How much should the very rich pay in taxes?

[Onlooker]

Poll question: How much should the very rich pay in taxes?

Below are the historical top rates by year, starting in 1919. (Because the rich always have various loopholes, these rates would mostly affect those who literally spend millions of dollars a year on themselves.)

Which tax rate do you think is best?

I inflation adjusted the right hand column of the following table:

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

using this source:

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

[SKKY]

1. 82 and 91 percent seems a bit too much to me.

I think 45 percent of everything over 2.5 million. That seems reasonable to me.

[Xenotime]

52. Your figure is too high. Nobody needs that much.

[SKKY]

54. I don't think it's for me to say what they need or don't need...

...But is that what I think they should pay? Sure. I think my rates are fair.

[Alias Dictus Tyrant]

89. Speak for yourself

I need that much! :D

In truth though, many types of entrepreneurial business do require that kind of income because of high year-over-year variability and the fact that this goes straight into the capital pool. If you truncate the high years, it destroys the more middling long-term average, particularly when you factor in the risk premium of business ventures.

I don't have a problem with high taxes on income per se (there are many worse taxes in terms of the economy), but a lot of jobs and economic activity in the US are created by people that are *not* suburban wage slaves and therefore have cash flow and income requirements that are different.

[Incitatus]

62. So CEOs who take a billion a year from the corporations where they work should only pay 45%?

91% tax sounds like a bit much for a couple million, but at some point it should take place.

[Warpy]

2. Eisenhower's rate, with a 99% on everything over ten million

until the deficit is paid down to a reasonable level, our industry has been restarted, and marginal workers no longer are paid so little they have to live in shelters. I'd apply the same rate to inheritances, with a five million dollar exemption.

We not only have to improve the revenue stream, we have to abort the process toward an entrenched aristocracy.

No true democracy has ever coexisted with an aristocracy. The aristocracy has always managed to pervert it and try to march it toward either monarchy or fascism.

[Ter]

8. No true democracy takes 99% of peoples earnings

That's just too much. If you make 10 million a year, wouldn't 99% leave you with $100,000? That's not even rich.

[ElmoBlatz]

9. C'mon, pay attention

its 99% on earnings OVER $10,000,000. It means if you make $20,000,000 you pay $9,900,000 in taxes on that last $10,000,000

its called marginal tax rates. On the margin. OVER the threshold.

[Bill McBlueState]

56. that's WAY too much detail

for math-illiterate Americans to comprehend.

[Warpy]

29. It would fall on everything OVER ten million

Remember, the first dollars of income are tax free and the rate varies with every subsequent rise in income.

No one is worth over ten million dollars a year. IMO, no one is worth over a million dollars a year, although I can see people selling property late in life and making that much from capital gains if they bought that property in their youth in exactly the right place, which is why I suggested that the confiscatory rate kick in at the highest income, only.

The graduated income tax discouraged executive greed for years. They still had the jets and the multiple pleasure palaces, but those belonged to the company and didn't go with them as part of the golden parachute when they were ousted. Now we have executives whose pay packages fit the description of embezzlement, robbing workers and shareholders alike. We need to bring back that disincentive to greed.

Please learn how a progressive income tax system worked in the past and will work in the future, should this country decide to survive. Not knowing it is a definite liability.

[dysfunctional press]

58. do you even understand how marginal rates work...?

it's sad how many americans there are that can't comprehend the basic structure of our tax system.

[uponit7771]

70. Thank you!!!

[kath]

81. This really freaks me out too. So few people understand the concept of MARGINAL tax rates.

Jeebus.
Seems like some basic "consumer/taxpayer literacy" concepts need to be taught in the schools. Taxes, the benefits or horrors of compounded interest, depending on whether you're saving or borrowing, unit pricing to figure out what's the best bargain at the supermarket, etc. In the meantime, parents, sit your kids down when you're doing your tax return and explain how it all works.

[dysfunctional press]

95. a lot (if not most) of the parents don't understand how it works either...

they just wait to see how much h&r block, jackson-hewitt, or their cousin who's a cpa tells them they're getting back.

but i agree whole-heartedly that there needs to be better education about civics and personal/public finances in the schools. unfortunately, the powers that be recognize a more ignorant electorate as being more malleable.

[Statistical]

91. Do you know how tax code works?

If you are in the 15% bracket you don't pay 15% taxes on all your income.
Just like if you are in the 25% bracket you don't pay 25% taxes on all your income.

You only pay margin tax rate for money in that bracket.

[louis-t]

15. That's what the "Death Tax" was supposed to do.

That's why repugs want it gone.

[Stinky The Clown]

3. None of those are high enough to suit me. But I'll settle for Ike's rate.

[ElmoBlatz]

10. Then what do you propose?

[DoBotherMe]

4. Income tax rates of 91% might encourage reinvesting

profits in the company. But isn't it a wealth tax that would improve govt revenues? Dana ; )

[Alias Dictus Tyrant]

93. Yeah, but company profits are highly taxed in the US

Which is one of the reasons they are avoided structurally and why so few companies pay dividends (though they lowered the dividend tax to make it more attractive).

That said, the US does encourage reinvesting of capital gains in small businesses. Long term capital gains taxes are deferrable through reinvestment in small companies. This is one of the major reasons the excessively high taxes on business relative to the rest of the world don't kill investment in US business ventures; there is an intentional loophole in the tax code that defers some kinds of investment taxes as long as the gains are reinvested. This keeps the capital working in the economy for far longer than it would otherwise.

[On the Road]

5. There's a Pretty Big Gap There

between 39.6% and 73%.

I believe that what you are asking is the top federal income tax bracket, which is a little different from the percentage of someone's income that they pay in taxes. State income taxes add quite a bit: CA, HI, NJ, and OR are over 10%, and IA, NY, RI are close. In addition to that are property taxes, which are very high in some states, sales taxes, and other taxes.

As far as the top personal federal income tax bracket, I would put it about 50%. That should be sufficient to raise enough revenue for a strong federal sector, provided the economy recovers and military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan is reduced.

[Ter]

6. 91% is a lot

So if someone makes 3 million per year he winds up with 270,000? That's just stupid.

[ElmoBlatz]

11. You clearly don't understand marginal tax rates

Please tell me you aren't doing your own taxes........

[Autumn Colors]

18. 91% on the income that is ABOVE $2.8 million, not on ALL of it.... (nt)

[Virgil Cain]

36. So let's say.....

You make 5mil a year, spread out evenly over the year. You mean to tell me that for 5+ months of the year someone would only keep 9% of what they generate? C'mon now, that's just silly. Remember, you work for yourself first, not the gov't.

[Vincardog]

75. I feel for those poor folks who only would get to keep most of the first 2 Million a year

And actually had to pay a reasonable tax rate on the rest.
Who will defend the innocent 1/2 of 1%?

OH THE HORROR

[redqueen]

88. lol

:thumbsup:

[zeos3]

96. OH NOES!!!!

That works out to about $39,000/month for those months. How can anyone live off of that?!?

[Jamastiene]

19. No, they pay $182k

and keep $2,818,000...that is if I am starting off with the right calculation.

The only thing taxed in the $3,000,000 would be the last 200k. 91% of that would be $182k. They would keep the rest.

[Vincardog]

21. Stupid is not understanding what marginal tax rates are

[Veruca Salt]

51. +1

:thumbsup:

[uponit7771]

71. +1!!!

[dhpgetsit]

7. The top margin should definitely be above 50%. 75% sounds right to me.

[anonymous171]

12. 90% on income. Tax evasion should be a felony. nt

[deaniac21]

13. We should all pay 100 % and receive what we need from the

government.

[hack89]

17. Then I will take a low stress job making minimum wage

and stand there with my hand outstretched. I have no problem reducing my tax bill to near zero.

