[claydavisss]

You might find it more challenging when they will eventually consider you "rich".

There's no way there's enough money in the top 1% to fund the programs and plans she wants. The only way will be through the upper middle class. YOU.

[mempko]

It's not about getting money to fund programs. It's a way to reduce inequality. The programs will be funded by deficit spending like all programs are.

[AnimalMuppet]

She initially proposed it as a way to pay for a particular program.

[jonahhorowitz]

The slippery slope is a terrible counterargument.

[natalyarostova]

A slippery slope isn't a good or bad argument on its own. It's just the mapping of a physical model of reality to data. Whether it's a good argument or not depends on its fit! In some cases it's a very strong model. For example, free speech seems to work best historically when there are enshrined rules that are never infringed. Obviously the fit is not perfect (e.g. yelling 'fire' in a theater), but it's a pretty strong fit.

On the other hand, the model appears to fit pretty poorly for gay marriage, where they posit if you move from traditionalism, before you know it, people will be marrying dogs.

[AnimalMuppet]

My family has slipped on that exact slope.

Before (IIRC) Reagan, the point at which different marginal tax rates apply wasn't adjusted for inflation for decades, perhaps ever. The result was exactly that middle class families (including mine) paid tax rates that were originally intended only for the rich.

[iron0013]

I think you might be surprised how much money is in the top 1%, and would probably find mind-blowing the amount of money in the top .01%

[drc37]

But why do you feel it is your right or the right of the government to take it from them? Because they happen to be more successful than you? I have never understood the logic of taking from the rich because they are rich. That always sparks the idea of true laziness in the person saying this.

[iron0013]

That's kind of a weirdly confrontational tone to take.

If you already believe that "taxes are theft", then nothing I or anyone else can say will change your mind.

However, the fact is that you made your money in one of the most money-making-amenable contexts in the history of this planet, and that's not an accident, and it's not a coincidence. This nation has been investing in itself--and investing in you--since long before either of us were born, in order to provide the societal context that allowed you to exercise the full extent of your god-given abilities in order to make your fortune. That's why you didn't die of cholera when you were 3, it's why you didn't join the job market as a barefoot and illiterate 12-year-old, it's why you can commute to work each day secure in the knowledge that some dude isn't going to pull up in a Toyota Hilux, jack your Beemer and sell you into slavery.

To be a rich person in the United States and think "I made all this money, all by myself, because I'm some kind of genius Randian super-guy" is the pinnacle of deluded, parasitical vanity.

[hirundo]

First sentence:

> That's kind of a weirdly confrontational tone to take.

Last sentence:

> To be a rich person in the United States and think "I made all this money, all by myself, because I'm some kind of genius Randian super-guy" is the pinnacle of deluded, parasitical vanity.

You see that as non confrontational?

[iron0013]

Yes. The person to whom I was responding was not speaking rationally, unfortunately.

Could you parse this sentence for me please? "That always sparks the idea of true laziness in the person saying this."

[geofft]

Are there many people who support this policy and don't support it for themselves, should they be upper-middle-class? I personally support a 70% marginal tax on all income over $100,000, and I make well over that.

In particular the primary reason I support this is that the primary reason I want more than $100K income is competing in housing markets like SFBA and NYC. If everyone making over $100K is taxed heavily past that point, then the people competing for the same housing are on the same playing field as I am - if anything, I'm more competitive with people who make more than I do - and it also makes income equality better in general. (I don't actually care if the money goes to the government; you may as well burn it. The effect I'm interested in is changing post-tax incomes, not getting more revenue for the government)

[anth_anm]

I don't, because I don't make well over that. I make a little over that.

100k just isn't that much in a city nowadays.

I'd support it for 250k, but really we are just arguing about the cutoff not about the idea of raising taxes on high earners.

[geofft]

My argument is that $100K be than that much in a city if everyone who made more than $100K were heavily taxed - it's a lot different making $110K when everyone makes $150K than making $150K when everyone makes $350K.

But, I am happy to concede that not everyone expects this and I am being optimistic :)

[pascalxus]

are you just trolling for responses? well you got me.

You can't possibly believe that 70% marginal on > 100k is anywhere near reasonable. Here in CA, that means, you're income taxes would be 83% plus medicare and social sec urity which is +8%, and let's not forget the company pays another 7% of your salary on top of that (you don't ever see that 7% - that's the part they pay), and that's not even counting all the other taxes you pay after that. at that point, everyone would have to quit their jobs. to say that it would ruin the economy is the biggest understatement of a lifetime.

