3 ms·

My parents (both physicians) both readily admit they are rich. They also believe the highest tax bracket (their tax bracket) should be raised considerably.

grandalf 16y ago
How's 80%?
- xenophanes 16y ago
  How's 110%? They should give their best effort, yeah?
- enjo 16y ago
  See, here's the issue isn't it? How much is enough? I do think the tea-partiers have a point. There most definitely is a level of taxation that greatly reduces people willingness to take risks in the hopes of future wealth. Is it 40%? 50%? 90%? I don't know. I'm just pretty damn sure it's not what we're taxing the wealthy at now. Disclaimer: I would be affected by these tax hikes.
- Locke1689 16y ago
  I don't know, but that seems like the kind of snarky one-liner that doesn't add anything to the discussion. Because davidw said it so well, I'll just inline quote him here: This is exactly the kind of comment that I feared we would see when articles like this start gaining traction. It's a cheese puff comment: it's got some taste, but it's empty. It has nothing to back it up, no content, no reasoning, no well crafted argument. It's just an empty "rah rah" type of slogan of the type that politicians regularly regurgitate. There is nothing new or clever about the comment, it's the sort of thing that's made the rounds elsewhere 100's of times. Being such a cheap, throwaway comment, it mostly/usually doesn't lead to particularly interesting discussions, as we can see here, despite a few good comments, but more zingers, one liners and similar "go home team!" cheering for one political side.
  - grandalf 16y ago
    I think you misinterpreted my comment. It was intended to be pithy, not snarky. So your parents think that their current tax rate is too low, so I named a higher rate. Why is 80% outlandish? My point was simply that it's a bit silly to bemoan the low rate of taxes today unless you name a rate that you think is reasonable. Clearly you think 80% is unreasonable. If one only thinks a 1-2% increase is reasonable, then stipulate that, rather than making the grandiose claim that taxes should raised considerably. Isn't an 80% rate a considerable increase? The fact is, most people think that 80% is grossly unreasonable. Why? At least there should be a principled argument, not just a rich person bragging (via a complaint) that he/she could afford higher taxes.
    - jonpaul 16y ago
      Great point, but you should have stated that in your original comment.
      - grandalf 16y ago
        I assumed the intent would be obvious... alas I hope the comment triggers further discussion at this point.
    - Locke1689 16y ago
      Clearly you think 80% is unreasonable I never said that. I said that, as given, your comment had no argument or reasoning. This is the comment you should have originally posted, not your two word question which vaguely implied your real argument.
      - grandalf 16y ago
        That aside, do you have a response? How about 90%?
        vannevar 16y ago
        90% superficially sounds unreasonable, because we have a tendency to think that wealth is distributed on a bell curve. But wealth is not distributed that way, it is distributed according to a power law, which means that a significant number of people make in excess of $100M per year while others make less than $1000. If wealth were distributed according to skill and ability, the ratio between the highest and lowest would be much lower and billionaires would be as rare as 100 ft tall people. The idea that a person could personally contribute the equivalent of $100M of value in a year per their efforts and skills (which ARE distributed on a bell curve) is absurd. It is this mismatch between the distribution of ability and the distribution of wealth that the rich exploit. So for someone making $100M/year, a 90% tax rate is not unreasonable at all.
mmorris 16y ago
That's nice to hear. I'm nowhere near the upper tax brackets at the moment, but I like to think that I would be okay (and even encouraging) of the taxes I did face in such a situation. I know many people who make lots of money and are bitter about paying so much tax on it, but very few people who realize that the taxes they pay make a real difference in everyone's lives (especially the lives of those who are less fortunate). Or that the taxes they pay make possible all of the benefits the Federal, State, and local governments offer. Sure, the government may not be the most efficient of entities, but I think it's difficult to make a serious argument that we would be better off without most of the services provided by the various levels of governments, or that they could easily be replaced. And none of these would be possible without some form of taxation (though how the taxes should be structured is up for reasonable debate). While I believe that people should be fairly compensated for their hard work, and that we shouldn't penalize people for working harder, I also believe that it would benefit most people to stop and think about how much their taxes help to make this/any country a great place. *disclaimer: this is mostly about the US, as this is my main experience, but I'd guess most of it applies to (at least some) other nations as well.
- grandalf 16y ago
  I don't disagree in principle, but I think there is far more value provided by state and local governments than by the Federal government. Roads, hospitals, schools, etc. are all local and state funded. The Federal budget is mostly military spending (the US has no significant military adversaries) and Medicare spending (physicians, pharma and other "caregivers" prey on the elderly and have managed to channel this spending into profits... see Bush's prescription drug benefit/handout to those firms). After that, the remaining 10% of the Federal budget probably makes a lot of sense. Sadly, most of what comes out of everyone's paycheck goes to fund military and medicare overspending.
  - diziet 16y ago
    Out of local spending, almost 30% come from federal government grants. Only 45% of the federal tax base is income tax, and only 15% of the local tax comes from income taxes. Out of federal expenditures, about 45% of them are covered by defense, healthcare and medicare spending.
tomjen3 16y ago
I very much doubt the IRS is going to mind if they send them bigger checks than they have to. So why not do that, rather than demand that the tax level be increased?
- fleitz 16y ago
  I've always asked that to anyone who advocates for higher taxes yet have never heard of anyone who actually does.
  - 2arrs2ells 16y ago
    Around 400 taxpayers (out of 1.54 million) in Massachusetts opt in to a higher state income tax rate. (see http://dailybabenews.com/article.php?article_id=6842&type=read#continue http://dailybabenews.com/article.php?article_id=6842&typ... ). That said, I think this a terrible argument. Changes to the tax code only have an effect if they take effect across the broad tax base. That said, maybe someone should start a "I'll pay higher income taxes if 1,000,000 people join me" petition on Pledgebank.
- Locke1689 16y ago
  Because their argument is not that they, specifically, should pay more in taxes. It is that the highest tax bracket should be taxed at a higher rate. To equate the two is a straw man argument.
  - tomjen3 16y ago
    Exactly. I was pointing out their hypocrisy.
    - _delirium 16y ago
      I don't see how that's "hypocrisy". They're arguing that all people in a bracket, including themselves, should be taxed at a higher rate. Arguing that doesn't logically require also being willing to go it alone. Advocating raising taxes on the rich while hiding their own money in offshore bank accounts to avoid those taxes; that would be hypocrisy.