[Tailormyst]

33. Saaadly most minumim wage jobs are not the ones with the least amount of stress.

[Zebedeo]

25. Who would be appointed overlord

to determine how much each of us needs?

Would people still work? Why?

[Thothmes]

34. Wasnt that the Soviet Model

[RedCloud]

14. Make the bastards fight in the front lines if they want a lower rate.

[Jamastiene]

16. Other: 50% of everything over a million...

but I would include corporations and any churches that get involved in politics. Keep in mind that politically active churches would be against the law if our government wasn't so corrupt.

Including the corporations and the churches that get involved in politics in the over $1 million 50% tax bracket would wipe out the deficit in a decent amount of time.

No one would pay taxes until they made at least 3 times the poverty level*. Those making 3 times the poverty level would pay 10%. Those making 4 times the poverty level would pay 15%. Those making 5 times the poverty level would pay 20%. Those making 6 times the poverty level would pay 25%.

The 25% would be the top tax amount for anyone who makes under a million. Anything over a million would get taxed at 50% and that includes all corporations and churches active in politics.

I have no clue how it would work, but it seems reasonable to me to tax those making a million or more at 50% and keep everyone else at or under 25% depending on how much they make in relation to the poverty level. Taxing corporations and politically active churches would be an absolute necessity/law/mandate though.

*Note: I would do my damnedest to enact a living wage instead of the minimum wage. So, my idea of a poverty level would be much higher than the current poverty level, most likely at least double.

[MercutioATC]

20. Sounds reasonable to me.

...but I'd rather see one additional tier ($1M-$5M) taxed at 40% and higher than $%M taxed at 50%.

There are quite a few legitimate small entrepreneurs that would fall between $1M and $5M.

[onenote]

22. more information needed

Income taxes, and the top marginal rate, are only one component of the total tax that an individual owes. As a result comparing the top marginal rate from different time periods, without comparing other differences in the tax structure during those time periods, paints an incomplete picture. Deductions, exemptions, payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, etc. all vary and when changes in one part of the tax system are made, they typically are offset in some degree by changes in other aspects of the tax system.

[paulsby]

35. it is an EXTREMELY incomplete picture

tax shelters were easy and common when the top rates were super high. the top rates were essentially a joke.

nobody paid them since tax shelters were so easy to set up

[invictus]

23. 50% of everything over $1 Million

[newtothegame]

24. We could just spend our current tax revenue more wisely.

Then noone would have to pay exorbitantly higher rates than anybody else.

[dysfunctional press]

59. if you honestly believe that, then you definitely have the right screen name.

that philosophy is a big part of why we're so in hock to the chinese and everyone else right now.

[newtothegame]

63. You honestly believe we're doing a good job of spending right now?

If 35% of my paycheck goes straight back to the government in taxes, including sales taxes, and I'm one of 350m Americans, yes, I believe there should be PLENTY of revenue to meet the mutual needs of society.

[uponit7771]

74. No, but part of that is because the marginal ETR of the top 5% was taking from 74% to 24%...

...and the deficit was made up by increasing SS taxes on small business's.

[dysfunctional press]

77. okay- exactly what spending cuts would you make, and how would you do it?

it's easy to say 'cut defense spending', and yes- it definitely should be cut...but politically, it's also one of the hardest things to cut, because it means jobs in senator's states and a congressmen's districts.

saying that you believe that "If 35% of my paycheck goes straight back to the government in taxes, including sales taxes, and I'm one of 350m Americans, yes,...there should be PLENTY of revenue to meet the mutual needs of society."

is not based on any factual data about how much money is spent on what.
how many bills do you have where you get to say 'well- i feel like i've paid enough'...?

things cost what they cost.
and as a nation, we've decided what kind of a society/standard of living we'd like to have for ourselves...and since raygun slashed the top marginal rates, we've been paying for it all on credit.
so- we have to decide if we want to slash our national standard of living, or raise taxes(on the WEALTHIEST) to pay for what we have.

[newtothegame]

82. If we're gonna raise taxes, we should all pay for it.

We're all gonna use it.

