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

[TheReckoning]

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%

Who the hell makes anywhere near 1 billion in disposable income?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

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%

Who the hell makes anywhere near 1 billion in disposable income?

Do you know Bush W tax cuts on top 40/35 percent put us in. debt, Gore said he would create a lockbox for SSa for 40 percent income workers and low income workers get 15 if you make 50 K and up you should bear the brunt of the tax burden anyways SSA is for people 15/3o K just like Walmart store Manager makes 35 K

If you make 50 K or more you are more likely paying property taxes on a H not paying rent because a 2 bedroom apartments with kids is just as much as a mortgage on a H

[EastwoodS]

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.

Yeah buddy it doesn’t mean we all should be starving. Some of us climbed the latter and want to make a nice living one day.

[EastwoodS]

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.

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

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

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.

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.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

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.

Yeah buddy it doesn’t mean we all should be starving. Some of us climbed the latter and want to make a nice living one day.

People in countries with higher taxes and expansive social safety nets are famously "starving".  

Or is this satire? I can't fully tell these days sometimes.

[omar04]

Allow me to reassure you that once you hit $100k in annual income, you will have zero trouble surviving let alone thriving anywhere in this country. Once you hit $200k in annual income, you can do just about anything you want in life. Anything beyond that is pure greed. And in most cases, someone in this bracket would be supplemented by another income in their life - and even if not, they could be taxed lower by virtue of marriage.

This bracket is the most undertaxed group in America that does not pay anywhere near their fair share despite having a ludicrous amount of savings stockpiled.

You don't think rental prices will adjust to people having less money to fling around carelessly and wastefully?

Most people making 200k work incredibly hard and have done their due diligence. Go read something.

I don't work hard at all, and I didn't even inherit a sinecure job. Most of my day is spent reading and posting online. If you've been brought up to think of income as related to some sort of intrinsic merit, you might not realize how many people like me are out there.

Out of curiosity, what field do you work in?

I work in marketing in the tech industry.

Are you worried about your job security at the moment?

[Хahar 🤔]

Allow me to reassure you that once you hit $100k in annual income, you will have zero trouble surviving let alone thriving anywhere in this country. Once you hit $200k in annual income, you can do just about anything you want in life. Anything beyond that is pure greed. And in most cases, someone in this bracket would be supplemented by another income in their life - and even if not, they could be taxed lower by virtue of marriage.

This bracket is the most undertaxed group in America that does not pay anywhere near their fair share despite having a ludicrous amount of savings stockpiled.

You don't think rental prices will adjust to people having less money to fling around carelessly and wastefully?

Most people making 200k work incredibly hard and have done their due diligence. Go read something.

I don't work hard at all, and I didn't even inherit a sinecure job. Most of my day is spent reading and posting online. If you've been brought up to think of income as related to some sort of intrinsic merit, you might not realize how many people like me are out there.

Out of curiosity, what field do you work in?

I work in marketing in the tech industry.

Are you worried about your job security at the moment?

No, because my particular department is critical and the plan is to hire more people this year. In general, though, I would be fine with losing my job. I'd get at least half a year of back pay and benefits, and in that time I could do contracting work to get two jobs' worth of income while searching for a full-time job or I could see the world. Either way I wouldn't be worried about getting a new job when the time came for me to look for one.

[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.

[BG-NY]

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.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

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 that's exactly what bad policy looks like: tailoring the law to concern just a few people (<0.1% of the population earns over a million 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. 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

160,000 people making $1M a year or more sounds about right, but a reminder that they don't all make $1M exactly. Many earn a lot more.

Anyway, the $240 Billion number would be reduced by the economic growth generated by increased spending among the working/middle class, which would include increased corporate and sales tax revenues. Cut the Pentagon to cover any difference, I guess.

[jojoju1998]

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.

Yeah buddy it doesn’t mean we all should be starving. Some of us climbed the latter and want to make a nice living one day.

People in countries with higher taxes and expansive social safety nets are famously "starving".  

Or is this satire? I can't fully tell these days sometimes.

It should be noted that in many other countries, especially in Europe, all income levels are taxed quite heavily. And they even have VAT taxes, which we would call… regressive. But the point isn’t about regressiveness.


This debate we’re having in the thread just speaks to a problem regarding American Hyper Individualism. My money. My rights.

In Europe, everyone is taxed heavily. Everyone is treated the same, rich and poor. Everyone benefits.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

Yeah buddy it doesn’t mean we all should be starving. Some of us climbed the latter and want to make a nice living one day.

