I have no idea what you are talking about and can only assume you have misinterpreted my post. My point was that I think such a high tax rate as has been discussed is unjust on its face and amounts to government thievery. My post was addressing some opponents of high tax in this thread who were trying to justify their opposition by stating the benefits of keeping taxes where they are. My point was that while this may be true, it's irrelevant because such a high tax is fundamentally unfair.

I don't know where you picked up that I'm not open to different viewpoints; of course I am. I'm on a debate message board for a reason. And I find the comparison between "myself" and terrorist bombers baffling.



Good point. To be more specific, I was refering to the 60% figure the OP used.

My apologies Jaime. Perhaps the religious zealots line was a bit much. Or maybe it was the OLS post. Either way, my bad. I'll tone it down.


First let me say, that you are right that you are not a terrorist. Sorry about that. What I was getting at was that your argument of simply "It's not fair" and the attitude that this alone is justification enough is closeminded IMO. You think it even scary that your view of fair isn't justification enough to shoot down a proposal. Others might not share your view of fair though so the only logical thing to do is to actually examine the effects that such proposals have. It doesn't seem to me that you are open to debate if you do not want to look at the actual effects of proposals. I still do not know why your beliefs are more in alignment with the best interests of America, or even the best interests of yourself, on this issue.

The problem I have is it doesn't seem right to have to fund those proposals involuntarily with working people's hard-earned money. To some extent, yes, we all must pay for our society. But to do so at such a disproportionate rate strikes me as wrong. Just like I wouldn't consider it wrong if someone broke into my house to steal my TV and gave it to a poor family. The ends may appear positive, but the means is wrong.

So in a way, I suppose you are correct that I'm not concerned with the specifics of proposals because they are being partially funded by money I don't believe the government has a right to take. Similarly, I would not look kindly upon outsiders deciding on how best to distribute my organs (to those who need them) after I'm dead. An extreme example, of course, but my point is some things are a person's own.

I understand how you can feel differently. As I said, many of these programs at least *attempt* to reach some sort of goal (although many of these are mismanaged), but they do have a positive end. I just disagree with how we should get there.

We are in agreement that the government should not have the right to tax income. My second post of this thread said that I would burn the 16th Amendment given the chance. I am not sure if you think all income tax is wrong or if just a certain level is wrong(50%, 40%, 30%?). Either way, we are stuck with it as long as the dollar bills say United States of America because that is who they ultimately belong to. That said, I would like to at least explain my thought process behind this idea.

Governments move slowly and if the goal is to eliminate (or come as close as possible to eliminating) income tax, we are going to have to take small steps to get there. The first obvious question is why not simply decrease income taxes on everyone instead of this proposal? The main reason that I like a revenue neutral proposal is that we are already running a budget deficit. We need to decrease spending(which we should also do) before we can decrease taxes overall. Another reason is that no Democrat in their right mind could argue against a revenue neutral proposal that increases taxes only on millionaires. Once the media let people know how much they would save, some Republicans would have a hard time denying this proposal too because it would look like they only care about their big donors. In other words, if this made it to the floor, it would not be easy to kill.

So how is raising taxes on dollars earned over $1MM while decreasing every other bracket’s taxes a step toward reducing income taxes as a whole? Here is how I see it. Putting the high rate in place does two things; discourages pulling too much money out of your business, and it encourages charitable giving. You may want that third Porche or Aston Martin. If you are going to get taxed at 60% for pulling that extra profit out of your business though, the car is not as important to you and the money would be better off being reinvested. Another way to avoid the tax is to donate money or start foundations curing the ills of society. We saw this with the estate tax.

Now some argue that the putting the high rate in place will also encourage people leaving the US and discourage millionaires from working. History hasn’t shown this to be true though. Plus, when you start to actually look at the 200,000 individuals that this would effect(pro sports players, megastar actors, CEOs), you understand why their work behaviors haven’t changed.

Meanwhile, the proposal has lowered taxes on everyone else to the tune of at least $100 billion a year. You have removed some of the tax barrier for everyone to earn more, and we see the type of economic growth that occurred from Bush’s 2001 cuts.

