Subsidizing the incomes of people working for a big business like Walmart or Mac Donald's or whatever is something that also infuriates me. Businesses are making a shit ton of money and getting away with not paying people enough to live on despite them working full time, so that the tax payers have to subsidize it. And they are paying less overall taxes than they should as well. So they are screwing us every way. This should not be allowed.
Me too. But the tax payers are caught between a rock and a hard place here. I want Walmart to pay a living wage (and I don't think 15/hr cuts it though it's better than the 8/hr or whatever is currently the min wage). But in the absence of reform like that, then I want them to be able to apply for social benefits.
How do do we make corporations and the super rich accountable when they are the ones who fund elections and lobbyists? The whole system is set up against the interests of the majority.
We might see an increase in the federal minimum wage under HRC and that would be a step in the right direction. But I don't believe she will ever really act against the interests of the .1%. She is a .1%. Her friends are .1%'ers. Her donors are .1%'ers. It's like the air she breathes. And that's not really an indictment against her specifically as against politicians and lobbyists as a class. When Obama ran for election the first time, he promised to close the carried interest loophole. Did he? No. And it's a loophole that benefits only a very small group so you'd think it shouldn't be that hard to do (unlike, say, getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction which will be a huge fight if it ever happens). But they are some of the wealthiest people in the country and they give money to both Reps and Dems because they're not stupid. They know that politicians will go against them publicly but not privately if they give enough $$$ because it's all about reelection for these people. Truly, it's maddening.
Do you mean more tax brackets? Because they are our sliding scale, and if you make $200k a much smaller portion of your income is taxed at the highest rate than if you make $1M, so the math works.
Not saying I don't want more brackets, just trying to understand your point.
I'm saying taxes should be increased a ton on the wealthy but that I don't think it should be "if you make more than 250k in your household you are getting hit up with the 50% tax"
I feel the top 1% should have a much higher tax burden than they do now. I'm not sure about those making say 100-300k depending on costs of living that could be a ton of money or seem like not enough to cover bills and child care etc.
I assume a fear many have with tax increase plans is that "oh no are we considered too rich because we make 200k between us and we'll have nothing left after the dems finish with their increase taxes on the rich plan"
You realize there are three brackets between $90k and $400k, with a fourth starting at $406k (for individuals) right? So someone earning $250k *adjusted* (after deductions) will pay 33% on $60k of their income (and a lower rate on everything else), whereas someone earning $1M will pay 39.6% on $600k, plus all of the lower rates for each lower bracket. The $250k person definitely doesn't pay the same rates as the $1M person.
Because these brackets are after deductions of course they don't get into tax harbor issues.
I'm saying taxes should be increased a ton on the wealthy but that I don't think it should be "if you make more than 250k in your household you are getting hit up with the 50% tax"
I feel the top 1% should have a much higher tax burden than they do now. I'm not sure about those making say 100-300k depending on costs of living that could be a ton of money or seem like not enough to cover bills and child care etc.
I assume a fear many have with tax increase plans is that "oh no are we considered too rich because we make 200k between us and we'll have nothing left after the dems finish with their increase taxes on the rich plan"
You realize there are three brackets between $90k and $400k, with a fourth starting at $406k (for individuals) right? So someone earning $250k *adjusted* (after deductions) will pay 33% on $60k of their income (and a lower rate on everything else), whereas someone earning $1M will pay 39.6% on $600k, plus all of the lower rates for each lower bracket. The $250k person definitely doesn't pay the same rates as the $1M person.
Because these brackets are after deductions of course they don't get into tax harbor issues.
Hmm33% v 39 isn't a huge difference though is it? I'm not saying it should be 50 percent. I don't know the answer. But what about people making 10 million or 100 million are they still paying that 39% ?
And what about people paying much less than that % because their earnings come from investment returns? I feel that money should also be taxed as though it were income because it is income. Make tax on investment returns past x per year a flat 40%
So if you are taking in ten million dollars a year just on investment income returns you should pay 40 percent of that off the top.
People say "they'll stop investing!" Sure, I was getting x million for doing nothing at all before and now I'm only getting x - y million? Forget it, I don't want any of it then!
I'll go against the grain, I do think inheritance taxes are just stealing on the government's part. You earned the money, it was taxed at some point, you decide to leave it to your heirs. The government is not your heir.
You will never solve problems by taxing more until you figure out how to make the government accountable. I certainly did not raise my children's allowances when they over spent or spent foolishly. Sure, it is a smaller scale, but there is so much abuse and this coming back for more every time has got to stop.
See, I used to think this about the inheritance tax until I started to realize how much it perpetuates past social injustice, including racism. My parents are comfortable in part because they worked hard and saved, but also because their parents were comfortable and had advantages due to their race and the luck of where they were born. I really hate that the American Dream - that anyone who works hard can move up the ladder - is now so hard to achieve, and not having a strong inheritance tax propagates that cycle.
