What tax rate would you advocate?

I'll give a few income levels. Assume the typical family of four. Income given is the total family income for the year. What income tax rate would you advocate for each income if you ran the government?

A. $25,000 and below

B. $50,000

C. $100,000

D. $250,000

E. $500,000 and above

A. $25,000 and below 0%

B. $50,000 5%

C. $100,000 7.5%

D. $250,000 10%

E. $500,000 and above 25%

And the big hike would take place there.

What are we paying now, by the way? I keep forgetting (blocking it out of my mind). Thanks

and a COLA adjustment based on zip code.

$100,000 in Bay Area just doesn't go as far as $100,000 in Whetstone, AZ.

Now need to figure out cap gains (maybe should be the same as income)... and then see if this is revenue neutral or net positive for the government (need to pay down the national debt so we have to run surpluses for a few decades).

income in tax to the government. I think it should be fair to ALL people, from the poorest to the wealthiest.

50% seems fair to me, because at that rate we're arguing between 12 Bentleys and 4 Lear jets to 10 Bentleys and 3 Lear jets (all for personal use of course).

I think the first place we have to look is closing corporate loopholes and tax shelters. The extremely rich aren't reinvesting their money into their businesses as the right tries to argue, they merely shelter it and use it for themselves under the guise of "reinvesting in my business".

That rate is actually lower than the one that built the great American middle class throughout the middle of the 20th century.

I mean, if a person has to pay 50% on their income over $2 mil, it's not like they're going to have to skip meals, or vacations, or anything, really.

And keep in mind that these are MARGINAL rates, so a person who makes 3 mil will pay much less than 50% on his overall income.

unless you were considering gross income

You have enough money to f*** with? Your problem if you lose it.

First off, flat rate with no deductions.

$0-$25,00 Tax liability=0%

$25,000-$50,000 Tax liability=5%

$50,000-$100,000 Tax liability=10%

$100,000-$250,000 Tax liability=15%

$250,000-$500,000 Tax liability=25%

$500,000 and up Tax liability=40%

JMHO.

Second, roll the payroll tax back to the pay as you go level it was supposed to be before Reagan used it as a back door tax increase on the poorest and on small business.

Next, reinstitute the progressive income tax. Tie it to the median wage, something to be reassessed yearly in stable times, quarterly in unstable times. Have the top rate hit people with incomes above two million dollars a year at a confiscatory 99% until the GOP debt is paid down to a reasonable level. Allow income averaging over a period of ten years for people with potentially short careers like sports figures. Set aside some of the government windfall to repair this country's neglected infrastructure, giving workers good jobs at good pay, spurring demand for goods and services.

Next, reinstitute tariffs to ensure fair trade practices by countries we now rely on for all the things we used to make. That will increase prices, but it will also give some breathing room for domestic industry to restart, something that has to happen for the long term health and security of this country.

Expand Medicare to cover us all with a progressive tax structure. Once industries are relieved both of onerous OASDI matching and for profit health insurance costs, they will find it more economical to operate here and save themselves the constantly inflating shipping costs from the far east.

On edit: Put the Pentagon on a DIET.

Wow. So a guy who earns $2 million would end up taking home $20k? You're harsh!

If his first paycheck was for a couple of days, he'd likely pay 0.

The 99% only kicks in for all money ABOVE $2million a year. Besides, we'll still have deductions galore for these folks. We're not leaving them a poverty income, far from it.

Face it, nobody's worth tens of millions of dollars a year, and some of the biggest pigs are raking in hundreds of millions while their workers struggle working multiple jobs just to keep a roof over their heads.

The $2million a year executive/doctor/law partner would likely see a take home income into the six figures. If he's greedy, he's just going to be playing a numbers game with all the other greedy people. We'd see them at cocktail parties, bragging about how much they paid in taxes, essentially telling the world how much they're worth to it.

A. $25,000 and below - Between 0 and 0.5% (Odd that I put it at .5 but it helps defray the cost of healthcare if implemented)

B. $50,000 - 5%-7.5%

C. $100,000 - 7.5% - 9%

D. $250,000 - 12%

E. $500,000 and above - 25%

F. 501,000 - 1,000,000 - 35%

G. 1,001,000 - 2,000,000 - 45%

H, 2,001,000 and Above - 50% or more, adjusted on total

Flat tax, without kids, single:

A. $25,000 and below (0%)

B. $50,000 (5%)

C. $100,000 (20%)

D. $250,000 (35%)

E. $500,000 and above (40-85%)

A 3%
B 7%
C 15%
D 25%
E 40%

A. 0%

B. 5%

C. 10%

D. 25%

E. 50%

they literally don't have the money to pay it
after they pay food, housing, transportation, and utilities

The first $14,000 in 2007 for a family of four would be exempt from taxes.

Then anything remaining is taxed. If remaining is $40,000 the portion up to $15,650 is taxed at 10% and the remaining at 15%. (This would be a family with income of $54,000 with no other exemptions or deductions.) The overall tax rate for this family would be 9.6%. This does not include whether a family uses the standard or itemized deduction.

10% Not over $15,650

15% 15,650 - 63,700

25% 63,700 - 128,500

28% 128,500 - 195,850

33% 195,850 - 349,700

35% Over $349,700

I was just coming up with an exercise to get peoples' feelings on how much taxation they want. No need to get all wonky on me with details. :)

I've had people try to tell me that if one's income is in a specific tax bracket that all of their income is taxed at that rate.

Like people who always say they wouldn't want a raise because it would put them in a higher tax bracket. Yeah, but only on that portion of income above the dividing line, not your whole income!

Our schools do a lousy job teaching economics and taxes.

have a clue about this concept, even though it is fairly simple. Pathetic.

I would totally restructure it. This is individual income, including capital gains. Thus, a two-income family ($50,000 each) would pay less than a family with one making $100,000.
No deductions, no write-offs. The 0% rate allows for a very comfortable standard of living. Above that, the excess starts.

A. $40,000 and below -- 0%

B. $40,001 - 50,000 -- 5%

C. $50,001 - 60,000 -- 10%

D. $60,001 - 70,000 -- 20%

E. $70,001 - 80,000 -- 30%

F. $80,001 - 90,000 -- 40%

G. $90,001 - 100,000 -- 50%

H. $100,101 - 110,000 -- 60%

I. $110,101 - 120,000 -- 70%

J. $120,001 - 130,000 -- 80%

K. $130,001 - 140,000 -- 90%

L. $140,001 ---> -- 99%

I know you want progressive income tax, but look at the numbers you've given. In your example, the guy making $60k a year would pay 20%, leaving him with take-home pay of $48k. The guy making $120k pays 80%, leaving him with take-home pay of $24k -- half what the first guy takes home! And the guy making $130K a year would only take home $13k.

Something doesn't add up. Are the folks who earn more supposed to have a LOWER standard of living than the people who make less?

for instance the 90% tax would only be on that part of one's income between 130-140 thousand, and everyone would get the first 40K tax-free.

that being said- those tax rates on those levels of income are just comical- nobody could afford to live/eat in a major city, if ANY city.

serving and catering to the affluent is a big part of the economy- and many of the people who do would be out of luck.

those kinds of rates on that level of income would be disastrous to the economy.

I would totally restructure it. This is individual income, including capital gains. Thus, a two-income family ($50,000 each) would pay less than a family with one making $100,000.
No deductions, no write-offs. The 0% rate allows for a very comfortable standard of living. Above that, the excess starts.

Low High Marginal Rate Tax Effective Rate
$0 $40,000 0.00% $0 0.00%
$40,001 $50,000 5.00% $500 1.00%
$50,001 $60,000 10.00% $1,500 2.50%
$60,001 $70,000 20.00% $3,500 5.00%
$70,001 $80,000 30.00% $6,500 8.13%
$80,001 $90,000 40.00% $10,500 11.67%
$90,001 $100,000 50.00% $15,500 15.50%
$100,001 $110,000 60.00% $21,500 19.55%
$110,001 $120,000 70.00% $28,500 23.75%
$120,001 $130,000 80.00% $36,500 28.08%
$130,001 $140,000 90.00% $45,500 32.50%
$140,001 -----> 99.00%

Looks a lot less oppressive, doesn't it? The highest rates only really hit over 100k. Bill Gates would take home ONLY $1,000,000 or the 100 million he makes over the $140,001.

Other benefits - if there is less financial incentive to over-work to make obscene amounts of money, people might spend time with family, pursue other constructive, beneficial endeavors, etc.

But those tax rates are a bit extreme. $40K may be a comfotable income in Kansas, but it won't even buy a house in Silicon Valley or NYC environs.

99% on all income over 140K? There really would be no incentive to invest, build businesses, anything.

This kind of plan would get ZERO support even within the democratic party, much less pass with bipartisan support.

and those rates would apply to ALL income- wages and capital gains.

there would also be a 50% bracket above $7million.

Round numbers.

A. $25,000 and below - 0%

B. $25,000-$50,000 - 5%

C. $50,000-$100,000 -15%

D. $100,000-$250,000 - 25%

E. $250,000-$500,000 - 30%

F. $500,000 and above - 40%

G. $2 mil + - 50%


Not to mention a 50% tax on estates worth over $5 mil.