GG Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 example of 3 tax brackets ( a simplification ) income from .$0.01 - $100,000 is taxed at 30% income from $100,000 - $200,000 is taxed at 60% income greater than $200,000 is taxed at 90% (the marginal tax rate is 90%) If income is less than $100,000, the effective tax rate is 30% If income is $200,000, the first $100,000 would be taxed at 30% ($30,000). The income between $100k and $200k is taxed at 60% (so $60,000). Adding $30k and $60k we get $90k on $200k income, yielding an effective tax rate of 45% If income is $300,000, the first $100k is taxed at 30% ($30,000), the second $100k is taxed at 60% ($60,000), and the dollars over $200k are taxed at 90% ($90,000). Adding 30 + 60 + 90 = $180,000 tax on $300,000 income, yielding an effective tax rate of 60% And if a person make $1 million, the effective rate is 81%. Great plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who is Yuri? Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 And if a person make $1 million, the effective rate is 81%. Great plan. How should BobinMichigan's hypothetical brackets be adjusted? We are currently at the following: http://blogs-images.forbes.com/kellyphillipserb/files/2014/10/Single_rates.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 When you say 90% tax, I hear 90% on all income. A 90% marginal tax rate on the super-rich, isn't a flat 90% income tax, it's a 90% tax on each dollar they make above, say $1,000,000,000. You may already know that. I just wanted to clarify for any bright young dittoheads that might be in our audience. Any proposed 90% tax on any income is ridiculous. No clarification needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) Sanders said he was going to tax the heck out of hedge funds. I'm guessing most people don't know much about them and it sounds sort of evil wall street like, so it's safe to throw out there. That's another poor policy opinion from the future taxer-in-chief-wanna-be. There is a misconception from a large segment of the population out there that believes that hedge funds are inherently evil, that they are out there to profit off the backs of the poor while destroying anything in sight. Without doubt there are some unscrupulous actors out there and I am a proponent of stricter oversight to root out these bad characters with prison terms and large fines. But the overall hedge fund industry provides for many investors, which includes unions, retiree's and general investors diverse ways to manage their risk. The hedge fund industry invests not just in the general markets but in real estate, physical commodities and startups. They provide added liquidity and market participation which helps decrease volatility in the markets. If you think the markets are volatile now, imagine how volatile the markets would be with half the participants. There are a number of innovative products that are seeking capital to gain exposure in the markets and hedge funds help these innovators do just that. Many people look to the what they believe are the obvious boogey men, like hedge funds and blame them or use them as foils for the misery of many people. It's not only misguided but dishonest. Capital is a good thing. Capital helps businesses flourish and innovate and taxing the hell out of hedge funds which on balance do much more good than bad is only a feel good measure which lacks any substance in solving any issues. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a higher tax rate, I'm open to discussing that, but "taxing the hell out of them" is much like Trump's appeals to the nativists, which is to blame some boogey man for their perceived ills of the country. Edited August 18, 2015 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 How should BobinMichigan's hypothetical brackets be adjusted? We are currently at the following: http://blogs-images.forbes.com/kellyphillipserb/files/2014/10/Single_rates.png 10% flat tax across the board on AGI up to $50K 18% flat tax across the board on AGI above $50K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 example of 3 tax brackets ( a simplification ) income from .$0.01 - $100,000 is taxed at 30% income from $100,000 - $200,000 is taxed at 60% income greater than $200,000 is taxed at 90% (the marginal tax rate is 90%) If income is less than $100,000, the effective tax rate is 30% If income is $200,000, the first $100,000 would be taxed at 30% ($30,000). The income between $100k and $200k is taxed at 60% (so $60,000). Adding $30k and $60k we get $90k on $200k income, yielding an effective tax rate of 45% If income is $300,000, the first $100k is taxed at 30% ($30,000), the second $100k is taxed at 60% ($60,000), and the dollars over $200k are taxed at 90% ($90,000). Adding 30 + 60 + 90 = $180,000 tax on $300,000 income, yielding an effective tax rate of 60% So you're OK with this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 10% flat tax across the board on AGI up to $50K 18% flat tax across the board on AGI above $50K To be honest, I like that you have a couple brackets but I do believe it is too regressive. Maybe for below $30k a year 0%. From 30k to 250k 10% above 250k 20% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 To be honest, I like that you have a couple brackets but I do believe it is too regressive. Maybe for below $30k a year 0%. From 30k to 250k 10% above 250k 20% I do not believe in zero income tax levels. Everybody should pay something to have some skin in the game. Make it 5% up to $20K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) I do not believe in zero income tax levels. Everybody should pay something to have some skin in the game. Make it 5% up to $20K My feelings on this issue have evolved. I honestly believe we are entering into an era of structurally high unemployment and wages for a couple reasons. Globalization and advanced technologies. My gut tells me that robotics will soon dominate many of the lower-skilled and eventually some of the higher skilled job functions that are performed by humans. I don't know how we are going to combat that, and unfortunately as defeatist of a view as this may seem I do believe that there will have to be more benefits provided to those affected by these what I would consider imminent innovations/developments. Edited August 18, 2015 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 example of 3 tax brackets ( a simplification ) income from .