[dysfunctional press]

94. we all don't get equal benefit from it.

you really need to educate yourself a little bit about the wealth gap and historical tax policy in the u.s....it's not really something that i'm going to be able to explain fully in a post on a message board...but suffice it to say- we're much better off with a thriving middle class, than we would be under the feudal system that we're careening toward.

here are some titles that you can find on amazon or elsehwere...and i'm sure that other people could point you toward others if you ask-

wealth & democracy
the man who sold the world
The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger
the shock doctrine
The Twentieth Century: A People's History (howard zinn)

[rwenos]

26. Increasing Corporate Income Tax

During the Carter administration the corporate income tax was about 45%, I think. (Anyone know?) Since the Bush tax con in 2002, the corporate income tax is no more than 29%.

It seems that would be one place to make an adjustment, eh?

[Jamastiene]

27. "about two-thirds of corporations operating in the United States did not pay taxes annually from

1998 to 2005, according to a new report scheduled to be made public today from the U.S. Government Accountability Office."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081102324.html

[ParkieDem]

28. We don't need a flat tax, but we need a flatTER tax system.

Here's my idea, and I think both liberals and conservatives could get behind it:

(1) All income, whether earned in the form of wages, dividends or capital gains, are taxed at the same rate.

(2) You have three (well, four) tax brackets:

No one pays income tax on the first $30,000 of income.
Income between $30,000 and $60,000 is taxed at 10%.
Income between $60,000 and $100,000 is taxed at 20%.
Income over $100,000 is taxed at 35%.

Remember, all capital gains, dividends, etc. are being taxed at the same rate, so a super-rich person deriving lots of income from these sources would still be taking a pretty heavy tax hit.

The problem that I see with ultra-high tax rates (e.g., upwards of 70%) is that they discourage compliance. If you tax earnings that high, there is much more incentive for the super-rich to hire expensive tax professionals to find loopholes, hide income, move assets offshore, etc. At the 35% rate, I think you'd have a good level of compliance, while generating good revenue.

[Foo Fighter]

61. Ah, but you're neglecting the whole issue of payroll tax.

It's not all the uncommon for those and the lower end of the spectrum to find that the payroll taxes are a huge part of their tax burden. Any tax schedule adjustment plan would have to take that into account.

As for the loopholes, they could easily be eliminated if those in DC had the will to do so (which, of course, they don't). As an example, it would be very easy to put capital gains taxes in the same category as regular income. However, since "capital gains" are considered as a special classification as far as income is concerned (i.e., income for the rich), it gets a special classification and, hence, a lower tax rate. Classify capital gains as regular income and tax them at the same rate and that would be a start.

[ParkieDem]

76. Understood ...

It's definitely necessary to tax all forms of income at the same rate, and that will go a long way toward getting some tax equity.

And you're absolutely correct that payroll taxes take a disproportionate bite out of lower income workers' wages. I'm all for making all forms of income subject to FICA taxes -- that would probably go a long way to shore up Medicare.

[Gregorian]

30. I'd work on getting money from our military budget before going after citizens.

Even the super wealthy.

And a flatter tax schedule.

[jmowreader]

31. I would settle for a 50-percent margin for everything past $10 million

I would also try this good loophole: increase your payroll by one worker who you're paying a living wage, get one percent taken off your top marginal rate. Add 50 workers and everything past $10 million is tax-free. We'd have to come up with a way to ensure they weren't hiring people for a couple of days just to get the tax cut, though.

[Tailormyst]

32. High taxes on billionaires gives them reason to put the money right back into their business

Instead of pocketing as much as humanly possible.

[quakerboy]

37. Same as what I think everyone else should pay

1% on everything up to 30k. 5% on everything from 30 to 100K. 35% on everything from 100K to 1 million. 65% on 1M to 3M. 95% on everything over 3 million. Inclusive of all income, no matter the source, no loopholes or exceptions

[Virgil Cain]

39. How in the World do you

justify 95%? I know what marginal tax means, but that's absurd. Why would you even bother working once you hit the 3mil mark?

[quakerboy]

40. What work is there that would justify 4 million dollars in pay?

And who in this world would be motivated by 4 million that wouldn't be motivated to do what they love/are good at for 3 million?

Or alternately, why would anyone even bother to work once they hit 2.8 million under Ike in 59? Or is that 4% difference really what would sour the deal for a high earner?

I see that as the point. Work that we do is worth something. But at some point, when hard work is barely compensated, and other work is compensated based purely on who you know, pay is no longer really incentive or fair. I came to the belief that a tax structure similar to what I described would be ideal about 8 years ago, and the last year or so has really cemented that belief pretty solidly. Cutting that curve out at a salary I doubt any of us here will ever reach leaves us with a lot of incentive to do better. And leaves the corporate structure with less incentive to charge more, screw the actual production workers, and not least of all, the investors so that they can pay massive and in my opinion unjustified compensation and bonuses to the upper management.

[Electric Monk]

44. Stickball and Vaudeville, of course

:+

[Occulus]

46. Why would you HAVE to? n/t

[anonymous171]

43. Peter Singer? Is that you? nt

[quakerboy]

50. Are you talking about this peter singer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

Ive never heard of him before, whether this is the right one or not. Will now proceed to read

[anonymous171]

53. Yep. Check out "The Life You Can Save"

He makes the same argument that you made, but applies it to World Poverty issues. Here's the link: http://www.thelifeyoucansave.com/

[quakerboy]

55. Interesting reading

I shall have to do some more. I find that I have actually made some other very similar arguments as well. I think I am honored by the comparison, overall.

Hopefully that was your intention. I can understand why people get angry and protest him, but I also take complex and controversial positions at time, that only make sense to others after a real in depth explanation consideration. Which I am generally not afforded the chance to provide. I don't write books or articles on them very often though, so I don't get the protesters.

[anonymous171]

112. I did mean it as a compliment, don't worry.

Didn't mean to suggest anything to the contrary. I just was surprised at how similar your argument was to Singer's argument

[quakerboy]

114. Dervied from an independantly achieved

but seemingly very similar thought process's.

[salguine]

38. I didn't see an option for "their heads".

[RoadRage]

41. Am I the only person on here who doesn't think that being wealthy is a horrible sin?

It's polls like this that make me realize that I need to be a Registered Independant and not a Dem. I'm all D on Social Issues.. but the "punish the wealthy, 'cause i'm jealous" mentality just pisses me off. But, then again I earn a 6 figure income (and work 15+ hour days sometimes) and pay more in taxes then almost anyone I know. I'm sure that makes most of you happy, but I really don't think I should have to pay 10 times higher taxes then someone else because I earn more.

Whatever.. off soap box.

[anonymous171]

42. You benefit the most from society. That's why you pay more.

[uponit7771]

72. In a country ran by the wealthy it would be a sin but a country ran by middle class it NEEDED

...to keep capital from flowing to the few and them taking it out of circulation.

[scheming daemons]

45. Clinton's model created budget surpluses...none of the others did

...and the current model certainly doesn't.




I think Clinton hit the "sweet spot".... where tax revenue exceeds spending, but doesn't force rich people to find loopholes to avoid paying taxes and doesn't stifle the economy.

[anonymous171]

47. I think we should treat rich tax evaders like drug addicts

Zero tolerance, minimum sentencing, draconian punishments, etc. That way they actually pay. I don't believe that we should be simply "encouraging" them to pay taxes by lowering them.

[SteppingRazor]

99. We actually had a slight surplus for a couple fiscal years under Nixon...

and every year under Tricky Dick ran fairly close to the zero line, which is where I'd like to be -- neither surplus nor deficit.

[gleaner]

48. I chose the 1959 rate .....

That leaves people with the incentive to earn a lot of money a reason to keep trying, and I think it is fair. There are many loopholes which could and should be closed. They serve no purpose except to lower income. Loopholes which stimulate the growth or prosperity of an individual working to increase income or a business trying to grow should be examined and allowed.

