This message was self-deleted by its author

[PlanetaryOrbit]

This message was self-deleted by its author (PlanetaryOrbit) on Fri Nov 8, 2013, 08:00 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[JaneyVee]

1. Higher. One can blow a million dollars in a crazy summer.

Instead, how about a guaranteed income for all.

[Rstrstx]

5. True, you know a million dollars ain't what it used to be

All I can see it doing is cause a mass exodus of companies out of the US. Now people who make over a million should definitely be taxed more, just not at 100%.

However I am all in favor of an exit tax for people and/or companies that renounce their citizenship or relocate and take their moolah with them. Not fair to make all your money on the back of the US only to flee to some country where the only taxes you'd have to pay are on that cozy little $12,000,000 house on the hill. Same if someone sells their stock before bailing, tax the crap out of them. Make 'em wait at least 5 years.

But I'm sure the Rs would come up with some way of defending the indefensible, that's their specialty.

[socialist_n_TN]

10. You know, you're right. So I propose the Trotskyist model..........

Make ALL of the countries in the world with the same tax rate. At least all of the developed countries. And of course before they leave, their assets are frozen and expropriated for the workers.

[cali]

2. No. Just tax anything above a million at 90%

that's a far better approach for a host of reasons.

[MindMover]

3. And my bottle of water will cost .... ??????????

[Pretzel_Warrior]

4. that sounds like a really bad idea

[JHB]

6. 55 minus 10

Below is an image of the US Federal income tax rates for 1955 adjusted for inflation.

Lop 10% off the rate in each bracket: 20% becomes 10%, 22% becomes 12%, all the way up.

The biggest reason for directly basing it off the 50s tax rates (and lower than what was in effect then) is to fire a shot across the bow of everyone these days throwing around the term "socialist" for policies that used to be considered "right wing".

[sabbat hunter]

9. adjust those for inflation

and maybe make the top rate what it was before Reagan took office. That would work for me. 90% take is a bit too much, except under special circumstances.

[JHB]

15. Those ARE adjusted for inflation. In the acutal 1955 numbers...

...the top rate kicked in at $400,000 for a married couple filing jointly, $200K for single, and $300K for the "head of household" category. And it wouldn't be 90%, it would be 81 at the top levels, only 11 % above the 1980 top rate, which kicked in at a much lower level.

And I have no problem with negotiating and dickering over what better rates would be. There's nothing inherently correct about these ones. But neither is it the sort of "airy-fairy ivory-tower liberal ideology" RWers would like to claim, it's the policy that we had in this country for decades, during a time of prosperity, operating as one of the tools that let the prosperity extend widely and not just all shoot to the top.

I don't propose this as a solution, but I do propose it as a starting point.

[pangaia]

7. " air traffic controllers.... could still go on earning hundreds of thousands of dollars'

Air traffic controllers? Maybe at the highest end, approach control sectors in the busier class B air space, tower at JFK, ORD, LAX, SFO, DFW, etc... but other than that, I would be surprised. Starting salaries are pretty low..

[MannyGoldstein]

8. The top tax rate under Eisenhower was 91%

Kind of the same idea.

It worked great. Everyone did well.

[truebluegreen]

11. That was the top marginal rate

applicable to income over the (rough equivalent) of 3 million a year.

But yes, it worked very well.

[Warren DeMontague]

12. I think the limit should be lower.

It should be exactly what you make, but definitely higher than what I do.

[Throd]

13. That is a really fucking horrible idea.

[CK_John]

14. You haven't read the constitution lately and how would that be possible.Process is hard.

[bluestate10]

16. Your proposal is completely wrong. A person should be allowed to earn whatever

he or she wants to earn as long as the earning is done ethically and all of the earnings are taxed. What should change is the tax code. High earners should pay Medicare and Social Security taxes on a percentage of ALL their earnings, those people also should pay more income taxes that reflect their high earnings.

[spanone]

17. silly.

[Swede Atlanta]

18. Absolutely not.......

I am not about limiting the amount of money an individual can earn in a year. Innovation, investment, etc. needs to be rewarded and in our society that is recognized in the form of money earned.

That said, we can have increasingly progressive taxes which take into account that (a) we are a society where we have a moral obligation to the society in general and (b) we are not "self-made", i.e. whether one attends a private school or not, our society creates an environment in which success may be achieved from roads, educated workforce, market economy, legal protections, etc.

So taxing income at a much higher level about a certain amount - I would suggest anything over $5M, and/or providing benefits in the form of tax deductions for contributions to programs that benefit society (non-religious) such as schools, research institutions, etc. is the right way for those high earners to share with the society that helps make their wealth possible, a reasonable portion of their income.