How much more should a neurosurgeon making $250,000/yr. pay in taxes to be considered fair?

Taxes are the LOWEST they've been in 50 years by far.

All of that, and you FAIL due to ignorance.

I think that, at the very least, taxes on the rich should return to the level they were during the Clinton administration. If we're talking about just personal income tax, this shouldn't cause businesses to outsource jobs, as one person mentioned. And, I also realize that low-income families and individuals, all together, contribute less than the rich. However, I don't think a flat tax would help. Here's my reasoning. Let's just say, for the sake of an example, that the personal income tax system was replaced by a flat tax of 15%. Now, let's take two individuals from very different income brackets. For the sake of simplicity, I'll refer to them as Person A and Person B. Let's also say that they are the sole source of income for a family of four (which I believe, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, is about the average size of a household). Also, I will invoke the principle of Ceteris paribus (all other things being equal). After all, there are many factors beside income tax that affect a person's income. Person A lives on an annual salary of $25,000. So, he'd pay $3,750 in taxes. This would leave him with $21,250 to spend on food, utilities, mortgage payments, etc. Person B, on the other hand, has a salary of $250,000. He'd pay $37,500 in taxes and would be left with $212,500 to spend on the same things. Now, even when you consider the fact that Person B would, almost certainly, be paying more toward his house than Person A, it's difficult to dispute the fact that Person A must live with a much tighter belt than Person B, even though they're both paying an equal percentage of their income. So, when people consider the issue, they can't simply go on income by itself. They must also take into account the practical income an individual would be left with. I believe someone else mentioned that many proponents of a flat tax would set a minimum threshold of, say, $20,000. Even then, their tax burden is higher (not numerically, but practically). I'm not saying it's an altogether terrible idea; I'm just pointing out the issues.

Obama's tax plan (as of now) is to leave the rates pretty much where they are and to add an additional 2 tax tiers. Right now the $90,000 person's federal tax liability is $29,700 (28%). The neurosurgeon at $250,000 falls under the 33% bracket his liability is $82,500.

The 2011 brackets are for a single filer.

0-$8500 10%

8500-34500 15%

34500-83600 25%

83600-174400 28%

174400-379500 33%

379500+ 35%

Obamas proposal is similar to this.

379500-1 million 35%

1 million-10 million 38%

10 million+ 42%

The actual tax rates were just made up to show how it might be.

You have completely ignored the Alternative Minimum Tax...these figures go back to 2005, but you'll get the idea...

The AMT's lack of indexation is widely conceded across the political spectrum as a flaw. In 2005, the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center and the US Treasury Department estimated that around 15% of households with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000 must pay the AMT, up from only 2-3% in 2000, with the percentage increasing at high incomes. That percentage is set to increase quickly over the coming years if no change is made such as indexing for inflation. Currently, households with incomes below $75,000 are subject to the AMT only very rarely (and thus most tax advisors do not recommend computing AMT for such households). That is set to change in only a few years, however, if the AMT remains unindexed.

The median household income in the United States was $44,389 in 2005, and households making over $75,000 per year made up the top quartile of household incomes. Because those are the households generally required to compute the AMT (though only a fraction currently have to pay), some argue that the AMT still hits only the wealthy or the upper middle class. However, some counties, such as Fairfax County, Virginia ($102,460), and some cities, such as San Jose, California ($76,354), have local median incomes that are considerably higher than the national median, and approach or exceed the typical AMT threshold. The cost-of-living index is generally higher in such areas, which leads to families who are "middle class" in that area having to pay the AMT, while in poorer locales with lower costs of living, only the "locally wealthy" pay the AMT. In other words, many who pay the AMT have incomes that would place them among the wealthy when considering the United States as a whole, but who think of themselves as "middle class" because of the cost of living in their locale.

In your scenario, both would be subject to the AMT, but in all probability only the neurosurgeon would have to pay. If Obama is proposing to start the AMT at people making $250,000 or more, that would be a great thing, as most people subject to this tax, would no longer have to worry about it.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/alternative-minimum-t...

it takes way longer that 10 years to become a neurosurgeon....4 years of BS/premed, 4 years of medical school and 4-5 years of internship and residency to become a surgeon, then another 1-2 years to to specialize in neuro surgery

Where in the world did you get those numbers?

A person making 90,000 a year pays more than 1,350 in taxes.

I don't make close to 90,000 a year and I pay more than your figures state a 90,000 a year earner does.

Each should pay the same percentage of their wages.