Thank You

If you had more brackets (and these are marginal brackets, so only the income made above that point is taxed at that rate), you could spread the progessive system out more. Maybe people making $350,000 a year would only have marginal rate of 30% compared to the current 35% - but there would be a higher bracket at $1 million (indexed to inflation) with a marginal rate of 40%. It's not as if this would be a new thing, either; if I recall correctly, the top income tax bracket in Eisenhower times would, in real income indexed to inflation, equate to incomes of about $5 million and up.

It is the most uncreative thesis of the Left: that throwing money creatively at a situation, collected at gunpoint from the most productive members of society, is the solution to any problem.

I don't see you objecting to that process when it is done for the purpose of National Defense, or adequate police forces, or the Center for Disease Control.

The fact of the matter is that most people balk above 25% out of some intutive sense of fairness. (Unlike King Raoul, who would apparently take just about all of it if he could.) Unfortunately, most people just don't know the facts.

From what I've actually read and heard, 47% seems to be the magic number. Beyond that, people's incentives to earn more income start showing serious reductions.

Wait, you mean the below isn't in the U.S. Constitution?

Exactly. The 16th Amendment, achieved by constitutionally legal means (and with broad support at the time, it should be noted), is as much a part of the Constitution as the right to free speech, and so forth. If you have a problem with that, sponsor a constitutional amendment to repeal the 16th Amendment.

The argument over the state's right to take my income at it's will, is clearly over, in the mind of Yglesias... a point I've noted before, both here and at my own place and a that's a central point of my friction with the man... his refusal to acknowldge the larger issues involved here.

Wait, you mean the below isn't in the U.S. Constitution?

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The argument over the state's right to take my income at it's will, is clearly over, in the mind of Yglesias... a point I've noted before, both here and at my own place and a that's a central point of my friction with the man... his refusal to acknowldge the larger issues involved here. Far as Yglesias is concerned, the argument is over and the state won. However, not for me. And it appears I'm not alone.

But second, you hide behind the notion that Americans "want" these services, and therefore we must pay whatever government needs, based upon the vote. Well, Americans "want" what is packaged by slick politicians as "free" services that OTHER people pay for. In other words, they buy into snake oil. Snake oil is not reality.

Taxing all the income and wealth of the super rich could only keep the government going for a few days. Therefore, of necessity, tax financing of government expenditures digs deep down into the income strata. If properly characterized, Americans wouldn't "demand" these services. They vote for a concept, not reality.

Further, as a thought experiment, let's deal with your "they have enough" concept. Recent tax rhetoric had "the rich" pegged at about $200K income a year. Let's just suppose we pass tax legislation that says - ALL of your income is taxed away, until your after tax is reduced to that of a $200K/year earner, so that the non-rich do not suffer any increased tax burden until that test is met, and "the rich" - who have enough, after all - are on equal after tax basis.

Imagine all those movie stars, rock stars, rappers, TV stars, rich liberals, TV news anchors......all those people who support Democrats and their tax proposals have to make good on their views: we've got enough, so until the non-rich have a tax burden, we'll give our income in.

Good bye private jets. Good bye Malibu homes. Good buy Hollywood parties.. Good buy Nantucket summers..............snicker

Hello Republican majority.

Argue, if you want, for some marginal progressivity. But cut the "they have enough crap."

Bithead -- Your post in its entirety is a classic straw man argument. Ynglesias proposed more tax brackets (for the record, I oppose). You then, instead of responding to his proposal created a separate, fictitious argument which you instead dealt with

No, I responded to a point made by James. I even quoted James when I responded to him. Clearly, your reading skills aren't up to the drill. More...

Scott Swank might call it a straw man, but the reality is that Yglesias is debating how much of a person's income that person should be allowed to keep. Swank's lack of willingness to discuss it as such doesn't make it a straw man.

Correct.

As far as the claim "People who start earning this kind of big-time CEO money would, I think, almost literally not miss the money" is concerned...well I wouldn't miss my appendix if a competent surgeon barged into my house and took it from me (backed by 51% of the populace, of course), but that doesn't mean it's not assault.

Did Ynglesias say anything like, "outdated concept of private property"? No, you did for the sake of your own argument.

Did Ynglesias oppose, "right to what they produce"? No, you did for the sake of your own argument.

Did Ynglesias propose that, "Everything must be sacrificed for the state." Again, no, you did.

Likewise, "Eveything is already the property of the state."

I point of fact, did anyone push these issues? No, they were constructed by you because they are easy to tear apart. That is a textbook Straw Man argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Want my idea? The government has "no claim" over a person's income. The operating costs of a government, which in theory has to be within budget, is consented to by the populace. Personally I think that people have become too complacent in allowing state and federal governments too large of a role, and thus have "consented" through convenience to way too much money.

I'm a "goverment builds the roads and defends the nation" kind of guy. I think that we are on the wrong side of the peak point of the Laffer curve and that the best way to cut taxes is to cut spending.

I hope that's not too straw-y for your taste.

The top bracket, which kicks in for individuals or couples at $372,950, is 35 percent. Over a third right off the top. Why isn’t that enough?

It's not over a third right off the top.

"Both efforts were good for both the general economy and for tax revenues."

On Kennedy, this is correct. On Reagan, it was not as far as tax revenues went. That's why Reagan had to raise taxes in nearly every year after his 1981 tax cuts.

"The top bracket, which kicks in for individuals or couples at $372,950, is 35 percent. Over a third right off the top. Why isn’t that enough?"

Last time I looked, we live in a democracy. If we, through our elected representatives, decide to spend roughly 20% of GDP on government services, either we need to raise the taxes to pay for them, or we run deficits and let our children pay for them. Republican governance for the last few decades has meant some combination of (i) cut taxes, and maybe someday we'll cut spending or (ii) deficits don't matter. And yet, they have the unmitigated gall to call themselves the party of fiscal responsibility with something approaching a straight face.