• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What income earners do you think should incur a greater federal income tax liability than they do?

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What income earners do you think should incur a greater federal income tax liability than they do?

Answer by indicating one of the following:​

  • [*=1]< $100K/year
    [*=1]$100K+
    [*=1]$150K+
    [*=1]$200K+
    [*=1]$250K+
    [*=1]$400K+
    [*=1]$1M+
    [*=1]$10M+
    [*=1]$50M+
    [*=1]$100M+
[I'd have made a poll were I willing to type that many poll answer options.]

Please refrain from designating more granular or different income levels. It's an "order of magnitude" question, not a "choose the right number" question.



Supplemental Question:
  • Assume that the increased liability, I'll call it the "rich guy increment" (RGI), is imposed as a surtax, thus making it possible to distinguish two main components of the total sum any given rich taxpayer pays in federal income taxes:
    1. the "base" tax a rich person pays given the tax code's provisions and
    2. the RGI component of a rich person's total tax liability
Note: it doesn't matter whether the taxpayer is rich. RGI is just a name I've chosen for the surtax.

Given the above assumption:​


  • [*=1]Should the people on whom you'd impose the RGI also have exclusive say (maybe they can pick from a list of options on their tax return or something) in how their RGI is, by the federal government, spent/appropriated? Why or why not?
 

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
23,851
Reaction score
17,058
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Not sure but why don't we have brackets that keep going up? Like these you listed.
These folks are like "shhhh, it stops at $400K, most of these middle class types think that's rich!"

$1M+
$10M+
$50M+
$100M+

But I'll tell you now, much of the income people get at that level, is covered under capital gains anyway...you know, that 20% tax bracket.

Sell your business for $100M? Hey hey, capital gains.
Make $2M per year on investments? What's that suckers? We'll get taxed 20%.

What's your 9-5 job at $100K getting you...around 21% (effective) tax rate? Same as someone earning $2M on investments??

Suckaaaahs!!!
 
Last edited:

bongsaway

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
38,398
Reaction score
25,375
Location
Flori-duh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
My opinion, a person making 100k should pay more than a person making 50k and that person making 50k should pay more than a person making 25k. So much wealth is handed down. Why should people whose job is to open statements and see how much they've earned in low tax rate capital gains pay less then a person making 50k and actually leaving their houses every day to go to work. That's just crazy. Once a person hits ten million in assets, we can and should talk about an RGI.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Not sure but why don't we have brackets that keep going up? Like these you listed.
These folks are like "shhhh, it stops at $400K, most of these middle class types think that's rich!"

$1M+
$10M+
$50M+
$100M+

But I'll tell you now, much of the income people get at that level, is covered under capital gains anyway...you know, that 20% tax bracket.

Sell your business for $100M? Hey hey, capital gains.
Make $2M per year on investments? What's that suckers? We'll get taxed 20%.

What's your 9-5 job at $100K getting you...around 21% (effective) tax rate? Same as someone earning $2M on investments??

Suckaaaahs!!!

Red:
Because:
  • The question I asked pertains to one's income, not one's net wealth. There're hardly enough folks who earn $10M/year to bother listing that sum. The quantity of folks who earn more than $100M/year is so small there's no good reason to include higher sums than that.
  • I didn't ask about income brackets nor did I present brackets. What I offered as choices represent the lowest "rough" income respondents think one must earn in order for the earner to be subject to a higher tax liability.
    • Do you truly think that someone is of the mind that, say, earners of $400K/year should incur a higher federal income tax liability; however that same respondent would also think that, say, earners of $10M or more per year should not incur a higher tax liability?
      • Maybe you do, but I don't.

        Because I don't, if one specifies $400K+, it's clear to me that that such a respondent thinks the same of folks earning $10M+. Simply, the folks who earn $10M+/year are part of the population of folks who earn $400K+/year.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
My opinion, a person making 100k should pay more than a person making 50k and that person making 50k should pay more than a person making 25k. So much wealth is handed down. Why should people whose job is to open statements and see how much they've earned in low tax rate capital gains pay less then a person making 50k and actually leaving their houses every day to go to work. That's just crazy. Once a person hits ten million in assets, we can and should talk about an RGI.

Red:
All well and good and TY for sharing that, but the question asks with regard to one's income, not one's assets.

