General Discussion

JHB

(37,158 posts)

18. Some historical perspective: in 1955 there were 24 tax brackets (as opposed to 6 now)...

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 08:25 PM

Dec 2012

...for a married couple filing jointly (the equivalent type for the $250K number under discussion). Set aside what the rates on those brackets were (ranged from 20% to 91%), and just consider where the brackets lay once you adjust for inflation.

Of the 24 brackets 16 affected incomes over the equivalent of $250K.
And 11 affected income of over the equivalent of $500K.
The top bracket kicked in for all income over the equivalent of $3,348,950.

So that's my proposal. We can argue what the rates should be, but let's generally set the brackets to the levels they were around 1955 (with a few tweaks here or there possibly).

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

29 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Warren Buffett's $250K difference of opinion with President Obama [View all] red dog 1 Dec 2012 OP

How much revenue would we lose? That's probably a lot of people! mucifer Dec 2012 #1

"How much revenue would we lose?"...That's a good question. red dog 1 Dec 2012 #8

I would compromise on that, but ONLY for concessions Republicans are not willing to make bluestateguy Dec 2012 #2

Why even have a debt ceiling? (nt) AlexSatan Dec 2012 #27

More importantly, raising it from $250K to $500K hughee99 Dec 2012 #3

That might be a good selling point to 50 or 60 GOP House members ... red dog 1 Dec 2012 #23

Cut it off at 375K. That's compromise. SCliberal091294 Dec 2012 #4

That's only compromise if the Repubs want $500k, which they have not proposed. nt Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #12

I don't like that idea, but it's better than 37% for the top bracket democrattotheend Dec 2012 #14

What if the Dems propose an increase to $375K? red dog 1 Dec 2012 #19

The Repubs don't work for the people making less than $10MM per year. Lucky Luciano Dec 2012 #5

Not true. There are a lot of plain ol' millionaires (you don't have to have a ton of income Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #11

I don't think the thugs are beholden to mere doctors or lawyers... Lucky Luciano Dec 2012 #15

There are more Republicans than the ones in Washington. They're all connected, and it starts locally Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #17

All we need are 50 of them to "jump ship" and join the Dems on this vote... red dog 1 Dec 2012 #25

Depends if the budget works with the loss in revenue. DireStrike Dec 2012 #6

Nothing Warren Buffett says should be taken at face value without analyzing his motives. cherokeeprogressive Dec 2012 #7

With Buffett, what you see is what you get. There are no games there. He's so rich.... Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #10

Why not just consider raising the cutoff to $500K as a possible compromise? red dog 1 Dec 2012 #13

Nonsense. Buffett is for the only wealth tax we have - the estate tax. banned from Kos Dec 2012 #16

This could be a point that the Dems could "give" on, increasing the cutoff to $500k. Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #9

Some historical perspective: in 1955 there were 24 tax brackets (as opposed to 6 now)... JHB Dec 2012 #18

$500,000? Then make top tax rates 50% like they were under Reagan. Deal. JaneyVee Dec 2012 #20

I doubt if even one House Repug would go for a top tax rate of 50% red dog 1 Dec 2012 #21

The big money kicks in a above 5M, so a compromise of 500k, or even 1M JoePhilly Dec 2012 #22

Sure, make it $500K, but tax capital gains the same as wages TexasBushwhacker Dec 2012 #24

"tax capital gains the same as wages"?....Sounds good to me. red dog 1 Dec 2012 #26

Lower it to $100,000 FreeJoe Dec 2012 #28

Won't work....Obama already set the low cutoff at $250K. red dog 1 Dec 2012 #29