I also encourage windfall profit taxes. They are a one time tax on excessive profits to put some of them back into building the economy. My nominations for windfall profit taxes are health insurance companies ( bet you knew that was coming), pharmaceutical companies, gas and oil companies, banks, wall street corporations and war profiteers like Halliburton to name a few. I'm sure you can think of more. One year of decent windfall profit taxes would help close the deficit significantly.

I'm tired of bearing the brunt of the expenses for the rich on my fixed income as I am sure are the rest of the middle class and working poor. That is if there is any difference anymore.

[Kaleva]

49. The tax on the super rich should be on net worth and not on income.

Total up the value of everything you own (stocks, property), have a controlling interest in, have access to for personal use (such as a company jet) and your liquid assets. Subtract your liabilities, what was donated to charities and that would be one's net worth.

[Quantess]

57. This had better not have anything to do with Oregon's 66 & 67 having probably passed.

Because those were very moderate tax increases at a time when our public schools and other social services, that were already pruned down to near nothing, would be on the chopping block yet again if our state didn't get more money.

I just had to get that out there.

[troubledamerican]

60. They owe us their BLOOD for our shortened lives.

Not sarcasm.

[Odin2005]

64. 91%

Soak the fuckers.

[One_Life_To_Give]

65. One thats actually paid and not full of loopholes

Problem with high rates is nobody actually paid them. The effective rates even for the very wealthy were well below those rates.Because as Congress intended people altered their income so that it was always taxed at lower percentages.

It's not reasonable to assume a pro athlete will suddenly had over 13.5million of their 15million salary tot he tax man without undertaking major efforts to reduce their tax exposure. Perhaps creation of a private corporation (e.g. Tom Brady Inc.) which would have expenses etc. But you can be certain that anybody who can afford the lawyers to do the work will find a way to sidestep a confiscatory tax rate.

On edit Since the CEO's and Wall street types take much of the annual compensation as Stock Options. The rate on Income doesn't have any effect on them. As when tey sell the options the income is treated as a "Capital Gain" which has an entirely seperate rate.

[blueworld]

66. Excellent question, but I can't answer it as is

I don't think it's a question of wealth but rather a question of equality of opportunity. Most of the wealthy do not "work" for their incomes. They have trust funds or family businesses or investments. These vehicles, as you noted, give them loopholes the rest of us don't have. And we usually can't ever GET them if the rich are acquiring/protecting their money at our lifelong expense.

If I'm a sole-proprietor & show a business loss on my taxes for 3 years in a row, the IRS won't let me call myself a business any longer. However Bill freakin' Gates steered Microsoft so that they didn't pay any taxes for several years in a row. What's wrong with this picture? Small businesses need the big breaks!

I hardly consider a few hundred Soc Sec dollars (that I contributed) per month an "entitlement" in my old age when I've been paying more taxes all my life than the fat owner of the family business I worked for.

Know what I mean? Whatever isn't "earned" should be taxed more highly. However at what rate? I'll be interested to hear from the experts.

[mainer]

67. Wrong. They do work for their incomes.

http://ezinearticles.com/?So-You-Wanna-Be-a-Millionaire?&id=958335

What millionaires do for a living?

The typical American millionaire is a self-employed (hustler) or business owner (baller). Of the 9 million millionaires, about 65 percent are self-employed. About 4.5 million are business owners, who own restaurant franchises, auto dealerships, real estate, and car washes. Another 1.5 million are self-employed professionals consisting of doctors, lawyers, and accountants. About 66% of millionaires work between forty-five and fifty hours per week, but most enjoy what they do and don't consider it work.

How much is a millionaire's salary?

Contrary to popular belief, you don't need a million dollar salary to become one. The average millionaire only makes about $130,000 per year, but they do something the majority of Americans have proved they simply can't do -- SAVE and INVEST! Another millionaire misconception is that most are wealthy because of an inheritance. However, roughly 80% of millionaires are self-made business people who had ambition, discipline, financial education, and goals, and received no inheritance.