Are you of a mind that income shouldn't be the discriminant for incurring a higher tax liability? That's a valid enough notion, but it doesn't address the topic of this thread/OP. Perhaps you should create a similar thread, basing the answer options on one's net worth instead of on one's income?
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The middle class is paying less of the share of the federal income tax now than it did in the times liberals claim we should return to.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Not sure but why don't we have brackets that keep going up? Like these you listed.
These folks are like "shhhh, it stops at $400K, most of these middle class types think that's rich!"

$1M+
$10M+
$50M+
$100M+

But I'll tell you now, much of the income people get at that level, is covered under capital gains anyway...you know, that 20% tax bracket.

Sell your business for $100M? Hey hey, capital gains.
Make $2M per year on investments? What's that suckers? We'll get taxed 20%.

What's your 9-5 job at $100K getting you...around 21% (effective) tax rate? Same as someone earning $2M on investments??

Suckaaaahs!!!

Red:
Hugh? I don't at all understand what you mean.
 

Taylor

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
24,124
Reaction score
10,859
Location
US
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So much wealth is handed down. Why should people whose job is to open statements and see how much they've earned in low tax rate capital gains pay less then a person making 50k and actually leaving their houses every day to go to work.
Wow, almost verbatim from this week's episode of Bill Maher's show.
 

Fletch

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
46,790
Reaction score
21,022
Location
Mentor Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Everyone should pay the exact same percentage of their income in taxes.
 

Taylor

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
24,124
Reaction score
10,859
Location
US
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why would we want to "distinguish two main components of the total sum any given rich taxpayer pays in federal income taxes"? Without knowing more, it reads like a solution in need of a problem.
 

JMR

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2017
Messages
14,938
Reaction score
9,123
Location
Not over the edge yet
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
What income earners do you think should incur a greater federal income tax liability than they do?

Answer by indicating one of the following:​

  • [*=1]< $100K/year
    [*=1]$100K+
    [*=1]$150K+
    [*=1]$200K+
    [*=1]$250K+
    [*=1]$400K+
    [*=1]$1M+
    [*=1]$10M+
    [*=1]$50M+
    [*=1]$100M+
[I'd have made a poll were I willing to type that many poll answer options.]

Please refrain from designating more granular or different income levels. It's an "order of magnitude" question, not a "choose the right number" question.



Supplemental Question:
  • Assume that the increased liability, I'll call it the "rich guy increment" (RGI), is imposed as a surtax, thus making it possible to distinguish two main components of the total sum any given rich taxpayer pays in federal income taxes:
    1. the "base" tax a rich person pays given the tax code's provisions and
    2. the RGI component of a rich person's total tax liability
Note: it doesn't matter whether the taxpayer is rich. RGI is just a name I've chosen for the surtax.

Given the above assumption:​


  • [*=1]Should the people on whom you'd impose the RGI also have exclusive say (maybe they can pick from a list of options on their tax return or something) in how their RGI is, by the federal government, spent/appropriated? Why or why not?

Same rates as everyone else up to $400,000K ( I would have chosen $500,000K to keep the math easier) Additional 3-5% for each half million above that level. Cap at 75%.

No, there would be no exclusive say to how it is appropriated. This is not a contribution to your alma mater, but fulfilling your duty to support your government's needs, as determined by your duly elected representatives. The cost of freedom to make a lot of money as it were.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
My answers to the questions in my OP:
  • Main question: $10M+
  • Supplemental question:
    • Yes
    • Because one should get something in return for paying more, and by allowing RGI taxpayers to designate where their RGI component goes, they not only are "putting their money where their mouth is" but also having a somewhat direct hand in ensuring their inordinately higher tax payments get spent on something they want to see funded, regardless of what party holds sway in the Congress or WH. For instance:
      • It doesn't bother me that my "base" tax dollars fund, say, the DoD, I think DoD gets enough as it is. Accordingly, I would want to direct my RGI to something I think doesn't get enough funding. Another RGI payer may, however, feel differently, and that's fine; s/he can direct his/her RGI to DoD if that's what s/he wants to do.
 

