Are you favor of an amendment to the constitution that sets the max F, S and L tax rates at something acceptable like 35%? It is confiscatory to hand over half of your income to the government.
The good news is that most people pay far less. Which raises another question. Should income taxes be flat, the same rate for everyone, or are you in favor of a progressive tax rate structure? You earn more, you pay more.
I can tell you this, if you are sick of the “new normal” of anemic close to 2% economic growth all you have to do is reform the tax code so that close to 50% of one’s income doesn’t belong to the government.
Capital gains should not be taxed and the estate tax is the definition of criminal and confiscatory.
The estate tax also generates very little revenue for the government. The really rich set up foundations to avoid it. It does create work for lawyers and accountants.
One of the best arguments for a simpler tax code is that it would take some of the ‘bribery’, I mean lobbying, out of Washington. There are so many paid for loopholes for this industry or that interest group in the tax code and every one of them incentivizes campaign cash to flow to politicians. Everyone of those loopholes is bought and paid for.
Flat taxes would seem the most fair. Why should you pay a higher tax rate just because you have a higher income?
And I’m for everyone paying taxes if they are bringing in an income.
“Capital gains are exactly the thing which should be taxed.”
I agree with this. That is often what allows the truly wealthy to have low tax rates, while the high income working class (ie tax donkeys—most of the taxes, but none of the power) to get taxed at very high rates.
For example, GoNole, a working person who is taxed on income could pay far more than 46% on a portion of their income. If you take the tax rates of 39.6, add Obamacare tax of 0.9% and Medicare tax of 1.45%, that totals 41.95%, add state taxes and even local taxes in some places, it could exceed 50% of one’s income, easy.
I like a lower, but graduated tax rate. Higher rate on higher incomes, but no deductions, no way for the Congress or any special interests to buy votes, mess with the tax code for their donors or voters. Simple and clear.
Most people with wealth (in any amount) have families to whom they would like that money to go. I have a problem when we start acting like other people’s money belongs to the masses - if you want to leave your money to your kids, you should be able to. One of the axioms of life, from the beginning of time, has been to take care of your family.
We went from having 0 federal income tax before Woodrow Wilson, to having a 90% rate on our biggest producers only about 15-20 years later under FDR. Someone had to get the country back on its feet, and the rich largely paid for those huge government programs, to help get everyone back to work. Others pared back that punitive tax rate through the following decades, but it wasn’t until Reagan - while we were still fighting Communism, not coincidentally - that the highest tax bracket was brought back down to the fairly reasonable level it is at today. Nobody should have to pay more than 40% of their income to the federal government. We must remember and hold on to our ideal of economic freedom: the very liberty and the pursuit of happiness/property that TJ famously mentioned as two of our three guiding ideals in the Declaration of Independence.
I would prefer a flat tax system that begins above a certain income - everyone paying the same percentage. But what we have now is not terrible… as long as we don’t tax the rich so much that they lose interest in creating wealth. Not only would it keep would-be entrepreneurs and investors on the sideline, but it would be wrong in our capitalistic nation for us to overly punish production, risk and success.
Well, all that sounds dramatic, but the truth is that even when the top marginal rates were 35%, the average federal tax rate paid by the top 1% was less than 23%.
And how much were they donating to charity? They don’t get to just say, “No, I think I’ll shave off a third of what I owe.” They have to jump through certain hoops to pay less to the feds.
(to be clear, there are certain things i would not approve… but giving to charity is not one of them)
I always love the hypocrisy of the really rich who claim to love the estate tax and then do everything they can to avoid it, by creating foundations and other tax dodges. If they loved it so much, just let the feds and their state take 55%.
They probably say that to give lip service, for fear of being attacked by the mob – those who think they have a right to others’ money. I’d be doing everything I legally could to keep it in the family or to give it to select charities. The government here is entirely too covetous, IMO. How about a more reasonable death tax, like 33%?
I want to more accurately state something I said earlier, now that I have amped down the rhetoric a bit. hehe
It was Reagan and the Democrat-led Congress who lowered taxes to their (roughly) present rates on the upper class.
Warren Buffet is one, he invested in companies that avoid paying tax while keeps saying on how he doesn’t pay enough tax compare to his secretary.
And the politicians, I mean the ones that run for the top job.
I think giving to charity is going to go by the wayside, as time goes on. We used to contribute a much higher portion of our salary to charity, but as our taxes have gone significantly up, we now feel like the federal and local governments are our charity. The only difference is, we just don’t have any choice about our donation.
Capital gains should NOT be taxed, when one is below a certain “rich” income. That rental house or other investment is sometimes the only thing that will keep you afloat in retirement.