Now you don’t have to buy all of that, but if you do – you are left with a situation where the economy is growing, and charitable giving is increased. A growing economy brings in more tax dollars and with the private sector more effectively taking care of social problems, less spending on those services is needed. This eventually leads to surpluses allowing for taxes cuts across the board, repeating the process. You simply continue to zero out the tax brackets from the bottom up. As long as there is an effort to curb government spending in the process, this can lead to significantly reduced income tax burden on everyone. It’s not going to be fast, but all long journeys begin with that first step.

I think that increasing the income tax percentage on people making massive amounts of money (a million dollars a year has been mentioned a lot) could work well, if done in moderation. You don't want to discourage people from making or spending money. A one percent tax increase on 10 million dollars brings in a lot more money than a one percent tax increase on someone earning 20 thousand dollars. By increasing taxes on just the top one or two percent of America we might be able to provide some degree of tax relief for people who actually need it and still generate enough income to start paying off the federal debt.

It makes more economic sense to me to give money back to lower and middle class people who will use it towards their car payments, house payments, or for food than to give it to extremely upper class people who will stick it in a bank account.

Also, it makes more moral sense to me to help many people who need the help than a few people who don't.

Would you support a politician who proposed implementing a new federal income tax bracket of 60% on dollars earned over $1 million if the proposal was revenue neutral? Would this type of tax restructuring help or hurt the US economy? Why or why not?
NO! I would not support any plan to make the income tax more progressive. When Reagan took office, the top marginal tax rate was 90%! Imagine that. Above some level of income, you only got to keep 10 cents on the dollar. The plan proposed above isn't much better. Tax rates this high have many negative impacts on the economy:
1. The most productive members of society stop producing.
2. People outright cheat on their taxes.
3. People develop, and lobby for, complex changes to the tax code to shelter their income.
4. People get paid in non-monetary and hard to track (and tax) rewards. For example invitations to lavish parties, larger intangible benefits like use of a corporate jet, etc.

There are plenty of well spoken arguments in this thread against this tax so I'll refrain from repeating what they've said. Except to say that one of the most important figures of merit of a tax is that it have as little an impact on economic decision making as possible. Since all decisions are made at the margin, the only way to do this is to have a constant marginal tax rate, i.e. a flat tax.


Forbes magazine collects yearly statistics on the wealthiest people, both in America and aboard. The articles published along with this list suggest that some people do indeed try to hide information about their wealth, but likely for less nefarious reasons that you suggest. Why immediately jump to the conclusion that they are trying to hide it for some evil purpose instead of giving them the benefit of the doubt. I don't want people knowing about my personal financial situation and I don't see how that would change if I were rich.


There is also a nominal dollar amount ceiling to 401k plans. You can contribute x percent up to that amount. For IRAs, which are similar, the rich don't even qualify beyond some level of annual income.
DoclotusWould you bill willing to explain with an example how this is so? I don't know that I believe you.

No. Out tax system is already quite progressive with the top 50% of taxpayers paying something like 96% of all taxes. I have read that the top 1% pays over 10%.

Regardless IMO Americans generally would not favor the “soak the rich” idea and I am one them. Economists have lots of data that shows that people make judgments about the “marginal benefit” of work of all kinds and anything that would give our most productive people an incentive NOT to work is bad for this country. It could even keep some very productive people from coming here to work.

I had some friends who were Swedish and wanted to go there to work and live. They were upper middle income. They were home after one year. The tax system drove them out. The US is one of the most productive countries in the world and our tax system has something to do with that. lets leave it alone.

Adam & Ted. I understand your thinking that the people who earn the most money must inherently be the most productive. My question to you two is "most productive" in what sense? To me the most productive people are those that do the most valuable work for our economy and invest our capital in the wisest fashion. Can we say that the top 200,000 earners (remember, we're not talking about net worth here but personal dollars earned per year) in America are the most productive? Would the American economy collapse without NFL players or would the incentives to play still provide us with enough people to continue that entertainment? Would the current players decide that it isn't worth it were this tax in place? More importantly, wouldn't the rest of the country whose tax burden is then reduced be more productive? Can you say that the incentive for the top 200,000 people not to work is stronger than the incentive for the next 150,000,000 Americans to work harder? Think about it. Which is really better from a production standpoint?

