Facebook
Popular Active Recommended Random New
Submitted on May 13, 11:19 ET
US56 - Progressive schedule for minimum taxes
30 years of "supply-side" economics have concentrated wealth, reduced social mobility, and hurt the real economy.
facebooktwitterShare on Google+
Description

30 years of "supply-side" economics have concentrated wealth, reduced social mobility, and hurt the real economy. The over-concentration of wealth has been identified as a key factor in declining economies. There are many policies and practices today that support the funneling of money from the many to a few. One way to dampen the flow quickly while more pervasive, long-term measures are developed and put in place is to establish an alternative minimum income tax rate for all income levels above $100,000 that would put a cap on deductions and write-offs. (It's possible that the income amount should be adjusted to reflect the cost of living wherever the income is earned; $100,000 on Manhattan is not the same as $100,000 in Griffin, GA.)


If this is not persuasive enough, continue to the longer argument.

Arguments
1 of 1

The progressive alternative minimum tax structure I propose is:

$100K-$139.99K - min. tax 15%

$140K-$199,99K - 20%

$200K-$279.99K - 25%

$280K-$379.99K - 30%

$380K-$499.99K - 35%

$500K-$649.99K - 40%

$650K-$799.99K - 45%

$800K-$999,999 - 50%

$1M-$4.999M - 55%

$5M-$9.999M - 60%

$10M-$19.999M - 65%

$20M+ - 70%

The person who makes a million dollars would pay no min on the first $100K, 15% on the next $40k, 20% on the next $60k, etc. Overall, they would pay a min of $337.5K or 33.8%. During many of the U.S.'s most successful years the top rate was 90% and the rich did very well.

Submitted by Yosemite_Sam on May 13, 11:19 ET
6 Agree 0 Disagree
2000 characters remaining
Counterarguments
1 of 1
Wealth is created, it's not a piece of pie to be carved up and it not finite. Risk takers are rewarded as they should be. There has to be huge incentives for people to risk capital and time otherwise we would have no innovation. Your recommendation would destroy our economy. If you haven't realized it yet, its very easy for rich people to relocate. By implementing such an overly progressive structure, rich people and all their capital would rush out of this country leaving it a giant waste land.

The only reason the US did well when the rates where high was because the rest of the world was decimated after WWII, that has nothing to do with tax rates and everything to do with global competition.

Go back to smoking weed, your analysis stinks.
Submitted by johntylerbus on Aug 14, 04:04 ET
0 Agree 2 Disagree
2000 characters remaining

No comments have been submitted for this idea

Start New Topic
Content is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0, except as otherwise noted. Terms of Use. Privacy Policy.
You must be logged in to submit your idea!
 Username/Email
Not a member? Signup Now!