HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » How much money should the...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:17 PM

How much money should the government take for income over 100K, 250K, and one million?

What should be the top tax rates? I understand that the top rates don't start at these numbers. However, as a hypothetical, how much should the government take for yearly incomes over the amount of 100K, 250K and one million

40 replies, 2766 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 40 replies Author Time Post
Reply How much money should the government take for income over 100K, 250K, and one million? (Original post)
BrentWil Dec 2012 OP
DJ13 Dec 2012 #1
BrentWil Dec 2012 #2
DJ13 Dec 2012 #7
hfojvt Dec 2012 #11
DJ13 Dec 2012 #14
hfojvt Dec 2012 #16
former9thward Dec 2012 #37
hfojvt Dec 2012 #39
MrDiaz Dec 2012 #34
Rex Dec 2012 #3
rug Dec 2012 #4
BrentWil Dec 2012 #5
pipoman Dec 2012 #18
JaneyVee Dec 2012 #6
Douglas Carpenter Dec 2012 #8
ProSense Dec 2012 #9
pipoman Dec 2012 #19
taught_me_patience Dec 2012 #10
Fla_Democrat Dec 2012 #12
hfojvt Dec 2012 #15
hfojvt Dec 2012 #13
hunter Dec 2012 #17
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #23
HangOnKids Dec 2012 #25
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #26
HangOnKids Dec 2012 #27
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #28
HangOnKids Dec 2012 #29
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #30
HangOnKids Dec 2012 #31
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #32
Telly Savalas Dec 2012 #20
Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #21
quaker bill Dec 2012 #22
FreeJoe Dec 2012 #24
Mr.Bill Dec 2012 #33
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #35
ThomThom Dec 2012 #36
Carolina Dec 2012 #38
Lex Dec 2012 #40

Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:21 PM

1. I'll go first

100k... 25%

250k... 35%

1M...... 45%

Over 10M... 50%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:28 PM

2. What is your logic? NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:49 PM

7. We've always had a progressive tax system

Its only in the last couple of decades that the system has been restructured into fewer tax brackets, as a flat tax is the long term goal of conservatives.

I'm basically saying it needs to become more progressive, with more tax brackets than we presently have.

If you notice I'm saying 100k should only be 25%, and even 250k up to 1M should only be 35%, rather than the 39.6% that existed under Clinton.

A more progressive tax system that has more tax brackets would allow for lower rates at the lower end of the income brackets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:14 AM

11. over $250,000

is NOT the "lower" end of the income brackets.

It's the higher end.

Furthermore, it's where the money is

the total AGI in 2005 for filers with income over $10,000,000 was $376 billion. The total income of those with AGI over $500,000 was $1.38 trillion.

Well, the total income of those with between $75,000 and $500,000 in AGI was $3.12 trillion. Those making between $500,000 and $1,000,000 had $355 billion in total income.

So, income over $1,000,000 was $1.025 trillion.
Income between $75,000 and $1,000,000 was $3.48 trillion.
And 81.5% of tax filers made less than $75,000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:35 AM

14. So adjust the numbers

Increasing the numbers of tax brackets was the central point, so have at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:59 AM

16. I did that a long time ago

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/129

although I would agree that higher rates for the top gives room for savings at the bottom.

I would just aim much, much lower

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021880321

1. Increase the standard deduction by $5,000 per couple. This will save people at the bottom about $750 a year without being a windfall for the rich.

2. bring back the making work pay credit (without the extra damn form). That was a refundable $400 per person, $800 per couple, phased out for higher incomes.

3. increase the personal exemption by $500. Unfortunately the rich will benefit from that, but not by much more than the poor. It means $75 for the poor and only $197 for the rich. It would be a $2,000 automatic deduction for a family of four.

4. Re-introduce lower brackets. Say, a 5% bracket on the first $3,000 and a 10% bracket on the first $7,000 for individuals. The first would be a $300 tax cut for most taxpayers and the second would be another $200 for most taxpayers.