To the extent that income is the only easy way to measure productivity, I'll agree to your definition of productive and valuable people. That being said, I still think weath and income correllate nicely at the top of the heap for the purposes of this discussion, especially if you know how the wealth was generated. Excepting those who inherited their fortune, billionaires have to make a lot to get that way.

So looking at the list of the 400 wealthiest Americans, we find that none of these people are atheletes or actors. Of the 400, only two even own football teams (Jerry Jones of the Cowboys, but he made most of his money in oil, and another I didn't recognize), and one who made his fortone providing concessions at games. Everyone else was in apperal, oil, computers, investment, food, commerce, media, etc. That is, industries one would typically associate with GDP enhancing productivity. So yes, I'd be willing to say that for the most part the top earners are those people who are adding worth to society. Are they the "most productive"? I don't know, but they're probably pretty close. Remember that even the best paid athelets (take A-Rod at $25m a year) are still making on par with an average top executive.

But even athletes are productive, as without the NFL players there would be no NFL. Besides being something many Americans love to watch, it brings in an enormous number of jobs and revenue, and not just in the cities with teams.

So unless you want to set up a tax that only targets the NFL, I don't see how to set up a heavily progressive system without taking down your business leaders at the same time your take down the all-stars. Plus, such a tax is on it's face unfair. Singling out a particular industry or sector of the economy is making a judgement on the value it provides to society; a decision best left to the market. The NFL makes money because the people love to watch football.


I don't really know how you'd quantify incentive for the purposes of analysis, but I do know one thing: a progressive tax does is discourage any of those 150 million from becoming the top 200,000. And perhaps those top people do contribute more. List of the contributions of the people at the top and it's staggering: Microsoft providing cheap software to run the world's PCs, Walmart providing cheap consumer goods, oil for cars, Nike shoes, publishing, news, google. The list of productive industries goes on.

Questions for debate: Would you support a politician who proposed implementing a new federal income tax bracket of 60% on dollars earned over $1 million if the proposal was revenue neutral? Would this type of tax restructuring help or hurt the US economy? Why or why not?

I disagree with the premise of the question, on several points.



The first part of this statement assumes that such a tax could be enacted in such a manner that it wouldn't affect anyone beyond those whom the tax was targeted at. Such an assumption requires, at the very least, some evidence this would indeed be the case. The second part of this statement assumes that providing handouts to the recipients is truly beneficial for them (classic fiscal conservatism vs. liberalism issue here)...but which again should, at the least, be backed up by some evidence.




This calculation is based on the (false) assumption that enacting such a tax wouldn't lead to any actions on the part of those affected by it. Do you really believe that a group of people financially smart enough to acquire an extra $200 billion wouldn't do anything to protect it? There are always a variety of means of reducing your tax bill...including moving to another country! Given this potentiality, I could make a strong argument that enacting such a proposal would in fact reduce net tax revenue, reversing all of the claimed benefits. Further, it is ignoring the effect that enacting such a tax would have on acquiring the income in the first place. Finally, it also ignore the fact that these earners would probably simply pass the tax along in increased salary/bonus demands, reducing capital available for other activities (investment, wages, etc) thereby actually imposing the tax on the very people it is designed to help.



Only if the above issues are ignored.

I also disagree with the basic premise inherent in the question...that being that taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor is a 'good' thing. It is this mindset that leads to the bloated governmental expenditures we have today, which is leading to a path of fiscal crises that will, sooner or later, have extremely dire consequences for all of us. Our government doesn't need to take more money from anyone until they become a whole lot more fiscally responsible with the money they spend currently.