grandalf 16y ago

How's 80%?

xenophanes 16y ago
How's 110%? They should give their best effort, yeah?
enjo 16y ago
See, here's the issue isn't it? How much is enough? I do think the tea-partiers have a point. There most definitely is a level of taxation that greatly reduces people willingness to take risks in the hopes of future wealth. Is it 40%? 50%? 90%? I don't know. I'm just pretty damn sure it's not what we're taxing the wealthy at now. Disclaimer: I would be affected by these tax hikes.
Locke1689 16y ago
I don't know, but that seems like the kind of snarky one-liner that doesn't add anything to the discussion. Because davidw said it so well, I'll just inline quote him here: This is exactly the kind of comment that I feared we would see when articles like this start gaining traction. It's a cheese puff comment: it's got some taste, but it's empty. It has nothing to back it up, no content, no reasoning, no well crafted argument. It's just an empty "rah rah" type of slogan of the type that politicians regularly regurgitate. There is nothing new or clever about the comment, it's the sort of thing that's made the rounds elsewhere 100's of times. Being such a cheap, throwaway comment, it mostly/usually doesn't lead to particularly interesting discussions, as we can see here, despite a few good comments, but more zingers, one liners and similar "go home team!" cheering for one political side.
- grandalf 16y ago
  I think you misinterpreted my comment. It was intended to be pithy, not snarky. So your parents think that their current tax rate is too low, so I named a higher rate. Why is 80% outlandish? My point was simply that it's a bit silly to bemoan the low rate of taxes today unless you name a rate that you think is reasonable. Clearly you think 80% is unreasonable. If one only thinks a 1-2% increase is reasonable, then stipulate that, rather than making the grandiose claim that taxes should raised considerably. Isn't an 80% rate a considerable increase? The fact is, most people think that 80% is grossly unreasonable. Why? At least there should be a principled argument, not just a rich person bragging (via a complaint) that he/she could afford higher taxes.
  - jonpaul 16y ago
    Great point, but you should have stated that in your original comment.
    - grandalf 16y ago
      I assumed the intent would be obvious... alas I hope the comment triggers further discussion at this point.
  - Locke1689 16y ago
    Clearly you think 80% is unreasonable I never said that. I said that, as given, your comment had no argument or reasoning. This is the comment you should have originally posted, not your two word question which vaguely implied your real argument.
    - grandalf 16y ago
      That aside, do you have a response? How about 90%?
      - vannevar 16y ago
        90% superficially sounds unreasonable, because we have a tendency to think that wealth is distributed on a bell curve. But wealth is not distributed that way, it is distributed according to a power law, which means that a significant number of people make in excess of $100M per year while others make less than $1000. If wealth were distributed according to skill and ability, the ratio between the highest and lowest would be much lower and billionaires would be as rare as 100 ft tall people. The idea that a person could personally contribute the equivalent of $100M of value in a year per their efforts and skills (which ARE distributed on a bell curve) is absurd. It is this mismatch between the distribution of ability and the distribution of wealth that the rich exploit. So for someone making $100M/year, a 90% tax rate is not unreasonable at all.

