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
Similar threads