Lets say that the work being done by these people is the most productive for the US economy. Lets say that their work is even 750 times more valuable to the US economy than the next 50% of earners in America since for every 1 of them, there are 750 middle, upper middle, and upper class people right below them who would benefit from this. Even so, would this system cause Bill Gates to stop working for Microsoft? Would Michael Dell have not created Dell under this system? The payoff is still astronomical and competition for those positions and to fill untapped markets that can earn that kind of money will remain at the highest level. Those jobs are going to be filled by someone almost as qualified even if these productive people were to leave (which they wouldn’t – I wouldn’t). The corporation doesn’t die if the CEO leaves anyway. There will surely be a decrease in performance to some extent, but by how much? I would be surprised to see is a serious drop off in performance or production from someone at that level. CEO’s are going to keep working hard for the bottom line. Athletes will play just as hard (they certainly won’t quit). They will do so in a more scrupulous way under this system too I’d venture to say. Less incentive to cook the books or stick needles in your arm if the payoff is “only” $2.3 million instead of $3.3 million after taxes. Still enough incentive to do the job though wouldn’t you say?



Hobbes Hobbes Hobbes. If taxing you hurts me, it would be because of a drop in the overall economy. I have provided evidence in the form of history and logic that points to that not being the case here. I think that qualifies as some evidence. Still calling a tax cut a handout? So I guess you feel that Bush's tax cuts were in fact "give aways" to the rich? Taking less of something earned is a lot different than giving something not earned. Also, this proposal does nothing to increase the size of government since it is revenue neutral. Even if the top 0.1% earned less, the next 50% would be earning more (and paying a net increase in tax revenue despite a lower tax rate) on the same principles you are using. I understand you’re desire to stop any tax hike on anyone even if provides a tax break for others. It may not have everything we want, but it is fiscally responsible at least.

To answer this question, we must examine how taxes are currently allocated.

The top 1% of income earners (those targeted by this proposal) earn 16.77% of the income and pay 34.27% of the taxes. (Tax rate of 24.31%) source

The bottom 50% of income earners receive 14% of the income and pay 3.46% of the income tax (tax rate of 2.95%)

How much is enough? How much lower can the bottom 50%'s tax burden be? How much is lost when some people pay nothing?

I argue that those that don't pay income taxes (about the bottom 25% either pay nothing or actually receive more than they pay) lose interest in the political process. They don't pay tax, why should they care where tax money goes?

THAT is how they are hurt.

That's a dubious method to measure value. I would suggest comparing compensation, which is the closest thing we have to a measure of a person's value added to the economy. I think you'll see that Michael Dell adds more than 750 times more to the economy than the janitor who cleans his office.

Gates has stopped working for Microsoft, at least as CEO. Higher taxes would only have motivated him to quit sooner.

Not necessarily true. When ever the price of somthing (such as the price of CEOs) is held artifically low (in this case via progressive taxes), it creates a shortage for that good. It was gasoline price freezes that cause the gasoline shortages of the 70's, not a restriction of supply. Freezing CEO wages would have the same impact: a shortage of CEOs. History seems to suggest that this shortage would be substantial and that "someone almost as qualified" can't just slide into their vacated post. Innovation, entrepenuerism were at an all-time low in the early 80's when Reagan took office and the top tax bracket was at 90%. He lowered it and a culture of innovation and economic expansion followed. You punish the best at your own peril.
Yes, and that is a bad thing.
It's pretty much impossible to design a revenue neutral tax because the economy and market is constantly changing. Revenue neutral predictions rely on the assumption that the tax doesn't impact the market, which is obviously false.

Remember, rich people do pay more taxes. x percent of 1 billion is bigger than x percent of 40,000.

I guess you can also look at it this way.

50% of Americans make 14% of the AGI in the US, compared to 1% that makes 16.77%.

Half the population of the entire country doesn't make what that 1% makes. And if you look at the top 5%, you're talking double what 50% of the population makes.

Really, when you pit the bottom 50% against the top 1%, you're barking up the wrong tree. Because it's not an issue of the bottom 50% making a lot of money and paying no taxes. It's really a battle between the top 1% and the other top 2-30% paying less proportionately. Since the top 50% makes nearly 90% of all income, why pick on the bottom 50%? They aren't getting their share.