CheeringCharm I agree with you on the above. We've had numerous debates back in the day on this board about what the rich owe and why, and as a business owner who is already busting my ass to make stuff happen and will have to continue to do so - if I ever make it bigtime to where I am earning 6-digits or more, I'd definitely want to invest back into society around me... but not when people are shoving in my face that "it's not fair that you earn this much, you're such a cheat and trying to make me be less than you!" ...
Do you really mean 6 digits? Or 7? I clearly live in a bubble, but I've never heard anyone saying that the small business owner who pulls in a whopping $100k and still pays middle class taxes is a greedy a-hole. That's not the type of income that allows you to take advantage of major tax breaks, generally. And I say that with some experience, given that my H is a small business co-owner who has created 2 local jobs (so far).
If what you actually meant was 7 figures, well, then I do agree that lot of people think that those in the million dollar salary range should pay more.
Not on the topic of small business owners, but this is one of my issues with the whole thing. DH and I make a good income, and I'm fine paying our share. But we have absolutely no ability to take advantage of tax breaks that those making waaaay more than we do take. And pretty much all of our income is regular earned income on our W-2s. I'd be in favor of more brackets and shoring up the investment income and long-term gains tax situation before raising the actual tax rates, I think.
You realize there are three brackets between $90k and $400k, with a fourth starting at $406k (for individuals) right? So someone earning $250k *adjusted* (after deductions) will pay 33% on $60k of their income (and a lower rate on everything else), whereas someone earning $1M will pay 39.6% on $600k, plus all of the lower rates for each lower bracket. The $250k person definitely doesn't pay the same rates as the $1M person.
Because these brackets are after deductions of course they don't get into tax harbor issues.
Hmm33% v 39 isn't a huge difference though is it? I'm not saying it should be 50 percent. I don't know the answer. But what about people making 10 million or 100 million are they still paying that 39% ?
Oh, if it's just the actual rate you're disagreeing with we're on the same page. I'm fine with raising the rates on all of the top brackets but more so on the highest, and even adding more brackets. I thought you were trying to say that $1M earners couldn't be taxed more without also taxing $250k-ers more.
I'm surprised that adding more tax brackets isn't a real consideration. I mean, I guess not because Reps but still, it seems like a pretty logical and even popular thing to do. I would like to see Hilary propose this. That would sway me a lot and make it seem like she really means it about seeing the super rich or .1/.01% as a problem. If, instead, it is just "raise the rate on the existing top tax bracket" than I'm going to assume she prefers business as usual. The .1% don't want to pay a 39% tax rate on income over ~400k, 50% on income over 750k, 60% on income over 1 mil, 70% on income over 2 mil, 80% on income over 3 mil, 90% on income over 5 mil etc. etc. And they will give gobs of money to her campaign to buttress their interests.
I may lose my liberal card for this, but I oppose estate taxes on principle. I don't think that if you've paid income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc. on everything you have over your life, you should have to pay *another* tax just to give it to your children when you die.
I may lose my liberal card for this, but I oppose estate taxes on principle. I don't think that if you've paid income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc. on everything you have over your life, you should have to pay *another* tax just to give it to your children when you die.
I'll put myself out there and say I agree. I would be in favor of eliminating it.
The problem with no estate tax or a low one is that it leads to generational wealth. I think this is problematic because it can create a group of people who are really out of touch to everyday concerns.
I don't think you shouldn't be able able to pass on any money at all (because let's remember, the gift tax kicks in at like 12k per person) but I don't have a problem with a high one. I think it's at 50% over 5 mil right now? I think that's good and I wouldn't mind seeing it at like 70-75%. How many people can leave over 5 mil anyway?
I may lose my liberal card for this, but I oppose estate taxes on principle. I don't think that if you've paid income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc. on everything you have over your life, you should have to pay *another* tax just to give it to your children when you die.
I'll put myself out there and say I agree. I would be in favor of eliminating it.
Eh, is that really true though? There are definitely loopholes and income that is passed on that has never been taxed.
Leaving the estate tax thresholds aside, using my house as an example, if I died tomorrow and left someone my house, there would be about $100k of gain/income left on the table that was never taxed.
-Bought my house for $250k, current worth is $350k. -In my lifetime, I paid no tax on that $100k increase, as I was still in the house when I died -leave my house to my kid -by law, kid inherits the house with a stepped up basis of $350k -kid turns around and sells the house for $350k, no capital gains tax is due, but that's $100k of untaxed income when it comes to the government
And this is obviously small potatoes when compared to the generations of wealth and property that get passed down.
Post by jordancatalano4ever on Oct 18, 2015 11:31:42 GMT -5
I identify as pretty liberal and I don't think raising taxes on everyone is the answer to this issue. We're in a bracket somewhere above $125k and I know when we look at our breakdowns we're paying somewhere around 30%. So I would think the "fairest" thing would be that anyone above that pays the equivalent. So I'm more interested in ending any loopholes that would allow people to shelter their money from paying that. Also, we need to look at wages. Wages have been stagnant for so long and the more someone makes the more they can do with their money and that benefits everyone. I'm tired of the small business trope that is always thrown out when increasing minimum wage is tossed out. We all know that it can be structured so that their impact would not be significant.
I don't know. I'm with Bernie in that we really need a revolution/evolution in what government is supposed to do. I think capitalism has twisted the concept that people are beholden to select few people and that we should just be happy and take it because it could be worse. No. F that. We should all expect that in this day and age all people should have a reliable way to eat, receive healthcare, receive an education, and a place to live that is clean and appropriate in scale. Isn't that the purpose of government? To ensure that for all people because we're all in it together.
(Tangent: The tiny house thing is pissing me off lately. F anyone in the ear who thinks that living in a glorified shed should be a legitimate option for people in HCOL areas. I'm side eyeing the fuck out of anyone who tauts that movement as viable to anything other than having it as an addition to an existing property. )
The problem with no estate tax or a low one is that it leads to generational wealth. I think this is problematic because it can create a group of people who are really out of touch to everyday concerns.
I don't think you shouldn't be able able to pass on any money at all (because let's remember, the gift tax kicks in at like 12k per person) but I don't have a problem with a high one. I think it's at 50% over 5 mil right now? I think that's good and I wouldn't mind seeing it at like 70-75%. How many people can leave over 5 mil anyway?
Yes, but we still have 12 states that also have some form of estate tax, and in my state the bar is only $1.4 million ($2 million by 2018 I think).
ETA: I guess I'm more in favor of just eliminating it at the state level.
The estate tax is a red herring because people with enough wealth for the tax to make a difference put the money in trusts and other tax shelters.
Anyway as for the rest of this - we are stretched thin as a country because salaries and wages have not kept pace with the cost of a lot of things, namely education, health care, and housing.
If companies paid higher wages, the government would be bringing in more money in income tax revenue, and people would have enough money to pay for things like child care without assistance. They wouldn't be buried under the weight of student debt. Etc.
But they aren't paying higher wages. So yeah, corporations and their individual owners have to pay more in taxes so that the government can "redistribute" the money.
Honestly, I'd much rather a system of lower taxes and fewer government programs. But we just can't have the shitshow that we have right now. Unfortunately we live in a society where companies like Amazon see nothing wrong with making workers clock out, then stand in line for a half an hour to go through an understaffed security check. Nor is the public apoplectic over the fact that Amazon was in essence dumping its cost of security onto its workers instead of paying for them itself, and went all the way to the Supreme Court to try to keep the right to do it. (And yes, I'm aware it wasn't Amazon directly but rather its contractor, but let's be real about where the buck really stopped.) As long as we live in a country where people pray to the Church of the Bottom Line, we are going to keep needing to hike taxes on rich people to fix the selfishness that is inherent in the doctrine of maximizing shareholder wealth.
CheeringCharm I agree with you on the above. We've had numerous debates back in the day on this board about what the rich owe and why, and as a business owner who is already busting my ass to make stuff happen and will have to continue to do so - if I ever make it bigtime to where I am earning 6-digits or more, I'd definitely want to invest back into society around me... but not when people are shoving in my face that "it's not fair that you earn this much, you're such a cheat and trying to make me be less than you!" ...
Do you really mean 6 digits? Or 7? I clearly live in a bubble, but I've never heard anyone saying that the small business owner who pulls in a whopping $100k and still pays middle class taxes is a greedy a-hole. That's not the type of income that allows you to take advantage of major tax breaks, generally. And I say that with some experience, given that my H is a small business co-owner who has created 2 local jobs (so far).
If what you actually meant was 7 figures, well, then I do agree that lot of people think that those in the million dollar salary range should pay more.
but how many people are really making a million dollar salary?? I get that there are some, but those making that much money a year are generally doing it via capital gains or stock options. Lets tax all income ** equally (or at least higher than current rates)
ETA & clarify: all *TYPES* of income equally, not equal income rates for earned income
Do you really mean 6 digits? Or 7? I clearly live in a bubble, but I've never heard anyone saying that the small business owner who pulls in a whopping $100k and still pays middle class taxes is a greedy a-hole. That's not the type of income that allows you to take advantage of major tax breaks, generally. And I say that with some experience, given that my H is a small business co-owner who has created 2 local jobs (so far).
