Han wrote:

Don't you have it backwards? 10% for the rich down to 50% for the
less-rich? Wouldn't that act as an incentive to work harder, earn
more, move up?

I really don't get that philosophy of taxing the poor more than the
rich. Let us assume a worker earning now $50K/year and paying hardly
(if any) Federal income taxes. He is paying all kinds of other
taxes, though, and pays/buys rent, food, gas, and other necessities
of life. Now you want him to pay 50% of his income in federal taxes?
Where is that 25K going to come from? Or is in your scheme
everyone's income suddenly 25K greater? Who pays that?

Well, a) We're not talking about "other" taxes. b) He has many avenues for
extra money: He can get a better job. He can sell a kidney. Lots of
possibilities.


Even if you make 50K tax free, and then start taxing at 50%, why would
anyone work harder to get just above the 50K? (that is your argument
that the rich won't strive for more if they are taxed more, which is a
fallacy). It makes much more sense to tax lower incomes less than
higher incomes (as a net % of total AGI, or MAGI, whatever the exact
definitions are).

A. Many people avoid the marginal income higher tax rate. There was a recent
report of a chap saving $13,000 in state income tax simply by moving from
New York to Florida. Oh, that $13,000? It was $13,000 per DAY.

B. My scheme is based on incentive; the more you earn, the more of it you
keep. A person earning $50,000 might pay $25,000 in taxes. A person earning
$100,000 may pay only $10,000. That's a pretty big incentive.

This plan also has the numbers behind it: there are WAY more middle-income
earners than wealthy income earners.