When taking 40% of someone's money leaves them with millions, I think they'll be alright. Thinking about this in raw percentages doesn't work. Let's take someone making the lower end of the $37,950 to $91,900 bracket. This year, that person owes $5,226.25 (and anything over $37,950 is taxed at 25%), leaving them with about $32,723. On the other end, someone making the low end of the upper bracket ($418,400+) would owe $121,505.25 (anything over begin taxed about 40%). Let's put this firmly in the 1% and say the person made $2 million. That means they owe $517,000...a lot, right? Well, let's compare. The first guy has $32,723 to work with while the other guy has nearly $1.5 million to work with. Who do you think has the raw deal here?

The guy getting 40% of his earnings taken away from him.

I think you don't understand how the tax system works - you pay a flat fee and then pay 40% on any earnings over the lower bound of the bracket.

Clearly you have not been out in the world long enough to appreciate the difference between living on 30k vs. 1.5 mil. The person leaving with 1.5 mil will have no problem paying their bills. They would have no problem if they only left the table with 1mil. The $5000 taken from the lower earner may result in them not paying rent and being evicted from their apartment. Hoarding wealth is reprehensible. The whole reason the 1% are not taxed more is because of the foolish idea that they will stimulate the economy and the wealth will trickle down. We've tried that for 30 years and it's clear that philosophy has failed. The solution is to make their contribution to the economy a lawful requirement.

Hoarding wealth is reprehensible, but taking money from somebody's earnings by force isn't? Explain that to me please.

And I'll concede that I don't understand the exact tax process.

By force? This thinking is the exact reason we are in this mess.

You want the benefits and privileges of living free in an open market? You pay your dues. You make 100x more than the average American? You pay 100x more taxes. End of story.

You can't just say words. Explain to me why it's perfectly reasonable to take a higher percentage of money off wealthy people?

:laughing:

Ok, I'll spell it out more clearly then. You have a right to your personal freedoms, but living in this country and enjoying the myriad benefits that you have that many others do not is not free. It is not a right. It is a privilege. It takes money to sustain the infrastructure needed to actually keep the free market going. Does it make sense that the poorest of our country are the ones sustaining this market? Wouldn't it make more sense if the highest earners, having earned their wealth in said system, put more back into this system to make it bigger and better than before? Even Republicans agree with this. The thing is - they thought trickle down would be the solution. IT'S NOT. Do you have another solution other than more taxes? If so, let's hear it. The past 3 decades have shown us that rather than playing their part and paying their fair share into this system that made them rich, they'd rather cut and run. Would it be great if we could live in a world where everyone just recognized what they need to do and paid their fair share? Of course. But for every good person out there, there's an ass hole waiting to take advantage. And because of those ass holes, the only way to fix the economy is to tax the rich.

These aren't just words. Contributing to the system that makes your life so good is a RESPONSIBILITY. One that the poor have no choice over and one that the rich are constantly trying to get out of.

Yet this doesn't prohibit you from making silly statements about it? Ok.

*cough* Trump *cough*

The other thing is that the wealthy have the means to find loopholes so that they do not have to pay their fair share.

Again, Trump being a prime example.