- 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:
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:
Given the above assumption:
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:
- the "base" tax a rich person pays given the tax code's provisions and
- the RGI component of a rich person's total tax liability
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?