Should the government increase taxes on private equity executives?

No

A sustainable, country-saving solution would be to replace income taxes with a progressive consumption tax that taxes people based on what they spend, not what they earn. Essential goods like food and medicine would be taxed at lower rates, while luxury items would face higher taxes. To ensure fairness, low-income individuals could receive prebates or tax exemption cards for basic necessities. This system eliminates loopholes, encourages savings and investments, and simplifies the tax code, while generating revenue for essential public services and reducing national debt, creating a fairer and more stable economy for everyone.

Yes, but I would prefer if private equity was banned

Yes, but only to the point where they have a certain amount of money

No, as a matter of fact no one should be taxed as much as they are, period

It does not make sense to target a specific job description - it should be income based just like everyone else.

Takes could be increased for the rich in a sustainable way that still allows for economic growth while cutting taxes for lower and middle class Americans

Instead close abusive advantages they can take over customers for unfair pricing and inadequate service

There would be no point because the executives have too many tax breaks/loopholes instead eliminate the amount of tax loopholes there are.

find a balance between taxing private high earning executives, while not limiting economic growth/activity due to taxing.

no because it can effect other people who are doing their job and then losing half the money to buy and get houses

Yes, carried interest loopholes should be eliminated, and private equity executives should pay taxes on capital gains with a progressive tax rate. Just like everybody.

They are taxed the highest percentage wise but they are using the government legally to get around paying taxes. If you tighten the tax exemption laws then you can get them to pay more without raising taxes.

Replace income taxes with a progressive consumption tax that taxes people based on what they spend, not what they earn. Essential goods like food and medicine would be taxed at lower rates, while luxury items would face higher taxes.

I do not entirely understand this question. When clicking on "Learn More", it took me to a Wikipedia page that does not exist. So I cannot properly answer this question.

Yes, their "carried interest" should be taxed as ordinary income instead of the lower capital gains rates.

The higher the profit of the business the higher there taxes, but there shouldn't be an increase to the current amount

I think the tax code should have less loopholes. Clear incentives with tax breaks that can be substantiated and clear tax brackets with identified reasons. Taxes should not be raised but their should be tighter rules on taxation to make sure the appropriate people and businesses are paying them. And the IRS oversight should be targeting the biggest offenders first, not the small ma and pa grocery store. All should be held accountable but we should allocate our government resources much more effectively and appropriately.

I think this goes to taxing profits interests as ordinary income and if so yes. It could also be read as taxing pe execs at a higher rate and if so no

Yes, but make it congruent with other successful countries, such as Japan's top income tax rate of 56%.

Question is too vague. Capital gains tax should equal income tax.

Less loopholes, the education is allowing these businesses to avoid taxes. Taxes should not be raised but their should be tighter rules on taxation to make sure they are paying them.

Is this advocating for a tax on specific individuals? It's like saying I want to tax you for having a promotion.

Yes, and ban private equity (but not private ownership) firms

On one hand, increasing taxes for private equity executives could generate revenue, however on the other hand there may be unintended consequences from an increase

Depends on the executive equality and what they do along with how much they make and how ,much of that they actually make.

They should check where the money is going. I know one city that is struggling financially for teachers but another city is getting all the funding from the city the other school is struggling.