But that is based on letting all of the disgusting Bush tax cuts expire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 03:21 PM

37. No one making $7000 pays federal income tax.

So are you saying they should start paying 10%?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #37)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 03:31 PM

39. no, the tax rates are on taxable income

which starts after deductions and exemptions are figured into income, after adjustments.

So, instead of a 10% rate on the first $3,000 of taxable income (which is the law now) or a 15% rate (which will be the law when the Bush tax cuts expire), I would put that rate at 5%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 03:09 PM

34. what percentage do

 

you believe someone making 75k a year?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:29 PM

3. 13.5%

nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:33 PM

4. 99%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:35 PM

5. My thoughts

I favor a reverse income tax and would favor any set rate. If you make up to 50K a year, the government would simply credit you with an amount a year on your pay check. Once you make over 50K, the government starts to take this money back until your income reaches over 125K. Over that amount, you are taxed on all your income at the same rate.

The tax rate and amount of income credited should be controlled by the federal reserve. In times of plenty, taxes should go up and the amount given should go down. In an economic downturn, the opposite. It would be a build in means to control economic downturns in this country and maintain economic stability.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 01:43 AM

18. The Federal Reserve?

Really? You know that the Federal Reserve isn't the US Government, no? Why would you want to give the bankster's the power to tax? or set anything? It's bad enough that they control interest rates, IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:44 PM

6. The top tax rate is currently 35% for those whose income are $388,351+,

that number should come down to $250,000 at 35%, it would only be a 2% tax increase for those making $250,000. Then the tax rate should progressively get higher from there, eventually going to around 50% starting at $1Million, 60% for $10Million+. And if we're incredibly serious about deficit reduction than possibly higher for ridiculous sums of money. It would help lessen the wealth gap while ensuring investments in infrastructure, nation-building, and paying down deficits.

Edit to add: All other tax rates below $250k remain the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:53 PM

8. rather than focus on specific rates - the tax system should reward productive labor intenseive

investment and discourage speculation. If loopholes means given a tax benefit to those "job creators" who actually create jobs and actually make stuff or provide needed services - I would support such loopholes. But in today's day and age the great fortunes are being made by speculation driven, casino capitalism. The tax system can be structured in a way that rewards a productive use of wealth and discourages the anti-social use of wealth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:58 PM

9. Return to a tax structure similar to the 1960s:

$100,000 to <$150,000 - 20 percent
$150,000 to <$250,000 - 30 percent
$250,000 to <$500,000 - 35 percent
$500,000 to < $1 million - 40 percent
$1 million to < $5 million - 50 percent
$5 million to < $10 million - 60 percent
$10 million and up - 70 percent

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 01:59 AM

19. Yeah, it's 2012 now

and a lot has changed. Many international business laws have loosened thanks to both parties selling out to big business, including banking. Many people who make over $10m can off-shore their incomes tomorrow. There is a fine line between a progressive tax system and watching the highest incomes flee. Read up on the upcoming TPP agreement...it's not just another "free trade agreement" ya' know...just another entitlement for big business and big incomes brought to you by....yes, the Democratic Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:12 AM

10. The general consensus around here

is that taxes should be higher for those that make more than I make.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to taught_me_patience (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:19 AM

12. Pretty much













Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to taught_me_patience (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:51 AM

15. oh sure it is

that's what those with higher incomes like to think.

Almost everybody makes more than I make, but I tend to talk about smaller groups. Like those who make, not more than I make, but more than 50% of the whole country makes or more than 70% or 80%.

And even for myself, when I made only $27,000, I saved over $1,500 from the Bush tax cuts, and I don't think that was right. In 2009, I sold some land that I had bought in 1987. Made $15,000 in profit (sort of, I think I should have been able to include the 22 years of property taxes that I paid in the cost basis, but legally I could not). Thanks to Bush, I paid a zero percent tax rate on that. Well, that's completely bogus from my perspective. If somebody works for $15,000 they pay FICA taxes and income taxes on that money, but if somebody sorta has it fall in their lap, then it is tax free?

