Ideally we wouldn't need taxes or government programs -- everyone would be born with an equal alottment of wealth & real estate equity (actual equity, no mortage or rent) and the natural resources therein. Everyone could be as productive or lazy as he wanted.

Prior to to institutionalization of warlords after the dawn of agriculture, we've been forced to pay out tithe to someone. Before then, land was almost universally held in a communal/tribal/traditional arrangement. Only in the past couple centuries is it owned so completely by foreign (i.e. non-local, speculators) entities and banks, with government always there to take its cut as well, and to defend the unjust arrangement -- by force if necessary.

In a nutshell, we're born with no birthright to land whatsoever, and spend 30 years not trying to overcome indentured servitude of passage across the Atlantic -- but just to put a head over our shoulders in the form of a mortgage.

So ideally taxes are a way to help reclaim this injustice against people everywhere who've been usurped from lands. It's become seen as the economic engine -- to get people to work, you dangle out the carrot of real estate ownership some day. But in practice it seems to be descending toward neo-serfdom, landless post-industrial peasantry who rent, never own, and there's always a skimmer-off somewhere in the middle.

By the time most mortgages are amoratized and the person, theoretically, owns real estate, they've probably paid the bank well over the amount the property itself was valued at. The net effect is clear to see -- banks increasingly will have more equity than individuals.

We don't merely need to tax the rich and feed the poor. We need to reposses land from distant ownership, and return it to municipalities, rural townships, and real people. Send the banks packing. How about a law taxing non-local ownership and speculation of real estate into the stratosphere? Particularly of residential real estate. It should be virtually impossible for anyone except an individual (i.e. human being -- no corporations) to buy residential property without paying such a tax penalty as to send them packing to a weaker-democracy zone to pillage instead.

Mr. Hartmann,

I agree 100%. American was once a great country and it has been the borrow and spend Republicans that have ruined it.

"Tax the rich, feed the poor till their all rich no more"

-- 10 Years After --

I noticed that Thom Hartmann talked about this topic on his radio show (which is one of the best on the radio, thanks Thom) and is repeating some of the information here, but after all, it is such an important topic. It's one of the ideas of the Republicans that lower taxes are always better. But, as Thom points out, taxes are the 'entrance fee' to a civil society. The progression of the republican thought could be to zero taxes, or maybe just taxing the poor to punish them for being too 'lazy' to become rich, according to their twisted logic. While the hard working citizen pays their taxes, even though we may not like to, many corporations avoid paying large portions of their taxes, partly thanks to Bush and his cronies beholden to corporate interest.

Reagan did worse things to the people of this country than Osama Bin Laden ever did or could. But the poor, uneducated, underpaid recycle meaningless rhetoric all the while thinking they are "safe" when it is the right wing all around them who really wishes them dead, including ron paul.

"Tax the rich, feed the poor till their all rich no more"

Oh there have always been rich. Even during the Depression era, there were plenty of people with money. It is the harnessing of that wealth to do good for society that determines the outcome. Repugs want you to think that you can trust what people do with their money. I do not. That is just more free market smoke screen while they loot us blind. If the people want the opportunity to live and loot in this country, they will pay the freight or leave. The PEOPLE set the freight charges.

I am sure that the poor, uneducated, underpaid etc., when alone at night, fear the future and realize how vunerable they truly are. Unfortunately, at that lonely time, they turn to Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly and their ilk and find out that everysthing is really, really, really all right.

Unfortunately, the corporations that pay for our Congressmen (both Republicans and Democrats) won't allow their puppets to increase their taxes. It's more obvious every day that our "representatives" no longer represent us--they represent the companies we (at least those of us who still have jobs) work for.

personally, I think taxing ANYONE over 50% is obscene. If your going to tax something 91%, why not just make it 100%, take over the means of production, wave a little red book around and be done with it?

I think a fairer tax system would be to make the 1st $30,000 everyone earns tax free,in order to cover their basic needs, then apply a 40% flat tax across the board on everything over $30,000, and get rid of all the loopholes.

I would also apply a 50% tax on all corporate money taken out of the country, an attractive tax break per domestic employee, and a tariff on all imports to make the cost of cheap 3rd world labor on an equal footing with domestic labor.

My daughters are school teachers. They have Masters in Education and both have been employed since graduation. They teach in California and neither one of them will ever own a home, they will drive their cars until the wheels fall off, they seldom go to a movie or to dinner. They teach the children of wealthy parents, people their own age who drive 100k plus cars and pay annual mortgage payments that dwarf my kids annnual salaries...

Growing up in the "baby boom" generation my teachers owned homes, bought new cars, took interesting vacations and sent their kids to college...my kids can't imagine ever having those "luxuries"...ever!

They love teaching and are good at it, they win awards, they are honored at banquets and they get interviewed on TV and in the papers...they have everything except a decent pay check, a paycheck they can live on!

What is the matter with a country that expects it's teachers to live on slightly over 40k a year in a district with median household income of 125k in a county with median home values of 778k...a county where my daughter's boyfriend quit teaching disabled kids and is now a plumber making over three times what he made teaching!

Something is very wrong...I sent my youngest a check last Friday so she could move to a decent apartment in a decent nieghborhood with her roomate. First, Last and Security deposit totaled $7,500 and her share of the rent is going to take over half of her take home pay. She is 30 years old and has had roomates her entire working career! When I was 27 (1972) I was able to buy a home, owned 2 new cars and still had money left over every month! I calcuated what I would have to earn today to live in the same neighborhood and maintain a similiar lifestyle today; the figure is north of 250k...I was making 31 thousand in '72!

When the revolution comes...it aint gonna be pretty!!!

There was a reason that the economy grew far more in the 80's and 90's than in the 70's. Taxes at the 70% level give a massive disincentive to anyone to work their way up to those income levels. What needs to happen is a closing of loopholes that enable some people and corporations to avoid taxes altogether. I for one, have no wish to go back to the "stagflation" of the 70's.

Agree that anything over 50% is just obscene and can never be justified by anyone. It's called robbery. The system does need reform so that all income levels pay a fair amount, but returning to what amounts to government sponsored financial rape isn't the way to go.

I agree that the Gipper's tax cuts for the rich were damaging to the common good, in numerous ways. Reagan also raised the bottom tax rate for the poor from 10 to 15%, I think.

I think the standard dedcution should be raised to what is a livable income, with an automatic annual 10% cost of living increase, just like Congress gets. No one can live on $5,000/yr. I also think the bottom percentage should be reduced from 10% to 1% and even then, it wouldn't equal the big break Reagan gave to the rich.

A flat tax is just a tax break for the rich. If someone makes $50k and you tax 20% they keep $40k. The person taking $500k out of the system keeps $400k, or 10 times what they other person keeps.

Progressive taxation is THE way. The more you make the higher percentage you pay. It is not a disincentive for "making" more, no one makes a million dollars per year they TAKE it, because they can. There is no productivity attached to it. How many pairs of Nikes did they make at a $1 per hour? They did not make any Nikes, they worked for the ad agency that did the ads selling $5 sneakers for $100...no productivity.

If you want to understand inflation, look at the economist's maxim "too many dollars chasing too few goods". Then imagine a totally non productive ad exec taking $500k per year out of the system, buying goods and services, but producing NOTHING in return. There is part of your inflation.

Not everyone that makes large $'s are "non-productive". Also, many business owners have a tremendous amount of risk inherent in running a business. If, instead of making 1 million a person was to LOSE 1 million, the government would not be standing there to take the hit. Instead, you might be looking at loosing your house and your business. That said, I agree that many high paid executives aren't work 1/10th of what they are getting paid.