What you're proposing is a battle between middle class, upper middle class and the uber-wealthy.

Someone has to pay for the infrastructure of the country. Is there a real problem with it being the very small amount of folks that make nearly 3% more than half the population combined?

And even beyond income taxes, the less wealthy are taxed proportionately higher based on income. Property taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, etc. etc. are not progressive taxes.

Also, I would be interested to see if allowing people with excess income really create a better economy by getting even more additional income. I would guess no, if it meant taking money from people who spend that money on daily needs like food, gas, automobiles, housing, busing, education, etc. etc.

Excuse me? ...not getting their share? Where does the vast majority of federal money go? To the bottom taxpayers. Do they pay the majority of taxes? No (by your own admission). So, they get the majority of services, and pay the minority of taxes. And yet people out there still claim they're not getting their share. This just absolutely completely baffles me, as it flies in the face of all reason, when all evidence points to the fact that they are, by far, net users of federal money, whereas those in the upper income brackets are net contributors. Yet, somehow, they're not 'contributing' enough? Why not look more closely at the other side of the equation...maybe the 'users' are using too much? And why would they be doing that? Because of statements just like this, that not only condone such activity, but actually make the completely ridiculous and unsubstantiated claim that 'they're not getting their share'. Un Bee Leev Able.

Where does the majority of federal money go?

I don't have a break down, but a lot goes to the military industries, the medical industries, and first and foremost, we pay a lot of people good wages to maintain our gov't (our largest expenditure).

Sorry, I don't buy that all federal taxes go to the poor. I'd like to see a breakout of expenditures that proves such a statement.

How much do we pay for court buildings so businesses can fight each other in our federal courts? How much are we paying millionare senators while in office and after they leave?

I think you're throwing that out there as if I would automatically agree with you. I don't. I'd need to see some tangible evidence, if given time I can look through expenditures and try to make an argument that federal taxes not only go back to the wealthy or middle class, that the spending is, by and far, geared toward those groups as well.

I have an additional question for you. When we spend $1000 on drugs that are overpriced for a person in the lower 50% from a particular pharamaceutical company that lobbied Congress to make sure we had to buy it from them, do you consider that money going to the lower 50% or mostly to the pharmaceutical company?

Both the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts, which flattened the tax code structure, resulted in explosive economic growth and the generation of more tax revenue for the government. Incidentally, not only did federal tax revenues increased, but the proportion of these taxes paid by the rich also increased. This may be counter-intuitive with cutting the highest marginal tax rates, but economics is not a static problem and simple-minded analysis is insufficent to understand the problem.

This article contains data to support this claim, with excepts shown below. Furthermore, this article shows how unemployment also decreases after a flattening of the progressive tax structure. An impact which disproportionately aids the poor.
The Laffer Curve

Absolutely correct. Tax cuts help the economy. I contend that Reagan's cuts were so effective because they were so wide spread. The cuts on the middle class helped to increase the size of the middle class, which is the backbone of an economy. Source. In 1980, three-quarters of taxpayers faced tax rates above 15 percent. By 1995, less than one-fourth of taxpayers were in that situation. Don't you think that the cuts on the 99.9% of Americans boosted the economy more than the cuts on the top 0.1%? I'm not saying tax cuts are bad. This proposal IS a tax cut for most Americans. I understand the reasoning behind cuts, but I contend that it is better to motivate the masses with cuts. Think about Law of Diminshing Returns. Who is more likely to produce more economic activity if offered an additional $1 an hour, the millionaire or the middle class Joe? At a certain point of wealth, the additional $$ is not the major incentive to do your economic activity.

Counter example: Clinton raised taxes and the economy boomed, million upon millions of jobs were created.

Reagan left a giant deficit and debt behind as is Bush.

I won't disagree that fueling the economy with tax cuts and wild spending won't have a short-term positive effect on the economy. Long term is the issue, someone has to pay for that spending.

The Laffer Curve is highly debated. And you can't consider tax cuts in a vacuum. You can't simply say "tax cuts are good, they raise revenues" because there are other things in the works.

See: Laffer Curve is Shifty