
Over 50%
Under 50%
Other
Select gender and age to cast your vote:
Please select your age

The purpose of taxes is for the government to have funding to fix problems.
The more taxes we pay, the more problems the government should be able to fix.
If the government isn’t doing a good job with using that money to fix problems, then the solution isn’t to give the government even MORE money in hopes that it will help with their problem solving strategies.
That being said, I believe taxes should be lower overall, and the government should be held more accountable to increasing efficiency in their allocation of financial resources.
But, as for the tax-payers…
A sliding scale makes sense.
Everyone can start off at 10% as a default and then that percentage can incrementally increase, up to 50% max, once their income enters the top 1% of income earners.
BUT…
I believe those top 1% income earners should receive tax breaks, based not on income, but based on how much income they are paying out to hire employees, aka how much income are they using to create more jobs?
A millionaire will be more reluctant to hire people when so much of their income is arbitrary confiscated by the government. More people would stay unemployed and more people will be going without incomes to feed their families.
But, the government can be like, “Hey, millionaire. The more families you help feed, the less I’ll tax you.”
Then that will incentivize businesses to offer jobs.
Let’s say there’s a millionaire that just inherited that money and is using it to help nobody. They will be taxed 50%.
Then, let’s say there’s a millionaire that’s using their income to provide jobs and feed 10 families. They should be taxed less, the more people they help.
If the government can’t provide enough financial relief to the masses, then they should incentivize and encourage businesses to offer more jobs.
The the government is struggling to feed families, then they should reward businesses that do. And they can do that by lowering the taxes of the millionaires who contribute the most to society.
If the government is struggling*
Problem is, the government's NOT using our tax money for that stuff!!
@FunkyMonkee Exactly. So they should be held accountable to using our money appropriately before asking for more.
If they government can’t be trusted with our money, then they shouldn’t take so much money from the people, and instead encourage the people to solve their own problems. (e. g. Businesses that provide more jobs get more tax breaks.)
Audit the fed!!
Imagine being so bad with peoples' money that you steal 40% of their income and are still $30,000,000,000,000 in debt!!
Haha, right? Tax payers deserve to see a proper audit. And if the government isn’t fixing problems with that money, they shouldn’t raise taxes.
It’s like:
“I need more money.”
“Why? Are you going to finally solve the problems you said you were going to solve?”
“Yes.”
“How do I know you’re going to keep your promise this time?”
“Trust me.”
“I’ll trust you when I start seeing results from the money we’ve given you already.”
“We’re making progress.”
“Are you? Can you show me?”
“No, that’s classified.”
“…..”
What makes it worse is that they tell you you HAVE to pay your taxes when there's NO law that SAYS you HAVE to pay them!!
We are THEIR boss!! NOT the other way around!! If you hired someone to do a job and they either did it half-assed or didn't do it at all, would you continue to pay them for it? So, why pay taxes for work that's not being done/ And, the work that IS being done is NOT benefitting US!! WE who PAID for it all!! We have mag-lev tech! Are we seeing any of that? NO!! We could've been zipping around like The Jetsons back when that show first aired!! Instead of blowing billions on rockets into space or to the moon (spending 4 days to get there), we could've been using the mag-lev tech to get us to the moon in about 45:00!! We went from not being able to fly at all to using jet and rocket tech in about 30 or 40 years! Why are we STILL using it almost 100 years later?
@FunkyMonkee That's because they misuse it. Like for example, they give a cop a take home car so he can drive home 80 miles and 3 counties over. How do we know? It says the county on the side of the vehicle
How do you propose that the government fix problems when one of the party's with power IS the problem? The very same party keeps giving the wealthiest people even more tax breaks, because they CAN. How is that going to change? You try and vote them out and your vote is worthless due to gerrymandering. How is anything going to change?
Only one party has left the White House and handed over a surplus in the last 50 years. The other party promptly wasted it on a bogus war while enriching their own pockets, lying about it, and blaming the other party. How is anything going to change?
@dynamicyandere I agree with some of your stuff but just being a millionaire doesn't mean you employ people. Also one million a year should be taxed less than a billion. There should be billionaire taxes for sure.
@loveslongnails
There would need to be systems and policies put into place (and enforced) that are systematically designed to prevent gerrymandering so that all parties can be adequately heard.
@Friendlybro79
I agree. I believe if an additional zero is added to their yearly income, they should have a unique tax bracket.
And yes, not all millionaires are going to be employing people. I was trying to convey that wealthy people who are working towards bettering society should be rewarded with tax breaks as compared to wealthy people who are just sitting on their cash and spending it purely on themselves and their lavish lifestyle.
Gotcha. Makes sense to me.
The Dems don't need to gerrymander. They can win elections in a balanced field. It's the Repubs who do 75% of all gerrymandering in the country.
@loveslongnails It would be good to have some system or policy in place to prevent gerrymandering, and it should apply to everyone, no matter their political party.
That way, it’ll feel fair to everyone and nobody will be singled out.
