Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That would be fairly easy to take care of. Most specialists I know bill out over a million bucks a year. A 90% marginal tax rate on everything earned in less than 48 hours a week, and dropping back to 35% on the rest would be fair. The definition of "hard earned" could be anything over 48 hours a week. Easy peasy.
I agree with you in theory, but not with your solution. As it is now, I pay more tax on the money I make after the first 40 hours, so I am disincentivised to work harder. If I chose to only work 40 hours a week, a larger portion of my income would be taxed in the lower tax brackets than it is currently. So yes, maybe they should tax everybody more on the first 40 hours a week and then drop the tax on any hours worked after 40 hours a week.
I just don't know where you came up with the 90% number. That doesn't seem extremely confiscatory to you? It amazes me that anybody would think this is reasonable.
What "conservatives" dislike is taxes in general. They will suck the teat as hard as they can, but they DO NOT want to be the ones paying for any of it.
And of course, what "conservatives" dislike about income taxes in particular is their progressivity. They are constantly coming up with new plans and schemes that serve only to shift more and more tax burden onto poorer people. What an admirable lot they are.
And by the way, the incentives created by tax regimes cannot realistically be discussed without tackling the related matter of work-leisure preferences.
I agree with you in theory, but not with your solution. As it is now, I pay more tax on the money I make after the first 40 hours, so I am disincentivised to work harder. If I chose to only work 40 hours a week, a larger portion of my income would be taxed in the lower tax brackets than it is currently. So yes, maybe they should tax everybody more on the first 40 hours a week and then drop the tax on any hours worked after 40 hours a week.
I just don't know where you came up with the 90% number. That doesn't seem extremely confiscatory to you? It amazes me that anybody would think this is reasonable.
The number of hours that you work is irrelevant, what matters is the total amount of taxable income you have. Where that income falls into the various tax brackets has nothing to do with the number of hours worked per week.
The number of hours that you work is irrelevant, what matters is the total amount of taxable income you have. Where that income falls into the various tax brackets has nothing to do with the number of hours worked per week.
Ummm. I'm well aware of that. We were talking in hypotheticals. And I was pointing out that the harder you work, the higher percentage you are taxed. I could take it easy and only work 40 hours and I would be taxed at a lower rate because less of my income would fall in the top bracket. It is not a cause and effect, but the end result is the same.
The number of hours that you work is irrelevant, what matters is the total amount of taxable income you have. Where that income falls into the various tax brackets has nothing to do with the number of hours worked per week.
I think where income falls into the various tax brackets DOES have something to do with the number of hours worked per week. Tax brackets are relevant to the work/leisure tradeoff - which obviously has a great deal to do with the number of hours worked per week - and most relevant for high earners in the topmost tax brackets. e.g. it's not as relevant to those in the 10 and 15 percent brackets as it is to those in the 33, 35, and 39.5 tax brackets.
Your guess would be wrong. My mortgage is under 200K and I take the deduction.
You are not typical. Unless you have a high level of other deductible Schedule A expenses, such as property taxes or charity the interest on a mortgage under $200K is not usually enough to overcome the standard deduction hurdle. The mortgage interest deduction is definitely biased to the middle/upper middle class.
The mortgage interest deduction is definitely biased to the middle/upper middle class.
No one has ever doubted that. Indeed. if the HMI deduction did not already exist, few if any analysts would be agitating to see one created. But the deduction DOES already exist, and after all this time, it is deeply woven into the fabric of the nation's real estate markets. Major problems will ensue upon any and all simplistic and poorly thought out attempts to change the status quo. We have recent examples of what can happen as the result of even minor shocks to real estate markets. Be careful what you wish for.
1/2 of homeowners can not exceed the standard deductions .
It follows then that they are being allowed to take deductions for expenditures they didn't actually make. This would normally qualify as an example of tax fraud.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
