Zyphlin

I keep seeing comments of "We'll raise the tax rate on the highest income bracket to pay for [x]" arguments. I've also seen numerous threads talking about people paying their "Fair" share.

So I'm curious, for the liberals and left leaning independents amongst us. How much do you think would be fair, or even just correct, to take from a house hold making $250,000 in general?

Looking for a rough dollar amount more so than a percentage.

At what point would you think its "too much"?

__________________
Obama Wins. Time to reach for the new American Dream: "Strive for Mediocrity, avoid success, get free crap"

RightinNYC

Just to create a point of reference, here's the current tax amounts for someone making $250,000:

Federal Withholding: $67,607.25
Social Security: $6,324.00
Medicare: $3,625.00

This doesn't include any state or city taxes.

For those of us here in NYC, you have to add in:

NYS: $17,441.34
NY SDI: $31.20
City Tax: $9,501.00

Which means that the takehome from a $250k salary is $145,470.21

Then you pay 9% tax on everything you buy...

__________________
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Iriemon

I agree that the tax rate should not be dramatically increased on folks making $250k a year.

IMO it should be raised more on folks making $2.5 million, and more on folks making 25 million, and more on folks making $250 million, and more on folks making $2.5 billion.

In the 1950s, the greatest generation had the WWII debt and paid a top tax rate of 91% to pay down that debt.

We now have the Republican debt to pay down. Compared to GDP, it is now about 1/2 the amount it was following WWII. Half the 50s rate, or 45%, progressively increased on incomes over $2.5 million, would go a long way towards achieving the goal of paying down the debt we have now.

__________________
Matthew 5:9

aegyptos

So how much of $2.5 million dollar income would you tax away? You suggest that 91% is not unreasonable.

Also I take issue with your characterization of the debt as republican debt. Democrats ran up their share of it. You would object to the WW2 debt being called the democrat debt to pay for a democrat war.

Iriemon

I suggested no such thing. I stated a fact.

The debt was $1 trillion in 1981 before the Republican tax cuts took effect; it had quadrupled to $4 trillion by the time Bush1 left office in 1993. It was $5.6trillion when Bush2 took office and about $9.4 trillion now.

Thus, of the $8.4 trillion in debt run up since 1981, $6.8 trillion or 80% was run up under Republican administrations. The other 20% or $1.6 trillion accrued while Clinton was president, though the $340 billion annual deficit he inhereted from Bush1 was responsible for that before the deficit was turned into a short lived suplus by the end of Clinton's presidency.

IMO, referring to it as the "Republican debt" is very accurate because that is what it is.

aegyptos

So calling the WW2 debt the democrat debt is equally accurate using your reasoning, right? I mean after all 100% of it was run up under a democrat president.

Back to the question. Your mention of a 91% tax rate on the rich of FDR's time suggests that you find this an acceptable number. If it isn't an acceptable number to you, what is?

Iriemon

No. FDR didn't start WWII, raised taxes to pay for it, and the debt was necessary to finance a world war.

The Republic debt was mostly the result of pandering tax cuts to the pass the buck generation.

The 1950s were not FDR's time. I stated in my post what I thought a reasonable rate was.

aegyptos

You can't have it both ways. Either both are fair or neither one is fair.

(Hint: its the second choice.)

I'm sorry, I missed you idea of a tax number. Would you repeat it? Or tell me the post number so I can read it for myself?

Iriemon

Disagree with your characterization.

aegyptos

Progressively increased to what on top incomes? A direct question. Just answer directly with a number.