Take the poll. How much should the top 1% pay in taxes?

[sinkingfeeling]

http://www.money.cnn.com/poll/pf/taxes/2012/08/29/taxes-rich-pay/?iid=EL

The top 1% of filers* pay more than a third (37%) of all federal income taxes collected. What should they pay?


10%-20%
21%-30%
31%-40%
41%-50%
51%-60%


Currently only 24% believe they should pay more than 40%.

[2pooped2pop]

1. that poll

The top 1% of filers* pay more than a third (37%) of all federal income taxes collected. What should they pay?

I wonder if the top 1% actually pay more than a third of all taxes collected, or should be paying a third (according to a straight up tax rate) before they all get the actual amount down to 13% with the loopholes they have gotten through congressional purchase?

[pnwmom]

2. I think it should rise with rising income. The top 1% isn't equivalent to the top .001 percent.

The tax rates should begin above the highest rate of the 99%, and continue upwards, to a max of 75%.

[KansDem]

3. Now it's...

25%

But, you can look at it this way:

51% say "more than 30%"
49% say "30% or less"

What does Romney pay? 13%? Only 20% say 20% or less.

[FBaggins]

5. That isn't what the question was asking.

It confuses a personal tax rate (or in this case an effective tax rate), with what percentage of the whole (income) tax is paid by a certain group of people.

That's the wrong question. The one you answered is more relevant. What percentage of a person's income can society reasonably lay claim to?

[ParkieDem]

4. Notice this isn't talking about a tax RATE ...

It's talking about the share of income taxes collected from each bracket.

E.g., the 1% might have an average tax rate of 12% or 50%, but could either way end up paying 37% of taxes collected. In this sense, it's difficult to come up with an amount they should have paid, because that number is dependent on an infinite number of variables.

[RC]

6. Most people have no clue what constitutes "income" for the rich.

The question of what the top 1% should pay in taxes is too simple. Way too simple.
Most people think only of salary and wages, such as their own, the only difference is, the rich get more.
During the Eisenhower years, the top tax rate was 93% and the economy had never been better.
Well, guess what? The top 1% then never were in any danger of choosing between lunch and buss fare. That was only their salary/wages.
Most of their income came from stocks, bonds, investments, anything but salaries and wages.
We would be doing good to check out what both Eisenhower and Clinton did and do it again. We need to get to the root of the problem, not just diddle with simplistic 'solutions' like how much the rich should pay. It is much more complex than that.

[hunter]

7. 90% on everything over 20 times the minimum wage.

Minimum is what, $7.25 an hour now...

50 weeks X 40 hours X $7.25 = $14500 annual income

20 X $14500 = $290,000

So take away in taxes 90 cents of every dollar a person takes home after $290,000

Do you think $290,000 is too low?

Then fight to raise the minimum wage!

Do you think the 90% tax rate should start at a million dollars?

Then, by golly, let's make sure our minimum wage workers are taking home $50,000 a year.