5 ms·

Tax brackets. The government isn't entitled to 80% of what _any_ person earns, just a portion of what the _richest_ earn. Looking at GP's PDF for 1945: I

by lfowles 11y ago

Tax brackets. The government isn't entitled to 80% of what _any_ person earns, just a portion of what the _richest_ earn. Looking at GP's PDF for 1945: Income Take home $10,000 $7,060 $20,000 $12,140 $50,000 $21,680 $100,000 $29,680 $200,000 $37,180 $500,000 $55,180 Of course, this is for income, the people being taxed the highest rates will also have capital gains. Inspired by michaelchisari below, here's the same table in 2015 $$ Income Take home $132,576.67 $93,599.13 $265,153.33 $160,948.07 $662,883.33 $287,426.21 $1,325,766.67 $393,487.55 $2,651,533.33 $492,920.05 $6,628,833.33 $731,558.05 Whew, big numbers.

michaelchisari 11y ago
Fr the record, $55,180 in 1945 is the equivalent of $727,917.20 now.
- lfowles 11y ago
  Thanks! Added another table with modern day $$$. Big numbers!
liquidise 11y ago
> The government isn't entitled to 80% of what _any_ person earns, just a portion of what the _richest_ earn. Astounding double standards. Some numbers: if Ted makes $100,000/yr and Jim earns $1,000,000/yr and both are taxed at 30%, Jim is already paying $270,000 _more_ in taxes every year. Even at the same tax rate. Crank Jim's rate to 90% and we are looking at an $870,000/yr difference! Through what greed can we morally justify such insatiable lust for the money other's have earned? Furthermore, the capital gains argument is rife with unintended consequences. It, quite literally, disincentives the wealthiest folks from innovating and earning money through economically productive means. Instead, we send the message "if you insist on earning money by working like the rest of us, we are going to take 80% of it. But, if you want to rest on the laurels of your investments and be otherwise unproductive, by all means. The choice is yours." It terrifies me that this mindset is the majority opinion these days.
- lfowles 11y ago
  As the other reply says " Please learn how marginal tax brackets and rates work before talking about the issue where people can hear you. "
  - liquidise 11y ago
    I am aware how they work. I get that all earning up to a point are taxed under bracket x, and then after that are taxed at bracket y, and so forth. Unless you mean something else in which case i welcome you to explain where i have erred here. If that is in fact what you mean, it still changing absolutely nothing. The effective tax rate on folks in these upper brackets would still be enormous. But i guess piggybacking baseless comments is an easy way to avoid justifying these stances. I still have not seen someone say how they are justified in taking that much money from people while feeling ethical.
    - lfowles 11y ago
      My POV: Even with extraordinarily high taxes at the higher tiers of the brackets, is that not enough for the rich to live quite well? IFF funding government (for example, if an effective basic income program was in place) was better than everyone doing their own thing, then I see no big loss from flattening the take-home income curve. If they want to live extravagantly, income tax isn't going to be a big hurdle, which is why I mentioned capital gains as well.

by lfowles 11y ago

michaelchisari 11y ago

Fr the record, $55,180 in 1945 is the equivalent of $727,917.20 now.

lfowles 11y ago
Thanks! Added another table with modern day $$$. Big numbers!

liquidise 11y ago

> The government isn't entitled to 80% of what _any_ person earns, just a portion of what the _richest_ earn. Astounding double standards. Some numbers: if Ted makes $100,000/yr and Jim earns $1,000,000/yr and both are taxed at 30%, Jim is already paying $270,000 _more_ in taxes every year. Even at the same tax rate. Crank Jim's rate to 90% and we are looking at an $870,000/yr difference! Through what greed can we morally justify such insatiable lust for the money other's have earned? Furthermore, the capital gains argument is rife with unintended consequences. It, quite literally, disincentives the wealthiest folks from innovating and earning money through economically productive means. Instead, we send the message "if you insist on earning money by working like the rest of us, we are going to take 80% of it. But, if you want to rest on the laurels of your investments and be otherwise unproductive, by all means. The choice is yours." It terrifies me that this mindset is the majority opinion these days.

lfowles 11y ago
As the other reply says " Please learn how marginal tax brackets and rates work before talking about the issue where people can hear you. "
- liquidise 11y ago
  I am aware how they work. I get that all earning up to a point are taxed under bracket x, and then after that are taxed at bracket y, and so forth. Unless you mean something else in which case i welcome you to explain where i have erred here. If that is in fact what you mean, it still changing absolutely nothing. The effective tax rate on folks in these upper brackets would still be enormous. But i guess piggybacking baseless comments is an easy way to avoid justifying these stances. I still have not seen someone say how they are justified in taking that much money from people while feeling ethical.
  - lfowles 11y ago
    My POV: Even with extraordinarily high taxes at the higher tiers of the brackets, is that not enough for the rich to live quite well? IFF funding government (for example, if an effective basic income program was in place) was better than everyone doing their own thing, then I see no big loss from flattening the take-home income curve. If they want to live extravagantly, income tax isn't going to be a big hurdle, which is why I mentioned capital gains as well.