$0.01 - $100,000 is taxed at 30% income from $100,000 - $200,000 is taxed at 60% income greater than $200,000 is taxed at 90% (the marginal tax rate is 90%) If income is less than $100,000, the effective tax rate is 30% If income is $200,000, the first $100,000 would be taxed at 30% ($30,000). The income between $100k and $200k is taxed at 60% (so $60,000). Adding $30k and $60k we get $90k on $200k income, yielding an effective tax rate of 45% If income is $300,000, the first $100k is taxed at 30% ($30,000), the second $100k is taxed at 60% ($60,000), and the dollars over $200k are taxed at 90% ($90,000). Adding 30 + 60 + 90 = $180,000 tax on $300,000 income, yielding an effective tax rate of 60% 10% flat tax across the board on AGI up to $50K 18% flat tax across the board on AGI above $50K To be honest, I like that you have a couple brackets but I do believe it is too regressive. Maybe for below $30k a year 0%. From 30k to 250k 10% above 250k 20% Why should we tax higher earners at a higher rate? If everyone was taxed at the same rate with no deductions allowed, I don't see how it could possibly be any more fair than that. My feelings on this issue have evolved. I honestly believe we are entering into an era of structurally high unemployment and wages for a couple reasons. Globalization and advanced technologies. My gut tells me that robotics will soon dominate many of the lower-skilled and eventually some of the higher skilled job functions that are performed by humans. I don't know how we are going to combat that, and unfortunately as defeatist of a view as this may seem I do believe that there will have to be more benefits provided to those affected by these what I would consider imminent innovations/developments. You combat that by focusing on education. Robotics will eventually replace more & more low-skilled workers, but they will also create a need for more programmers and repair/maintenance technicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) Why should we tax higher earners at a higher rate? If everyone was taxed at the same rate with no deductions allowed, I don't see how it could possibly be any more fair than that. Philosophically, I agree with you. In practice, it would be bad for the economy. Many people aren't paying federal income taxes as it is, (and we are talking about people who are working) and they are still either falling behind or working their tails off to just tread water. So not only would it be a further drag on these individuals and families, which in turn would mean less consumption in the economy, but tax receipts would also go down significantly. Again, I believe in fairness, and the idea of a flat tax is "fair", but at same point practicality has to factor in. You combat that by focusing on education. Robotics will eventually replace more & more low-skilled workers, but they will also create a need for more programmers and repair/maintenance technicians. I don't doubt that there will be new opportunities that will arise just that on balance, opportunities will diminish and wages will remain stagnant relative to inflation. Edited August 18, 2015 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 50% flat tax on all income over $100,000 no deductions all income (capital gains etc, capital gains indexed for inflation) taxed the same 12% federal sales tax on everything except food and medicine .5% financial transaction tax 12% corporate profit tax no deduction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 50% flat tax on all income over $100,000 no deductions all income (capital gains etc, capital gains indexed for inflation) taxed the same 12% federal sales tax on everything except food and medicine .5% financial transaction tax 12% corporate profit tax no deduction So no taxes on anything under $100K? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 So no taxes on anything under $100K? yep, and why can't you read? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 50% flat tax on all income over $100,000 no deductions all income (capital gains etc, capital gains indexed for inflation) taxed the same 12% federal sales tax on everything except food and medicine .5% financial transaction tax 12% corporate profit tax no deduction Do you have a catchy slogan for this economy killing tax plan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) yep, and why can't you read? Oh, I can read. I just can't fathom how anyone thinks a 50% flat tax ONLY on income over $100K makes sense to anyone other than someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. Edited August 18, 2015 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 I wasn't proposing 3 brackets. I was just trying to illustrate the difference between marginal rate and effective tax rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 Oh, I can read. I just can't fathom how anyone thinks a 50% flat tax ONLY on income over $100K makes sense to anyone other than someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. think of all the people unburdened from the dread of tax season, they will of course be paying federal sales tax and whatever state taxes apply Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 Do you have a catchy slogan for this economy killing tax plan? Yes, it's called: Let's be like Belgium, striving for .5% growth! Forward!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 Why should we tax higher earners at a higher rate? If everyone was taxed at the same rate with no deductions allowed, I don't see how it could possibly be any more fair than that. You combat that by focusing on education. Robotics will eventually replace more & more low-skilled workers, but they will also create a need for more programmers and repair/maintenance technicians. Until robots can repair/maintain, and then further down, program, design, and create Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts