Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?

I am against the federal income tax. I would like to see the states tax the income of their constituents, and have the federal government get its money from the states when it needs it. That way the state's tax would be more inline with the cost of living in that area (like Saden said).

When you really think about it, the federal income tax is not much different from a tax imposed by a King -- a prime motive for The Framers to create this country. Seems like we're back to square one.

I'm sure there are problems, but this approach seems much better to me.

Finally I'd like to add that our tax system is a progressive tax system which means the tax brackets can be adjusted. The question then becomes "what's a reasonable tax bracket structure?" If you don't like the progressive tax system, that's entirely a different matter.
The income tax is progressive. However most folks in the U.S. pay more in the regressive payroll tax.

I'm pretty sure the folks making this type of income will survive. Contrary to popular belief, most families making that type of money did not get it handed to them through trust funds or Mommy & Daddy paying all their bills until they were in their 30s. I would argue that their good judgement in putting 15% in their 401K and sending their children to private schools is also, in the long run, much better for the economy.

A majority of them worked their hind-quarters off to try to make a better life than what they came up in, even if it meant making sacrifices like [b]studying in high school so they could get into a good college while their friends were at parties and getting drunk/high, studying and working internships while in college rather than blowing off class and partying[b], or spending years in the military to attend or pay for college at night, working 50-60 hour weeks, spending time on the road away from their families, answering pages, texts and cell phones in the middle of the night to deal with business responsibilities.

I've posted the numbers before, the top 10% of earners pay approximately 67% of the taxes in this country, the bottom 50% pay about 3%. The rates for income earned vs. tax rate is disproportionate.

WTF right does the government have to increase the tax rates on the "wealthy". It's flat out wealth confiscation and redistribution. The money earned by the American people is THEIRS it is NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S. Unfortunately, so many people have the attitude of "well they can afford it".....until they move into a higher tax bracket and their tax rate goes up. It doesn't matter if the "wealthy" can afford it, why should they? The "raise taxes on the rich" argument is class warfare at its worst. How does the "top 2%" fight this? They can't because the folks voting in November outnumber them by a vast majority and don't recognize or don't care that what is being proposed is wrong.

Not only is this approach flat out wrong, it will stiffle the economy. It has been proven time and again, when the government raises taxes the economy slows down. Like it or not, that "top 2%" is not just ambulance- chasing lawyers, professional athletes, and overpaid CEOs of major corporations. It is mostly your local doctor, dentist, salesperson, or small business person who owns the local restaurant or store at the mall. Most of these folks go to the same stores, drive on the same roads, go to the same churches and work their asses off like everyone else. And they almost never qualify for or take advantage of any government entitlement programs.

And I don't want to hear the "Warren Buffett paid 15% or 17%" argument. Buffett is in the crowd that can live off investments and has a team of accoutants/tax attorneys making sure he pays the least amount of taxes he can. Most of the people in the $ 250-300K range make a vast majority of their income through salaries and business income that isn't taxed at the lower capital gains rate.

Well, you've certainly got the talking points down. Obviously I have sharp ideological differences with you and I just cannot help thinking about late 19th century politics when I start hearing buzzwords like "confiscation and wealth redistribution" since those were the same arguments that helped topple the Reconstruction project (cf. Heather Cox Richardson, The Death of Reconstruction). Like those Gilded Age politicians you ignore structural inequality and effectively say that the wealthy have money because they are worthy and the poor do not because they are lazy and unworthy. More importantly, I think you oversimplify the argument by setting up the strawman of the 'tax and spend' liberal boogyman.

Well, you've certainly got the talking points down. Obviously I have sharp ideological differences with you and I just cannot help thinking about late 19th century politics when I start hearing buzzwords like "confiscation and wealth redistribution" since those were the same arguments that helped topple the Reconstruction project (cf. Heather Cox Richardson, The Death of Reconstruction). Like those Gilded Age politicians you ignore structural inequality and effectively say that the wealthy have money because they are worthy and the poor do not because they are lazy and unworthy. More importantly, I think you oversimplify the argument by setting up the strawman of the 'tax and spend' liberal boogyman.

"structual inequality"?
"strawman of the 'tax and spend' liberal boogeyman"?

I'd you have to talking points down too. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion. Maybe one set of the talking points are right.

1) If you offer me and my wife a 250k income, I guarantee we can live comfortably in any city with our two boys. Some housing areas of certain cities may be off-limits, of course.

2) I agree with Slingin' Sammy: you can't keep taxing the well-to-do just because they have the money. {Pssst...sounds like someone likes the Fair Tax idea}

3) On the other hand, since they're are already hard-working, entrepreneurially spirited individuals, if you do tax them more they'll just work that much harder to make up the difference. It's a win-win situation. ;)

1) If you offer me and my wife a 250k income, I guarantee we can live comfortably in any city with our two boys. Some housing areas of certain cities may be off-limits, of course.

2) I agree with Slingin' Sammy: you can't keep taxing the well-to-do just because they have the money. {Pssst...sounds like someone likes the Fair Tax idea}

3) On the other hand, since they're are already hard-working, entrepreneurially spirited individuals, if you do tax them more they'll just work that much harder to make up the difference. It's a win-win situation. ;)

"If you offer".. people that make money have a right to send their kids to private school and have nice car and nice homes. They do not deserve to get taxed more because they are wealthy and enjoy a higher standard of living than most. Take from the rich and give to the poor?? ... I think not when we are talking about $250k. If you want to go after Billionairs that have money to blow that's one thing, but $250k is not a lot when you live in an area like CA or DC... Obama says that millionairs and billionairs need to pay more, well $250k is not even close to a million IMO.

I find it ironic the same people against taxes are the same people for spending $4,000 a minute in Iraq.

1) If you offer me and my wife a 250k income, I guarantee we can live comfortably in any city with our two boys. Some housing areas of certain cities may be off-limits, of course.

2) I agree with Slingin' Sammy: you can't keep taxing the well-to-do just because they have the money. {Pssst...sounds like someone likes the Fair Tax idea}

3) On the other hand, since they're are already hard-working, entrepreneurially spirited individuals, if you do tax them more they'll just work that much harder to make up the difference. It's a win-win situation. ;)

I'm sure you could - most people could. The point is that it's a comfortable lifestyle, not an extravagant lifestyle. Bumping up the tax rate is not simply forcing these people right at the margin to cut back from three butlers to two. It's going to have an impact on something that, for the most part, they worked hard to achieve.

Now, on the flip side, the 2000 tax rates are doable. It's just not wise to think this is a well you can go back to too often.

That said, what is a reasonable cutoff these days? $500k?

I'm sure you could - most people could. The point is that it's a comfortable lifestyle, not an extravagant lifestyle. Bumping up the tax rate is not simply forcing these people right at the margin to cut back from three butlers to two. It's going to have an impact on something that, for the most part, they worked hard to achieve.

Now, on the flip side, the 2000 tax rates are doable. It's just not wise to think this is a well you can go back to too often.

That said, what is a reasonable cutoff these days? $500k?

Weird. I never said bumping up the tax rate was acceptable.

Weird. I never said bumping up the tax rate was acceptable.
I didn't say you did. I was highlighting that $250k these days is "comfortable" in most places (as you stated), not "extravagant". The rest of my post was a general statement, not directed at you - I should have put an extra line or two in there to distinguish.