Do you support raising taxes on people making more than $400,000.00 a year

[Uncle Joe]

30 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	29 (97%)
	No
	1 (3%)
	Other
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[DavidDvorkin]

1. I was looking for the "Hell, yes!" button.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

2. Threshold needs to be higher

[Caliman73]

4. What would you suggest as the threshold?

A person making 400,000 a year, with a modicum of restraint in spending, can accumulate a million dollars within a pretty short amount of time. After that, with investments, they can have their money start to earn them money and move off into a lower tax rate for investors. If you earn over 400,000 per year you are in the top 2% of wealth in the US.

[elias7]

8. Not true

[Caliman73]

10. What is "not true"

That a person earning 400,000 per year can accumulate money relatively quickly or that people earning over 400,000 are in the top 2% of income in the US?

[spooky3]

3. I support Warren's wealth tax. Nt

[jimfields33]

14. Is it one time tax?

I’d imagine that year after year, the tax amounts would fall overall. Wouldn’t a 5,000,000 bill for anyone over 20 million be a better way and easier to collect. I can see many millionaires going to court over assessments over their assets.

[spooky3]

16. It's annual. Nt

[Hoyt]

5. Depends how much. Definitely support increase in Capital Gains, Estate Taxes and individual rates.

But, I also support helping people become wealthy. Otherwise, we'll be paying any tax increases for healthcare, childcare, education, infrastructure, jobs, deficit reduction, debt reduction, college debt, bolstering Social Security and safety net, etc.

Right now, $400,000 puts one in the top 1 to 2% of earners. The top 5% pay 60% of total income taxes in the USA.

In any event, to have a chance at all the things we want/need, it is going to take increasing taxes on people with significantly less income than $400K annually.

[Iggo]

6. Absolutely.

[TreasonousBastard]

7. I know it won't happen, but we need to redefine "income"...

and prohibit hiding money in special estates and trusts.

And wtf is "unearned income" taxed at a lower rate than earned income? It's like being penalized for working.

Inherit money? Instead of estate taxes, just tax the inheritance as income.

I understand how certain tax provisions are there to inspire investment, but most of those are just used to hide money. Money will always find a way to be invested, and low taxes are a benefit, not a cause.

[hunter]

15. Taxes on both wealth and income need to be steeply progressive.

The wealthy ought to pay the most taxes in our society simply because they benefit most from society's organization. If the top ten percent are paying 90% of the taxes that's a good thing.

For what it's worth, a national economy is nothing like a household budget.

In a well run economy money is created to support a strong middle class, low unemployment rates, and good jobs.

Ideally taxes are gathered from those most able to pay them to control inflation and discourage parasitic financial schemes.

[roamer65]

9. I would actually lower it to $300k.

I would also look at getting rid of capital gains taxes on assets for anyone with an income $75k or less and over 65.

Those are the people usually selling assets to fund long term assisted living, nursing home or home health aide care. They should have that 15 to 28 percent to be able to afford better care.

[Ohio Joe]

11. Other

My brother, who is an accountant, was out visiting a few weeks back and we discussed this topic. His contention was that the first thing that should be done was to close up a bunch of loop holes for the wealthy and THEN raise the taxes. Also, his number for this to really start kicking in was higher, 750k-800k in income before you get big jumps.

I suck at this kind of thing but I respect his expertise, so I'll go with it.

[FoxNewsSucks]

12. Absolutely.

The people who wait on us every day - waiters, cashiers, housecleaners, cable installers, even most plumbers, HVAC & other repair workers make 100k or less and are expected to "live within their means".

It's way past time to tax the rich and tell them to live within their means. They'll still have a lot more after-tax "means" to live on than the guy mowing their lawn.

[Sympthsical]

13. In California, the base amount after taxes is about $215k

Assuming no deductions.

But the federal income in that bracket is 35%. California is 11.6%.

Depending on where you live in California, that might not go as far as one thinks given housing prices. Live anywhere near the cities, and a 2 bedroom apartment will run you $3k-$5k a month.

I voted yes, then I started calculating.

Just something to keep in mind when discussing these things.

Given just how disparate living costs are in different areas, our flat rate taxation system may not make as much sense as it used to. Believe me, in many places, salaries aren't keeping up with the COL.

[hunter]

17. Housing prices in California are inflated by those who see it as a safe investment.

For all the California hate you see people do want to live here, corporations want to locate here, and investors notice that.

Some wealthy family in China would much rather buy a California apartment building for an outrageous amount of money than some similar building in backwater China or Trumpfuckery U.S.A. at a tenth of the price.

Rents here in California reflect this.

Housing costs are high in places like Vancouver Canada as well because people want to live there and investors want to own property there.

"Cosmopolitan" neighborhoods, as opposed to those where everyone is straight white and Republican, sell for premium prices.

The first home my wife and I bought cost $8,000 in the U.S.A. "rust belt." We looked at a lot of one dollar homes in the same city but those neighborhoods were too scary. Confederate flags, guns, and/or shooting galleries.

My wife and I later moved back to solidly Democratic non-white majority California. Now many years later find ourselves living in an ordinary home, the sort of home they'd scoff at in Affluent White Texas, that's worth more than all the money we ever set aside for retirement.

We could cash out, retire, and buy a MacMansion in Trumpfuckery U.S.A., but we won't do that and we don't have to.

[Sympthsical]

18. I've mentioned this before

My house value went up 27% over the past 18 months. Now that people, especially in tech, are no longer chained to offices and desks in the city and Silicon Valley, they're starting to sniff out cheaper real estate (key word being cheaper - not cheap). North Bay is starting its steep upward trajectory. Lots of apartments, condos, etc. being built in the area, which has a lot of available land.

Before I bought my home, I lived in an apartment. About halfway through my time there, the building was bought by Chinese investors who lived in China. It's been happening all over the Bay. (And maintenance went straight into the toilet. I was repairing everything myself).

We put 20% down and put extra against the loan regularly (biweekly mortgage, plus if we have extra for whatever reason. Covid killed a lot of leisure activities, eating out, vacation, etc. So a lot of that just went into the house. We see it as a long-term investment).

18 months later, we now owe less than 30% of the house's value.

Great for us. Not so great for people trying to buy who aren't getting those silicon salaries.