My ideal tax system

[onebigbadwulf]

My ideal tax system consists of a never-ending exponentially progressive income tax.

What does this mean?

It means you pay 0% tax for earning 0 dollars a year and 100% tax for earning something absurd... say 1000 times the level of poverty. Which right now would be 17,000,000 a year. Meaning... if you earn that much crazy amount of money, the government takes it all away.

I believe the Japanese have a system like this. There they have no incentive to earn more than a certain amount (800,000 i think?) because they'll just end up taking home less.


This system, I believe, would help in bringing back the middle class. You know, the time when one person could work 40 hours a week with a high school degree... support a family of four, pay for college of all four children, and live in a nice house. Remember that? Hard to believe that was America.

[mhr]

1. I Agree Completely But

Who writes the laws that would make this change possible?

Our politicians.

Who pays for the campaigns of our politicians?

Corporations.

Who has an interest in keeping the status quo?

Everyone except little people like you and me.

The solution?

A return to citizen participation in democracy.

Is this possible?

No.

Why?

Who controls the minds of the citizens?

Large media.

Who owns large media?

Large corporations.

Who has an interest in keeping the status quo?

Everyone except little people like you and me.

So, is there no solution?

You got it, nice knowing you!

[La_Serpiente]

2. I've heard of one

that says that we shouldn't tax those in the 20 percent and below bracket and jack up the taxes on the rich.

[AP]

3. continuously variable from an annual

salary equivalent to 10 bucks and hour, to a top salry of infinity on slope that decreses in tiny increments and approaches, oh, say 50%, depending on what an analysis reveals as a pretty good correlation to mariginal valuations of an additional dollar, so that relative burdens all along the scale are equivalent. Ie, however hard a person who earns about 40k per year has to work to make 1000 dollars more, that should be taxed at about the same rate (say 2 hours of labor out of 40) as the equivalent amount of effort a person who makes 400K has to work to make another 1,000 bucks. And the same for corporations.


Your idea doesn't work because, economically speaking, you want wealth to be the carrot on the stick that gets people to work harder. You want to encourage work by rewarding, not punishing it. If you have a 100% rate, nobody will ever want to work hard enought to make that kind of income.

If curing cancer or inventing a sollar powered flying car could make you $50 million dollars, but required a 30 million investment, why would you even bother to do it if there were a 100% tax at 17 million.

this is so painfully obvious. I'm stunned that there's is anyone who doesn't understand this.

[DocSavage]

4. Are you nuts?

Sure would want to make me succeed. I would be fighting my boss to quit giving me raises. What would be the benefit to getting a raise or a cost of living increase. This would drive down wages. Who in thier right mind would want to make more money so they would be taxed up the yahoo.

And who by the way is going to determine what is a 'crazy amount of money"?

[mhr]

5. Your Argument is Faulty Because You Have Not Considered

a simple economic principle taught in every economics curriculum.

It is the "marginal propensity to consume".

I won't bother educating you and leave it to your curiosity to research this term and concept.

Simply put, this is the main reason that non progressive tax systems are unfair for most people.

Enjoy your research.

[snippy]

6. My ideal federal income tax system.

1. Only one federal tax on income.

2. Only one filing status.

3. No itemized or standard deductions.

4. Large personal and dependent exemptions.

5. Income from all sources treated equally.

6. Fewer tax brackets with wider income ranges.

[QuestioningStudent]

7. Clarify, please.

I imagine that you are saying that the person earning $17 million a year would pay a marginal rate of 100%, but where would this marginal rate take effect? All money over 17 million would be taxed at 100%, or all 17 mill would be taxed at 100%, you're not terribly clear, where precisely are you defining the line? Incidentally, do you have something against remarkably successful people?