Home | About | Donate

5 Reasons the Top Tax Rate Should Be 80 Percent


5 Reasons the Top Tax Rate Should Be 80 Percent

Paul Buchheit

5 Reasons the Top Tax Rate Should Be 80%


“It is easier for Chris Christie to pass through the eye of a needle than for Bill Gates to get into heaven.”
–21st Century (Caucasian) Jesus


It should be 90% on incomes of over $1 Bil. In other words, we need to tax billionaires out of existence. Clearly, if you have enough money to either buy a presidential candidate or be a self-financed one, you have too effing much money.


WiseOwl — Just imagine a world without windows and gates…

There is a joke about Bill Gates wanting to take it with him:

Bill Gates appeals to God and says “You know, I am not only a proud member of of the 1%, but I a member of the 0.0001%. I have given millions to the Gates Foundation and so I would really like to bring some of my hard earned wealth with me when I die.”
God tells him that there are strict rules about that and that it is just not possible.
But Bill keeps bugging God and finally just to shut him up, God tells Bill that he will be allowed to bring one suitcase with him.
Bill is elated. But then he has to decide what to bring. The latest version of Windows is so full of bugs that he can’t bring that. He finally decides that gold bricks are the universal currency so he will load his suitcase with gold.
Finally the big day comes when Bill gets the final blue screen of death and he lugs his suitcase to the Pearly Gates.
Saint Peter stops him and says that he cannot bring in the suitcase into Heaven, but Bill tells him that he received special permission. Saint Peter calls up God and gets the okay.
Now Saint Peter is curious, so he asks Bill what is in the suitcase.
Bill proudly opens the suitcase and shows Saint Peter the gold bricks.
Saint Peter laughs and says, “I don’t understand. You could have brought anything in the world with you, and you chose to bring paving stones?”


90% of one billion still leaves 200 million. Now that’s a nice, fat paycheck! Who would complain?


Buchheit left out the most important reason: SO THE .01% WILL NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO PURCHASE EVERY GOVERNMENT ON EARTH.

The 80% rate will still leave them plenty of dough to buy as many luxury cars, mansions, yachts, jets, high priced hookers they want.


I’d like the very top rate to be something like 101% or 102%, to put a ceiling on how much one person can “earn” in a year.


It should be 100 percent on income and 25 percent on wealth.


Absolutely agree, we need a hard “wealth cap,” and a maximum income (not too ridiculously far removed from the minimum wage).


Correcting wealth inequality is too important to leave up to Wall Street politicians.

Feel the Bern!


Bernie proposes a maximim tax rate of only 52%.
Politically, that’s probably, that’s a good beginning.
But when the 99% see how beneficial that is,
It will be possible to raise it further.

BTW, 10% of a billion is $100 million. But who’s counting?


It would likely cost more votes than gain them by talking about raising taxes. Much better to start with eliminating loopholes, especially emphasizing fairness. People respond to fairness but then to simply respond negatively to calling for more taxes. I would start with eliminating the 100% Social Security and Medicare exemption on ‘unearned income’ (income from PROFITS, INTEREST, RENTALS, ETC.)


We are an incredibly wealthy country, but who’d know it with the super wealthy skimming it off the top. If wealth were fairly distributed, we really could live in an ideal world where problems of all sorts could be addressed aggressively with cost not being an issue. No one needs billions, or a billion, or a million to be comfortable. Happiness, and success, need to be redefined and recalibrated. There is no place for greed and hoarding in our world if we truly want to be fulfilled as a people. Tax the Neanderthals 'til they cry uncle and spread the wealth!


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


The consequences of usurpation of legitimate wealth begets its polar opposite - the hydra of impoverishment with its heads of the varied forms of expulsion from one’s land/home, from productive skilled employment, from human development, leading to forms of migration. Impoverishment of essential shared infrastructure for the purposes of privatization for private enrichment is among the most tragic of the delusional notion of acquisition. It sets up self fulfilling prophesies, a methodology well known in societal self-colonization by advertising, applying highly skewed criteria of ‘market share’, yet another embedded self fulfilling prophesy - that is until it exhausts essential resources.

Here is an example of a researcher who asserts that we have entered the century of the migrant. The considerations lay out some of the architecture the above.


The only true wealth in the world is a society’s people living, working and playing in a healthy ecosystem.

Rather than tinkering with the machinery of the system we have now, we need a new system. Any amount of wealth held over others is used by some people at least for rent-seeking, government-controlling behavior and most of all (and the point of those) to make more money. In our society, money and power are interchangeable commodities, so money is used to get more money and power and power is used to get more money and power, in an exponential curve.

Even if it’s only a very small excess, any amount of income more than others that some people have, will eventually lead to the kind of huge disparities in both money and power that we have now, and democracy can’t survive it. Making deeper cuts with taxes delays the end but doesn’t prevent it, and in the end, even very deep cuts only differ very slightly from shallow cuts because of the exponential curve.

Many societies throughout history have shared both the income and costs of the society fairly and equally, making sure everyone has enough. Like suggestions for a minimum national income, only understanding this reality, we need to have a national income, on the way to having a world income, sharing the wealth of the tribe equally and putting our efforts into improving the wealth of the tribe and its ecosystem.


Republicans talk of Reagan like he was some demigod and talk about how great the economy was under his administration. For the majority of his two terms as President the highest tax rate was at 50% and if things were so wonderful when he was in office, lets establish the 50% rate once again.


If we had a referendum to cap wealth, how high would we place the cap?

What would we do with the cap excesses, give it to politicians to wage wars with or distribute it among all citizens equally?


Interesting ideas, even though such a thing isn’t going to happen during our lifetimes. You need to understand that the rich view the middle class the way that the middle class view the poor. If you aren’t happy with being middle class, then get off your butt, work hard, and work your way up. If one job doesn’t pay enough, work two, or three, and get a college degree. (That’s actually what the middle class said to the poor.) They would also point out that they use virtually none of those goodies that are financed by taxes – public schools, libraries, parks, postal services, etc., etc.


There is no way that the middle class would allow “equal distribution.” Maybe “equal distribution among the more fortunate.” It would probably be best to use it to pay off the latest war debts before starting another war, maybe even taking a few years to restock weapons/supplies.