Bottom line, even I should have paid higher taxes.

I also spent the first two years of the Obama administration rolling over my tax refunds. Instead of collecting them, I applied them to next years taxes, effectively lending the government my money at 0% interest. I woukd have kept going too, but after Obama caved on the Bush tax cuts, I demanded my money back. Now it is in my savings account earning almost zero percent interest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:34 AM

13. just FYI

here's my compilation of tax information

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/169

rates before and after Bush

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/103

in 2001 tax rates for singles were
15% on first $27,050
27.5% up to $65,550
30.5% up to $136,750
35.5% up to $297,350
39.1% for the rest

for married
15% on first $45,200
27.5% up to $109,250
30.5% up to $166,500
35.5% up to $297,350
39.1% for the rest


in 2008 tax rates for singles were
10% on first $8.025
15% up to $32,550
25% up to $78,850
28% up to $164,550
33% up to $357,700
35% for the rest

for married
10% on first $16,050
15% up to $65,100
25% up to $131,450
28% up to $200,300
33% up to $357,700
35% for the rest



Although some of the changes were not due to Bush. For example the 15% rate used to be on the first $27,050 in taxable income and later was on the first $32,550 in income. Not due to Bush, but due to legislation which automatically adjusts the brackets for inflation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 01:01 AM

17. I think they should put people who make over a million in prison...

... 'cause you sure as hell can't make that kind of money doing honest work.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to AlexSatan (Reply #23)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:07 PM

25. Hunter Said Honest Work

 

Not playing a game. Digging a ditch is honest work. Teaching children is honest work. Playing baseball, it's a fucking game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HangOnKids (Reply #25)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:19 PM

26. The same could then be said about musicians

 

or artists who make large amounts then.

Or coders who enjoy it.

Or whatever you do.

Since MLB is just a game, why don't you go play it and get rich?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:27 PM

27. My Post was not about musicians, or coders, or me

 

It was to your point about MLB players and their salaries. And how it related to the OP, sorry you are having a difficult time following the topic at hand. Try to keep up dear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HangOnKids (Reply #27)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:35 PM

28. And it was your opinion

 

Personally, I think athletes are overpaid.

But it is not my place (not yours) to judge if it is real work. Again, if it isn't, why don't you go do it?

It is a real job as much as being musician, artists, coders, or whatever you do is.

Dodging that point doesn't make you post look any smarter.

So, what is real work? Is working at McDonald's real work? How about being a secretary? Just what is your definition of real work (because it being physical clearly isn't part of that definition).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #28)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:39 PM

29. Dude I Have Toenails To Clip

 

And they are more important and interesting than you. Go find someone else to verbally vomit on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HangOnKids (Reply #29)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:43 PM

30. Don't worry

 

I wouldn't have tried to stand behind such a statement either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:48 PM

31. Ahhh my daughters 6th grade boring classmates always play such games too

 

Is your big car compensating for something?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HangOnKids (Reply #31)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:55 PM

32. I don't Dodge, nor do I have one

 

My daughter is a freshman and also uses the tactic of providing all sorts of distraction when she can't or doesn't want to answer a question. I thought she was the queen of it. She now has someone bow to.

Here, I'll be more direct--why is digging a ditch real work while being a professional athlete isn't? Do you have to not enjoy your job for it to be real work?

Is being a musican "real work"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 03:11 AM

20. Pulling such numbers out of thin air is asinine

A budget should be set by deciding what services the government should provide, figuring out how much such services cost, and then determining an equitable way of paying for the services.

If I assert that income above $100K should be taxed at x% without having thought through the first two steps above, then I have no way of knowing if my tax scheme is sufficient for what needs to be funded.

Clearly the federal tax structure should be made more progressive, but citing random numbers isn't productive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 04:20 AM

21. This is exactly the distraction this "debate" intends. Yes, the people that have reaped the

 

overwhelming benefit of the wealth we all created over the last 20 years should be paying much more than they are, but what we need is a complete reworking of the tax system to achieve some equity. We often talk about the Eisenhower era 91% top tax rate, but we rarely, if ever, mention that almost no one that made enough to be in that bracket paid anywhere near that much.