JMR

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2017
Messages
14,938
Reaction score
9,123
Location
Not over the edge yet
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
My answers to the questions in my OP:
  • Main question: $10M+
  • Supplemental question:
    • Yes
    • Because one should get something in return for paying more, and by allowing RGI taxpayers to designate where their RGI component goes, they not only are "putting their money where their mouth is" but also having a somewhat direct hand in ensuring their inordinately higher tax payments get spent on something they want to see funded, regardless of what party holds sway in the Congress or WH. For instance:
      • It doesn't bother me that my "base" tax dollars fund, say, the DoD, I think DoD gets enough as it is. Accordingly, I would want to direct my RGI to something I think doesn't get enough funding. Another RGI payer may, however, feel differently, and that's fine; s/he can direct his/her RGI to DoD if that's what s/he wants to do.

Just a devil's advocate question...Isn't everyone paying "more" than someone else? Why only RGI's get a say in how their dollars are spent?
 

Bullseye

All Lives Matter or No Lives Matter
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
42,831
Reaction score
14,966
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Not sure but why don't we have brackets that keep going up? Like these you listed.
These folks are like "shhhh, it stops at $400K, most of these middle class types think that's rich!"

$1M+
$10M+
$50M+
$100M+

But I'll tell you now, much of the income people get at that level, is covered under capital gains anyway...you know, that 20% tax bracket.

Sell your business for $100M? Hey hey, capital gains.
Make $2M per year on investments? What's that suckers? We'll get taxed 20%.

What's your 9-5 job at $100K getting you...around 21% (effective) tax rate? Same as someone earning $2M on investments??

Suckaaaahs!!!
So, you favor a tax structure based on jealousy? Investments are purchased with after tax money, by the way.
 

Bullseye

All Lives Matter or No Lives Matter
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
42,831
Reaction score
14,966
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
My opinion, a person making 100k should pay more than a person making 50k and that person making 50k should pay more than a person making 25k. So much wealth is handed down. Why should people whose job is to open statements and see how much they've earned in low tax rate capital gains pay less then a person making 50k and actually leaving their houses every day to go to work. That's just crazy. Once a person hits ten million in assets, we can and should talk about an RGI.
You do know that handed down wealth is taxed can also be taxed, right? I showed elsewhere on this thread that 80-90% of all tax payers pay an effective rate LESS than the capital gains rate. Jealousy and envy are poor reasons for tax hikes.
 

bongsaway

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
38,398
Reaction score
25,375
Location
Flori-duh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
You do know that handed down wealth is taxed can also be taxed, right? I showed elsewhere on this thread that 80-90% of all tax payers pay an effective rate LESS than the capital gains rate. Jealousy and envy are poor reasons for tax hikes.

Why is it anyone who voices an opinion on this matter gets the same sorry answer? It's ok for the koch brothers to be wealthy but not soros because he backs democrats. I have all the respect for people who worked for their wealth, not so much those who had it handed to them. Sorta' like the guy in the white house, a spoiled brat.
 

Bullseye

All Lives Matter or No Lives Matter
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
42,831
Reaction score
14,966
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Why is it anyone who voices an opinion on this matter gets the same sorry answer? It's ok for the koch brothers to be wealthy but not soros because he backs democrats. I have all the respect for people who worked for their wealth, not so much those who had it handed to them. Sorta' like the guy in the white house, a spoiled brat.
You get this answer because it's the correct one. I don't know where you're getting the Soros vs Koch BS, I don't believe EITHER has been mentioned in this thread. And speaking of "sorry" you do know there's no requirement to mention Trump in every post, right?
 

Evilroddy

Pragmatic, pugilistic, prancing, porcine politico.
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2017
Messages
10,153
Reaction score
7,685
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Everyone should pay the exact same percentage of their income in taxes.

Fletch:

Why?

The richer you are the more a society protects your wealth and interests. The cops will come to a robbery call in a fancy upscale area far more quickly and vigorously than to a run-down low-income neighborhood. Likewise fire departments and private/public utilities crews will respond better to richer neighborhoods and customers. The richer you are the more clout you have in most societies and the more you can get the society to work on your behalf. You should pay more for all these perks.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
90,085
Reaction score
38,899
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What income earners do you think should incur a greater federal income tax liability than they do?


None.

I think all income earners should incur a smaller federal tax liability than they do. I also think the federal government should spend much less than they do.​
 

bongsaway

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
38,398
Reaction score
25,375
Location
Flori-duh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
You get this answer because it's the correct one. I don't know where you're getting the Soros vs Koch BS, I don't believe EITHER has been mentioned in this thread. And speaking of "sorry" you do know there's no requirement to mention Trump in every post, right?

