Top income brackets should be taxed at 99%.

Oh, so the guy that makes twice your income and pays a significantly higher rate than you is ripping you off?

 

???
I'll say it again:
tax rates in the US are now actually regressive.

 

So the guy making 2x your income should pay lower or higher rates than he is? And how should his rates compare to yours?

 

The tax system should certainly not be regressive, as the authors in the linked article above have shown it currently is.

And as for "comparisons": this implies a comparison of how incomes are "earned".
Paulson certainly did not earn his wealth; he won it in a deadly, Russian roulette casino. (in this case, the financial-industry casino, where the losers did not even know they were in the game...)

 

I asked a specific question that did not involve billionaires, unless you earn >$500 million that is.

 

Firstly I note your disinterest in how wealth is "earned"; and bringiton has exposed you in that regard.

But as to tax rates: I'm more interested in a policy of guaranteed above poverty wage full employment (ie, zero un+underemployment).

Taxes can be adjusted as necessary, after that basic justice policy* is implemented, as already shown by Professor Harvey (in my earlier post).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2019/03/05/mmt-sense-or-nonsense/#563feed45852

* above poverty employment is listed as a basic Right, in the UNUDHR (Article 25).

 

Firstly I note your disinterest in how wealth is "earned"; and bringiton has exposed you in that regard.

But as to tax rates: I'm more interested in a policy of guaranteed above-poverty wage, full employment (ie, zero un+underemployment).

Taxes can then be adjusted as necessary, after that basic justice policy* is implemented, by means as explained by Professor Harvey (in my earlier post).

*access to above poverty employment is listed as one of the Universal Rights in the UNUDHR (Article 25).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2019/03/05/mmt-sense-or-nonsense/#563feed45852

 

You're not below the poverty line.

So the guy making 2x your income should pay lower or higher rates than he is currently? And how should his rates compare to yours?

 

I'm not, but over 40 million Americans are. And then there's the 50% living with chronic financial stress, owing to rising costs and stagnant median wages

Irrelevant.

Speaking of "should".....everyone should have access to above poverty employment. See MMT.

Taxes on billionaires might have to be increased, but your desire for a flat tax on everyone else might be able to be accommodated (at least for incomes below $1 million annually).

 

I asked you about your rate specifically and the guy making 2x your income. You keep introducing the poor into the conversation. Why won't you answer a simple question?

 

I make a very comfortable living.

Someone earning ten times what I earn should be paying the same percentage of his income as I am...

 

Only if remuneration was actually related to 'worth'.

And if universal access to above poverty level employment was a reality.

Then you might be able to sustain your argument.

But when everyone must survive in the dog eat dog world of "invisible hand", competitive free market neoliberalism; and as in the present system, fortunes are won - not earned - in the financial-industry casino, sometimes with disastrous results for the real economy; and then you have the likes of facebook - a platform for sharing pictures.... and Amazon, an international retailer riding the internet …..the guy cleaning cleaning the toilets is 'worth' as much as the CEO in both cases, IMO.
(Well, let's be generous and say the CEO's are worth triple - 4 times even? - the value of the cleaner, for the marginally interesting original idea in both cases - although retailing is not an original idea...)

So the OP makes a serious point indeed.

 

some economist think charging a flat tax rate will increase the amount of Ordinary Income tax the Government takes in.

I agree. People that never pay a dime will and the top 1% will pay up instead of shifting their earnings or paying their accountant a fortune so they can pay zero. Individuals and families can easily fill out their own tax form. No need to hire an accountant or pay to file electonically, a monkey could determine the tax owed. The Federal Government can verify tax due easily as by using the W-2 submitted by the employer or person paying them as contract labor. no deductions, credits and the like.

 

The problem with flat taxes are they will never be “earnings x tax percentage”.
There will be deductions — most likely for the poor at first, then people who exist only to find ways to lower taxes will manipulate and abuse the tax code. We will be right be right back where we are only taking in a significantly lower amount than previous and a further shift to the middle class paying the bulk of the costs.

Just an example:
We need a tax system that is based on the average wages (y) earned or currently $46,800 — 5 tax brackets.
Make 1x or lower and your tax rate is 10% (all deductions available)
Make 1x to 5x and your tax rate is 15% (limited deductions available)
Make 5x to 10x and your tax rate is 25% (zero deductions)
Make 10x to 100x and your tax rate is 45% (zero deductions)
Make 100x+ and your tax rate is 55% (zero deductions)

All earnings are counted as income including inheritance (first y*100 exempt), capital gains, sale of assets (first y*100 exempt), dividends and so on
Money that is taken overseas should be hit with the tax scale above again.

 

Whatever is reported on the W-2 as income is what the tax is based on. We could then look at what deductions, and there would be very few, would be allowed.

I've never understood why it needs to be so damn complicated...

 

If you continue on the path of your thought, which I find rather interesting that both you a couple other posters have to rely on conditions from HUNDREDS of years ago to try and validate, that comprehension of current working conditions can't support your position, that you feel ownership of land is evil, and paid for by other taxpayers.... really? Do you understand that unless granted land rights by the BLS, the government still owns the actual ground? Does that make the government evil?

But wait! You apparently feel the government is the 'good guy' in your portrayal... how could that be when the government is the one requiring the tithing to be able to live on the land? Tithing to support programs that go to foreign countries and KILL people? What a conundrum that must be for you, to worship at the feet of government and feel the average person is evil....

 

My vision of a flat tax on Ordinary Income means all Ordinary Income is taxed at the same rate and there are no deductions, credits or the like.

you make $100.00 you pay .10 based on a 10% flat tax rate. Sol-proprietor businesses and small business that pay ordinary income tax rates rather than the lower Corporate rate, would be able to still deduct their business expenses from their Gross income but would pay the Flat tax on the resulting Net Income.

Why should money from inheritance be taxed? the individual giving the money already payed income tax when they earned it. They should be able to leave their relative or friend the money they have left in their Will.

 

So increase taxes on the poor and lower taxes on the wealthy?

Because the tax rate paid by the super rich is in no way close to what they should have been paying. Taxing their heirs windfall as income would create equilibrium.

 

A flat tax does not raise taxes on the poor or lower them on the wealthly( I don't know what you consider wealthy income wise) it makes taxes totally equally for all tax payers. They all pay the same percentage of there income in taxes.

What you posted makes it apparent why people think tax cuts only helped the high tax brackets.

Your perception of fairness when it comes to Federa! Ordinary Income tax is that the wealthy should pay a higher rate and more than any other worked pays on the money they earn. I think you don't have any concept of what ordinary income is. You need to look up the meaning because Federal Income tax is based on Ordinary Income, not gains from investments. Not Corporate income and not IRA or Profit Sharing Income.

When it comes to Ordinary Federal Income tax, the wealthy are in the highest tax bracket. The wealthy and the upper middle class pay the majority of Federal income tax. The lower middle class less and approximately half of workers pay
no income tax and get get refunds due to tax credits.

Ok I can live with that. But the fact that it isn't enough for you liberal Socialists makes my blood boil. Get off your behinds and take advantage of schooling offered and get jobs. And stop complaining. Wha wha, he/she makes more than me.

Tired of it. Start a business use your brain.stop being a cry baby. A flat tax would require every worker to pay a percentage of their income to the Federal Government.

 

It absolutely does, some of the poorest have a negative tax rate, many middle class homes have an EMTR in the single digits.

They largely helped the high tax brackets — this is easily verified and all middle and lower class tax cuts expire while the ones for highest income earners stay intact.

And I believe all those should be taxed just like ordinary income. All regular income should be taxed the same regardless of the source

Your grammar and syntax is atrocious In this section, almost to the point of being unintelligible. Also personal attacks — dry baby (whatever that is) — is against forum rules, they can be reviewed on the bottom right corner of every page.

Your statement that “The lower middle class less and approximately half of work I g tax payers pay nithing.” conflicts with your statement “A flat tax does not raise taxes on the poor or lower them on the wealthly”

 

Whatever. No reason to discuss this with you. You know nothing about the current tax system. Likely because you have never owed federal income tax.
And I corrected my errors not that it should matter. You obviously understood what I was saying.

 

“Whatever”, such an illuminating word for a failed argument when one is unable to make a viable response.

Furthermore, my total federal tax burden last year was five digits just on investments, dividends and pass through earnings and does not include “ordinary income” — not that is is any of your concern — but make whatever assumptions you need to to justify your fraudulent positions I guess.



I love how this:

Became this:

That’s integrity right there...
Look at all the buzz words that you don’t understand

 

No, you are just makin' $#!+ up. The fact that neither the landowner nor any previous landowner produced the land is not a fact from hundreds of years ago. It is an eternal, permanent fact, true millions of years ago, true now, and true in the future.

It supports my position perfectly: workers have to pay landowners full market value for permission to work, to shop, to access public services and infrastructure, etc. That is why they toil and produce and can't get ahead: they are on a treadmill, and it powers the landowners' escalator.
[

Yes. And I am correct about that.

Government always administers possession and use of land because that is what government IS: the sovereign authority over a specific area of land. In a responsible democracy, it should do so in trust for the people, to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor. That is not the same as owning. The ownership is just a matter of legal form.

It is compared to the private landowner, anyway, because it is government and the community that create the value the landowner steals.

There is no tithing involved, as you know. Government only requires repayment of a (usually small) fraction of the subsidy it gives the landowner. The remainder of the subsidy is kept by the landowner in return for nothing, forming the basis of the land's exchange value.

In the USA, the federal government does not tax land or real property, and what governments do with their revenue is a separate issue, dealt with in the realm of democratic accountability. Government is a tool, and tools can be used by good men for good ends, but can also be used by bad men for wicked ends. It is not the tool that is good or wicked.

Not in the slightest.

That's you makin' $#!+ up again.

There is a difference between participating in evil and being evil. Jefferson and many of the other American founders owned slaves, so they indisputably participated in evil. That doesn't mean they were evil as individuals, the way those who rationalize privilege and justify injustice are.

 

And as you readjust the facts of history to suit your point of view, you might stop and consider that the 'original landowners', while a great deal was taken from the American Indian, people paid to register their claims, effectively paying for their land.

You have issues, and saying I am making up bollsh!t doesn't change the fact of history. Subsidies for land owners? Such as?

No matter if someone owned land or not, does not hinder them from working to secure their future, and that of their families. People who believe that someone doesn't have to work for what they want is a detriment to the nature of man, but misery loves company, eh?

 

Not in the slightest.