Fed Is Systematically Destroying Social Security And The Retirement Plans Of Millions

ok.
For one it would have to be an aggregate measure of accumulation, not simply "income" between two arbitrary dates.

If an aggregate measure of wealth were used, the rates could be flat, and much lower. Also, it would prevent the social manipulation done to us by politicians.

political realities are created by those seeking votes. I will not allow a vote buying whore politician to dictate my reality.

 

ok.
For one it would have to be an aggregate measure of accumulation, not simply "income" between two arbitrary dates.

If an aggregate measure of wealth were used, the rates could be flat, and much lower. Also, it would prevent the social manipulation done to us by politicians.

political realities are created by those seeking votes. I will not allow a vote buying whore politician to dictate my reality.

 

I agree, but it's also worth noting this is much harder to evaluate, measure and monitor than income.

I still wouldn't want the rates to be flat, but I would like to see them lower.

It'd be a step in the right direction, I don't think it'd solve the problem entirely.

And by those who vote.

That's very idealistic, but not very realistic unless you live off the grid.

 

why ? someone with little assets, simply earning wages and making a living would pay almost nothing.

the tax code is a major foundation of social engineering and privilege granting.

hunger is a very good motivator of self sufficiency.

 

What is punitive?
If people with high incomes use it mostly for purely short term speculative gambling in the markets and rent seeking, that leads to high market volatility which exacerbates economic swings, increases economic insecurity and raises the cost of doing business. A very high tax on income from this sort of activity would increase the tax liability of short term investing and require outsized gains to offset them, which would discourage the sort of short term floods of speculative money across the markets which are wreaking such havoc. If the capital gains tax was 50% instead of 15% the price of a barrel of oil would likely be $10-20 lower and food prices would not be rising so quickly because investors would become far more cautious about jumping into a rising market since it would be a lot harder to offset the tax liability on their gains and they stand to lose a good portion of their capital if the market takes a turn for the worse after they have paid the tax man.

So, as far as answering your question, there is not really a big need to tax anything other than income but there is a big need to change what income is taxed and how much. Income from rents and market speculation can be increased without endangering economic growth. Skewing tax increases in this direction can bring about more stable markets and cause GDP gains to be more widely shared, not through government transfers, but by changing the tax code so it encourages investment capital away from short term speculation and rent seeking and into medium and long term business growth, which will push up employment and wages.

While a top income tax of 90% is certainly too high, a top income tax of 15% or less (since the wealthiest gain all their income from capital gains) is also certainly to low.