Ok you got me. Secretly I spend most of my day fuming about other folks money. I dwell on it constantly with the jealousy and envy building every moment I'm awake. Until I have my half a bottle of whiskey and curse the pot smokers before falling into a coma. The answer you gave me sounded like that to me. The people on the right worship money like they worship their guns and will defend every dirty billionaire on earth as long as they are republican while cursing ones like soros. That's why I mentioned them and not once did the word trump appear in my in my post.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Same rates as everyone else up to $400,000K ( I would have chosen $500,000K to keep the math easier) Additional 3-5% for each half million above that level. Cap at 75%.

No, there would be no exclusive say to how it is appropriated. This is not a contribution to your alma mater, but fulfilling your duty to support your government's needs, as determined by your duly elected representatives. The cost of freedom to make a lot of money as it were.

Just a devil's advocate question...Isn't everyone paying "more" than someone else? Why only RGI's get a say in how their dollars are spent?

RGI payers get to direct the RGI component, not their base taxes.

Using the model you've provided above, and keeping the math simple as possible (I'm aware the math I've shown below isn't quite how taxes work):

  • Assume an earner of $1.2M
    • Base tax liability calculated using the non-RGI provisions of the tax code: $1.2M x 25% = 300K
    • RGI component: (1.2M - 400K) x 0.05 = $40K
    • Total Liability: $340,000
    • The taxpayer gets to, if s/he wants to (it's not as though s/he must choose), direct $40K to "some gov't undertaking."

Blue
Why? Well, in addition to what I've already noted in post 14, because they're already paying taxes in accordance with the same provisions everyone else uses; however, they're also paying the RGI.

And on top of that, somewhat high to high income earners already pay the lion's share of taxes, while comprising nowhere near the lion's share of taxpaying households.

FT_17.10.04_taxes_stats.png


I don't know about you, but I don't mind supporting my government and the country as a whole by paying somewhat more in taxes, but if I'm going to be made to pay more simply because I happen to be someone who's done what, frankly, everyone is supposed to do, I don't think I'm asking too much in wanting to direct a small portion of the taxes I pay, the RGI component, go to something I want to see get funded.
 

Evilroddy

Pragmatic, pugilistic, prancing, porcine politico.
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2017
Messages
10,153
Reaction score
7,685
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
What income earners do you think should incur a greater federal income tax liability than they do?

Answer by indicating one of the following:​

  • [*=1]< $100K/year
    [*=1]$100K+
    [*=1]$150K+
    [*=1]$200K+
    [*=1]$250K+
    [*=1]$400K+
    [*=1]$1M+
    [*=1]$10M+
    [*=1]$50M+
    [*=1]$100M+
[I'd have made a poll were I willing to type that many poll answer options.]

Please refrain from designating more granular or different income levels. It's an "order of magnitude" question, not a "choose the right number" question.



Supplemental Question:
  • Assume that the increased liability, I'll call it the "rich guy increment" (RGI), is imposed as a surtax, thus making it possible to distinguish two main components of the total sum any given rich taxpayer pays in federal income taxes:
    1. the "base" tax a rich person pays given the tax code's provisions and
    2. the RGI component of a rich person's total tax liability
Note: it doesn't matter whether the taxpayer is rich. RGI is just a name I've chosen for the surtax.

Given the above assumption:​


  • [*=1]Should the people on whom you'd impose the RGI also have exclusive say (maybe they can pick from a list of options on their tax return or something) in how their RGI is, by the federal government, spent/appropriated? Why or why not?

Xelor:

For real persons (not corporations) 250K+ with a progressively increasing marginal tax rate on higher tax brackets.

Capital gains should be taxed progressively too but with a basic deduction for the building of pensions for lower and lower-middle class tax payers.

Corporations should be taxed on gross revenue progressively but at a lower rate than net revenue taxation and corporate tax should be progressively increased at intervals based on the number of full-time employees they employ to discourage capital intensive production which discards human labour.

As to choosing how there tax payments are spent the payer should have no choice. That's what elections are for. I will concede that a small percentage of the increased tax in the last progressive bracket of taxation paid might be allowed to be directed to a list of pet projects estabilished by plebiscite each election.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom