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

[Bullseye]

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.

Your problem is you have not a single working brain cell that comprehends what the right is for or against. Nobody "defends every (or any) dirty billionaire", nor do we "worship money" or guns. You're hard to talk to because you spew idiotic clichés and nonsensical accusations. Not your fault, really, the progressive mindset and ethos is "we know everything, those that oppose are not only stupid but vile and evil".

 

[Xelor]

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.

I agree with the "red" portion of your remarks.

 

[Fletch]

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.

But the money taken from them isnt going toward their defense its going to wealth transfers. The current tax system and people who want to soak the rich are interested in the money only for the purpose of redistributing to others who didnt earn it. Plus, if everyone pays 10% of their income, say, the guy making $1,000,000 is still paying 10x the amount someone making 100,000 is paying.

 

[Xelor]

Okay, people.

I get that the topic inspires a variety of "sidebar" and off-topic thoughts. That is what it is and I'm not griping about y'all doing doing so, but...

Would please have the courtesy of directly answering the questions in the OP before you engage in/entreat for the sidebar chit chat?

 

[Xelor]

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.

Red:
TY for your answer.

 

[Xelor]

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.

The reason I proposed the RGI as a distinguishable component is to facilitate giving to folks subject to it something in return for having to pay it. (See post 14 and post 24.)

 

[JMR]

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.

​

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.

So you sort of buy into a progressive tax structure, BUT.....not full in. OK

I'm not sure I understand "someone who's done what, frankly, everyone is supposed to do" ??

I'm all for voluntary contributions to pay for special project funding, if the projects have been previously legislated....like Social Security, or national parks. Not so sure about megamillionaires deciding government programs on the basis of their cash. I'd even give a tax break for voluntary contributions to national expense.

 

[TurtleDude]

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.

sounds like a serious case of class envy there

 

[Mach]

So you want poll information, without a poll. That's strange.

You ask which income earners should pay higher taxes, and you list amounts. Is this arbitrary?
Can we select more than one?

Now, you say you aren't talking about brackets, but then you're asking who should pay more. This implies that we should go look up tax rates, and calculate effective tax rates for each of your numbers, so we can then have information by which to determine if we think they should be paying more, or less.

That sounds onerous, if I understand it correctly. Maybe that's why it's hard to get the answers you're looking for?
I think if you calculated their rates now for each of your arbitrary cut-offs, and posted that with a poll, you might get what you're looking for. Just a suggestion.

To determine how much participation you might expect to get, consider how far from the "norm" your post is. Most discussions of income tax, revolve around tax brackets, and what percent they should pay, coupled with capital gains rates. This is not a coincidence, this is just how actual federal income tax is structured in the U.S.

- so I don't plan to look them all up, and I'll just guess and say all amounts < $1M should be higher than existing
And no, people should not as a sub-group get to decide what their taxes go towards.

 

[Bullseye]

Okay, people.

I get that the topic inspires a variety of "sidebar" and off-topic thoughts. That is what it is and I'm not griping about y'all doing doing so, but...

Would please have the courtesy of directly answering the questions in the OP before you engage in/entreat for the sidebar chit chat?

Sorry, I jumped right in without answering your questions.

First I oppose ANY RGI at any level. Any tax based on jealousy, envy or "just because they have money" is wrong, unAmerican, and punishes success. And in my many, many, many years following politics I've never seen a situation where sending more money to Washington ever made things better.

Rather than enacting a tax which mandates the rich pay more, why not make it a voluntary contribution, possibly even with the caveat that they designate where it is spent. That would make for an interesting study on whether these super-rich mega-mouths actually believe enough to put money in the game.

 

[Mach]

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

How's that possible when I'm suggesting I pay more in federal taxes.

Keep muddying the waters though, because even though I can't convince people they are suckers, I'll enjoy you keeping my tax rates absurdly low on the back end.

 

[Bullseye]

How's that possible when I'm suggesting I pay more in federal taxes.

Keep muddying the waters though, because even though I can't convince people they are suckers, I'll enjoy you keeping my tax rates absurdly low on the back end.

If you want to pay more, pay more. Zero out a deduction or two. I have no idea why you think Washington can spend your money more productively than you can, but suit yourself, just don't insist it be hung on others in your situation.

 

[Mach]

If you want to pay more, pay more. Zero out a deduction or two. I have no idea why you think Washington can spend your money more productively than you can, but suit yourself, just don't insist it be hung on others in your situation.

First you claim my position is based on "jealousy", with no evidence to support your absurd accusation.
Now you're telling me this is about what I should *personally* pay, not who should pay more, as directly questioned by the OP, and how most tax rate discussions usually go.

That's absurd. That's twice you failed to post anything meaningful in reply, why is that Bullseye? Why are you struggling with discussing some thing so simple, reasonably? As Xelor said, he'd prefer to have people disusing his OP, not this brainwashed partisan knee-jerk B.S. you've got going on. Have the last word by all means.

 

[Bullseye]

First you claim my position is based on "jealousy", with no evidence to support your absurd accusation.
Now you're telling me this is about what I should *personally* pay, not who should pay more, as directly questioned by the OP, and how most tax rate discussions usually go.

That's absurd. That's twice you failed to post anything meaningful in reply, why is that Bullseye? Why are you struggling with discussing some thing so simple, reasonably? As Xelor said, he'd prefer to have people disusing his OP, not this brainwashed partisan knee-jerk B.S. you've got going on. Have the last word by all means.

No failure at all. Nice try. I addressed Xelor's concerns above. And excuse me for thinking you were smarter than to think sending more money to Washington would be beneficial. But tell me that basis behind almost every call to get the rich to pay more tax ISN'T based on the "make the rich pay their fair share" mentality.

 

[Xelor]

So you sort of buy into a progressive tax structure, BUT.....not full in. OK

I'm not sure I understand "someone who's done what, frankly, everyone is supposed to do" ??

I'm all for voluntary contributions to pay for special project funding, if the projects have been previously legislated....like Social Security, or national parks. Not so sure about megamillionaires deciding government programs on the basis of their cash. I'd even give a tax break for voluntary contributions to national expense.

Red:
That refers to doing what almost every successful person does:

1. Go to school and be a high performer.
   • In collegiate and graduate academia, "high performer" means earn a 3.7+ GPA.
   • In K-12, "high performer" means 4.0 or higher on a four-point scale, which means one takes AP, or the trade equivalent of AP, classes and earns Bs or better and As in more than half their classes.
2. Start a business or get a job, and be a high performer.
   • In the work work world "high performer" means that one falls in one of the first two groups:
     1. Exceeds expectations --> These people get good raises and are promoted more rapidly.
     2. Meets expectations --> These people get raises and are promoted, but not quite as rapidly.
     3. Everyone else --> These people don't get raises or promotions.
3. Prudently spend, save and invest one's money.

What's it take to be a high performer? Whatever one must do. It's all about priorities.

Now doing all that doesn't necessarily mean one will earn $400K+/year -- some fields simply don't make that a realizable outcome -- but it does mean one will live a decent lifestyle, and, frankly, one needn't earn $400K+/year to enjoy a decent lifestyle.


Blue:
That is already available; consequently, it's incorporated in what I noted as one's "base" tax calculation.

Please bear in mind that the only change I've proposed is the RGI surtax. The rest of the tax code would be whatever it is. A discussion of whether the "base" tax code provisions be Trump's or any of those extant before Trump's is outside the scope of this thread/my OP. (I've deemed it so because it's hard enough to get people to focus on a 1000 word post. There's no way folks are going to focus enough to think about proposing a full-on tax code/tax structure revision.) One's got to limit the scope of a conversation for practical reasons...otherwise following the conversation is just impossible.

 

[Xelor]

So you want poll information, without a poll. That's strange.

You ask which income earners should pay higher taxes, and you list amounts. Is this arbitrary?
Can we select more than one?

Now, you say you aren't talking about brackets, but then you're asking who should pay more. This implies that we should go look up tax rates, and calculate effective tax rates for each of your numbers, so we can then have information by which to determine if we think they should be paying more, or less.

That sounds onerous, if I understand it correctly. Maybe that's why it's hard to get the answers you're looking for?
I think if you calculated their rates now for each of your arbitrary cut-offs, and posted that with a poll, you might get what you're looking for. Just a suggestion.

To determine how much participation you might expect to get, consider how far from the "norm" your post is. Most discussions of income tax, revolve around tax brackets, and what percent they should pay, coupled with capital gains rates. This is not a coincidence, this is just how actual federal income tax is structured in the U.S.

- so I don't plan to look them all up, and I'll just guess and say all amounts < $1M should be higher than existing
And no, people should not as a sub-group get to decide what their taxes go towards.

Red:
One can, but for the reasons I expressed to you, specifically, in post 4, I don't see why one would.


Blue:
I can tell from your comments above you don't understand what the OP asks. That is what it is....

 

[JMR]

Red:
That refers to doing what almost every successful person does:

1. Go to school and be a high performer.
   • In collegiate and graduate academia, "high performer" means earn a 3.7+ GPA.
   • In K-12, "high performer" means 4.0 or higher on a four-point scale, which means one takes AP, or the trade equivalent of AP, classes and earns Bs or better and As in more than half their classes.
2. Start a business or get a job, and be a high performer.
   • In the work work world "high performer" means that one falls in one of the first two groups:
     1. Exceeds expectations --> These people get good raises and are promoted more rapidly.
     2. Meets expectations --> These people get raises and are promoted, but not quite as rapidly.
     3. Everyone else --> These people don't get raises or promotions.
3. Prudently spend, save and invest one's money.

What's it take to be a high performer? Whatever one must do. It's all about priorities.

Now doing all that doesn't necessarily mean one will earn $400K+/year -- some fields simply don't make that a realizable outcome -- but it does mean one will live a decent lifestyle, and, frankly, one needn't earn $400K+/year to enjoy a decent lifestyle.


Blue:
That is already available; consequently, it's incorporated in what I noted as one's "base" tax calculation.

Please bear in mind that the only change I've proposed is the RGI surtax. The rest of the tax code would be whatever it is. A discussion of whether the "base" tax code provisions be Trump's or any of those extant before Trump's is outside the scope of this thread/my OP. (I've deemed it so because it's hard enough to get people to focus on a 1000 word post. There's no way folks are going to focus enough to think about proposing a full-on tax code/tax structure revision.) One's got to limit the scope of a conversation for practical reasons...otherwise following the conversation is just impossible.

I agree that long posts, and complex questions are often an issue. I appreciate your efforts, and trying to keep on topic here...

Sticking with your red....$400,000 is the salary for the President of the United States. Millions of people do as you have outlined, and earn significantly less than $400,000 per year.
Somehow landing on the upside of that arbitrary figure does not (IMO) afford a person the right to direct their tax dollars. Many people earning significantly less have done all that they are expected to do. I have a relative for example, who is an MD, and served in the peace corps for more than 20 years, earning significantly less than $400,000 per annum. I think he did way more than what he was expected to do. This whole area of discussion is pretty loaded with entitlement assumptions for arbitrary achievement, IMO.

I've always believed that Obama was pretty much on target when he suggested those who make the most, generally do so on the backs of those who created the structures for their success. I'm not an overall believer in the bootstrap theory.

 

[Xelor]

I agree that long posts, and complex questions are often an issue. I appreciate your efforts, and trying to keep on topic here...

I don't mind folks engaging in off-topic banter in my thread, provided they've "earned the right to do so" by simply providing a clear, direct and on-topic answer (not just a response, an actual direct answer to the question(s) asked) to explicit non-rhetorical questions posted in my OP.

Alternatively acceptable is one's posting one's off-topic remarks such that one explicitly notes one is doing so. That's no different than what folks do in in-person casual conversations.

• "I know this isn't what we're talking about but...."
• "We covered this about this before, but..."
• "I'm sorry, and I know this isn't exactly what we're discussing, but..."

People at least have the decency to acknowledge that they're upcoming remarks aren't really on topic but they feel compelled to share them. One may or may not like that someone does that, but few folks refuse to indulge someone who shows the discursive courtesy of at least prefacing their off-topic remarks with some sort of "mea culpa." Most importantly, they don't pretending that what they're about to say is germane/timely to the topic or conversation.

Sticking with your red....$400,000 is the salary for the President of the United States. Millions of people do as you have outlined, and earn significantly less than $400,000 per year.

Somehow landing on the upside of that arbitrary figure does not (IMO) afford a person the right to direct their tax dollars. Many people earning significantly less have done all that they are expected to do. I have a relative for example, who is an MD, and served in the peace corps for more than 20 years, earning significantly less than $400,000 per annum. I think he did way more than what he was expected to do. This whole area of discussion is pretty loaded with entitlement assumptions for arbitrary achievement, IMO.

I've always believed that Obama was pretty much on target when he suggested those who make the most, generally do so on the backs of those who created the structures for their success. I'm not an overall believer in the bootstrap theory.

Red:
I didn't purely arbitrarily choose that sum. I chose it because it's high enough that in about 65% of the country, that's enough to make one a "one-percenter," and in the places where it's not enough to do that, it's nonetheless enough to ensure one is at least comfortable. Also, I made that "judgement call" for the purpose of keeping things simple for the thread. The "keeping things simple" aspect comprises the peremptory component of that sum being chosen as the last amount prior to $1M/year.


Blue:
Currently it doesn't, yet by the same token people like even less that which does: political contributions. In any case, it's clear you and I have markedly different normative stances on what the RGI should/shouldn't accord payers of it.


Pink:
I'm sure your relative has done what he was and is expected to do. If he has and he enjoys a decent lifestyle, there's nothing to say. He's doing what everyone should do. If he's earning less than $400k/year, I wouldn't see him be subject to the RGI I suggested in my OP.


Tan:
I suppose one can think of it that way. I don't think of it that way; I think of it as a matter of getting unique something in return for paying a unique tax, the RGI, that nobody but high earners would have to pay. As implied before, insofar as medium-high and high earners pay about 57% of the federal income tax dollars the government collects, yet they comprise about 5% of the population, that they'd have to further pay the RGI I proposed, thus increasing the percentage of tax dollars they contribute to the nation's coffers, I think it's apropos that they receive the right to designate how the RGI share of their tax be used.


Teal:
Well, as a "bootstrapper," I buy into it. There are some people for whom I don't think the "Horatio Alger" model is viable, but for most folks, I think it is a viable model as goes assessing whether one's done what one's supposed to do to thrive in the US. The US is a nation designed by and for entrepreneurs, and I'm not of a mind to change the design so much that it doesn't continue to be overwhelmingly thus designed/structured. Neither do I object to there being many ways to thrive in the US without being an entrepreneur.

 

[JMR]

I don't mind folks engaging in off-topic banter in my thread, provided they've "earned the right to do so" by simply providing a clear, direct and on-topic answer (not just a response, an actual direct answer to the question(s) asked) to explicit non-rhetorical questions posted in my OP.

Alternatively acceptable is one's posting one's off-topic remarks such that one explicitly notes one is doing so. That's no different than what folks do in in-person casual conversations.

• "I know this isn't what we're talking about but...."
• "We covered this about this before, but..."
• "I'm sorry, and I know this isn't exactly what we're discussing, but..."

People at least have the decency to acknowledge that they're upcoming remarks aren't really on topic but they feel compelled to share them. One may or may not like that someone does that, but few folks refuse to indulge someone who shows the discursive courtesy of at least prefacing their off-topic remarks with some sort of "mea culpa." Most importantly, they don't pretending that what they're about to say is germane/timely to the topic or conversation.



Red:
I didn't purely arbitrarily choose that sum. I chose it because it's high enough that in about 65% of the country, that's enough to make one a "one-percenter," and in the places where it's not enough to do that, it's nonetheless enough to ensure one is at least comfortable. Also, I made that "judgement call" for the purpose of keeping things simple for the thread. The "keeping things simple" aspect comprises the peremptory component of that sum being chosen as the last amount prior to $1M/year.


Blue:
Currently it doesn't, yet by the same token people like even less that which does: political contributions. In any case, it's clear you and I have markedly different normative stances on what the RGI should/shouldn't accord payers of it.


Pink:
I'm sure your relative has done what he was and is expected to do. If he has and he enjoys a decent lifestyle, there's nothing to say. He's doing what everyone should do. If he's earning less than $400k/year, I wouldn't see him be subject to the RGI I suggested in my OP.


Tan:
I suppose one can think of it that way. I don't think of it that way; I think of it as a matter of getting unique something in return for paying a unique tax, the RGI, that nobody but high earners would have to pay. As implied before, insofar as medium-high and high earners pay about 57% of the federal income tax dollars the government collects, yet they comprise about 5% of the population, that they'd have to further pay the RGI I proposed, thus increasing the percentage of tax dollars they contribute to the nation's coffers, I think it's apropos that they receive the right to designate how the RGI share of their tax be used.


Teal:
Well, as a "bootstrapper," I buy into it. There are some people for whom I don't think the "Horatio Alger" model is viable, but for most folks, I think it is a viable model as goes assessing whether one's done what one's supposed to do to thrive in the US. The US is a nation designed by and for entrepreneurs, and I'm not of a mind to change the design so much that it doesn't continue to be overwhelmingly thus designed/structured. Neither do I object to there being many ways to thrive in the US without being an entrepreneur.

Red: I'm willing to accept that sum as indicative of the top 1%.

Blue: I don't believe political contributions should ever be tax deductible, including contributions to religious and other quasi political organizations. I totally disagree with the Citizens United decision. I see RGI taxes as fair tax payments by RGI's. :lol:

Pink: But would you see him as doing what he was expected to do? You suggested that by doing so people get in the RGI category.

Tan: Obviously we disagree. There are millions of people working as hard or harder for less dollars than RGI's. I refuse to accept our economy's payment to certain activities as a prelude to more and more influence and earning power. This especially applies to those sitting home receiving their dividends from grandpa.

Teal: I welcome and applaud entrepeneurs, up to the point they begin to believe they did it all themselves.

Hope others feel free to add their opinions here!

 

[Xelor]

Red: I'm willing to accept that sum as indicative of the top 1%.

Blue: I don't believe political contributions should ever be tax deductible, including contributions to religious and other quasi political organizations. I totally disagree with the Citizens United decision. I see RGI taxes as fair tax payments by RGI's. :lol:

Pink: But would you see him as doing what he was expected to do? You suggested that by doing so people get in the RGI category.

Tan: Obviously we disagree. There are millions of people working as hard or harder for less dollars than RGI's. I refuse to accept our economy's payment to certain activities as a prelude to more and more influence and earning power. This especially applies to those sitting home receiving their dividends from grandpa.

Teal: I welcome and applaud entrepeneurs, up to the point they begin to believe they did it all themselves.

Hope others feel free to add their opinions here!

Red:
Yes.


Blue:
I should clarify:

• Do what one is supposed to do:
  • Nearly everyone who does will enjoy a decent lifestyle.
  • Some who do will earn enough to subject themselves to the RGI I proposed.
  • Some who do will not earn enough to subject themselves to the RGI I proposed.
• Don't do what one is supposed to do:
  • One may or may not enjoy a decent lifestyle.
  • It's unlikely that one will earn enough to be subject to the RGI I proposed.

I'm not at all suggesting that one's being subjected to the RGI corresponds to doing what one is supposed to do. I am saying that those who would be subject to the RGI are folks who've done what they're supposed to do and are having to pay a surtax as a consequence of having done so in such a way that they are highly compensated for their labors.


Teal:
You and, I think, one other member has mentioned something about folks with inherited wealth. Frankly, those people proportionally comprise such a small part of the population that they aren't even worth mentioning. One "back of the envelope" estimate puts the quantity of individuals having $60K/year or more (mind, $60K per year is just a bit above the median income) in inherited income in the NYC tri-state area at ~150K persons, that's out of some ~8.6 persons. Another researcher didn't estimate the population of "trustafarians" but he notes that 75% of rich households have two or more income earners.

Then there's also the matter that a most trust fund income recipients work to earn the lion's share of their income. Are there some people who are high income earners ($400K/year) on account of their trust fund and/or investments alone? Yes, there are, but there are so few folks in that category that I don't know why anyone even thinks about mentioning them.

(Click here to get a sense of why there are so few people. Keep in mind that we're talking about drawing income from investments/a trust, not withdrawing principal (the income producing assets), which is what you'll see described at the link. That means one needs far far more in invested assets if one is to have the same income shown at the link.)

 

[JMR]

Red:
Yes.


Blue:
I should clarify:

• Do what one is supposed to do:
  • Nearly everyone who does will enjoy a decent lifestyle.
  • Some who do will earn enough to subject themselves to the RGI I proposed.
  • Some who do will not earn enough to subject themselves to the RGI I proposed.
• Don't do what one is supposed to do:
  • One may or may not enjoy a decent lifestyle.
  • It's unlikely that one will earn enough to be subject to the RGI I proposed.

I'm not at all suggesting that one's being subjected to the RGI corresponds to doing what one is supposed to do. I am saying that those who would be subject to the RGI are folks who've done what they're supposed to do and are having to pay a surtax as a consequence of having done so in such a way that they are highly compensated for their labors.


Teal:
You and, I think, one other member has mentioned something about folks with inherited wealth. Frankly, those people proportionally comprise such a small part of the population that they aren't even worth mentioning. One "back of the envelope" estimate puts the quantity of individuals having $60K/year or more (mind, $60K per year is just a bit above the median income) in inherited income in the NYC tri-state area at ~150K persons, that's out of some ~8.6 persons. Another researcher didn't estimate the population of "trustafarians" but he notes that 75% of rich households have two or more income earners.

Then there's also the matter that a most trust fund income recipients work to earn the lion's share of their income. Are there some people who are high income earners ($400K/year) on account of their trust fund and/or investments alone? Yes, there are, but there are so few folks in that category that I don't know why anyone even thinks about mentioning them.

(Click here to get a sense of why there are so few people. Keep in mind that we're talking about drawing income from investments/a trust, not withdrawing principal (the income producing assets), which is what you'll see described at the link. That means one needs far far more in invested assets if one is to have the same income shown at the link.)

Hey...I think you mixed up your blue with my pink, and skipped my tan. :lol: Not looking to argue here. Obviously different takes on this subject. I think your position is safe for now, considering the current makeup of the gov't.

Personally, I took a hit on the tax bill that is supposedly aimed at the middle class and saving me money...hahahha. I guess I could have tried harder and got to the good place in the tax scheme.

 

[Xelor]

Hey...I think you mixed up your blue with my pink, and skipped my tan. :lol: Not looking to argue here. Obviously different takes on this subject. I think your position is safe for now, considering the current makeup of the gov't.

Personally, I took a hit on the tax bill that is supposedly aimed at the middle class and saving me money...hahahha. I guess I could have tried harder and got to the good place in the tax scheme.

Blue:
Let's get one thing straight: nobody has ever proposed or implemented in the US, AFAIK, anything close to "my position" re: federal income taxes. The RGI I suggested is more a "bandaid" for the monstrosity that has been and remains the US tax code for as long as I've been aware of and paid federal income taxes. What I'd implement as a tax code wouldn't need such a thing because I believe in income taxes being levied for one and only one purpose: to fund the federal government.


Red:
I suppose that's something you may have been able to do; however, that you "took a hit" due to the provisions of the TCJA is far less (albeit not entirely) about you and what you've chosen to do and far more about how legislators/Trump amended the tax code.

 

[JMR]

Blue:
Let's get one thing straight: nobody has ever proposed or implemented in the US, AFAIK, anything close to "my position" re: federal income taxes. The RGI I suggested is more a "bandaid" for the monstrosity that has been and remains the US tax code for as long as I've been aware of and paid federal income taxes. What I'd implement as a tax code wouldn't need such a thing because I believe in income taxes being levied for one and only one purpose: to fund the federal government.


Red:
I suppose that's something you may have been able to do; however, that you "took a hit" due to the provisions of the TCJA is far less (albeit not entirely) about you and what you've chosen to do and far more about how legislators/Trump amended the tax code.

Actually we probably are in agreement. I do not think the current administration is going to raise your taxes, through any sort of progressive taxation, and I do believe mine were raised exclusively by the actions of the Trump gang, and not through any fault of mine.