. Here is an interesting article about SS too:

http://pages.prodigy.com/steiner/Pensions.htm

Here are important excerpts I think you should read:

There are equally serious objections to introducing a means test for Social Security benefits. A means test, any means test, always implies a stigma. The great strength of the American Social Security system, which has made it the most popular and respected social program in history, is that there are no complications, conditions, or special exceptions. Like the right to vote, it is simple to understand and open to all. Its simplicity of concept has contributed to the smoothness and efficiency of its operation, which are unparalleled in government programs. The introduction of a means test would greatly complicate the administration of the system. Indeed, an entirely new administrative substructure would have to be added, including an investigative branch. The added expense would inevitably cancel out part of the savings, as would the cost of the additional prison cells presumably needed to accommodate detected violators.

However, the worst effects would be in the form of imponderables. There would be a generall loss of confidence in the Social Security system. If benefits can be cut once they can be cut again. Beyond this, if the government can abandon a commitment because it is convenient to do so, then it can abandon other commitments as well. What effect would this have upon the government's ability to borrow at low interest rates?

I think these are important points

[ringmastery]

7. If you look at the history

marginal tax rates were 70% for rich people in the 1970's, that blew my mind.

http://jec.senate.gov/economy/charts/Top%20Tax%20Rate%20History%20Graph.pdf

[Dark Angel]

9. What about the 1950s ringmastery?>

Kennedy cut it to 70 in the 1960s. Before that, it was 90% for the top marginal tax rate. A lot of people just took their income and went home, not willing to work for a dime on the dollar. I can undersatnd that.

[camero]

12. and also

CEOs made about 40 times the average wage worker. Now it's 425 times the same worker. So much for trickle down economics. :eyes:

[Dark Angel]

14. What does corporate greed have to do with the marginal tax rates?

I don't think it made much of a difference. I think 45% is fine for a top marginal tax rate, and underneath that rate the system should be more progressive.

[camero]

17. Everything

as the top tax rate fell, the wealthy kept more. It proves that the wealthy do not bestow thier largesse to the lower classes. They only look out for themselves. And since they use more of the resources of society, they should be taxed more.

This quasi-libertarian argument doesn't cut it. :eyes:

[Dark Angel]

21. But 90% is just ridiculous

And the 1950s proved it. Tax receipts fell, because people didn't want to work when they got to keep that little of their money.

And my argument isn't quasi-libertarian at all. I don't think it's quasi-libertarian to advocate jacking the top rate up to 45%, while exempting people making 40,000 and under from the federal income tax, and exempting people making 80,000 and under from having to pay anything above a 10% marginal tax rate on any part of their income.

While it's true that the Laffer Curve is BS, there is one tiny bit of merit to it. If the top rate is 100%, no one will work above that level. If it's 0%, everyone who wants to work will. it has to be somewhere in between, and judging from history, in between 40 and 50% is a good marginal tax rate. That's in line with European nations' top marginal tax rates.

[camero]

23. The fifties also created the middle-class

I don't think you are very familiar with a graduated tax system. Even at those top rates, the wealthy were paying around 40% in taxes. Hardly worth stopping doing business.

[Dark Angel]

25. Here's my plan

You should start the top rate at 500,000, and expand the 10% bracket that we have now up to 40,000. Because even 300,000 in some places is not INCREDIBLY rich. It's only upper middle class. If you start the top rate at 500,000, it's just better, I think.

Maybe it would look like this for a couple with two kids:

$0-40,000 no federal income taxes

$40,001 - 80,000 10% marginal tax rate

$80,001 - 160,000 20% marginal tax rate

$160,001 - 300,000 30% marginal tax rate

$300,001- 500,000 35% marginal tax rate

$500,001 - 1,000,000 40% marginal tax rate

$1,000,000 + 45% marginal tax rate

I like this system better. It's more progressive.

[camero]

29. Clinton had the top rate at 50%

I guess that slowed down economic growth. :eyes:

[Dark Angel]

45. No, he didn't.

The top marginal tax rate was 39.6% under Clinton, I do believe. Where do you get this 50% from?

[camero]

46. 10% surtax on millionaires

was a part of his tax plan. Which effectively made the top rate 49.6%

[Dark Angel]

48. No, I believe that's incorrect.

The Clinton plan created an additional "millionaires'" surtax that put in place a 40 percent marginal tax rate on income over $250,000. 250,000, not 1 million, I do believe. And the rate was 40, not 50. Clinton may have proposed it, but I don't think it was part of the 93 deficit reduction package.

[camero]

51. Tax rates on wage income

Year GNPD 5000 10000 20000 40000 100000 200000 400000 1M

1993 105.02 -18.0 -18.0 14.0 14.0 31.0 44.0 39.0 39.0
1994 111.25 -30.0 0.0 15.0 15.0 31.0 44.0 39.0 39.0
1995 116.35 -36.0 0.0 14.0 15.0 31.0 44.0 39.0 39.0
1996 122.29 -40.0 0.0 15.0 15.0 30.0 36.0 39.0 39.0
1997 129.45 -40.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 41.0 50.0 52.0 52.0

[Dark Angel]

49. Wait a minute

I forgot that less than 10 minutes ago you were incredibly rude to me. I'm leaving this thread.

[Dark Angel]

27. It was worth doing business, up to a point

I know that they werent paying 90% on their OVERALL income, but above a certain point where the 90% rate kicked in, they were paying 90 cents on every dollar that they made. It didn't make sense to a lot of people to work, so they didn't. Other people just liked to work, so they continued working. But to say that nobody stopped working because of that rate, is, in my view, wrong.

[camero]

33. Sorry

The CEO of GM didn't stop working in July I don't think. :eyes:

[Dark Angel]

41. If you are just going to be rude and roll your eyes at me,

then I don't feel it's worth debating with you.

That is so incredibly rude for you to roll your eyes at me when I'm trying to debate the merits of this issue that have been enumerated in this post.

[Nevernose]

18. Why trickle down?

Let them eat cake!

[Nevernose]

16. Reagan's "loophole" bullshit

That the tax rate were 70 and 80 percent is corrupt politician bullshit. There were so many loopholes that wealthy people never paid anything substantial in income taxes.

Reagan came along, and claimed that this was unfair. Liberals claimed that, with the loopholes, this was perfectly fair. So reagan compromised: get rid of the loopholes for the ultra-wealthy, and give them a tax rate commiserate with the rest of the population.

Reagan gave them the tax cut part of the deal, and left the loopholes...

[Dark Angel]

24. No he didn't

You should read the 1986 Tax reform act.

Wealthy people used to be able to cheat the system, and get away with paying 0. Tons of corporations were able to also get away with paying a big goose egg in federal income tax.

Most aren't able to anymore, thanks to that act.

[Nevernose]

42. Most of the truly wealthy ...

...are STILL paying zero in taxes, sometimes even getting negative taxes (in the form of so-called "refunds").

Wealthy people used to be able to cheat the system, and get away with paying 0. Tons of corporations were able to also get away with paying a big goose egg in federal income tax.

That's what we were PROMISED, not what actually occurred. Most of the ultra-wealthy and corporations actually ended up paying less in taxes. Part of this was Reagan's fault, and part of this was his congress (which promptly changed the "D" after their name to an "R" after Clinton was elected). This is a common misconception: what was supposed to happen compared to what really did happen.

Take, for instance, the case of Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter: in the '86 tax code, there existed an exemption for ALL federal income tax for anyone who happened to have founded a toy company in Pennsylvania in November, 1978 -- the same month that one of Specter's then-largest contributors founded the Worlds of Wonder toy company (Teddy Ruxpin was huge in the eighties, if you don't recall).

And frankly, unlike most at DU, I support a limited flat tax (like Steve Forbes), as I think that that's the best way to get rid of much of the corruption in Washington. No tax incentives for ANYONE who ships jobs overseas in a profitable year (GM, Ford, Chrysler) or screws over the environment (too many to mention), and many others as well.

[Dark Angel]

47. Can you list some of these people

Can you list some of these people who are paying 0 in taxes?

I don't think Bill Gates or Warren Buffett(the two WEALTHIEST people in the world) pay nothing in taxes.

[Nevernose]

52. I already listed one...

The most flagrant example I could think of, the man who founded "Worlds of Wonder." ZERO. I cannot provide the income tax records of either Bill Gates or Warren Buffet.

Perhaps saying "zero" in taxes was a bit of hyperbole. IIRC (it was almost twenty years ago, after all), the tax rate for the super-wealthy that was actually paid under Reagan went from about ten percent to between four-six percent.

Seems like Kangas had some good information about this. I'll check his old site, but the internet has become so clogged with radical-rightist distorting Saint Reagan's image it ahs, in recent years, become difficult to find accurate information relating to the 1980's (one only has to look at the plethora of sites relating the laughable myth that "Reagan won the Cold War" to verify that last fact).

[BOHICA06]

8. Oh, by the way

what do you consider rich? Low six-figures with 3 kids just middle-class in most neighborhoods when both parents make up the income.

My answer - $300,000 for the top rate.

[Dark Angel]

11. I think it should be up more

You should start the top rate at 500,000, and expand the 10% bracket that we have now up to 40,000. Because even 300,000 in some places is not INCREDIBLY rich. It's only upper middle class. If you start the top rate at 500,000, it's just better, I think.

Maybe it would look like this for a couple with two kids:

$0-40,000 no federal income taxes

$40,001 - 80,000 10% marginal tax rate

$80,001 - 160,000 20% marginal tax rate

$160,001 - 300,000 30% marginal tax rate

$300,001- 500,000 35% marginal tax rate

$500,001 - 1,000,000 40% marginal tax rate

$1,000,000 + 45% marginal tax rate

I like this system better. It's more progressive.

[gmoney]

13. Rates are fine... loopholes and collection are the problem

If there was a way to actually collect 30 or even 20 percent of the wealthiest peoples earnings, we'd be in the black. Loopholes and shelters for non-labor income and downright non-reporting are what leave all the money on the table. Plus, the IRS had most of its teeth removed a few years ago and auditors were laid off to save money. So, you get a billionaire who has $200 Million income in a year, and with a good accountant and some tax shelters, pays maybe a million in taxes. 1/2 of 1%. There's your shortfall.

I also agree that the estate tax should be restored with a vengeance. Tax liquid assets, stocks, capital gains over $5 Million at 75%. Family businesses could have a certain shield, as well as farms, provided they've been in the family for X number of years, the family members are actively involved in day to day operations, and they employ non-family members... or something like that.

The problem is there so many ways to cheat the system, if you want to cheat the system and have a good CPA and/or tax attorney.

[burrowowl]

19. Read Kelvin Phillips

Wealth and Democracy and you might be able to figure it out.
It helps if you can do simple arithmetic and if you grasp 10 to the first power, second power, etc. makes it easier to grasp the billion and trillion numbers.
Doc, lawers, etc. with 6 figures are not the rich we are taking about: rich as in really rich, who got richer with each depression.

[Ookie]

54. A heckuvalot more than they do!!!!

This administration is the rich person's buddy! They have their agenda and they won't let ordinary folks get in their way. If we don't vote these a**holes out this time around I am ready to hit the streets. I just can't take any more of this crap.

[arewethereyet]

79. all administrations are the buddy of the wealthy

the top 5% already pay for over half (56%). demand any more and they'll just take their bat and ball and go elsewhere. remember the british tax exiles in the 60's and 70's or read about it if you're a young person ? they do have options and they will use those options.

[camero]

81. Half of federal income taxes

Not all taxes. At least paint the whole picture. When you include all taxes the poor and middle classes actually pay more than the rich.

[AP]

72. Earned income rates could probably stand to be lowered for most income

rates and rasied on only super high income levels -- that's EARNED INCOME.

Without a doubt, unearned income taxes need to go up. They're basically only 15% and not tied to wealth at all. They need to be higher, and progressive.

As for inheritiance, it should probably be taxed progressively according to the income of recipients (that's what Phillips suggests).

[Media_Lies_Daily]

77. The same tax rate as everyone else.

[Fight_n_back]

94. Shouldn't matter how money is earned

taxes are not punishments for making money.

Generally, "rich" refers to people who no longer work, not people who make an excellent living.

[Fight_n_back]

96. It isn't how much you pay, its how much is left after you pay.

Someone who makes a billion dollars in a year and pays 90% income tax is left with 100,000 million dollars.

Someone who makes 35,000 in a year and pays 0% is left with 35,000.

Who would you rather be?

[YIMA]

100. How much?

Any income over $100,000 should be taxed at 100%.

[BradCKY]

103. Ummm no

Then they will be broke, because they net ZERO dollars every year.

[Mr.Green93]

101. tax wealth

[Killarney]

102. Top level (over $312K) should pay 40%

and the estate tax should come in at 1 million

and they should pay more on capital gains than they do now

[AP]

104. Why a sharp change in rates at 1 mil? Why not a gentle slope?

[mainer]

105. the old tax rate under Clinton was about right!

max federal rate of 39.6% -- it was tolerable and not punitive.

Once people start paying a combined total (state, federal, municipal) taxes above 50%, you lose your incentive to earn higher incomes.

NEVER combined over 50%.