And if democrats are already playing by the rules, they won’t have to worry about the implications.
Only those who are gerrymandering will have to be forced to play fair.
But if the new policy is applied to all political parties, it’s technically fair, since all parties are being treated equal. So the Republicans would just need to adapt to the new game.
@FunkyMonkee
I don't disagree with everything you're saying here but there are laws saying you have to pay taxes.
Congress used the power granted by the Constitution and Sixteenth Amendment, and made laws requiring all individuals to pay tax. Congress has delegated to the IRS the responsibility of administering the tax laws known as the Internal Revenue Code (the Code) and found in Title 26 of the United States Code.
@Friendlybro79 No there aren't. www.youtube.com/watch
@FunkyMonkee You are 1000% incorrect and all you have to do is is look this up on legitimate government websites not some radical YouTube channel. It is in the law. Do you not acknowledge the 16th amendment as a real amendment and and are you familiar with how amendments work? How about not paying your taxes and see how the works for you? You don't have to like the idea of paying taxes but it's definitely the law. What they do with our money and how much they take is a different argument that can be argued is one thing. Saying your YouTube video is evidence that a court of law would see as more viable than what's written into law is wrong. Stop looking at YouTube and look at the actual laws.
@Friendlybro79 Obviously, you can't see the truth when it's staring you in the face!
@Friendlybro79 There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see!
@FunkyMonkee Obviously? You're so brainwashed by propaganda it's unbelievable. It's in the 16th amendment. Stop the bs. You're not outwitting anyone. You're uneducated and or literally hear to spread anti American propaganda. No real American citizen with a half assed education is this stupid.
Here* ha. Of course autocorrect does this as I call someone uneducated haha
I'm in favor of a flat tax. Everyone pays the same 15% of their income, no deductions. Nice and simple. The more you earn, the more you physically pay, but the rate is the same for all.
I think if everyone under $100,000 had zero tax and everything over $100,000 was taxed at 25% things would work out fine and most people would have plenty of money to live comfortably. It would prevent huge amounts of waste and corruption in politics. There would be no welfare programs except for people who were physically or mentally unable to work.
In the 1950s everything over $70,000 was taxed at 91% and most people were able to work regular 9 to 5 jobs and have a house and a car and a nice life.
Same rate as everyone else, flat percentage based taxes with no deductions would be fair for any income class.
Time to stop the discrimination based on income for both poor, middle, well off and rich.
It looks like Georgia and Lithuania uses a flat tax and they’re able to work with that well.
As long as that’s possible at larger scale, I believe that’s a good way to go for larger countries too.
@dynamicyandere It is true, it would make taxes very simple. Problem is then the government can't try to control people with incentives. I think that is the real reason they like various write offs and deductions.
We want more EV's so get a deduction for buying one, etc...
@Aerissa_Jade Ah, yeah. That makes a lot of sense. The government trying to sway purchasing decisions through taxes and tax deductions.
Just like the government can lower credit card interest rates to encourage spending when they want to stimulate the economy.
Influencing peoples’ decisions with these levers require less work on the government’s part. The alternative would be to run campaigns to persuade the masses to make particular decisions, but that takes much more work and skill and expertise.
It’s a more high-leverage approach to simply manipulating taxes and tax deductions. It can minimize their input while still handing a strong output. Since all they need to do is adjust some numbers, and millions will already start adjusting their purchasing decisions.
I’d appreciate a more candid approach though. Doing things this way feels like the population is being treated like one big social experiment.
simply manipulate taxes*
while still having a strong output*
Opinion
38Opinion
Everyone is scared shitless USA goes default on its debts. Let's look at history where we basically had a profit tax income. All the way back in late 1990s with Bill Clinton as president topping taxes at 40% flr the highest tax earnings.
Bush jr that lost the popular vote in 2000 also gave a tax rebate because government shouldn't be making profits but 9/11/2001 was also the catalyst of our current dedt. Then add 2008 financial crisis Obama inherited that he stabilized as president.
Then we have trump that double down on lowering taxes on his tax reform. But went into 2020 the year the pandemic was ramped costing the government more then its trillions of debt again.
Seeing how far we got from a profitable government 30 years ago might be a worthwhile investment.
The Problem is Milionaires usually don't have a sallary they live on like the avarage Joe, but live on Stock exchange, Rent they collect from the houses they own, their own company, just inherited their money, ...
So instead argueing wether it should be this or that percentage, of income they usually don't have.
I would simply tax every single bit of income one might have the same way.
or
add a "luxury tax" on items only millionaires can afford on a regular basis, like private jets and jet fuel, houses with more than ~40~60m² per person living there, and so on.
The very reason America became a country is to get away from crazy taxes. Now we have become what we hate lol.. Do you know there’s an exit tax for renouncing your citizenship. And if you refuse that’s $10,000 fine lol it’s gotten ridiculous. Taxes are made complicated on purpose to create an industry out of it and make even more money. The game is rigged and only when you become rich can you escape the tax game.
there should be only 1 tax %10 of your gross income. Everything else is just legal robbery.
I'd say the same as everyone else who has to pay taxes. If you earn more you obviously get taxed more, even if the percentage is the same.
The problem with increasing the tax as your income increases actually persuades some people from getting promotions or higher paid jobs, because at the end of the day you may actually earn less with all of the tax you have to pay. People would try to earn as much as possible but won't go over a threshold that demands they pay a lot more tax.
90%. I'm for progressive taxes which should encourage employers to pay higher wages.
Taxes are paid by employer and employee here. Employees who earn minimal wage shouldn't pay taxes at all but their employers should pay 150% or even more. People who earn 20+ times the minimal wage should pay 90% taxes while their employers pay nothing. Of course some adjustments in this progressive CIT taxation system would be necessary but it were easily to find the equilibrium for most optimal wages, where employees are motivated to work and butt hurt of employers doesn't cause their suicide.
Flat tax for everyone and give credits to reduce tax for EITC, and other handouts that have no chance of being taken away. When you paying more in taxes then the average household annual income, and realize you working 2 months out of the year just to pay the government you'll agree
People like Elizabeth Warren keep touting how the top marginal tax rate was 70% or 90% in the past, but they fail to mention that almost EVERY expense was deductible back then so almost no one actually paid that. The rates were lowered after a lot of deductions were eliminated to simplify the code.
Taxing somebody an exorbitant amount of taxes will only drive the off shore. Why do you think the Beatles decided to live in America, It was because the taxes in England were crazy.
Taxes on all working people should be 15% with no possible deductions. No child tax credits/deductions, no different rates for financial gains compared to working for income, etc. Just a flat 15% tax for everyone so it is fair.
The sheer quantity of millionaires is helping to drive inflation. They are free to buy up ungodly amounts of consumer items because their disposable income is so high. This creates an artificial metric of higher demand and prices go up. It is capitalism consuming itself. Taxing them the same amount as everyone else makes the problem worse. I think their taxes shoupd be, at least, 10-15% higher than the tax rate on the average, middle class, salary.
The same as everybody else- taxes are based on income, not wealth.
I think a portion of the taxes (not sure how much) should go directly to the homeless. It would be considered a tax deduction just like a charity. It could go into housing, food and mental illness awareness and clinics.
Same as everyone else pays.
These leftist pukes are too stupid to understand that the top 10% of earners in this country pays 90% of the income tax.
I pay 28%. I doubt most of them pay even that as they can afford the best tax attorneys.
It depends. We can't have those millionaires leaving the country so the taxes have to be on a level that they are willing to bare. I think 50 percent is fair but I'm not an expert. They should certainly pay more than the rest of us. As you get wealthier you should be paying a larger and larger percentage of your income.
How about we get rid of taxes except for sales
A little more than the rest of us but it should certainly not come close to 50% of what you earn because that is ridiculous.
The government makes a lot of money already I don't know why they feel they need to tax anyone higher or less. Just quot taxong people so high when they generate massive amount of income.
The exact same rate as everyone else. You are still getting more money out of them as higher earners without punishing them for reporting income or providing jobs.
While it could be more. Honestly it would fine where it is if giving to charity and other stuff didn't allow them to skirt around taxes.
Over 50% they should divide the spoils because it's not their efforts but their employees effort that makes the money.
Under 50. It is difficult to tax the rich anyway, I know from my partner
Nothing, same as it should be for everyone. But if I had to give a number, 15% across the board
A flat tax for all is the only fair method of taxation.
Fair and Square on How many Millions. Like anyone Else with an Income. xxoo
No one should have to give half or more of his/her income to the government.
A million dollars is barely enough to retire on these days.
0%. Individuals shouldn't be taxed, only business interests and transactions.
As they have more than 50% of the wealth, they should pay over 50% of the total taxes, but that doesn't mean they should pay over 50% of their income.
I believe in a land value tax and nothing else. Taxation doesn't make up for irresponsible spending.
if you make over 50% of the population, which obviously you do, then yeah you should have to be taxed on over 50%. done deal.
Corporate rate, set it higher and they'll loophole that lower rate
I have to cut the govment a hefty check this year and I earned under 100,000k….$7,200…hope they spend it wisely
Should be base on income. Income of 1 to 9 million should be taxed at 45%
Income of 10 million or more at 50% tax rate.
147%. Anything less is just the millionaire being greedy.
It's seems a bit creepy when a person is forced to be a minority stakeholder in their own productivity. . .
we have a spending problem not a revenue problem. The size of the government is crushing us
Other -- 0. They're successful and should be rewarded.
Same as everyone else.
Same percentage as everyone else.
The same rate as everyone else.
The income tax should be abolished.
10% I would say
What they are. They already pay the most
Way over 50%. Fuck all of them.
Why should there even be millionaires?
A lot God Damn higher than it is now.
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions