The Rich and Taxes: A Debate

[Baron Von PWN]

So, I feel like your problem is that $250k is an absurdly low top bracket? It is. We could lower taxes on a whole lot of people by just making more tax brackets and cutting down on loopholes. I really hope tax reform is on the table, soon, because what we have now is often stupid regressive.

Yes, this is what I'm saying.

There's not a whole lot of difference between someone make $250K and someone making $150K and someone making $80K in terms of worldly possessions and overall wealth. There is a whole lot of difference between someone making $250K and someone making $2 million or $20 million or $200 million in terms of worldly possessions and overall wealth.

Here's thegreekdog's off the top of his head plan:

(1) Raise the top tax bracket from $250K to $1 million per married couple.
(2) Make the applicable tax rate based upon gross income before deductions (except for the deduction for state taxes paid) for those in the top tax bracket.
(3) Lower the tax rate to a flat 25% for those making under $1 million per married couple.
(4) Raise the tax rate to a flat 50% for those making over $1 million per married couple.

Perhaps attaching income tax brackets to inflation would be a good solution? So that both the lower and upper brackets move with the rate of inflation. Basically I'm suggesting tying the Tax brackets to buying power.

[Aradhus]

How is it not a bad thing that apparently most Americans are ignorant or lazy, or uninformed, or self centered, etc etc?

Notice that when I respond to the words and implications that you and others brought to the discussion I prefaced it with the word apparently. At no point did I make the claim that Americans en masse, are anything, you did. You, on the otherhand, are about as pathetic as they come. You can demagogue all day long that I hate the rich, it actually says nothing truthful about me, and a lot about you.

Yeah well You don't edit fast enough.

Huh? I don't edit my posts at all. You consistently edit your posts.

[thegreekdog]

So, I feel like your problem is that $250k is an absurdly low top bracket? It is. We could lower taxes on a whole lot of people by just making more tax brackets and cutting down on loopholes. I really hope tax reform is on the table, soon, because what we have now is often stupid regressive.

Yes, this is what I'm saying.

There's not a whole lot of difference between someone make $250K and someone making $150K and someone making $80K in terms of worldly possessions and overall wealth. There is a whole lot of difference between someone making $250K and someone making $2 million or $20 million or $200 million in terms of worldly possessions and overall wealth.

Here's thegreekdog's off the top of his head plan:

(1) Raise the top tax bracket from $250K to $1 million per married couple.
(2) Make the applicable tax rate based upon gross income before deductions (except for the deduction for state taxes paid) for those in the top tax bracket.
(3) Lower the tax rate to a flat 25% for those making under $1 million per married couple.
(4) Raise the tax rate to a flat 50% for those making over $1 million per married couple.

Perhaps attaching income tax brackets to inflation would be a good solution? So that both the lower and upper brackets move with the rate of inflation. Basically I'm suggesting tying the Tax brackets to buying power.

Agreed. There also cannot be a sunset provision.

[Aradhus]

If my income is higher than 95% of the rest of the population in which I am a part of. Within the framework of that society, how could I not be considered wealthy?

[Phatscotty]

I think we can draw a few conclusions now.

#1 - The Rich already pay much more than their fair share

#2 - It isn't a tax problem we have, it is a spending problem.

[spurgistan]

I think we can draw a few conclusions now.

#1 - The Rich already pay much more than their fair share

#2 - It isn't a tax problem we have, it is a spending problem.

See, I couldn't tell you thought that way. Thanks for elucidating those points in a thoughtful schematic.

[Phatscotty]

I think we can draw a few conclusions now.

#1 - The Rich already pay much more than their fair share

#2 - It isn't a tax problem we have, it is a spending problem.

See, I couldn't tell you thought that way. Thanks for elucidating those points in a thoughtful schematic.

The debate is over!

[Aradhus]

I think we can draw a few conclusions now.

#1 - The Rich already pay much more than their fair share

#2 - It isn't a tax problem we have, it is a spending problem.

Funny that that's the conclusion you come to considering that's the assumption you started with..

[Baron Von PWN]

I think we can draw a few conclusions now.

#1 - The Rich already pay much more than their fair share

#2 - It isn't a tax problem we have, it is a spending problem.

Your conclusions seem to contradict each other.

1. seems to say there is a tax problem by saying the rich pay too much.

2. says there is no tax problem.

Anyways I disagree with 1 and agree with 2.

[Phatscotty]

I think we can draw a few conclusions now.

#1 - The Rich already pay much more than their fair share

#2 - It isn't a tax problem we have, it is a spending problem.

Your conclusions seem to contradict each other.

1. seems to say there is a tax problem by saying the rich pay too much.

2. says there is no tax problem.

Anyways I disagree with 1 and agree with 2.

they are 2 separate issues. #1 deals with the line "The rich aren't paying their fair share.", which in itself indicates a demand for more tax revenues. #2 I.E. There is no need for more tax revenues

We simply need to cut spending