Thom, great as always. Look, arguments against a high top tax rate usually involve pie-in-the-sky promises that "anybody can get rich", which is just a false hope to the vast majority of people. It's the "myth of the self-made man", Dale Carnegie BS that keeps there from being a true leftist, anti-wealth rebellion in the U. S. Instead of the reasoning being that the rich deserve whatever they can get, we need to reframe the debate closer to "those that have more have a greater responsibility to the society that gave them that opportunity". Thom is also right when he argues on his show and elsewhere that the left needs to take over the Democratic Party and run candidates who are TRULY leftist/liberal, instead of just giving lip service, while bowing to their corporate masters.

I disagree that while doing that you continue to vote for the primary winners, even when they are part of the problem - like Hillary Clinton and the rest of the DLC scum. Like the neo-cons, who spent years gaining control of the Republican Party, we may lose some races by not settling for the lesser evil, but in the long-run we will take over if we deny these lily-livered sellouts the reward of continued power for their bad behavior. KICK ALL THE BUMS OUT!

Unfortunately, most of the electorate are focussed on pop culture and are paying no attention to the US descent to becoming a thrid world nation.

The conservative revolution and ideology are destroying America. It's time we eliminate these ridiculous policies and ideas and return to government for the people.

BTW, Hartmann says, "...Reagan had to borrow more money in his 8 years than the sum total of all presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined." Why is it that our government, that creates money, needs to borrow it?

Sigma: Thom Hartmann, although he didn't write it in his article, he talked about it on his radio program, doesn't believe this is about people who make a million, but it's about the SUPER rich, the people making tens or HUNDREDS of millions of dollars that problems arise. The argument, 'well the rich people will invest their money back into the system' loses relevance when they make obscene amounts of money.

We should never forget that not only do those with wealth have the power to redirect the income streams of wealth-producing enterprises into their own pockets, so that they benefit off the labor and productivity of others, but also that those who accumulate great wealth acquire the power to bully the rest of us and corrupt our political system and our culture. And most of them use that power, frequently. The desire to limit others wealth is born not of envy (that is the propaganda of the economic elites), but of suffering the abuse and bullying by the rich.

We are headed toward an economic and societal catastrophe because the wealthy of the US have become addicted to manipulating the system to increase their share of the pie, rather than to actually creating value. And the addiction was aided and abetted by Reagan economic policies that rewarded such manipulation far greater than it rewarded innovation and increasing productivity.

Not only do workers get low pay and have to pay more for goods and service, they pay most of the taxes as well. Who says slavery is dead?

Corporations used to pay 60% of the national budget decades ago, but now pay less than 7%. We were told that was for "competitiveness", which I do not even think is a real word.

What that meant was help us in our downsizing, outsourcing, leveraged buyout race to the bottom with YOUR hard work and taxes, while we fill our Swiss bank accounts and sail our yachts.

We have been conned people, by one of the best B grade movie actors of the last half of the 20th century, Ronald Reagan. He used to sell soap on TV and was head of the screen actors guild before he became Governor of California. He almost ruined the public University system and set the stage for Prop 13 that did ruin the K12 school system. He could sell refrigerators to the Eskimos.

Massive wealth disparity, disproportionately funded military, ascendancy of religious influence, greater reliance on indentured labor, higher taxes on labor than on inheritance...

...oh how we love the smell of our banana republic on a Monday morning.

It states explicitly on our currency that each cent, dollar, etc is the property of the united states government. It is the responsibility of that government to see that its currency and all natural resources, rights, and comforts are distributed equally among it's people.

The greed-addicted "elite" money hoarders respond:

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Good luck with that. Why do you think we're filling up HRC and BA campaign coffers to the brim? To pay MORE taxes?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

I agree with the author's premise. We need to bring back taxes to the way they were before Reagan lowered them. 70% tax rates were the norm then and with this money, the Government could spend it wisely. Far far more wisely than any citizen could, that is for sure.

