3 ms·
As another commenter pointed out, to be in the top 20% a household only needs to earn $112k a year. That's like 2 teachers getting married, or 2 nurses, or 2 mi
by Para2016 9y ago
As another commenter pointed out, to be in the top 20% a household only needs to earn $112k a year. That's like 2 teachers getting married, or 2 nurses, or 2 mid level office workers/government workers.
And this college fund implies there are kids involved. So a household with $112k/year and kids should be taxed heavily as possible because they didn't earn it? If they live in a high cost area or have any debt/medical problems they'll be in even more trouble.
It sounds to me like you want to tax and burden families such as that to move them back down into the income strata where there is uncertainty for housing/medicine/food/education/transportation. Why don't you like the idea of people working and earning an income in order to remove those uncertainties? That's all I want to do with my life. Is that such a terrible desire that when I finally get there I should have it taken away? By the way, I'm a recent medical graduate with 250k in debt from a lower-middle class family. If all goes well I'll be one of those evil 20% people after residency.
- KozmoNau7 9y agoNo, I simply want there to be progressive taxation with a relatively high marginal tax rate, and for people to actually pay the taxes they owe, instead of hiding them in tax shelters. My income is comfortably in the region where I have to pay the marginal tax rate in my country (56%), and I pay it happily because I know it pays for valuable services and welfare for everyone.