At what income level should we begin to raise taxes at over 100,000 over 500,000 over 1,000,000?

Question

Consider the average family income is 35,000 a year , over a 10 year period they earn 350,000 . Imagine working 10 years to earn less then 500,000 dollars . Who makes over 500,000 a year ? Besides actors ,sports ,and music stars can you think of another group that makes over 500,000 a year . Like say real estate agents who sell over 20,000,000 a year can earn this much for showing houses while construction workers who build them make 20-40 thousand a year .So building homes does not pay as well as selling them does .
50 dollars an hour would be good money right and this still only adds up to 100,000 a year. Is a sales person worth 250 dollars and hour and the people building them worth only 22.50 ?
Things are out of wack in america .It would be nice to continue selling the dream of earning big money ,but the reality is that you and your parents will be making less then 50 dollars an hour .
I think parents fail to teach kids about money or taxes and who gets paid what and why .

Raising taxes on people who make over 100,000 a year means that average people could save hundreds of dollars a year in taxes .
These people are your parents who often do with out so you can have a new dress or the right pair of shoes or the latest video game system .
The reality is that less then 10% of americans make over 100,000 a year and those that do make tens of millions of dollars more money then you will earn if you worked hard for 100 years . 100 years at 35,000 is 3,500,000 so what one person earns in a 100 years is equal to what one person earns in a year .Should we raise taxes on people who make over 3,500,000

Answer 1

This is long (I'm sorry). But I just received it in an e-mail and I think it speaks pretty eloquently about "progressive" income redistribution. Here goes:

Father-Daughter Talk

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, And let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she‘s too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Republican party."

Answer 2

I think that the Democratic Party leadership is a whole lot smarter than you are. I say, go right ahead and raise taxes genius. Then watch what happens in 2 years. The Democrats have a slight majority in both houses of congress because of the stalemate in Iraq. You idiots who want to raise taxes will see your sorry butts kicked completely out of government if taxes go up. You know nothing and never will. Put yourself in the place of a family earning $100,000 a year with two kids in college. Tuition being about $30,000 a year per student leaves them about $40,000 for themselves. Tack on the taxes that idiots like you want and they'll have less than a guy working for $25,000 a year. It's obvious that your parents didn't waste any tuition money on you!

Answer 3

Most economists from both the left and right continually say that it is a mistake to raise taxes during a recession. Something is obviously wrong with the way the tax code is written in my opinion, but I'm far from being an expert on the subject. The problem of reduced revenue is largely due to the fact that millions of people are no longer paying taxes. They aren't working. Also the government is spending way too much partly due to financial aid to those people. (I do not disagree with that), and partly because of stimulus, bail outs, and government programs that artificially inject money into the private sector based on artificial methods, not to mention printing $2 trillion worthless dollars. You can't build a stable economy on debt and printing worthless money. When you compare tax rates, economic growth, etc, you have to take into account what the circumstances were at the time. After the war, the baby boom started. Everybody bought a house and stuff to fill the house. They built the economy around the family. There was a huge demand for virtually everything and all of it was manufactured here. Now those babies that did so much to enlarge the economy are getting old and instead of being a benefit, will drag it down. All through out the boomer generation they were the reason for its growth, then became the consumers and providers to the older generation to pay for their parents SSI and Medicare in their prime of life. We now have globalization and fewer jobs to go around as well as the largest aging population in our history. Our appropriation process must take this into account with reforming the entitlements and cutting out unnecessary spending. Just increasing the debt ceiling year after year and charging higher taxes does not address our most serious economic issues effecting the future of the country. Get the government out of the way and let our private sector grow. Get people back to work and then, if we still need more revenue, raise their taxes. Cinton's tech boom couldn't be stopped. It was one of the most innovative periods in our history since the industrial revolution began and again, it was all right here in the US. Very low unemployment and almost everyone paid taxes even though the rate was low as compared to earlier times. The also were able to balance the budge because they cut spending radically to include cutting the military by a third and reforming welfare. Also in the '80's the age was raised for SSI benefits. Our legislators have got to study history to find the way forward. Check out how the very serious recession of 1920-21 was dealt with. No raised taxes, no printing money, no stimulus. 12% employment in year one turned into 6.7% unemployment in year two. By 1923, we had 2.4% unemployment. They did nothing but cut spending and pay down debt.

Answer 4

You might want to get an education in economics before you rant about something that you clearly don't understand. Supply and demand determine the money these people make, not some evil pixie bent on keeping the working class down.
I worked for four years building houses, and now I work in the corporate setting. I absolutely agree that the people selling the house should make a great deal more, because it is much harder to be successful selling houses than it is to learn how to build one.
Sorry for my rant, but I'm tired of seeing people on here crying about how unfair things are, when they have no idea what they are talking about.

P.S. If you are looking for the "reality" of the situation, its that the top 10% income earners in America already pay 90% of the taxes. How much of a handout do you want??

Answer 5

There should be a flat tax with limited or no loop holes (e.g. medical, educational, charity, number of persons support by that income), and a lower threshold (e.g. <$25K is tax free). The tax should apply to all forms of income (e.g. salary, capital gains, interest).

As for why society values the contributions of one occupation over another, it is how capitalism works. I much prefer that to allowing a person or group of people to determine salaries based on their opinion.

I do however agree that there are scales that are just crazy, and real estate agents and lawyers are at the top of my list.

Finally, I couldn't agree more that parents should teach their children the basics of economics.

Answer 6

I'd say $200,000/year (for a couple), and then index it for inflation.

This will mean that people in low-cost areas do rather well. So be it. The problem comes for a family in some absurdly priced area like New York or most of California, where it's not unreasonable to pay $1,000,000 for a small-average home. Such a family, making 200k between them, is well off, but nor rich, I don't believe.

Answer 7

why keep taxing the rich? Why punish them more and more for their success? Did you know that the top 1% of the wealthiest pay for over 40% of all taxes? Think about that. Why make em pay more?
By the way, I make less than 50k per year.

Answer 8

wow is this a question about taxes or a statement about wages? Why not go with a simple flat tax with an exemption for those under 10K a year. Do away with all the refunds and BS. Just figure how much the government needs to run and take it.

Answer 9

your math is flawed and you must work at mcdonalds, i am paying for me you and all of the lazy idiots out there and you want to raise them even more Hmmmm the libs will destroy the middle class

Answer 10

I agree. $200,000 and index thereafter.