[xienze]

> You can't possibly believe that 70% marginal on > 100k is anywhere near reasonable.

Well, that's the rub: it depends on who you ask. If you ask someone making $30K per year, $100K is a fantastic sum worthy of a high tax rate. That's the problem with the "soak the rich" rhetoric: it's all a matter of perspective. Just pray that someone without any insight into your financial situation doesn't deem you "rich"!

[anth_anm]

They wouldn't be 83%, because it's a marginal rate.

[pascalxus]

it's more than 83% when you take into account all the other taxes: there's not just federal and state income taxes, please take a look at your pay stub, there's a lot of other stuff on there.

[geofft]

Please take a look at your 1040. My comment was about marginal rate. I would like the portion of my income above $100K to be taxed at 83%, and my income below $100K to be left alone. I would not like all of my income to be taxed at 83%.

[geofft]

Yes, and I live in NY which would also make marginal income over $100K have extremely diminishing returns.

I do not understand your argument that everyone would have to quit their jobs. They just wouldn't fight for raises once they made it to $100K. I started my career making $95K out of college. I can't say I'm more than $5K/year happier now. I just spend more to keep up with everyone else, mostly on housing.

[pascalxus]

have you ever been laid off for a year? you can't just assume you'll be gainfully employed your entire life. if another huge tech crash comes along, what will you do?

do you have savings? any retirement funds set up? any family? if you have family, your spending will skyrocket and you won't make it with 95K, even in new york. jsut so you know, child care runs about 22K per year per child (not tax decutible) and that's just the tip of iceberg. so don't have any children, if you wanna keep your spending low.

edit: serious question, is that equality worth it, if it means you're homeless and hungry on the street?

also, in SF 117K is considered low income for a family of 4: https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Annual-Income-of-11740...

[geofft]

I think I'm being unclear about my argument. $95K today is not a great income in NYC. But that's not what I'm asking. In an alternate universe, where all income of all New Yorkers, not just me over $100K is taxed at 70%, is $95K still not a great income?

I suspect that in such an alternate NYC, very few renters (let's ignore buyers, because it makes it more complicated, but I think my argument applies there too) would be motivated to make significantly more than $100K. Therefore most people are going to be paying at most $100K/40 = $2500/month for housing according to the standard NYC rental guidelines. The market for 1BR apartments that cost $3000, $4000, $10,000/month no longer exists. (Double that for 2BRs.) In that housing market, not in the current NYC housing market, would I still end up homeless and hungry on the street if I had to pay rent from savings? I think there's a lot less chance that if I got laid off I'd be unable to make rent in this alternate universe, even if I had the savings of making $95K/year, than that if I got laid off from my current job making >>$100K/year and with my current savings I'd be unable to make rent in this universe.

Obviously in the NYC of current reality, I am not going to donate 70% of everything I make over $100K. The very fact that taxes are a collective activity is what makes them different from voluntary charity.

[alasdair_]

>not tax decutible

Flexible Savings Accounts can make some childcare tax deductable.

[BeetleB]

There are quite a few problems with your comment:

Medicare + Social security is 6.2%, and you don't pay it for income above $118.5K.

The 70% is marginal, not on the whole income.

The employer share (what you call 7%) is mostly irrelevant to the employee. It doesn't show up in my tax forms.

The whole point was that the exorbitant cost of living in CA would become unsustainable with such a tax, and the system will shift to account for it.

And finally:

>are you just trolling for responses? well you got me.

Violating HN guidelines.

[masonic]

  Medicare + Social security is 6.2%, and you don't pay it for income above $118.5K.

(Using TY2018 numbers): no, SS alone is 6.2% and Medicare is 1.45% (each to both employee and employer). Cap for SS is $128.4K, but there is not only no cap for Medicare, there is a surtax above $200K, taking it to 2.35% for income over $200K.

[masonic]

   I personally support a 70% marginal tax on all income over $100,000, and I make well over that

You can easily simulate that for your own taxes simply by making the appropriate contribution via pay.gov and/or directing any refund from your existing tax return via the appropriate line on Form 1040.

[geofft]

Please read the rest of the comment thread. I cannot simulate that in that way. I want to live in a world where all income over $100K is taxed at 70%, because that changes the housing market, because the housing market is my biggest motivation for making more money. (And it changes just about every other market, too.) I do not want to live in a world where I alone lose 70% of my income over $100K and nobody else does. That's not even a tax.