Really rich people are suddenly paying quite a bit more in taxes

Post by bhickey » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 4:11 AM UTC

addicted wrote: post #32

jmspring wrote: post #10

I'm not a Trump fan, and despite likely tax hits, his proposal of simplifying the tax code (as many have done before him), getting rid of the IRS (yes jobs lost, but really, I got a certified letter owing $0.51 and they were "too busy with this category to answer. click ") would be a positive thing. One short summary of his proposal -- http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/donald-trump-unveils-his-... I think a pure fla…

The flat tax is an incredibly pointless solution. The flat tax is opposed to a progressive tax, that says that instead of having a tax rate of 15% for 100% of your income, you have a tax rate of 0% for the first $10000 of your income, 10% of the next 20000, and so on. This is something that can be calculated mentally, looked up using IRS published tables, or calculated with no effort in a 10 line script or some of th…

Post by poikniok » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 4:18 AM UTC

voynich61 wrote: post #52

SlowComputer wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in California. I'm not "super rich" but we earn more than $1MM/year. For every additional dollar I earn, I only get to keep 47 cents of it, just counting _income_ taxes. In reality, only high earners pay taxes. And high-salaried people are getting screwed under Obama's war against the most productive citizens.

You earn $1MM per year. That means either a) you spend way too much or b) you actually would be, even at an 80% tax rate, 'super rich'. I assume you live in an area where housing is expensive? That's a luxury you're paying for. Of course people who already have large sums of wealth should be highly taxed as well. But you cannot tell me that the state taking 50% of the income of someone who makes a million a year is t…

Post by paulddraper » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 4:19 AM UTC

jsankey wrote: post #38

themartorana wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my favorite proposal to date. Sales tax applies equally to a pencil and a yacht. It also encourages savings at lower income levels.

That's the problem, too -- it applies equally to necessities and luxuries. Sales taxes are regressive because there is a certain amount of non-discretionary spending everyone has to make, regardless of income, just to live.

Post by voynich61 » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 4:24 AM UTC

poikniok wrote: post #53

voynich61 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You earn $1MM per year. That means either a) you spend way too much or b) you actually would be, even at an 80% tax rate, 'super rich'. I assume you live in an area where housing is expensive? That's a luxury you're paying for. Of course people who already have large sums of wealth should be highly taxed as well. But you cannot tell me that the state taking 50% of the income of someone who makes a million a year is t…

And you are a leech my friend, at least this man provides some service to the world, unlike you ...

Post by thadd » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 4:30 AM UTC

nitrogen wrote: post #14

SlowComputer wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in California. I'm not "super rich" but we earn more than $1MM/year. For every additional dollar I earn, I only get to keep 47 cents of it, just counting _income_ taxes. In reality, only high earners pay taxes. And high-salaried people are getting screwed under Obama's war against the most productive citizens.

For every additional dollar I earn, I only get to keep 47 cents of it, just counting _income_ taxes. If that were for all taxes, and the marginal rate was still better for lower incomes, I don't think that sounds so bad. Sure, we humans always want to keep more of our hard work for ourselves, but pragmatically speaking I'd be okay if my marginal rate at 7 figures (which I'm nowhere near) was 53% in exchange for the s…