This is not helpful. You are throwing around so many general numbers and not laying out anything specific in 105. I think you wrote raising the rate on 200k back to 92%, but I cant find any chart that indicates that would raise the required amount. But you also talk about raising taxes on everyone, so Im not sure you intend for that 1 tax to take care of the entire sum.
I have looked at the charts you provided; for example this link
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data
Im not seeing anything that clearly lays out how much income remains above the top marginal rate limit, therefore cannot even begin to figure out how you are getting to 1.3 trillion, and who would pay what.
I strongly disagree with your confidence that people would just take it and keep working against higher taxes that reduces their equivalent $/hr to below minimum wage, once above the marginal rate, but we can just disagree on that. This is never going to happen.
Regarding your general point though, that everyone should pay more regardless of what it costs them to address the debt/deficit, hey at least its more balanced than what a lot of others think. No element of class warfare in this argument, just "we could address the debt with more taxes." Certainly there is 1.3trillion to be had if you are willing to raise taxes, especially on everyone.
My numbers are accurate, not general, although not precise since I don't feel like drilling down into significant digits.
They're derived from my specifics for the marginal tax rate and the table from the tax policy and tax foundation websites. The chart where I calculated roughly how much revenue we would get by raising the marginal rate to 90% on any earnings above $200k is from the tax foundation site. I am also for raising taxes on everyone, but I didn't calculate the increases in receipts given a different set of brackets, although I think it would be interesting to do if I had the free time.
In terms of the tax foundation link, you can calculate the AGI per return of earners in the top N%, and get an accurate amount for how much income would fall above the $200k limit. Then you apply the higher marginal rate of 90% to that income above $200k and you get an accurate estimate of the increase in income taxes for the top N% if the top marginal rate were increased to 90% and the top bracket lowered to $200k.
People making $200k/year would never make minimum wage, at least not federal minimum wage. At worst, assuming they were hourly, their marginal income per hour would drop into the ~$10+/hour range, depending on their yearly salary. And in that case, I agreed, they wouldn't work more, and that's that. On the flip side, the work they do would still need to be done, so instead of paying one person $300k/year, a company might end up paying one personal $200k/year for part time work and another $100k/year for part time work. At the same time, this situation probably isn't common because most high earners are salary, and won't turn down higher pay even if they end up in a higher tax bracket. For them, it's better to get $160k earnings from a $300k salary than $150k in earnings from $200k in salary.
I'd like to think I'm fairly fiscally conservative and am definitely for less private pork (higher taxes) and less public pork (reducing spending and stringent auditing). It's not class warfare to state that many wealthy people do a great job at generating more wealth and a piss poor job at providing healthy economic growth and jobs.
If the wealthy can't or won't provide positive economic activity, I think the government should tax them at a higher rate and use that income to pay down debt and invest in effective (and thoroughly audited) public programs that benefit everyone.
