Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Hey Plunky:
- Thread starter Mr. dB
- Start date
mrplunkey
New member
There's no doubt we're past the optimal point right now for small businesses and Barry's so-called "rich".
Between income taxes and all the other fees and ancillary taxes, this group is easily paying 40%-45% of their income back to the government. Then if they sell the assets, they get to pay capital gains on top of that. And God forbid they die -- that's another 55% on top of everything else.
Here's a question for you: How much is enough? What's the maximum amount the government should get to confiscate of someone's annual income?
Between income taxes and all the other fees and ancillary taxes, this group is easily paying 40%-45% of their income back to the government. Then if they sell the assets, they get to pay capital gains on top of that. And God forbid they die -- that's another 55% on top of everything else.
Here's a question for you: How much is enough? What's the maximum amount the government should get to confiscate of someone's annual income?
I don't know what the "ideal rate" is either, but I do know that if you showed the present rate to a "rich person" of the 1950s-1970s, they'd think it was heaven.
Point being, no matter what we do for "you people" it's not enough.
I'm moving to Monte Carlo. Only tax is property tax.
calveless wonder
New member
I agree. It's fuckin absurd. Strategic tax sheltering and creative accounting is all people are left with.
mrplunkey
New member
Don't dodge my question. I answered yours, now you answer mine. What's the magic number? What percentage of a person's income should the government be allowed to confiscate?
I think a top marginal rate of 45% would be reasonable. Not counting state and local taxes.
Keep in mind that this does not mean that they are taxed at 45% of their whole paycheck, since the marginal rate doesn't work that way. If they're in the 45% bracket, they're probably paying more like an average of 40% of their whole income in federal tax.
With a 45% top rate, I'd probably either add a 7th bracket, or raise the break point for the top bracket from $375 thou to say $775 thou.
Keep in mind that this does not mean that they are taxed at 45% of their whole paycheck, since the marginal rate doesn't work that way. If they're in the 45% bracket, they're probably paying more like an average of 40% of their whole income in federal tax.
With a 45% top rate, I'd probably either add a 7th bracket, or raise the break point for the top bracket from $375 thou to say $775 thou.
No you didn't.
mrplunkey
New member
That looked like an answer to me. Do you want a specific number? For me it's a flat 10% with no deductions.
I'd rather see 5%, but anything in the 20%-25% range is simply slavery. The only real currency we have is time and confiscating that large of a portion of someone's time is immoral.
There's obviously a cost associated with maintaining society, but basing it as a % of someone's income is questionable enough. Graduating it such that the percentage increases as they make more is even worse.
In your earlier post, you mentioned 45%. How in the world can you possibly justify confiscating half of someone's time? Do you realize that's forcing someone to work the first six months of every year for someone else? There's no way one of these "rich" people are consuming that much of society's resources.
PICK3
New member
You do understand, don't you, that if, say, someone has an income of $2 million, and they're in the 35% tax bracket, that they're not paying 35% of the whole $2 million?
It's hard to take "you people" seriously when you float suggestions like a 10% or 5% flat tax. The US already has the lowest tax rates of any Western industrialized nation.
It's hard to take "you people" seriously when you float suggestions like a 10% or 5% flat tax. The US already has the lowest tax rates of any Western industrialized nation.
mrplunkey
New member
I understand perfectly how it works. That's how the brackets work now.
People have no business getting 35% of the first or second million or any million they make taken from them. They certainly aren't taking that much out of society.
It's easy to hide behind numbers, but the real issue is confiscating someone else's time. No one has a moral right to force someone to work for someone else 35% (much less 45%) of the time. Even 10% would be bad enough.
mrplunkey
New member
I've already posted that 10% (while undesirable) would be a livable amount of time the government could confiscate from citizens.
Any amount is unsavory, but some bare minimum costs need to be covered such as interstate highways, defending us from foreign invaders and the federal court system.
lol plunk u are always right bro i love it
mrplunkey
New member
Why does it not surprise me that you don't know most salary workers aren't eligible for overtime?
how does income tax NOT take up your time? Youre working for free so yea it takes your time.
Why does it not surprise me that you completely missed the point?
My entire joke depends on the fact that salary workers don't get overtime. Since your salary stays the same, the more you work, the less % of your time gets stolen by the government.
mrplunkey
New member
That's the problem with you libtards -- we can't tell when you are serious or when you are joking.
You remind me of my cat when he falls off the back of the sofa and gives me that "I meant to do that" look as he dusts himself off.
Can't even admit that you pwn3d yourself.
mrplunkey
New member
What's to dust off? You're trying to sustain a morally reprehensible position of stealing almost half of someone's time. It's just not a winnable argument.
I'm curious... what percentage of your working life did you spend in the top tax bracket?