How do Millionaires live?

Most millionaires save between 15-20% of their income, wear inexpensive clothing and drive late-model cars. For example, billionaire Warren Buffet drove a 2001 Lincoln Town car before he auctioned it on Ebay in 2005 for charity and drove a 1983 Oldsmobile for 15 years before purchasing the Town car. Also, you won't catch Bill Gates in the MayBach or $400,000 Rolls Royce Phantom (Jay-Z's favorite car), instead he drove a 1999 Porsche 911 Convertible and a 1988 Porsche 959 Coupe.

About 97% of millionaires own their home and their homes on average are worth $320,000. Most of them have lived in the same home for more than twenty years. Another real-life example is billionaire Warren Buffet, who lives in the same house in Omaha, Nebraska he bought for $31,500 in 1958.

[Romulox]

73. Most wealthy Americans inherited their wealth, regardless of what they do during the day.

Nice job trying to obfuscate though! :hi:

[mainer]

78. Wrong again. Most millionaires are first-generation wealthy

Most millionaires make their money in unremarkable businesses such as funeral homes, bowling alleys and small manufacturing firms. And most live relatively inconspicuously.

http://www.times.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html

* There are 3.5 million millionaires in the U.S.

* The average millionaire:
- is a 57-year-old married man with 3 children
- is self-employed in a practical business such as
farming, pest control or paving contracting
- works between 45 and 55 hours a week
- has a median household annual income of $131,000
- has an average net household net worth of $3.7 million
- owns a home valued at about $320,000
- is first generation affluent
- drives an older model automobile and buys rather
than leases
- attended public schools but is likely to send his children
to private schools

And where do you get YOUR statistics?

[Romulox]

107. Your article is full of uncited statistics, and it's from 1996.

It is 100% self-serving. :hi:

[mainer]

113. I'm still waiting for your statistics

some more sources that most wealthy did not inherit it:

http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/2008/04/18/most-wealthy-individuals-earned-not-inherited-their-wealth/

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/01/14/the-decline-of-inherited-money/tab/article/

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/483304.html

"Most of the rich are entrepreneurs,
and most have earned their wealth. Inheritance
accounts for about 8 percent of the
net worth of these households in the
aggregate. More than half have never
inherited anything, and inherited wealth
is less than 10 percent of total wealth for
more than two-thirds of those who have." (Study, at page 6)

[One_Life_To_Give]

98. Are millionairs wealthy?

Mainer is right if you include people who have a net worth of $1million as wealthy. The recent growth in that category is not from old money, but from frugal professionals and buisiness owners. The numbers may be different for net worths over $10million but certainly is not true for the $1million threshold.

[mainer]

103. the definition is a moving target

It seems to get down to "whoever has more than I do" is wealthy... and doesn't deserve it!

[Romulox]

108. Umm, it's a moving target because the cost of living constantly changes.

I can see that we're dealing with a real libertarian brain trust here... :eyes:

[blueworld]

84. Do you realize who James Bird Guess is? He's a moneyvangelist.

Even I can freelance on ezines. Mr. Guess runs a business selling motivational seminars to corporate America. His business is convincing people that they too can become millionaires.

http://www.jamesbirdguess.com/

He may be the greatest thing since sliced bread & as honest as can be, but I prefer statistics from a more objective source. Thanks for responding, though.

[mainer]

85. Interesting how you ignored the Time.com source

You attack the person who quotes the source, but not the source itself. (Drs. Stanley and Danko)

Again, where are YOUR imaginary statistics?

[blueworld]

116. Interesting how wrong you are. Disagreement isn't attack.

I didn't attack anyone or anything - I thanked him for posting.

The link he provided was not for Time, but for an ezine article. I don't have any use for imaginary statistics which was part of my point. And I have no time to ferret out the actual statistics, but if you do, please post them & let me know.

