Tax the rich at 70%

TLK Valentine said:

Well, at $88.5 mil/year, I'm sure he can afford someone talented at hiding assets from taxation.

It would appear, however, that he's decided on a more ethical use for his money...

Welcome to the LeBron James Family Foundation!

Now, it's certainly possible that this is a tax dodge, but it seems unlikely...

Click to expand...

Well, many such "tax dodges" are created to force people to do good.

But sometimes a person who wants to do good anyway will do it anyway.

RDKirk said:

Fortunately the US has plenty of poor people who are willing to defend the rich.

Click to expand...

Fair is fair. We should have a flat tax, if we taxed income at all. Consumption tax idea is really growing on me though, but I understand it would have a negative impact on the economy short term.

hislegacy said:

OK all you tax experts -

show what their net is after Federal, State and local taxes on 10,000,000 and then please explain why they would not simply move.

Please cite sources

Click to expand...

hislegacy said:

Bueller? Anyone?

Click to expand...

RocksInMyHead said:

View attachment 256088

The 70% tax only kicks off on income OVER the $10,000,000 threshold. That's how marginal tax rates work. If our hypothetical person made $10,000,100 in a world with a 70% marginal tax rate for income over $10,000,000, he would pay around $5,148,620 in taxes.

To address the concerns about people leaving the country because of the tax, those are largely unfounded. If you look at the people making that much money, they aren't really in a position to go elsewhere. They're professional athletes in the most lucrative market for their sports (baseball and football), A-List actors in Hollywood, and Fortune 500 CEOs. In other words, employees. They don't get to decide where they work. They are, of course, free to retire, but there's always going to be someone else willing to step up into that position and take that salary.

Click to expand...

To quote :

hislegacy said:

Bueller? Anyone?

Click to expand...

Does OP have a better understanding of what a 70% tax actually looks like?

98cwitr said:

Fair is fair. We should have a flat tax, if we taxed income at all. Consumption tax idea is really growing on me though, but I understand it would have a negative impact on the economy short term.

Click to expand...

How is that fair? The rich consume far more than the poor than a flat rate would cover. Like it or not being wealthy means that one must protect that wealth somehow and that consumes resources. Ideally there would be a "wealth tax" where everyone would be taxed a flat rate based not upon what they earned but according to what they owned. Think of it as a property tax that went beyond mere property. Then one might be able to argue for a flat rate if it was combined with a consumption tax. Of course this would require one to have open books for the government to look at. I am not sure if people would like that loss of privacy.

One problem is that too many people have a false idea of what they own. Like it or not rights do come from the government. That is shown by the fact that the government has to define and defend those rights. One could claim a "natural right" but those claims simply do not fly in a court of law. You do not "own" your property in the sense that you paid for it and it is yours for example. You have to pay taxes on it, you are limited as to what you can do with it. Ownership of many objects is limited by rules and regulations. The same applies to "my money".

98cwitr said:

Woe to you who are rich, for the government shall tax you unfairly and unequally.

Click to expand...

I fall within the top 5% of households nationwide. In what way is how I am taxed unfair?

Belk said:

I fall within the top 5% of households nationwide. In what way is how I am taxed unfair?

Click to expand...

As did my wife and I before the baby came. It really doesn't matter where you fall; as I'm speaking on fairness principle. It is not fair for you to have to pay a higher rate where someone who makes $10k less than you pays both a lesser rate AND also, even at the same rate pays a lesser amount.

Why do you want to pay more taxes when they just make politicians and corporations richer?

98cwitr said:

Fair is fair. We should have a flat tax, if we taxed income at all. Consumption tax idea is really growing on me though, but I understand it would have a negative impact on the economy short term.

Click to expand...

Consumption taxes are regressive. Flat taxes are neither progressive nor regressive, but given how many taxes, fees, and other expensive are regressive, moving to a flat tax would make our current system more regressive than it is now.

Why would you want to shift the tax burden towards the poor?

98cwitr said:

As did my wife and I before the baby came. It really doesn't matter where you fall; as I'm speaking on fairness principle. It is not fair for you to have to pay a higher rate where someone who makes $10k less than you pays both a lesser rate AND also, even at the same rate pays a lesser amount.

Click to expand...

Since I only pay the higher rate on the extra 10K I don't see it as unfair. What I don't see as fair are all the loopholes. I think if we all pay we should pay the same. I do agree with the child tax credit though. I think society should be supporting families (even though I have no children).

98cwitr said:

Why do you want to pay more taxes when they just make politicians and corporations richer?

Click to expand...

