How much should individuals making $100k-$250k pay in taxes?

[Epaminondas]

30% below 100k, 50% above 100k, 66% above 200k, like in most developed countries.

I know folks who live in SF at 100k/yr and since the SALT deduction was reduced their total tax burden (state, local, federal) is well over 30%. Since rent in SF can be well over $3,000 per month, I would assume it would be really hard to save money up, since food and other such things take up  much of the remainder.

Did the maths, 100k per year, 30% taxes and rent at $3000 (already higher than necessary) leaves $2,800 at the end of the month for food, fuel and drugs.

Is that your idea of struggling to make ends meet?

[Epaminondas]

what the f-. you are not taking into account state and federal taxes, mandatory 401k, health insurance, car insurance, student loan payments, etc, etc. that $2800 that you think everyone just magically has laying around after paying the minimum 30% tax rate is so naïve. how old are you? that $2800 is more like $1000 once even more taxes are payed off. in CA it's probably even less.

It is ironic that the strategy of starving public services of budget via low taxes you're advocating would only worsen the visceral fear you express of earning "only" $2800 a month left after taxes.

Anyway, here's my personal proposal:
$0 - $12,500 = 5.0%
$12,500-$40,000 = 7.5%
$40,000-$90,000 = 15.0%
$90,000-$170,000 = 20.0%
$170,000-$400,000 = 25.0%
$400,000-$1,000,000 = 31.5%
$1,000,000-$2,500,000 = 45.5%
$2,500,000-$10,000,000 = 58.5%
$10,000,000-$100,000,000 = 73.5%
$100,000,000-$1,000,000,000 = 81.5%
$1,000,000,000+ = 92.5%

Just plain weird. Why are you devoting 6 tax brackets to the top percentile of earners, and 5 to the bottom 99%?
Since the median income in the US is 70k per household, that places median Americans squarely in your second-lowest "charity" bracket.

Anything above $200,000 a year (top decile) must be heavily taxed to create any quality of public service.

[Epaminondas]

LOL. Why is taxing people who can afford it a bad thing? Also, why is the second lowest bracket a 'charity' bracket? Those are hard-working Americans who I simply believe should get a tax break.

Because it's bad policy: tailoring the law to concern just a few people (<0.1% of the population earns > $1M a year), who then have outsize say in public discourse due to having their own special rules.

"Those are hard working Americans": we agree completely, but with your boundaries, you're talking about two thirds of all workers in your bottom 2 brackets out of 11. Close the Forbes list and work out how this tax rate could possibly keep public services funded.

80% tax on 160,000 people earning income of 1M a year = $1.2B
5% tax cut on 96M people earning income of $50k = -$240B

Good thing people like you will never be anywhere near the tax codes.

Given that tax codes are written at the top of state legislatures, it's a safe bet that nobody posting on this forum will ever get anywhere near the tax codes. Luckily, we have politicians from the wealthiest states to do it for us.

[Epaminondas]

80% tax on 160,000 people earning income of 1M a year = $1.2B
5% tax cut on 96M people earning income of $50k = -$240B

Does this math check out?

1M/50k = 20
80%/5% = 16
96M/160k = 600
20*16 = 320

1.2B vs 240B seems a bit stark.

Anyhow if this is close to true, shows why balancing the budget and ceasing deficit spending is a fool’s errand. Need to either cut services or tax the working/middle class.

The second value is correct but the first is dead wrong.
Calculated correctly, we get a $240B shortfall from the middle class tax cut and a $128B windfall for the hyper-rich tax.

But this is still deceptive since tax rates are marginal and this would considerably lower the effective tax rate for the yearly millionnaires. Depending on the distribution of these wealthy people and the lower brackets, possibly to no more than 60%.

The final revenue for the über-rich tax would probably be nore more than $80B, a third of the small tax rebate on the wider population.

Still far from sufficient. There's no alternative to taxing everyone.