Allowing for a federal income tax.
200745
That same year, the income tax amendment passed overwhelmingly in the Congress and was sent off to the states. The last state ratified the amendment on February 13, 1913. The Springfield Republican reported "The Sixteenth Amendment owes its existence mainly to the West and South, where individual incomes of $5,000 or over are comparatively few."[13]\n\n\nThirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize "States," and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had "remuneration" in place of "enumeration"; the instrument from Missouri substituted "levy" for "lay"; the instrument from Washington had "income" not "incomes"; others made similar blunders.\n\nThomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and—taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems—advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so. . . . Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary's decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox's decision is now beyond review.
180315
Any bonuses paid will be taxed at the same rate as any other income.
20192
I would say that I agree with the no attack ads.  The electoral system also has serious issues. The idea of the presidents salary coming from a check box on your tax form might not be a bad idea but I believe that it is far past time to reform the tax issue and do away with income tax altogether. The fair tax as it has been presented by Neal Boortz is an exceptional idea that spreads the taxes evenly amongst ALL.
95706
For federal purposes 25% if under $1 million, but 35% over $1 million.  States will vary on their respective withholding tax rate.
429674
Be willing to accept a lower standard of living. The expansion of the economy is due in large part to dumping the gold standard and instituting the Federal Reserve. \n\nGo back and look at the history that caused these changes.\n\nAs for the income tax, how would you propose paying for public goods?
348440
Others have already stated that 35% is the highest Federal income tax rate.  I included a link the the IRS tax rate schedules.
262306
Yes! At this time, I am for it...Of course, I plan to study this in depth...but so far it looks pretty good...and fair.\n\nThe FairTax: \n\nAbolishes the IRS \nCloses all tax loopholes and brings fairness to taxation \nMaintains our current Social Security and Medicare benefits \nBrings transparency and accountability to tax policy \nAllows American products to compete fairly \nReimburses the tax on purchases of basic necessities \nEnables retirees to keep their entire pension \nEnables workers to keep their entire paycheck
49298
no tax is fair.\nhttp://www.philipdru.com/griffin_stream.html
6055
There are a number of federal taxes that people pay.  Federal Income Tax is just one of them.  FICA taxes include both Social Security and Medicare.
39932
It is a liberal conspiracy to tax you until you cannot support yourself any more. Then you would have to depend on the government for support, and then they will declare victory.
146711
The great part of this country is that you can disagree with the government.  I agree that the government needs to do a better job of protecting individual rights.\n\nHowever this does not relieve you of the obligation to pay your income tax.  The only reason your earnings have value is because of the US Government and you must do your part to support the country, even if you disagree with the administration.
116658
No. I like a national sales tax. You can exclude the necessities (food, clothing, etc.). The wealthier people would then be paying more (higher %) in taxes, while the poorer will pay less. If you don't have the money, you won't be out spending it on luxury items. Also, people that make their money through illegal means (i.e.: drug dealers) don't currently pay taxes on it. This would make sure they do. On top of all this, it gets rid of those complicated forms that nobody can understand except a CPA.
174467
Taxation without representation.
164277
yeah. Think of the tax you save!
499224
Do your own homework - I dont miss Federal taxation class
146151
Not for long - the increased taxes would quickly slow the economy down and you'd either have to keep increasing taxes (screwing the economy), or cut the tax (defeating the purpose).
528072
Don't hold your breath. The only thing you can really counr on is higher taxes. Sorry.