By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - What % of tax revenues should the rich (top 5%) pay?

Mr Khan said:

If i could set the rules, there would be universal salary caps, and any income above that had to be given in the form of stock in the company you work for, frozen in your possession for at least two years, to guarantee that incomes above a certain level were 100% dedicated to productive investment, though the ceiling for that would be at like $10 million annually.

 

Also provisions to seize 100% of income that people deliberately attempt to hide from taxes


Forcing a company to pay people in stock wouldn't necessarily guarantee that the cash would go on to further production.  The most likely scenario is that companies would sit on larger cash reserves to carry them through lean times. 

Also, I don't see employees accepting such a system because if the company is issuing tons of new shares every year all the old shares would become seriously devalued... It's be like a yearly decrease in how much you make.



Around the Network
ChichiriMuyo said:
ramses01 said:

10% or so, same as everyone else.


The only way to get an income tax that low is to make minimum wage and work part time.  The average American is taxed 25%.

And the average american is grossly overtaxed!  10% to cover infrastructure and defense.  Everything else can be funded by a national sales tax.



De85 said:
Mr Khan said:

If i could set the rules, there would be universal salary caps, and any income above that had to be given in the form of stock in the company you work for, frozen in your possession for at least two years, to guarantee that incomes above a certain level were 100% dedicated to productive investment, though the ceiling for that would be at like $10 million annually.

 

Also provisions to seize 100% of income that people deliberately attempt to hide from taxes


Forcing a company to pay people in stock wouldn't necessarily guarantee that the cash would go on to further production.  The most likely scenario is that companies would sit on larger cash reserves to carry them through lean times. 

Also, I don't see employees accepting such a system because if the company is issuing tons of new shares every year all the old shares would become seriously devalued... It's be like a yearly decrease in how much you make.

You're probably right, but i would want to create some system where income over $10 million (or some other very high amount) was guaranteed to be productively, domestically invested (normally i'm not protectionist), but there needs to be a guarantee that top-tier income is improving lives domestically, while still providing a financial incentive for top earners to earn more than $10 million a year

engineering capitalism is difficult, but necessary



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

0% FairTax Ftw



ramses01 said:
ChichiriMuyo said:
ramses01 said:

10% or so, same as everyone else.


The only way to get an income tax that low is to make minimum wage and work part time.  The average American is taxed 25%.

And the average american is grossly overtaxed!  10% to cover infrastructure and defense.  Everything else can be funded by a national sales tax.

Income, corporate, capital gains, dividend, payroll, estate, etc can be covered by 23 cents of every dollar spent on new goods or services going to the feds. If we had a 10% flat tax on say all income over $10,000, we could probably have a sales tax of <5% to cover the rest of the revenue. No payroll tax and only 10% corporate tax would go along way to keeping business here and growing the economy.



Around the Network
Mr Khan said:
De85 said:
Mr Khan said:

If i could set the rules, there would be universal salary caps, and any income above that had to be given in the form of stock in the company you work for, frozen in your possession for at least two years, to guarantee that incomes above a certain level were 100% dedicated to productive investment, though the ceiling for that would be at like $10 million annually.

 

Also provisions to seize 100% of income that people deliberately attempt to hide from taxes


Forcing a company to pay people in stock wouldn't necessarily guarantee that the cash would go on to further production.  The most likely scenario is that companies would sit on larger cash reserves to carry them through lean times. 

Also, I don't see employees accepting such a system because if the company is issuing tons of new shares every year all the old shares would become seriously devalued... It's be like a yearly decrease in how much you make.

You're probably right, but i would want to create some system where income over $10 million (or some other very high amount) was guaranteed to be productively, domestically invested (normally i'm not protectionist), but there needs to be a guarantee that top-tier income is improving lives domestically, while still providing a financial incentive for top earners to earn more than $10 million a year

engineering capitalism is difficult, but necessary

It'd be super tough, that's why I have exactly zero interest in entering politics...



Mr Khan said:
De85 said:
Mr Khan said:

If i could set the rules, there would be universal salary caps, and any income above that had to be given in the form of stock in the company you work for, frozen in your possession for at least two years, to guarantee that incomes above a certain level were 100% dedicated to productive investment, though the ceiling for that would be at like $10 million annually.

 

Also provisions to seize 100% of income that people deliberately attempt to hide from taxes


Forcing a company to pay people in stock wouldn't necessarily guarantee that the cash would go on to further production.  The most likely scenario is that companies would sit on larger cash reserves to carry them through lean times. 

Also, I don't see employees accepting such a system because if the company is issuing tons of new shares every year all the old shares would become seriously devalued... It's be like a yearly decrease in how much you make.

You're probably right, but i would want to create some system where income over $10 million (or some other very high amount) was guaranteed to be productively, domestically invested (normally i'm not protectionist), but there needs to be a guarantee that top-tier income is improving lives domestically, while still providing a financial incentive for top earners to earn more than $10 million a year

engineering capitalism is difficult, but necessary


 It's only necessary if you think we should be wasting money on things that are not competitive like ethanol or green energy. It works just fine they way it's meant to be.



hobbit said:
Mr Khan said:
De85 said:
Mr Khan said:

If i could set the rules, there would be universal salary caps, and any income above that had to be given in the form of stock in the company you work for, frozen in your possession for at least two years, to guarantee that incomes above a certain level were 100% dedicated to productive investment, though the ceiling for that would be at like $10 million annually.

 

Also provisions to seize 100% of income that people deliberately attempt to hide from taxes


Forcing a company to pay people in stock wouldn't necessarily guarantee that the cash would go on to further production.  The most likely scenario is that companies would sit on larger cash reserves to carry them through lean times. 

Also, I don't see employees accepting such a system because if the company is issuing tons of new shares every year all the old shares would become seriously devalued... It's be like a yearly decrease in how much you make.

You're probably right, but i would want to create some system where income over $10 million (or some other very high amount) was guaranteed to be productively, domestically invested (normally i'm not protectionist), but there needs to be a guarantee that top-tier income is improving lives domestically, while still providing a financial incentive for top earners to earn more than $10 million a year

engineering capitalism is difficult, but necessary


 It's only necessary if you think we should be wasting money on things that are not competitive like ethanol or green energy. It works just fine they way it's meant to be.

Well that is the fundamental disagreement, isn't it? It's bred opportunity, certainly, but has also allowed for unchecked exploitation



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Kantor said:

Ideally, I would set it out something like this:

First $10,000 - Tax Free

Next $40,000 - 10%

Next $50,000 - 20%

Anything above - 30%

Britain's sytem is currently ridiculous.


how does Britain's system work? My cousin earns around $75,000 and he's taxed 43% or something like that.



 

mrstickball said:

Interesting.

According to all responses, so far, the rich are taxed too much. At least in America, anyways.

And if the proportion of total wealth by the rich far exceeds that of everyone else, why would it be considered "taxed too much"?

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

In 2007, the top 5% owned over 60% of the wealth.  If that is the case, then why do they only pay 1/3 of all taxes?