Is $200,000 a year an excessive income? (Reprise)

[Jackpine Radical]

This question was asked by somebody in another thread; what follows is my somewhat expanded reply to the inquirer:


Nobody is saying $200k is "excessive"-- depending on what you do to earn it. There are things I wouldn't do for $200k a year.

I think what you're getting at is whether people who make a lot of money should pay more taxes. That is a complicated issue. First, recognize that people who make, say, $200k a year pay the same rate as everyone else on the first $50, 100, 150k of taxable income. If a new higher tax bracket is placed at $200k, only that portion of their total income above $200k is taxed at the higher rate.

And recognize that people are generally only talking about income and estate taxes when they get themselves all worked up about the unfair taxation of the rich. In today's system, someone who makes $100k pays the same amount into Social Security as does that $200k earner. They both pay the same sales tax on a tube of tooth paste. They both pay the same amount of property tax per dollar of assessed valuation. And, to the extent that the rich one's income derives from capital gains that they didn't work for, they will pay a lower rate than that $50k wage earner who had to actually go out and sweat for their bread. Warren Buffett summarized the situation nicely when he famously pointed out that his secretary pays a higher percentage of her income in taxes than he does.

And third, take note of the fact that the rich person is likely to make more use of government services than the poor one. Not only do the courts devote 90% of their resources to settling disputes among businesses, for the convenience of the owners, but the fire departments and police forces are primarily concerned with protecting the property of the rich. Even the streets in the rich part of town are likely to have fewer potholes than in the working-class neighborhoods so those Bentleys and Ferraris ride smoother and retain their resale value a bit better.

All in all, it's hard to see how the rich are going to be hurt much, or even be able to argue they are being treated unfairly in any sense, if they are asked to come forward with a few more cents on the dollar so that some less-fortunate people can have adequate health care.

[kestrel91316]

1. I pay a HUGE percentage of my income in taxes because I am near the bottom rung.

Between business taxes and fees and licenses and social security for me and half my employee's social security, PLUS income tax, nevermind normal business overhead, there is very little left for me to live on.

And I would venture a guess I do a lot more to EARN it than some people making $200,000.

Also, those people have clever (and pricey)accountants who help them find every borderline legal loophole and deduction.......

[abelenkpe]

2. you say....

"All in all, it's hard to see how the rich are going to be hurt much, or even be able to argue they are being treated unfairly in any sense, if they are asked to come forward with a few more cents on the dollar so that some less-fortunate people can have adequate health care."

But I guarantee they would. Furthermore they would start campaigns of misinformation telling others that something nefarious would happen to them as well in an effort to get those less fortunate to vote against their own best interests.

And keep in mind 200,000 a year means something much different depending on where one lives.

But that said, I'm all for it. Is that being discussed or considered by congress?

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

3. Does this mean I have to start a new thread to respond to yours?

:crazy:

[Jackpine Radical]

8. I made a biefer response on the original thread

and then thought about it & found I had more to say, that wasn't quite on target with the original thread, and so started this one in order to avoid hijacking the original.

[jwirr]

4. Long ago I was spouting off about how we needed to get rid of the

rich. My father stopped me and said, "We need the rich. We need them to pay taxes." Since then I really haven't cared how much others make just as long as they pay taxes. From what I understand today - many of the rich are not. In other words we really don't need them under those conditions.

[Naturyl]

5. Yes, but remmeber, in right-wing minds...

The less-fortunate are almost always less fortunate because it is their own fault.

Aside from the true sociopaths, most right-wingers do not necessarily mind helping the "deserving" less fortunate. Trouble is, in their worldview, almost nobody is actually "deserving." They can always find ways to blame the victim, and therefore get themselves off the hook in terms of conscience. In most cases, a right-winger would actually have to see you being fired and then getting up at 7 AM every day to apply for 30 jobs a week to even consider being moved to help you. If you're not doing that, or even if you are but just can't *prove* it to their satisfaction, your situation is assumed to be your own fault and you are shit outta luck.

[treestar]

6. Exactly. And if there is no job they just say "move" or "create one"

There is no end to their heartlessness. It's also self defense, they want to believe that they can always find a job, or move to get one, or create one. If they can believe that, they feel secure.

[tonysam]

7. The more money you make, the more disposable income you have,

therefore the more taxes you pay. It goes double, triple, and quadruple for people whose main source of income is in investments.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

[Touchdown]

9. If they work for it, no. If they get that in dividends, then it's a bit excessive.

Labor should always be taxed at a lower rate than capital gains.

15% is way too low for sitting on your ass and collecting checks.

[Cleita]

11. So you think the guy who is getting paid $200,000 an hour should be

taxed at a lower rate too?

[Touchdown]

12. No. That wasn't the question I answered.

You have a new one? No is the answer to that. $200Gs an hour is $300M+ a year. They should have 60-80% tax beyond the first $5M.

[Cleita]

13. Fair enough.

I wasn't sure you understood what the premise was of taxing the rich.

[Cleita]

10. Like I have posted before, I have worked for very wealthy people in the past

when their tax bracket was 90% of income. They still were able to afford their mansions (real ones not McMansions), their domestic servants, their expensive cars and limos if needed, their Paris vacations, their yachts, their country clubs and their Rodeo Drive spending sprees. It didn't hurt them a bit because they still had plenty of money to spend in income and it barely touched their assets at all. So all this crying from the wealthy 10% of the nation about taxes to people who could really use a tax break is smoke and mirrors or a cheap shell game at the very least.