As I said to another DUer, my point is that inherited millions should be taxed at a different rate than salaries, in my opinion.

[TxRider]

90. The post a more objective source

Every millionaire I have known, and it is more than a few, earned it.

Either with a small business like a car dealership, equipment dealer etc., or is in a profession like doctor or lawyer.

One was even a retired topless dancer.

[blueworld]

115. Valid points all however...

I don't consider the word "millionaire" to be filthy rich in this day & age. Knowing millionaires isn't the same as valid statistics. I haven't been able to find (and I really don't want to put in the effort) how many millionaires are hard-working businessmen as you say, as opposed to those who inherit Mommy or Daddy's company.

My point was that even in the latter case, I believe a salary should be taxed at a different rate than inherited wealth or capital gains or business holdings or whatever. And even those taxes should be progressive; a person with a net worth of 7 million shouldn't pay the same rate as a person with 70 million.

[Iggo]

68. A hell of a lot more than they have been. (n/t)

[slutticus]

69. 100%!!!!111!1

[hunter]

79. Approaching 100% of income exceeding 10 to 15 times the minimum wage.

If the wealthy want to make more money then that they'll just have to pull up the people living at the minimum wage by lobbying for increases in the minimum wage.

[TxRider]

92. Or just move away

[redqueen]

104. Yeah cause that's what happened when Ike was president, right?

[DireStrike]

109. Because nobody remaining could take their place

Oh wait, everybody could.

[yurbud]

80. I like to think of it in terms of how many generations of Paris Hiltons won't have to work a day in

their lives.

If you make enough to have a comfortable retirement and to leave enough for your grandkids and maybe their kids to choose whatever profession they want instead of forced by economic necessity, you've got enough.

Anything beyond that is just for bragging rights at the country club.

[mainer]

83. Interesting how many here ignore the actual facts about millionaires

They're first-generation wealthy, work for a living, are more likely to be small businessmen, and have higher savings rates than the average American.

Oh, and they don't even LOOK like millionaires.

The Paris Hiltons are actually pretty rare.

http://www.times.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html

[RoadRage]

117. Shh..

People who earn money for a living and actually try to save it up to be wealthy are "evil" here.

I'm with you.. i get sick and tired of the "rich = evil" memo pushed here CONSTANTLY. I'm not apolgizing for working hard and earning more money then the average American.. i'll pay my fair share of taxes.. but fair IMO is not 90% after I've worked hard to get to a certain point.

It's stuff like this that makes people want to be Republicans some days.

[CreekDog]

86. All of it

Hand it over.

Until they stop treating *us* like that. x(

[TxRider]

87. Tie their rate to debt/gdp ratio

[SteppingRazor]

97. Something that, by both my age and political ideology, I never thought I'd be able to say:

I voted for Nixon.

:silly:

[apocalypsehow]

100. The Clinton tax rates seem about right, thus my vote. Mitigated obscene amounts of wealth while not

stifling capital investment and risk-taking. I might bump it up to 43-45%.

[B Calm]

101. They should pay ALL THE TAXES!! Wealth Recovery Tax as a

recovery mechanism for all the benefits large businesses and the very rich received at the expense of 99% of the population for protection services provided by the US government... judgment day!

[Common Sense Party]

102. I should pay ZERO taxes. Anyone who makes more than me should

pay at least 50%.

I think that's fair.

[taught_me_patience]

105. 50% over $1MM is fair imho

My optimal tax breakdown would be:

0-30k - 0%
30-75k - 15%
75-150k - 22%
150k-250k - 30%
250k-1MM - 40%
1MM+ - 50%

[DireStrike]

106. Taxes should increase asymptotically to 100%

Maximum wage, baby.

I'm not sure when they should get there, but certainly we have "earners" now who should be hitting 99.9% tax brackets.

[MattBaggins]

110. 101% of everything they own

[TheKentuckian]

111. I'm fine with starting at Jimmy levels and working up as need be

[Sebastian Doyle]

118. Two arguments against perpetual inherited wealth.

Any questions?