If what you actually meant was 7 figures, well, then I do agree that lot of people think that those in the million dollar salary range should pay more.
but how many people are really making a million dollar salary?? I get that there are some, but those making that much money a year are generally doing it via capital gains or stock options. Lets tax all income equally (or at least higher than current rates)
What? No. A flat tax on all income ?
Why should the people who make 90 percent of this country's income pay half that % of this country's income tax?
Taxing all income equally makes no sense at all to me.
The % you take out of this country is the % you should be putting back in.
So if our household income is about 150k, we are doing great. Happy to pay one third back into the country. But if i make 1 million per year why do I still pay only one third? That makes no sense.
There aren't that many people making more than one million, that's the POINT. There are very few people taking in millions or billions yet the amount they make is so disproportionately high that raising their tax % would make a huge difference.
I'm ok an increase across the board (except for those that make very little of course) as long as I'm not taking an extra 2-3% hit and joe billionaire is also just paying 2% extra. No, I do not support a flat raise for all.
but how many people are really making a million dollar salary?? I get that there are some, but those making that much money a year are generally doing it via capital gains or stock options. Lets tax all income equally (or at least higher than current rates)
What? No. A flat tax on all income ?
Why should the people who make 90 percent of this country's income pay half that % of this country's income tax?
Taxing all income equally makes no sense at all to me.
The % you take out of this country is the % you should be putting back in.
no, no- that's not what I"m saying. I"m in favor of a graduated income tax system with increasing rates. I'm not OK with other types of income (ie NOT earned) being taxed much lower than ordinary income tax.
Why should the people who make 90 percent of this country's income pay half that % of this country's income tax?
Taxing all income equally makes no sense at all to me.
The % you take out of this country is the % you should be putting back in.
no, no- that's not what I"m saying. I"m in favor of a graduated income tax system with increasing rates. I'm not OK with other types of income (ie NOT earned) being taxed much lower than ordinary income tax.
Ah ok my bad lol. Re reading what you wrote now I see
I was just ahh it's a "flat-taxer" Off with her head! lol. My apologies:D
Every time I see this discussion someone claims they are fine with increases as long as it goes towards the greater good. While I think this is a great thought, those already paying a higher proportion of their income do not get to make the same decision.
Every time I see this discussion someone claims they are fine with increases as long as it goes towards the greater good. While I think this is a great thought, those already paying a higher proportion of their income do not get to make the same decision.
None of us really get to make the decision of where our tax dollars go.
Of course no one decides where their income tax dollars gi. The problem with the statement is that it indicates I am only willing to pay more if *I* get to decide where the new money goes.
Do you really mean 6 digits? Or 7? I clearly live in a bubble, but I've never heard anyone saying that the small business owner who pulls in a whopping $100k and still pays middle class taxes is a greedy a-hole. That's not the type of income that allows you to take advantage of major tax breaks, generally. And I say that with some experience, given that my H is a small business co-owner who has created 2 local jobs (so far).
If what you actually meant was 7 figures, well, then I do agree that lot of people think that those in the million dollar salary range should pay more.
but how many people are really making a million dollar salary?? I get that there are some, but those making that much money a year are generally doing it via capital gains or stock options. Lets tax all income ** equally (or at least higher than current rates)
ETA & clarify: all *TYPES* of income equally, not equal income rates for earned income
Sorry, I didn't mean just salary (even though that's what I said). I was really just caught up on my curiosity of whether @ladydisdain considers 6 figures a big dog, which I realize is nowhere near the point of this thread.
I may lose my liberal card for this, but I oppose estate taxes on principle. I don't think that if you've paid income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc. on everything you have over your life, you should have to pay *another* tax just to give it to your children when you die.
Can I attempt to play devil's advocate?
What makes estates so special?
Why do we not simply tax them as unearned income? Because it is tradition?
You can already give $14,000 per person per year in gifts. (<--I will agree that this could be higher). You can already buy generous life insurance policies. What makes heirs so special that we give them a $5 million dollar tax break when even professional investors have to pay a little?
but how many people are really making a million dollar salary?? I get that there are some, but those making that much money a year are generally doing it via capital gains or stock options. Lets tax all income ** equally (or at least higher than current rates)
ETA & clarify: all *TYPES* of income equally, not equal income rates for earned income
Sorry, I didn't mean just salary (even though that's what I said). I was really just caught up on my curiosity of whether @ladydisdain considers 6 figures a big dog, which I realize is nowhere near the point of this thread.
Sorry, I'm back to respond to this and I know you've asked twice.
I did mean to say 6-figures, because there's a big difference between me earning $120,000 and $890,000 (just grabbing those out of the air). As you get farther up that scale, you do and should pay more taxes, but I'd say that difference would absolutely put me in a different echelon of potential lifestyle and taxable earnings.