Should there be a 90 percent tax on the wealthy?

Anonymous

90% is far too high, 45-48% would be absolutely sufficient

BST

Talking to you is taxing.

Tina

No... how stupid is that. Why should we penalize people for being successful?

TedEx

Go ahead! and the rich will stop giving to charity

Phelan

Should be 40% at most with no loopholes

Judy

no.

Anonymous

there's already a 100% tax on the stupid.

RICK

Nope The current income tax rate is too low but anything over 49% is way too high

JazSinc

Nope. o A marginal tax rate isn't the same as the actual rate of taxation. o Net worth isn't taxed anyway. Income is taxed. Certain property is taxed.

Spock (rhp)

no -- far too close to confiscation -- which is morally wrong

Anonymous

History, if read, says the U.S. Tax system had that years go by. Why do you think people like Dale Evans & Roy Rogers had 13 kids, not for love I can tell you. IF a person has 13 Dependents they pay NO Taxes. What we need is no taxes on income or property if the person makes 19,999$, a year or less. Actually, there should be No Income Taxes at all. The Government should run on Tariffs and Import/Export duties.

Raisin Caine

Define wealthy first. Here is my problem with this. The left always trots out this claptrap talking point. The problem is that they usually put the level at something like $250K. I currently live in San Diego and if you live there, you know that $250K is by NO MEANS RICH. In the meantime, you talk about 90% taxation on the very rich, when you KNOW that the rich don't operate their finances like we do. They get to hide most of their money in locations that are tax haven and will not be touched. Consequently, the only people harmed by all this claptrap are the upper middle class. I happen to be a Libertarian. But you are a leftist, right? OK, IFFFFFFFFF you actually even remotely follow liberal views then you are likely not terribly happy with our over-funding and over-use of the military, JUST LIKE ME!!!! So why are you trotting out a way of funding more of this military over-use that I don't want in the first place in order to tax a group (the upper middle class) that I don't think is the real problem???

Godless Gazoo

Only if you want them to leave and then you get zero tax from them.

electricpole

You do not plan on putting forth the effort to become wealthy I see. But still want some of the wealth that comes with that effort.

Wage Slave

At which income level? Under Eisenhower, the top marginal tax rate was 91% on income over $200,000 per year in 1953 dollars (which would be $1.88 million in 2018 dollars).

Never Polled

Heck no, at least the wealthy spend money wisely and create jobs, build amusement parks and casinos, and own football teams.....the government can't even run the National Park Service or Post Office.

Zhu

That's how it was in Eisenhower's adnonistration, and the economy flourishec.

David

Everybody should pay one flat rate of 20%, regardless of income. Cut spending 70%, including all foreign aid. Even so, come, Lord Jesus!

David

That is way too high. But the tRump tax reductions should be repealed ASAP. They are making the deficit grow at an unacceptable rate and will be very damaging to the economy.

Anonymous

No not even countries that have socialism demand 90 % . What they need to do is to get rid of all loop holes in our tax system and go after rich people that have offshore accounts.

Casey Y

The only people who say this are the poor. As a general rule, poor people don't vote in the same numbers as old people...the ones with all of the money... So, "should" is an interesting concept...offset easily by...wont ever happen.

Michael

No.

Beverly S

Wealthy wouldn't stay in the US very long if there was...

Anonymous

The marginal tax rate was 75% during the eisenhower administration. Has anyone suggested it should be?? Where can i read where you heard this??

Eron_17

People find ways to get out of paying taxes. Tax the super wealthy and theyll hide their wealth. They'll avoid it every way they can because no one wants to be taxed 90% no matter how much they have.

rd68

Um, no (unless you would like to lose 90% of the wealthy people, who would move away). France raised rates on the wealthy. Many moved away. Don’t take my word for it (and I am generally not very conservative either):

Jeffrey

Absolutely not, most of the wealthy people are the ones who create jobs. Taxing them 90% is absolutely ridiculous

Jeff

It worked for Eisenhower who used the income to pay down Ww2 and build the greatest highway system in the world.. but America was a lot more united then and rich people more patriotic. America is going down and nothing can stop the descent LoLz. This country is permanently divided against itself.

Anonymous

Has been , should be. Why shouldn’t a billionaire be allowed to keep 100 million

A.J.

That is neither wise nor likely to happen at all, but certainly, the tax cut on the wealthy was total bogus raising the National Debt and the rich people and companies they own bought the bonds. McConnell wants to end the inheritance tax and is against people's right to vote. Certainly, the best way to challenge these bozos in the Senate is to start high and negotiate lower. They don't need the money, and Warren Buffett and some others are aimed at philanthropy and instead of money going to Africa, why not here in the USA? https://givingpledge.org/