I don't. I want to pay more taxes to support society. I wan't to pay more taxes so we can improve our education. I want to pay more taxes so no one else has to watch their elderly mother die from cancer because she lacks the funds to get good treatment. I want us, as a society, to take care of our own.

98cwitr said:

It is not fair for you to have to pay a higher rate where someone who makes $10k less than you pays both a lesser rate AND also, even at the same rate pays a lesser amount.

Click to expand...

If someone makes $38,700 and I make $48,700, I pay the exact same amount of tax ($4453.50 federal) on $38,700 as the person who makes $38,700. I only pay more tax ($2200 federal) on the additional $10,000 that I make on top of that. How is that unfair? Overall, my tax rate is slightly higher (~2%), but I can also afford to pay more because I have more money.

RocksInMyHead said:

If someone makes $38,700 and I make $48,700, I pay the exact same amount of tax ($4453.50 federal) on $38,700 as the person who makes $38,700. I only pay more tax ($2200 federal) on the additional $10,000 that I make on top of that. How is that unfair? Overall, my tax rate is slightly higher (~2%), but I can also afford to pay more because I have more money.

Click to expand...

Does that extra 2% go to fund social programs or fund the military industrial complex? If both, would it not be better for you to keep that 2% and donate it to a charity that helps those in need (assuming you would rather fund charities that help the poor over the military budget)?

Belk said:

Since I only pay the higher rate on the extra 10K I don't see it as unfair. What I don't see as fair are all the loopholes. I think if we all pay we should pay the same. I do agree with the child tax credit though. I think society should be supporting families (even though I have no children).

Click to expand...

I don't think you need to support my children if I'm not needing you to.

I don't. I want to pay more taxes to support society. I wan't to pay more taxes so we can improve our education. I want to pay more taxes so no one else has to watch their elderly mother die from cancer because she lacks the funds to get good treatment. I want us, as a society, to take care of our own.

Click to expand...

Do you see (or think) that the government is the most efficient condeunt to support society? Does giving teachers more money cause them to teach better? I think we do need to take care of each other as well. I don't think using politicians is a great way to do that though. I think it fosters bipartisan greed and those programs are easily usurped, whereas in the charity and religious sectors they are able to both help financially as well as foster relationships with the community.

98cwitr said:

Does that extra 2% go to fund social programs or fund the military industrial complex? If both, would it not be better for you to keep that 2% and donate it to a charity that helps those in need (assuming you would rather fund charities that help the poor over the military budget)?

Click to expand...

Charity can never take the place of social programs on a national scale. People donate to causes that they feel passionate about, not according to needs. You would need some sort of umbrella agency to oversee the distribution of charitable contributions according to where they're needed - at which point, you're no better off than running it through the government. It also defeats one of the attractions of charity, which is that you can choose exactly where your money goes.

If you don't like where your tax money goes, then work to elect politicians who share your views.

98cwitr said:

Do you see (or think) that the government is the most efficient condeunt to support society?

Click to expand...

It can be, yes.

Does giving teachers more money cause them to teach better?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Higher Pay Leads to Smarter Teachers, Global Study Says

Salary incentives and teacher quality: The effect of a district-level salary increase on teacher recruitment | Center for Education Policy Analysis

Can Increasing Teacher Pay Improve Teacher Quality? – Green & Write

Think about the flip side - would paying you less make you do your job better?

I think we do need to take care of each other as well. I don't think using politicians is a great way to do that though. I think it fosters bipartisan greed and those programs are easily usurped, whereas in the charity and religious sectors they are able to both help financially as well as foster relationships with the community.

Click to expand...

Why can't charity and religious programs be manipulated and abused? And given the significantly smaller scale on which charities and religious groups typically operate, leaning more heavily on them will result in a bunch of redundant administrative overhead.

98cwitr said:

I don't think you need to support my children if I'm not needing you to.

Click to expand...

Indeed, you seem to have enough. There are plenty of families out there who do not though.

98cwitr said:

Do you see (or think) that the government is the most efficient condeunt to support society?

Click to expand...

The best we have found so far. Unless you have a better example?

98cwitr said:

Does giving teachers more money cause them to teach better?

Click to expand...

In a very real sense, yes. Teaching requires a lot of investment. If we had teachers making a better salary we would have more people willing to invest the time to become teachers. We would also get better and brighter applicants.

98cwitr said:

I think we do need to take care of each other as well. I don't think using politicians is a great way to do that though. I think it fosters bipartisan greed and those programs are easily usurped, whereas in the charity and religious sectors they are able to both help financially as well as foster relationships with the community.

Click to expand...

I think that humans are human no matter what their profession. I think government is better because we have a constitution that allows us to shine a light into the inner workings of government to weed out corruption. That seems much more difficult with a private company.