Income taxes should be paid by those making more than say $50,000 or $100,000. Over this amount pay 1% tax. Every $50,000 more the rate goes up another 1%. If my math is right, somewhere around 2.5 million, the top rate of about 50%is reached. Couple this with much higher energy taxes to reduce global warming and our energy addiction and we have a much saner tax system. We could alternatively have moderately increased energy taxes coupled with high fees on inefficient appliances and vehicles.

Look at what the government is currently doing with your tax dollars and ponder whether it is a good idea to give them MORE money.

Do you like for the government to build roads through old growth forests to help out the logging industry?

Do you like to help energy companies conduct "research" into "alternate fuels" by spraying pine-tar or diesel onto coal and collecting millions from the government.

Have you seen how many billions are wasted under the guise of Homeland Security?

We need more oversight, media reform definitely, an end to earmarked legislation, etc. but we don't need to give more money to the government. What a warped lesson to take from the Minnesota Bridge collapse. Remember that Minnesota has plenty of money, it just got spent on a new stadium and who knows what else.

sjc_1 August 6th, 2007 12:49 pm wrote:

"Repugs want you to think that you can trust what people do with their money."

He is refering to rich people of course. Isn't that demand-side economics? I thought the repugs were all about supply-side economics. Demand economics for the rich and the rest of should just shut up ant take what's offered? The economic power of the have-nots combined is real power, too bad we can't learn to work together. Example: if we all seriously worked hard to reduce our consumption of oil, we could really turn the tables on the oil industry. I started riding my bike to work (about 2 miles) and now go to the gas pump every three weeks instead of every week. I stop at the store on the way home and that saves a trip later. Of course my car is there when I need it, but what a difference in the gas bill. Even if everyone didn't drive their cars just one day a month, the oil companies would feel it and get scared.

Fine article, Thom. You have put a lot of information together and have come to a lot of correct conclusions. However, rather than Reagan, I think it would be more appropriate to simply refer to that era as the first and second terms of Bush. Remember who ran the illegal wars of that era and who was making most all the decisions in the Whitehouse. Bush, Bush Bush…The Bush family the number one enemy of freedom loving, Liberty loving Americans.

Reagan was simply a puppet/puppy reading his lines.

Whats wrong with you people? Do you how much it costs to operate a private jet, to man a 400 foot yacht, to buy a Ferrari, hire someone to kiss your ass 24/7? These super rich need to cover these expenses and if takes money out of the pockets of hardworking people too bad. They should should go buy their own politicians like the super rich did.

Maybe the bigger question for many of those in the formally 70% bracket is why are they paid so much. Many of these CEO's are pulling salaries that can't be justified.

Why give more money to the government, so they can waste more of it?

If you tax your higher income countrymen at 70-90%, they will not be your countrymen much longer..they will just take their money and the jobs they can create, and go elsewhere with it al la NAFTA.

I personally started at the very bottom fo society. I had to drop out of school and go to work for financial and family reasons. I worked as a minimum wage construction laborer for years, starting ar 15 years old, and was lucky to eventually, through hard work and long hours, get apprenticed as a carpenter. For most of my life it was a choice between paying the rent and buying groceries..I often had to work all week with no foos at home, but I always put aside money for bus fare to work.

I finsihed my high school education through correspondence, and as I increased my value to my employers, I slowly started to earn more money. I put aside a little each week for my education, and eventually had earned enough to put myself through a 2 year technical college construction program, by living in a crappy trailer for 10 years.

When I graudated from college, I got a job junior management that paid more money. I didn't go out and buy a fancy house and car, but used the money to take a part-time evening bachelors degree, still living in the crappy trailer. when I graduated THAT program, I finaly got a job that paid enough for me to buy my own modest home (with ridiculous mortgage), and a decent car.

Today, in my late 40's , I am making a nice 6 figure salary. things are looking up. I am also taking my Masters degree, part time, on my own dime again, so that I can contimue to move ahead

After all my hard work and sacrifice, should I now have to hand over 90% of my salary to the fucking goverment that never once did anything for me???

The minute that happened, I would take my self paid education, and move to another country that allowed me to keep what I worked so hard for, while contributing my fair share to the social benefit of all.

A fair and equitable tax rate for all I can live with and actually support. but theft by majority I would not stand for.

you want more money? work for it like I did.

Greg R

I doubt your tax plan would work - I think
the revenue stream would be too low (but
don't know that for sure - that's for
economists and accountants to figure out.)

But going back to the pre-Reagan tax policy
(and closing loopholes) would be a good
start. I remember (contrary to the stated
goals), taxes got MORE complicated after
the Reagan tax-simplification plan.

The places to start would be basing taxes
on multiples of the minimum wage, removing
the cap on FICA wages so the rich don't
automatically get a cut of 7.65% on their
income (which they don't even to pay to
start with on their capital investment
income), removing all the garbage loopholes
and worksheets in the current tax code,
getting rid of tax credits (just lower the
taxes on those that earn less instead), and
go back to truly progressive tax rates.

IMHO

of course I never did learn how to spell =)

Reagan was actually a lot worse than this article suggests, but I suspect Mr. Hartmann knows this. What's a little death squad among friends?

For America, it's gonna get a lot worse before it gets any better. As long as Americans can sit back and ogle their flat-screen televisions and enjoy easy access to every vice known they will not turn away from the greed that is quite literally ruining the world.

It's too easy for Americans to tune-out when there are still apples in the orchard of the Land of Plenty. It matters not one bit that the apples are small, plastic and made in China. All that matter's is that the life being ruined is CURRENTLY not their own, (or so they believe.)

Ask not for whom the bell tolls....

May the revolution be as swift as it is peaceful.

Peace to you and yours.

Paul you already read the following response I posted recently.
But Greg R---I'm reposting it and just throwing the idea at you:

I would like to suggest a graduated consumption tax. For example:
- food (staples--not Beluga caviar!) would be exempt
- health-related items---also exempt
- gasoline - the first $15 purchase exempt (i.e. encouraging energy conservation by rewarding people who drive cars with a higher MPG). If you drive a hummer or gas-guzzling SUV add a 5%tax (i.e. your gas purchase is going to exceed the $15/tax exempt
amount).
- autos---no tax on energy-saving cars
- everything else can be taxed as for example:
- items costing less than $20--no tax
- items costing between $20-$50---1%
- items costing between $50-$100----1.5%
- items costing " $100-$200---2%
(you catch the drift....)
- the $1000 dress....30%
- the $2000 leather bag ---35%
- the $300 bottle of wine ---10%
- a $10,000 watch....50% tax
- the ferrari, the yacht----90%tax (if you can afford the ferrari, you can surely afford the tax!)

Just wanted to show that we don't have to throw away the proverbial baby with the bathwater. A progressive consumption tax that takes into consideration the true costs
of lower and middle class incomes is worth taking a look at. In tandem, the income tax should be drastically reduced on families with incomes of $75,000 or less.

I would like to recommend a book called "PLan B" by Lester Brown. One chapter deals with new models of taxation, among other business matters toward an earth-friendly economy.

So reassuring to hear all those intelligent, innnovative thinkers on this blog. It just shows that Americans are very resourceful and that we can set this country on the great and moral ground it always aspires to. This is at the root of what makes this country so great: it can REINVENT itself as it often has under the stewardship of the truly great presidents. The disintegration of our beloved USA is no accident---but rather the result of an intentional design by a few spoiled, ignorant, shallow, greedy, power-obsessed and very insecure leaders.

I'm also working on some cutting edge ideas on education---and how to reinvent IT. I'll publish it in a few months.

What ever happened to the great "social-democratic compromise" of the 1930s? What happened to Republicans - thinking LaGuardia - who had the balls and the rational capability to utilize public expenditure in the face of huge opposition, simply because it was the most efficient method of re-building the economy?

This country is run by a bunch of greedy baboons, and if we don't take it back in damn big way, we may never recover. The 35W collapse is just another sign of the great unraveling of a system that was flawed from the beginning. Sooner or later, it will ALL come crashing down around our feet. The question is, who will be there to rebuild it?

I will be standing with Thom, that's for sure, dig?

I support a 100% inheritence tax, as I have no kids, and plan to spend every nickel before I die.

Anything I can't manage to spend will be used to have lips surgically attached to my butt, and be buried upside down in a shallow grave so the world has no problem kissing my dead ass.

Who decides who gets taxed and for what? Do you? I don't. Politicians get lots of money from elites to decide that. Mike Gravel figured that out long ago.

A good point was made about Minnesota, but the government is funding not one, but two new stadiums. I guess baseball and football can't share a stadium????

"The two stadiums combined are expected to cost more than $1 billion, and the state and local governments are expected to meet two-thirds of that commitment"

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2004/03/30_khoom_stadium/

How many bridge upgrades would that have paid for?

This is reminicent of many of the "tax anyone who makes more than me" crowd.

They would have more money if the didn't spend all of it on 50" flat screen TV's, brand new luxury cars, and monster houses..all on credit, and expect the "rich" (i.e. those that have worked harder and longer and smarter)to provide for them when they cant make the payments.

You want more money?

Turn off the big screen TV, put down the pork rinds, get off your fat asses, crack a book and get yourself an education and a higher paying job.

canuckchuck,

I have a little problem with your assertion that "the government never did anything" for you.

Just reading your little bio, I find:

-you worked a minimum wage job. Who do you think guaranteed a wage floor for you?

-you took the bus to work. What was it, a private bus company?

-you went to a technical college. Again, I'm sure it was a private college, receiving no federal, state, or local tax dollars to continue in operation.

-you took out a mortgage to buy your home. And I'm sure you refused to take advantage of any tax writeoffs for your mortgage payments, just so no one could accuse you of not pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps.

-you're currently driving a "decent car." I suppose you only take private toll roads.

People, we can argue till the cows come home about what the marginal tax rate should be. Yeah, it should be progressive, and yeah, it should be higher, but as long as our friends and neighbors continue to buy the Republican BS that government can't be trusted with our tax dollars, we're going to have to figure out how to build and maintain our own roads, police and fire departments, disaster response, schools, and much more. You think our healthcare system works great--when even people WITH INSURANCE can't be sure that their healthcare will be covered? Wanna see the same model applied to every other part of the infrastructure that you currently take for granted? Keep voting for "No new taxes" Republicans.

pavrovian...I would suggest that those wanting a yacht would buy it from another country and import it ( or leave it there and fly to it on weekends) rather than pay a ridiculous 90% tax.

What if I bought my Ferarri as a collection of $19 parts, then paid my illegal immigrant mechanic to put it together?

I think your idea would only result in the loss of any maufacturing jobs that are left.

How about an importation tax instead, like most countries have? It encourages local manufacturing, and creates jobs, instead of enouraging anyone with money to flee the country?

Some people posting here have said that high rates of taxation on income constitute theft. There are a couple of things that could be said about this. First of all, I suspect that some people do not know what "marginal rates" mean in income tax. If you pay (for example) 90% on an income of 4 million dollars, that does not mean that you must pay 3,600,000.00 to the government in taxes. It means that every dollar you earn OVER 3 million dollars is taxed at 90%. Those who see their incomes grow from 3 million to 4 million dollars will still have a lot more money than if they were "only" earning 3 million dollars - $100,000.00 more, to be precise. That's almost double what I earn in a year. And remember that the first 3 million dollars was taxed at a progressively (regressively?) lower rate all the way down to the first 10,000 or so, which is not taxed at all. So let's assume a modest return to the sharply progressive income tax that we had in both Canada and the USA in the 1950s (and no, Canuckchuck, we were not ruled by Communist dictators at the time). I don't have the exact historical numbers in front of me, so I'll create a simple model of a progressive income tax, with the first 10,000 untaxed and ten taxation brackets leading to 90% at 4 million dollars. I came up with the percentages randomly just to illustrate the principle. Here it is:

1) 0 - 10,000 – 0%
2) 10,000 – 20,000 – 5%
3) 20,001 – 40,000 – 10%
4) 40,001 – 60,000 – 25%
5) 60,001 – 100,000 – 52%
6) 100,001 – 300,000 – 55%
7) 300,001 – 1,000,000 – 60%
8) 1,000,001 – 2,000,000 – 70%
9) 2,000,001 – 3,000,000 – 80%
10) 3,000,001 – 4,000,000 – 90%

So let's say your income is 4 million and you're getting taxed at the top rate.

First bracket: 10,000
Second bracket – 10,000 minus 5%: total: 9,500 (cumulative total: 19,500)
Third bracket – 20,000 minus 10%: total: 18,000 (cumulative total: 37,500)
Fourth bracket – 20,000 minus 25%: total: 15,000 (cumulative total: 53,500)
Fifth bracket – 40,000 minus 52%: total: 19,200 (cumulative total: 72,700)
Sixth bracket – 100,000 minus 55%: total: 45,000 (cumulative total: 117,700)
Seventh bracket – 700,000 minus 60%: total: 280,000 (cumulative total: 397,700)
Eighth bracket – 1,000,000 minus 70%: total: 300,000 (cumulative total: 697,700)
Ninth bracket – 1,000,000 minus 80%: total: 200,000 (cumulative total: 897,700)
Tenth bracket – 1,000,000 minus 90%: total: 100,000 (cumulative total: 997,700)

So a person earning 4 million dollars a year would end up with a net income (after taxes) of 997,700. More than enough to live on, even if you have a couple of kids. And those earning less would pay less, as you can see.

Secondly, the problem with saying that high rates of taxation on incomes constitute "theft" is that in order to be morally and logically consistent, you must say that low rates of income taxation constitute theft as well. If I take somebody's wallet at gunpoint, I am just as much a thief if that wallet has $10 in it as I am if it has $1,000 in it. And if it is "theft" to take a 90% marginal rate (75.6% of the total income), from an income of 4 million dollars, which leaves the person with $997,700, then why is it morally acceptable to take a 25% marginal rate off an income of $60,000 (11% of the total income), which leaves them with only 53,500? If you believe that the government does not have the moral right to take money from citizens, then income tax of any kind is unacceptable. Maybe consumption tax and import duties, but definitely not income tax.

Rmouse: you speak sarcastically about how the government can spend money more wisely than individual citizens. But there are two points you are disregarding: firstly, if the government is democratic, then it will spend our tax money on us, not on wars in Asia. Have you completely given up on democracy? (and bear in mind: if we had progressive taxation, we could finance election campaigns publicly, which would produce much more democratic governments, because candidates would not be beholden to the oligarchs who pay for their campaigns) And moreover: democracy or no democracy, there are certain things only the government spending can procure. Only the government can provide sewer systems, drinking water, universal health care, public education and public transportation. To make that observation is not to belittle the wisdom of individual citizens. What kind of society do you want – one where we're all living in cabins in the woods, hunting and fishing and providing our own sanitation and transportation systems and home-schooling our kids and pulling out our rotten teeth with pliers and performing caesarean sections on our wives with jackknives? Even if that is what you want – and I can't deny the idea has some appeal – it is impossible for most of us to live that way.

In solidarity,

Mark Marshall
Toronto

Even at 91%, one would still have 270,000 dollars to spend if they were making 3 million. I do not know about any of you, but I could only dream of being oppressed like that.

The seventy percent tax bracket needs to be returned, and shareholders need to be able to have a say in their CEO's salary. Even the wealthy think that these guys make entirely too much, and with this control their pay would probably be cut in half at a minimum.

I really enjoyed the comment on how nobody asks "How rich is too rich?" Very true, and this minimum wage increase, just to repeat myself from the moment it passed, is ridiculously insufficient.

Topainca - You must be a bottom-feeder, because if you only own ONE ferrari, well, talk to me when you get your tenth. You poor unfortunate soul.

canuckchuck- yep, here in MN we will likely soon support 3 new stadiums: Vikings gotta have one too! I am a recovering sports-aholic myself, but this is truly nuts. 100% estate tax is a might too high. I'd say 50% or so just like the top income tax. peoplefirst- adjust energy tax rates and/or fees on inefficient energy devices to achieve the desireable total tax amount. pavroviandog- I'm sure some type of consumption tax could work well. It just seems a bit more complicated to me--i.e. setting the proper tax on individual items to achieve the desireable effects.

Hi Bobbi

You are correct. Sort of

The government is responsible for the minimum wage, subsidized part of the high school, (but the rest was private), paves the roads and subsidized the bus.

Like I said, I support paying my fair share of taxes, as there are many government programs that are critical for the progress of society, like universal health care, public infrastructure, public education, etc.

However, the government (nor society) was NOT responsible for my hard work that increased my net value..I could have sat my my fat ass just as well as they have.

Just because I made sacrifices and spent my time improving my lot, not watching American Idol and didn't sink into debt and reality TV, why should I now be everyone else's sugar daddy?

I'll help anyone pay for their school though my fair share (30%) of taxes, I'll help pay for their roads and bridges and busses, and heathcare.....

...I dont believe I should have to ALSO subsidize their sitting in a home they cant afford to own, pumping out brats they can't afford to feed and watching their big screen TV they bought on credit and defaulted on the payment.

Why should I pay a higher percentage of taxes than them just because I chose to work harder?

hi Mark Marshall,

Not that I am anywhere near that highest bracket, I can dream though

however, the problem is, assuming it takes 4 times the efort (and risk, and self sacrifice) to earn 4 times the money (which is logical).....

Why,if I earned a million dollars, why the heck would I go to all he trouble of working 4 times as hard, taking 4 times the risk and sacrifice, to earn a measly $300,000 more?

The logial response to earn more than my initial million, wou;ld to be uses that first million to move somewhere else where success is not penalized.

the current system is not fair, where both the bottom and top levels pay nothing, though i can see the argument for an allowance for the basic necessities for everyone.

In the land of equality, what is wrong with EVERYONE kicking in, say 20 cents on the dollar to support their goverment. I bet revenues would stay the same.

Example

two people start at the same spot in life

person one spends their spare time and money watching TV and buying toys.

person two spends their spare time and money taking night school and paying for their extra education.

person one's career is stagant, he tops out at $30,000/yr

person two progresses at their career, due to all their extra hard work, and tops out at $150,000/yr

person one say, "way to go person one, nice work, now give me half your income, so I can buy a bigger TV, then we will be even.

fat chance

Canuckchuck: "a measly $300,000 more"?

"A measly $300,000"?

"Measly"?

You're joking - right?

Mark Marshall
Toronto

Few if any paid the 91% tax. Excessive income was reinvested in business and other capital expenditures, bonuses were given to employees and charitable contributions received large contributions.

All of these were tax deductible and provided real trickle down economics instead of the BS trickle down - greed is good Reaganomics.

Art Linkletter (spelling?) admitted he used to invest rather than pay the tax because he was in effect getting the investment at a 91% discount by avoiding taxes.

Just one more thing before I end my participation in this discussion: another reason I support progressive taxation is because it tends to reduce social inequality. It is not JUST about raising revenue, important as that is. As Canuckchuck and others have indicated, there are other ways governments can raise revenue that are just as efficacious as income tax, for all I know. But social equality is a social good in its own right.

Signing off, with solidarity and peace to all.

Mark Marshall
Toronto