People in countries with higher taxes and expansive social safety nets are famously "starving".  

Or is this satire? I can't fully tell these days sometimes.

It should be noted that in many other countries, especially in Europe, all income levels are taxed quite heavily. And they even have VAT taxes, which we would call… regressive. But the point isn’t about regressiveness.


This debate we’re having in the thread just speaks to a problem regarding American Hyper Individualism. My money. My rights.

In Europe, everyone is taxed heavily. Everyone is treated the same, rich and poor. Everyone benefits.

And the US is doing far better economically than Europe . I would much rather live in an American style society than a European one

[jojoju1998]

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.

Yeah buddy it doesn’t mean we all should be starving. Some of us climbed the latter and want to make a nice living one day.

People in countries with higher taxes and expansive social safety nets are famously "starving".  

Or is this satire? I can't fully tell these days sometimes.

It should be noted that in many other countries, especially in Europe, all income levels are taxed quite heavily. And they even have VAT taxes, which we would call… regressive. But the point isn’t about regressiveness.


This debate we’re having in the thread just speaks to a problem regarding American Hyper Individualism. My money. My rights.

In Europe, everyone is taxed heavily. Everyone is treated the same, rich and poor. Everyone benefits.

And the US is doing far better economically than Europe . I would much rather live in an American style society than a European one

The top ten countries in terms of economic freedom according to the very conservative heritage foundation all have universal healthcare, tuition free university, and tons of social benefits.

https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

[It’s so Joever]

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.

Yeah buddy it doesn’t mean we all should be starving. Some of us climbed the latter and want to make a nice living one day.

People in countries with higher taxes and expansive social safety nets are famously "starving".  

Or is this satire? I can't fully tell these days sometimes.

It should be noted that in many other countries, especially in Europe, all income levels are taxed quite heavily. And they even have VAT taxes, which we would call… regressive. But the point isn’t about regressiveness.


This debate we’re having in the thread just speaks to a problem regarding American Hyper Individualism. My money. My rights.

In Europe, everyone is taxed heavily. Everyone is treated the same, rich and poor. Everyone benefits.

And the US is doing far better economically than Europe . I would much rather live in an American style society than a European one

I would rather live a healthier and longer life than live in an oversized McMansion and a “nice” car. Different values I guess.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

Yeah buddy it doesn’t mean we all should be starving. Some of us climbed the latter and want to make a nice living one day.

People in countries with higher taxes and expansive social safety nets are famously "starving".  

Or is this satire? I can't fully tell these days sometimes.

It should be noted that in many other countries, especially in Europe, all income levels are taxed quite heavily. And they even have VAT taxes, which we would call… regressive. But the point isn’t about regressiveness.


This debate we’re having in the thread just speaks to a problem regarding American Hyper Individualism. My money. My rights.

In Europe, everyone is taxed heavily. Everyone is treated the same, rich and poor. Everyone benefits.

And the US is doing far better economically than Europe . I would much rather live in an American style society than a European one

The top ten countries in terms of economic freedom according to the very conservative heritage foundation all have universal healthcare, tuition free university, and tons of social benefits.

https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

Europe is going through a massive energy crises right now , unemployment is higher in the vast majority of Europe then it is here , per capita income is lower etc .

Hell the UK’s Median household income is lower than Mississippi

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

Yeah buddy it doesn’t mean we all should be starving. Some of us climbed the latter and want to make a nice living one day.

People in countries with higher taxes and expansive social safety nets are famously "starving".  

Or is this satire? I can't fully tell these days sometimes.

It should be noted that in many other countries, especially in Europe, all income levels are taxed quite heavily. And they even have VAT taxes, which we would call… regressive. But the point isn’t about regressiveness.


This debate we’re having in the thread just speaks to a problem regarding American Hyper Individualism. My money. My rights.

In Europe, everyone is taxed heavily. Everyone is treated the same, rich and poor. Everyone benefits.

And the US is doing far better economically than Europe . I would much rather live in an American style society than a European one

I would rather live a healthier and longer life than live in an oversized McMansion and a “nice” car. Different values I guess.

I am a fan of American style suburbia

[It’s so Joever]

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.

Yeah buddy it doesn’t mean we all should be starving. Some of us climbed the latter and want to make a nice living one day.

People in countries with higher taxes and expansive social safety nets are famously "starving".  

Or is this satire? I can't fully tell these days sometimes.

It should be noted that in many other countries, especially in Europe, all income levels are taxed quite heavily. And they even have VAT taxes, which we would call… regressive. But the point isn’t about regressiveness.


This debate we’re having in the thread just speaks to a problem regarding American Hyper Individualism. My money. My rights.

In Europe, everyone is taxed heavily. Everyone is treated the same, rich and poor. Everyone benefits.

And the US is doing far better economically than Europe . I would much rather live in an American style society than a European one

I would rather live a healthier and longer life than live in an oversized McMansion and a “nice” car. Different values I guess.

I am a fan of American style suburbia

Cool. I am a fan of living.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

Yeah buddy it doesn’t mean we all should be starving. Some of us climbed the latter and want to make a nice living one day.

People in countries with higher taxes and expansive social safety nets are famously "starving".  

Or is this satire? I can't fully tell these days sometimes.

It should be noted that in many other countries, especially in Europe, all income levels are taxed quite heavily. And they even have VAT taxes, which we would call… regressive. But the point isn’t about regressiveness.


This debate we’re having in the thread just speaks to a problem regarding American Hyper Individualism. My money. My rights.

In Europe, everyone is taxed heavily. Everyone is treated the same, rich and poor. Everyone benefits.

And the US is doing far better economically than Europe . I would much rather live in an American style society than a European one

I would rather live a healthier and longer life than live in an oversized McMansion and a “nice” car. Different values I guess.

I am a fan of American style suburbia

Cool. I am a fan of living.

More people can own homes here thanks to American style suburbia and it actually has kept overall housing prices low compared to most of the western world .

National Housing prices have kept up with disposable income here unlike in Canada and much of Europe

[jojoju1998]

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.

Yeah buddy it doesn’t mean we all should be starving. Some of us climbed the latter and want to make a nice living one day.

People in countries with higher taxes and expansive social safety nets are famously "starving".  

Or is this satire? I can't fully tell these days sometimes.

It should be noted that in many other countries, especially in Europe, all income levels are taxed quite heavily. And they even have VAT taxes, which we would call… regressive. But the point isn’t about regressiveness.


This debate we’re having in the thread just speaks to a problem regarding American Hyper Individualism. My money. My rights.

In Europe, everyone is taxed heavily. Everyone is treated the same, rich and poor. Everyone benefits.

And the US is doing far better economically than Europe . I would much rather live in an American style society than a European one

I would rather live a healthier and longer life than live in an oversized McMansion and a “nice” car. Different values I guess.

I am a fan of American style suburbia

Cool. I am a fan of living.

More people can own homes here thanks to American style suburbia and it actually has kept overall housing prices low compared to most of the western world .

National Housing prices have kept up with disposable income here unlike in Canada and much of Europe

Impossible to compare the US situation to Canada for example, when it comes to housing policy.


Huge swaths of land in Canada is virtually unlivable. Literally the only places that you can " live " in, in Canada are the big cities like Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, so there's obviously going to be higher prices pro forma. A US housing policy won't change things much.



Much of Europe is built out. These cities like Paris, Berlin, have been established for thousands of years  literally, and they don't have any more space to build even if they wanted to, so of course, housing is going to be more expensive than Baton Rouge Lousiana.

[BG-NY]

Taxing the middle class doesn’t work. Taxing remittances, cutting military spending/foreign aid, and adding a BAT would work.

[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.

[Kleine Scheiße]

depends on where that income is coming from among other things

if you can't thrive on $100k a year where you live, you should simply grow up and move somewhere you can live within your means like an adult

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Biden already said no one making under 400K gonna payore but that's to sure up SSA which is going broke in 9 yrs to pass Reparations we are gonna tax people more making over 150K it's common sense but none of us are making that type of money most users make less than 50K and blue avatars are so concerned over taxes and they are making less than 50K especially Old School he's not making more than 50K why is he so worried Red avatars arent

[EastwoodS]

Considering that housing prices are going up, interest rates are climbing, wages are not going up, how could anyone suggest raising taxes on anyone making under 500k?
In many places, in this country, $1,000,000 will get you an average suburban style house (not a mansion anymore). In order to afford a house like that, you need to earn about 200k gross with a 250k down payment. Most people need to save 2,000-4,000 dollars over 5-10 years (on top of their rent, food, and utilities that's VERY hard). Most people may have a lot of money "left over" on that income, but a lot of people especially, young people are trying to save up their money to have that American dream that is increasingly becoming harder to get.
so communists, are you going to reduce the price of single family houses if you tax us to death or what? if not, shut your mouth. I do not want to hear it.