Obama and Race

[zoogs]

I know a lot of liberals that would be fine if rich people were taxed at 95%.

Marginal rate? It was close to that in the 50s. Worked out alright then. I don't think that it should be that high . . . but I do think that we should have higher rates in (new) higher brackets.

 

So, you are fine with them being that high if needed. My more conservative view is that if they were that high, it would be outrageous and should be illegal.

 

In today's terms the highest marginal tax rate is for the >$400k income bracket for single earners, and it's 39.6%. So, these 'a lot of liberals', are they suggesting they'd be OK if this were 95%? In other words, anyone earning over $400K would be taxed 29.04% on their first 400k (as is the case currently), and 95% on all income after that? That's an outrageous proposal IMO.

 

Or are they suggesting everything else being the same, but the creation of a, say, >$100M income bracket be taxed at 95%?

 

I guess I'm similarly opposed to that on the grounds of it being not productive, and I'm against the idea of a wealth cap, but that is at least less outlandish of an idea -- particularly depending on circumstances, as Carl mentioned. In any case, a statement such as "rich people being taxed at 95%" needs to be quantified. What does that really mean?

[JJ Husker]

No offense guys but reading this thread makes my head hurt.