mmorris 16y ago

That's nice to hear. I'm nowhere near the upper tax brackets at the moment, but I like to think that I would be okay (and even encouraging) of the taxes I did face in such a situation. I know many people who make lots of money and are bitter about paying so much tax on it, but very few people who realize that the taxes they pay make a real difference in everyone's lives (especially the lives of those who are less fortunate). Or that the taxes they pay make possible all of the benefits the Federal, State, and local governments offer. Sure, the government may not be the most efficient of entities, but I think it's difficult to make a serious argument that we would be better off without most of the services provided by the various levels of governments, or that they could easily be replaced. And none of these would be possible without some form of taxation (though how the taxes should be structured is up for reasonable debate). While I believe that people should be fairly compensated for their hard work, and that we shouldn't penalize people for working harder, I also believe that it would benefit most people to stop and think about how much their taxes help to make this/any country a great place. *disclaimer: this is mostly about the US, as this is my main experience, but I'd guess most of it applies to (at least some) other nations as well.

grandalf 16y ago
I don't disagree in principle, but I think there is far more value provided by state and local governments than by the Federal government. Roads, hospitals, schools, etc. are all local and state funded. The Federal budget is mostly military spending (the US has no significant military adversaries) and Medicare spending (physicians, pharma and other "caregivers" prey on the elderly and have managed to channel this spending into profits... see Bush's prescription drug benefit/handout to those firms). After that, the remaining 10% of the Federal budget probably makes a lot of sense. Sadly, most of what comes out of everyone's paycheck goes to fund military and medicare overspending.
- diziet 16y ago
  Out of local spending, almost 30% come from federal government grants. Only 45% of the federal tax base is income tax, and only 15% of the local tax comes from income taxes. Out of federal expenditures, about 45% of them are covered by defense, healthcare and medicare spending.

tomjen3 16y ago

I very much doubt the IRS is going to mind if they send them bigger checks than they have to. So why not do that, rather than demand that the tax level be increased?

fleitz 16y ago
I've always asked that to anyone who advocates for higher taxes yet have never heard of anyone who actually does.
- 2arrs2ells 16y ago
  Around 400 taxpayers (out of 1.54 million) in Massachusetts opt in to a higher state income tax rate. (see http://dailybabenews.com/article.php?article_id=6842&type=read#continue http://dailybabenews.com/article.php?article_id=6842&typ... ). That said, I think this a terrible argument. Changes to the tax code only have an effect if they take effect across the broad tax base. That said, maybe someone should start a "I'll pay higher income taxes if 1,000,000 people join me" petition on Pledgebank.
Locke1689 16y ago
Because their argument is not that they, specifically, should pay more in taxes. It is that the highest tax bracket should be taxed at a higher rate. To equate the two is a straw man argument.
- tomjen3 16y ago
  Exactly. I was pointing out their hypocrisy.
  - _delirium 16y ago
    I don't see how that's "hypocrisy". They're arguing that all people in a bracket, including themselves, should be taxed at a higher rate. Arguing that doesn't logically require also being willing to go it alone. Advocating raising taxes on the rich while hiding their own money in offshore bank accounts to avoid those taxes; that would be hypocrisy.