The 2011 US tax code was over 72,000 pages. No one on earth knows exactly what all those pages contain, so we have a system where those with lots of money pay people to submit tax returns of thousands of pages that represent those people's opinions of what they say their clients owe. And guess what? Those people are rarely audited, because when they are it becomes a real battle that is fought in the tax court for years and always costs more than will ever be collected.

The solution is to scrap the whole thing and replace it with a simple and unequivocal law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 06:59 AM

22. The structure matters more than the numbers

Capital gains needs to be taxed at a higher rate than earned wages, a significantly higher rate, and here is why:

Since capital gains were granted a preference for tax rates compared to regular business profits and wages (15% vs 35%), executive / management compensation has steadily included a greater and greater share of "stock options".

Stock options are a contract that guarantees that you may purchase X shares of stock in the company, at a fixed price on a date usually in the future. The date could be next week, next month, or next year. The price is fixed and at or sometimes lower than current market value. Usually you can exercise the option at any time that the contract is effective up to the due date.

Here is one way it works. Dudes like Mittens give themselves loads of stock options as bonuses, they then restructure the business by slashing benefits, layoffs, spinoffs, outsourcing, massive borrowing leveraged off the pension fund, and sale of intellectual property or other assets. They can then, through the magic of accounting, post record quarterly profits. The stock price soars on the news, so they exercise their option and buy a large number of shares at say $20 that are currently selling on the market at $50, and they start selling those shares into your portfolio, 401K, or retirement fund. (after all the stock is soaring, who would not want a piece of that?)

The gutted company does not survive, as for the most part, it was never intended to. Dudes like Mittens (and there are many) make massive piles of cash, largely from your retirement savings, by market manipulation, pension fund plundering, and carefully planned bankruptcies.

It is not like this stuff is completely new to business. It has been around for a long time, but it became much more dominant when capital gains became the lowest taxed form of massive income. Investing to build a business is a long, slow, and risky process that bears as much as a 35% tax rate. Structurally collapsing a business (creating failure "creative destruction" as they call it) is quick, almost foolproof (almost anyone has the skills to bankrupt a business), very profitable, and bears the lowest tax rate. This stuff should be taxed almost out of existence.

Beyond this the general stock option concept encourages market manipulation and pays the CEO class with money from outside the business via stock trades on the open market. This is how a CEO can make millions while the core business he / she is running is actually losing money. The money to pay CEO types should come from within the four walls of the business they are running and if the business they are running is losing money, they should go broke or get fired.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:02 PM

24. I think it should be 0%

on anyone making up to the amount I make and consifcatorily high on anyone making more than me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 03:04 PM

33. There should be a 50% tax on anyone making a million dollars.

And only one thing should be deductible - payroll. Should work out well for them, since they do all the job creating, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 03:20 PM

35. 100% of all funds transferred out of this country.

 

If a corporation wants to send 100 billion to China or Switzerland, let them also send 100 billion to Uncle Sam.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 03:20 PM

36. they should pay at least the same rate as someone that gets an hourly wage and a pay check

this 15% bullshit has got to end. I support a 90% rate for income over 10 million and a gradual increase from 100,000 to 10 million

I pay over 30% Romney should too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 03:21 PM

38. I think you must factor in geography

and you must distinguish between gross and net. Other circumstances matter as well like state of health because even with insurance, chronic illnesses at ages younger than Medicare's magic 65, eat away at discretionary income. Then there's food, housing and utilities...

So, I know this may sound elitist but 100K after current state and federal taxes, health insurance, FICA, kid's tuition expenses etc in the DC metropolitan area is not a lot of take home money.

My best guess would be that tax rate hikes should kick in for 500k (a lot of money no matter where you live)or more incomes at the Clintonian rate of 39%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 03:34 PM

40. Whatever they were in the 1950's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread