Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

[basquebromance]

wealth is a wild beast, and if not tamed, will chew up a lot of lives!

 

[U2Edge]

If you think its just up to the individual, then why are there not any Billionaires in Somalia?

Because the United States offers an opportunity like no other country in the world. We want to keep it that way. People come here from all over the world to study medicine, and in many cases, stay here after they graduate because there is little money for their talent where they came from.

I'm a patient at the world famous Cleveland Clinic, and I can tell you first hand how many of those doctors and surgeons are from other countries. Because they can make a good living here, we draw the best talent from around the globe and benefit from that. If those people were taxed at such a high rate as you suggest, then there is no point of staying in the US. They might as well return back to their country.

Not true because nearly every first world country has higher tax rates than the United States given that the United States taxes as a percentage of its annual GDP is one of the lowest in the world. Would a doctor from Iran, Afghanistan or Somalia return to those countries because of a 50% or 70% tax rate, I seriously doubt it. Although most doctors probably would not be paying the top federal tax rate in the first place.

Sure they would. As I stated, when you add in all the other taxes to pay, you don't end up with very much. You would probably make out the same or better in your own country. Plus I'm sure a lot of those people would rather be in their own country with family, friends and people they are used to being with.

They wouldn't because as I have already shown, total taxes collected in the United States as a percentage of GDP is one of the lowest rates in the world. As long as their going back to a first world country, they would be taxed the same rate or even higher. As for countries like Iran, Somalia and Afghanistan, there are many reasons not to move back to those countries despite a much lower tax rate.

You could move to Somalia right now and not have to pay ANY taxes of any kind. Why are you not jumping at the opportunity to move to Somalia and pay no taxes?

I never said I didn't believe in paying taxes, I'm saying that I don't believe government deserves more of the money you made than you do.

I don't go to work everyday because I love my government so much. I work to receive a reward. When somebody takes that reward away be it hundreds, thousands or millions of dollars, there is less reason to create wealth. You can make a lot of money in investments and business, but you can lose a lot of money as well. I found that out when I was trading commodities several years ago.

So you increase the tax rate to 60%, and now everybody just moves and takes their money and jobs to Canada where the top rate is 33%.

Canadian income tax rates for individuals - current and previous years - Canada.ca

Except virtually nobody moved there from 1945 to 1980 when the top federal tax rate was at least 70% in the United States. The top federal tax rate in 2016, Obama's last year in office was 42%. Nobody was fleeing to Canada!

Again were not talking about the impact on people making less than $200,000 dollars a year which is well over 95% of the population. They would not be paying the top federal tax rate here. Were talking about individuals making millions of dollars a year or more. The historical record shows that they will continue to work and live in the United States at a higher top federal tax rate.

 

[U2Edge]

Ok, I was wrong about Bush's last 24 economic quarters saying that it would be lower than the overall average of 1.87% for the total 32 quarters. Its actually a little better for the last 24 at 2.11% average real quarterly GDP growth. Not much better though and still well below Clinton's average of 3.62%.

Here is all of Bush's 32 quarters:

Year / Quarter / GDP

2001 01 -1·1358
2001 02 2·3588
2001 03 -1·6498
2001 04 1.0939
2002 01 3.5442
2002 02 2.4450
2002 03 1·7902
2002 04 0.6207
2003 01 2.2376
2003 02 3·4857
2003 03 6.9678
2003 04 4.6724
2004 01 2.1521
2004 02 3.0833
2004 03 3·8353
2004 04 4·0673
2005 01 4·5019
2005 02 1·8591
2005 03 3.6133
2005 04 2.5499
2006 01 5·4283
2006 02 0·9381
2006 03 0·6200
2006 04 3·4512
2007 01 0·9453
2007 02 2·3113
2007 03 2·1909
2007 04 2.4536
2008 01 -2.2791
2008 02 2.0816
2008 03 -2·1479
2008 04 -8·3784


Obama's last 16 quarters in office after the raising the top federal tax rate saw increase averaged quarterly GDP growth of 2.31%. That beats the GDP average growth rate after Bush's cut in the top federal tax rate. Obama increased the top federal tax rate after which average GDP growth actually improved!

So once again, the LESSON, cutting the top federal tax rate does not increase economic growth and raising the top federal tax rate does not hurt economic growth, at least at these levels.

How much lower would growth have been if Obama hadn't hiked rates?

It would not have been any lower, but it would not have been any higher, because typically tax cuts on the rich do not boost economic growth.

A higher top federal tax rate is coming whether you like it or not. The Rich are wealthier than they have ever been and there are massive budget pressures that are only going to get worse with time. The majority of voters are moving gradually to support this. It conflicts with traditional Republican orthodoxy/ideology but the number of registered Republicans is declining. Plus even among Republicans, there are those, like myself, who realize that tax policy is about maximizing revenue collection while maintaining peak economic growth. Its not about what you THINK is FAIR for an individual to be paying or not paying at a certain income level. Its not about some obscure principle. Its about sound government policy that produces the best results for the entire country.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because all the evidence shows that cutting the top federal rate in taxes does not increase GDP growth,

View attachment 241513
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=mKdl


No evidence? The above is the 2 years after Bush's final tax cut.
Below is 2 years after Obama's tax hike.


View attachment 241518
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=mKdk

THE LESSON: Cutting the top federal rate does NOT help economic growth and raising the top federal rate does NOT hurt economic growth .

Lesson: Refuted.

Sorry, but the below average real quarterly GDP growth rates for each President are the FACTS:

2. Average quarterly real GDP growth from 1945 to 1980

A. Presidents from 1945 to 1980:

01. John F. Kennedy: 5.31%
02. Lyndon Johnson: 5.18%
03. Harry Truman: 4.87%
06. Jimmy Carter: 3.32%
07. Richard Nixon: 3.06%
09. Dwight D. Eisenhower 2.65%
10. Gerald Ford: 2.28%

B. Presidents from 1981 to 2019


04. Bill Clinton: 3.82%
05. Ronald Reagan: 3.62%
08. Donald Trump: 2.83%
11. George H.W. Bush: 2.24%
12. Barack Obama: 1.90%
13. George W. Bush: 1.87%​

Dropping the top federal tax rate from 40% to 35% under Bush saw the economy grow at the slowest rate of the past 70 years. 1.87% is the AVERAGE of all 32 quarters of measured GDP growth while Bush was in office. It is an indisputable FACT! Brief short term decreases and increases don't accurately show the impact of a tax cut or tax hike. I've looked at all the data for Bush. His average GDP growth numbers would be even worse if you just started with 2003!

I can give you the precise number of each quarter of GDP while Bush was in office, all 32 of them.

I can give you the precise number of each quarter of GDP while Bush was in office, all 32 of them.

Cool. Give me the 8 quarters after the 2003 tax cut.
And for Obama, give me the 8 quarters after his tax hike.

Why just 8 quarters? The Bush tax cuts lasted for the rest of his time in office. That's 24 quarters, not 8.

8 quarters aren't enough to see if tax cuts help growth, if tax hikes hurt growth?

Whether it hurts or helps is best determined by the total time the rate is in effect.

Did the Bush cut help over the next 8 quarters?

 

[U2Edge]

Sorry, but the below average real quarterly GDP growth rates for each President are the FACTS:

2. Average quarterly real GDP growth from 1945 to 1980

A. Presidents from 1945 to 1980:

01. John F. Kennedy: 5.31%
02. Lyndon Johnson: 5.18%
03. Harry Truman: 4.87%
06. Jimmy Carter: 3.32%
07. Richard Nixon: 3.06%
09. Dwight D. Eisenhower 2.65%
10. Gerald Ford: 2.28%

B. Presidents from 1981 to 2019


04. Bill Clinton: 3.82%
05. Ronald Reagan: 3.62%
08. Donald Trump: 2.83%
11. George H.W. Bush: 2.24%
12. Barack Obama: 1.90%
13. George W. Bush: 1.87%​

Dropping the top federal tax rate from 40% to 35% under Bush saw the economy grow at the slowest rate of the past 70 years. 1.87% is the AVERAGE of all 32 quarters of measured GDP growth while Bush was in office. It is an indisputable FACT! Brief short term decreases and increases don't accurately show the impact of a tax cut or tax hike. I've looked at all the data for Bush. His average GDP growth numbers would be even worse if you just started with 2003!

I can give you the precise number of each quarter of GDP while Bush was in office, all 32 of them.

I can give you the precise number of each quarter of GDP while Bush was in office, all 32 of them.

Cool. Give me the 8 quarters after the 2003 tax cut.
And for Obama, give me the 8 quarters after his tax hike.

Why just 8 quarters? The Bush tax cuts lasted for the rest of his time in office. That's 24 quarters, not 8.

8 quarters aren't enough to see if tax cuts help growth, if tax hikes hurt growth?

Whether it hurts or helps is best determined by the total time the rate is in effect.

Did the Bush cut help over the next 8 quarters?

GDP growth improved during that time but was not sustained beyond that. Overall the last 24 quarters of Bush Presidency with that top federal cut in the tax rates saw an average quarterly GDP growth rate of 2.11%. This is much lower than the average of 3.62% when Clinton was President. So it appears to have not done a damn thing except make the budget deficit worse than it had to be.

Had 100% of the Bush tax cuts been targeted at people making less than $100,000 dollars a year either through cutting federal income taxes or cutting pay role taxes for those that don't make enough to pay federal income tax, then you might have seen some healthy GDP growth more in line with the 1990s. But unfortunately, most of the Bush tax cuts went to the rich who don't increase their consumer spending. Consumer spending is what drives GDP growth.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ok, I was wrong about Bush's last 24 economic quarters saying that it would be lower than the overall average of 1.87% for the total 32 quarters. Its actually a little better for the last 24 at 2.11% average real quarterly GDP growth. Not much better though and still well below Clinton's average of 3.62%.

Here is all of Bush's 32 quarters:

Year / Quarter / GDP

2001 01 -1·1358
2001 02 2·3588
2001 03 -1·6498
2001 04 1.0939
2002 01 3.5442
2002 02 2.4450
2002 03 1·7902
2002 04 0.6207
2003 01 2.2376
2003 02 3·4857
2003 03 6.9678
2003 04 4.6724
2004 01 2.1521
2004 02 3.0833
2004 03 3·8353
2004 04 4·0673
2005 01 4·5019
2005 02 1·8591
2005 03 3.6133
2005 04 2.5499
2006 01 5·4283
2006 02 0·9381
2006 03 0·6200
2006 04 3·4512
2007 01 0·9453
2007 02 2·3113
2007 03 2·1909
2007 04 2.4536
2008 01 -2.2791
2008 02 2.0816
2008 03 -2·1479
2008 04 -8·3784


Obama's last 16 quarters in office after the raising the top federal tax rate saw increase averaged quarterly GDP growth of 2.31%. That beats the GDP average growth rate after Bush's cut in the top federal tax rate. Obama increased the top federal tax rate after which average GDP growth actually improved!

So once again, the LESSON, cutting the top federal tax rate does not increase economic growth and raising the top federal tax rate does not hurt economic growth, at least at these levels.

How much lower would growth have been if Obama hadn't hiked rates?

It would not have been any lower, but it would not have been any higher, because typically tax cuts on the rich do not boost economic growth.

A higher top federal tax rate is coming whether you like it or not. The Rich are wealthier than they have ever been and there are massive budget pressures that are only going to get worse with time. The majority of voters are moving gradually to support this. It conflicts with traditional Republican orthodoxy/ideology but the number of registered Republicans is declining. Plus even among Republicans, there are those, like myself, who realize that tax policy is about maximizing revenue collection while maintaining peak economic growth. Its not about what you THINK is FAIR for an individual to be paying or not paying at a certain income level. Its not about some obscure principle. Its about sound government policy that produces the best results for the entire country.

It would not have been any lower, but it would not have been any higher

Wow! That's one magic tax hike.

because typically tax cuts on the rich do not boost economic growth.

Right, because no one changes their behavior based on tax rates. LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I can give you the precise number of each quarter of GDP while Bush was in office, all 32 of them.

Cool. Give me the 8 quarters after the 2003 tax cut.
And for Obama, give me the 8 quarters after his tax hike.

Why just 8 quarters? The Bush tax cuts lasted for the rest of his time in office. That's 24 quarters, not 8.

8 quarters aren't enough to see if tax cuts help growth, if tax hikes hurt growth?

Whether it hurts or helps is best determined by the total time the rate is in effect.

Did the Bush cut help over the next 8 quarters?

GDP growth improved during that time but was not sustained beyond that. Overall the last 24 quarters of Bush Presidency with that top federal cut in the tax rates saw an average quarterly GDP growth rate of 2.11%. This is much lower than the average of 3.62% when Clinton was President. So it appears to have not done a damn thing except make the budget deficit worse than it had to be.

Had 100% of the Bush tax cuts been targeted at people making less than $100,000 dollars a year either through cutting federal income taxes or cutting pay role taxes for those that don't make enough to pay federal income tax, then you might have seen some healthy GDP growth more in line with the 1990s. But unfortunately, most of the Bush tax cuts went to the rich who don't increase their consumer spending. Consumer spending is what drives GDP growth.

This is much lower than the average of 3.62% when Clinton was President.

Yes, Internet Bubbles are cool!

But unfortunately, most of the Bush tax cuts went to the rich who don't increase their consumer spending.

You have any proof for that claim?

 

[U2Edge]

Ok, I was wrong about Bush's last 24 economic quarters saying that it would be lower than the overall average of 1.87% for the total 32 quarters. Its actually a little better for the last 24 at 2.11% average real quarterly GDP growth. Not much better though and still well below Clinton's average of 3.62%.

Here is all of Bush's 32 quarters:

Year / Quarter / GDP

2001 01 -1·1358
2001 02 2·3588
2001 03 -1·6498
2001 04 1.0939
2002 01 3.5442
2002 02 2.4450
2002 03 1·7902
2002 04 0.6207
2003 01 2.2376
2003 02 3·4857
2003 03 6.9678
2003 04 4.6724
2004 01 2.1521
2004 02 3.0833
2004 03 3·8353
2004 04 4·0673
2005 01 4·5019
2005 02 1·8591
2005 03 3.6133
2005 04 2.5499
2006 01 5·4283
2006 02 0·9381
2006 03 0·6200
2006 04 3·4512
2007 01 0·9453
2007 02 2·3113
2007 03 2·1909
2007 04 2.4536
2008 01 -2.2791
2008 02 2.0816
2008 03 -2·1479
2008 04 -8·3784


Obama's last 16 quarters in office after the raising the top federal tax rate saw increase averaged quarterly GDP growth of 2.31%. That beats the GDP average growth rate after Bush's cut in the top federal tax rate. Obama increased the top federal tax rate after which average GDP growth actually improved!

So once again, the LESSON, cutting the top federal tax rate does not increase economic growth and raising the top federal tax rate does not hurt economic growth, at least at these levels.

How much lower would growth have been if Obama hadn't hiked rates?

It would not have been any lower, but it would not have been any higher, because typically tax cuts on the rich do not boost economic growth.

A higher top federal tax rate is coming whether you like it or not. The Rich are wealthier than they have ever been and there are massive budget pressures that are only going to get worse with time. The majority of voters are moving gradually to support this. It conflicts with traditional Republican orthodoxy/ideology but the number of registered Republicans is declining. Plus even among Republicans, there are those, like myself, who realize that tax policy is about maximizing revenue collection while maintaining peak economic growth. Its not about what you THINK is FAIR for an individual to be paying or not paying at a certain income level. Its not about some obscure principle. Its about sound government policy that produces the best results for the entire country.

It would not have been any lower, but it would not have been any higher

Wow! That's one magic tax hike.

because typically tax cuts on the rich do not boost economic growth.

Right, because no one changes their behavior based on tax rates. LOL!

Its been shown that the rich don't change their spending when it comes to tax cuts or tax increases. But people in the lower class and middle class are heavily effected by tax cuts and tax increases which is why any tax cut should be targeting only them and not the rich.

 

[U2Edge]

Why just 8 quarters? The Bush tax cuts lasted for the rest of his time in office. That's 24 quarters, not 8.

8 quarters aren't enough to see if tax cuts help growth, if tax hikes hurt growth?

Whether it hurts or helps is best determined by the total time the rate is in effect.

Did the Bush cut help over the next 8 quarters?

GDP growth improved during that time but was not sustained beyond that. Overall the last 24 quarters of Bush Presidency with that top federal cut in the tax rates saw an average quarterly GDP growth rate of 2.11%. This is much lower than the average of 3.62% when Clinton was President. So it appears to have not done a damn thing except make the budget deficit worse than it had to be.

Had 100% of the Bush tax cuts been targeted at people making less than $100,000 dollars a year either through cutting federal income taxes or cutting pay role taxes for those that don't make enough to pay federal income tax, then you might have seen some healthy GDP growth more in line with the 1990s. But unfortunately, most of the Bush tax cuts went to the rich who don't increase their consumer spending. Consumer spending is what drives GDP growth.

This is much lower than the average of 3.62% when Clinton was President.

Yes, Internet Bubbles are cool!

But unfortunately, most of the Bush tax cuts went to the rich who don't increase their consumer spending.

You have any proof for that claim?

The proof is in the lower GDP numbers + the facts of what the rich do with their extra money. The rich don't eat out more or buy more products, it just goes into savings. The middle class and lower class on the other hand immediately spend the extra money. Consumer Spending is 70% to 80% of what drives GDP growth.

None of the top federal rate tax cuts since the year 2000 have helped GDP growth. Average GDP growth since the year 2000 has been an anemic 1.9% overall.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because the United States offers an opportunity like no other country in the world. We want to keep it that way. People come here from all over the world to study medicine, and in many cases, stay here after they graduate because there is little money for their talent where they came from.

I'm a patient at the world famous Cleveland Clinic, and I can tell you first hand how many of those doctors and surgeons are from other countries. Because they can make a good living here, we draw the best talent from around the globe and benefit from that. If those people were taxed at such a high rate as you suggest, then there is no point of staying in the US. They might as well return back to their country.

Not true because nearly every first world country has higher tax rates than the United States given that the United States taxes as a percentage of its annual GDP is one of the lowest in the world. Would a doctor from Iran, Afghanistan or Somalia return to those countries because of a 50% or 70% tax rate, I seriously doubt it. Although most doctors probably would not be paying the top federal tax rate in the first place.

Sure they would. As I stated, when you add in all the other taxes to pay, you don't end up with very much. You would probably make out the same or better in your own country. Plus I'm sure a lot of those people would rather be in their own country with family, friends and people they are used to being with.

They wouldn't because as I have already shown, total taxes collected in the United States as a percentage of GDP is one of the lowest rates in the world. As long as their going back to a first world country, they would be taxed the same rate or even higher. As for countries like Iran, Somalia and Afghanistan, there are many reasons not to move back to those countries despite a much lower tax rate.

You could move to Somalia right now and not have to pay ANY taxes of any kind. Why are you not jumping at the opportunity to move to Somalia and pay no taxes?

I never said I didn't believe in paying taxes, I'm saying that I don't believe government deserves more of the money you made than you do.

I don't go to work everyday because I love my government so much. I work to receive a reward. When somebody takes that reward away be it hundreds, thousands or millions of dollars, there is less reason to create wealth. You can make a lot of money in investments and business, but you can lose a lot of money as well. I found that out when I was trading commodities several years ago.

So you increase the tax rate to 60%, and now everybody just moves and takes their money and jobs to Canada where the top rate is 33%.

Canadian income tax rates for individuals - current and previous years - Canada.ca

Except virtually nobody moved there from 1945 to 1980 when the top federal tax rate was at least 70% in the United States. The top federal tax rate in 2016, Obama's last year in office was 42%. Nobody was fleeing to Canada!

Again were not talking about the impact on people making less than $200,000 dollars a year which is well over 95% of the population. They would not be paying the top federal tax rate here. Were talking about individuals making millions of dollars a year or more. The historical record shows that they will continue to work and live in the United States at a higher top federal tax rate.

Well if you rob Peter to pay Paul, the Paul's of your society generally have no objection. However the top 20% of wage earners in this country pay 70% of all collected income taxes. If that's not enough, then how much should the top 20% be paying? Also out of that number, the top 1% are paying over 40% of all income taxes collected.

John Stossel: Tax The Rich? The Rich Don't Have Enough. Really.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Let's discuss this in more of reality here.

You are a wealthy man. You are now forced to give up almost 3/4 of your income to the federal government. Then you are forced to give up another 5% to your state government. Another 10% to your county and city governments. Can you tell me one reason you would want to create wealth? Because if you still want to create wealth, you are creating it for your governments and not for yourself. And who does that?

I mean....what you are talking about here (with all taxes combined) is giving governments 85% of your money. That means if you make 10 million dollars in a year, you only get to keep $150,000 of that money. In other words, it makes no sense to invest your money, provide jobs, and taxation to various governments. You'd be better off taking a job as a car salesman.

If the federal tax rate were 0%, the federal government would collect exactly 0 dollars. If the federal tax rate were 100%, the federal government would still collect 0 dollars because who would be stupid enough to work?

No one is suggesting a top federal rate of 100%. The top federal rate should be the rate which maximizes tax revenue to the government without hurting economic growth. The vast majority of economist believe that sweet rate is well above the current 37% top federal rate. Some believe it is as high as 85%. Its a rate where the rich don't flee the country or stop working and maximizes the revenue that goes into the government.

Your OP is about 70% taxation. It's more than just about the wealthy that we have now, we need to encourage others to open up new businesses for the future.

It's not that much different than those of us who have blue collar jobs. The less you make, the less you are going to take an interest in working. If you have enough resources where you don't have to work, but do so because you enjoy making money, a great reduction of pay would eliminate that enjoyment.

So if not 70%, then what new number are you suggesting?

Again, the best top federal tax rate is that number which does not hurt economic growth and maximizes tax revenue collection for the government. Many economist think that special sweet rate is as high as 85%. The Rich are still motivated to work despite the higher rate, the economy still grows, and you get far better revenue collection for the government to balance the budget and pay for important things like the military.

Some think that number is 70% or 60%. I tend to favor the 60% number, but realize it may be higher. Its certainly higher than the 35% to 42% rates of the last quarter century.

Okay, let's go with 60%. Then add in other taxes, and it's more like 75%. Would you work and invest your money (which is always at high risk of being lost) for only 25% of what you made? Most people wouldn't do that.

Wealthy people didn't get that way by letting everybody else take their money. If you increase their taxes by only 5%, it's going to have some negative effect. It's going to cost somebody other than the wealthy guy because he finds ways to recoup that money. Ten fold if taxes were ever that high.

AGAIN, the top federal tax rate from 1945 to 1980 was ALWAYS above 70% EVERY YEAR! The rich worked just as hard if not harder back then given that average GDP growth per year was much higher in those years, 1945-1980, than it has been since the year 2000.

The top federal tax rate was only 28% in 1990. Then Bush and Clinton increased the top federal rate to 40% by 1995! The rich did not flee or stop working. The economy took off!

WE KNOW WE CAN RAISE THE TOP FEDERAL RATE MUCH HIGHER BECAUSE THE TOP FEDERAL HAS ALREADY BEEN THAT HIGH IN THE PAST WITHOUT ANY OF THE CONSEQUENCES YOU ALLEGE!

Those were different times my friend. There were few places to move companies and still be able to conduct business in the US. That's not the case today. However businesses still moved out during the 70's and kept moving out afterwards.

You see the results of increased taxes on the rich in places like California and New York. The rich people are packing their bags and heading for higher grounds. When states or cities try to get new businesses to move there, or expand businesses, they offer tax incentives like abatements and do so because they work. Here we were able to land two new Amazon facilities using abatements. They took deserted malls, leveled them, built state of the art facilities, and created hundreds of jobs.

 

[Brain357]

Not true because nearly every first world country has higher tax rates than the United States given that the United States taxes as a percentage of its annual GDP is one of the lowest in the world. Would a doctor from Iran, Afghanistan or Somalia return to those countries because of a 50% or 70% tax rate, I seriously doubt it. Although most doctors probably would not be paying the top federal tax rate in the first place.

Sure they would. As I stated, when you add in all the other taxes to pay, you don't end up with very much. You would probably make out the same or better in your own country. Plus I'm sure a lot of those people would rather be in their own country with family, friends and people they are used to being with.

They wouldn't because as I have already shown, total taxes collected in the United States as a percentage of GDP is one of the lowest rates in the world. As long as their going back to a first world country, they would be taxed the same rate or even higher. As for countries like Iran, Somalia and Afghanistan, there are many reasons not to move back to those countries despite a much lower tax rate.

You could move to Somalia right now and not have to pay ANY taxes of any kind. Why are you not jumping at the opportunity to move to Somalia and pay no taxes?

I never said I didn't believe in paying taxes, I'm saying that I don't believe government deserves more of the money you made than you do.

I don't go to work everyday because I love my government so much. I work to receive a reward. When somebody takes that reward away be it hundreds, thousands or millions of dollars, there is less reason to create wealth. You can make a lot of money in investments and business, but you can lose a lot of money as well. I found that out when I was trading commodities several years ago.

So you increase the tax rate to 60%, and now everybody just moves and takes their money and jobs to Canada where the top rate is 33%.

Canadian income tax rates for individuals - current and previous years - Canada.ca

Except virtually nobody moved there from 1945 to 1980 when the top federal tax rate was at least 70% in the United States. The top federal tax rate in 2016, Obama's last year in office was 42%. Nobody was fleeing to Canada!

Again were not talking about the impact on people making less than $200,000 dollars a year which is well over 95% of the population. They would not be paying the top federal tax rate here. Were talking about individuals making millions of dollars a year or more. The historical record shows that they will continue to work and live in the United States at a higher top federal tax rate.

Well if you rob Peter to pay Paul, the Paul's of your society generally have no objection. However the top 20% of wage earners in this country pay 70% of all collected income taxes. If that's not enough, then how much should the top 20% be paying? Also out of that number, the top 1% are paying over 40% of all income taxes collected.

John Stossel: Tax The Rich? The Rich Don't Have Enough. Really.

When the rich are hoarding all the wealth there is not other choice.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sure they would. As I stated, when you add in all the other taxes to pay, you don't end up with very much. You would probably make out the same or better in your own country. Plus I'm sure a lot of those people would rather be in their own country with family, friends and people they are used to being with.

They wouldn't because as I have already shown, total taxes collected in the United States as a percentage of GDP is one of the lowest rates in the world. As long as their going back to a first world country, they would be taxed the same rate or even higher. As for countries like Iran, Somalia and Afghanistan, there are many reasons not to move back to those countries despite a much lower tax rate.

You could move to Somalia right now and not have to pay ANY taxes of any kind. Why are you not jumping at the opportunity to move to Somalia and pay no taxes?

I never said I didn't believe in paying taxes, I'm saying that I don't believe government deserves more of the money you made than you do.

I don't go to work everyday because I love my government so much. I work to receive a reward. When somebody takes that reward away be it hundreds, thousands or millions of dollars, there is less reason to create wealth. You can make a lot of money in investments and business, but you can lose a lot of money as well. I found that out when I was trading commodities several years ago.

So you increase the tax rate to 60%, and now everybody just moves and takes their money and jobs to Canada where the top rate is 33%.

Canadian income tax rates for individuals - current and previous years - Canada.ca

Except virtually nobody moved there from 1945 to 1980 when the top federal tax rate was at least 70% in the United States. The top federal tax rate in 2016, Obama's last year in office was 42%. Nobody was fleeing to Canada!

Again were not talking about the impact on people making less than $200,000 dollars a year which is well over 95% of the population. They would not be paying the top federal tax rate here. Were talking about individuals making millions of dollars a year or more. The historical record shows that they will continue to work and live in the United States at a higher top federal tax rate.

Well if you rob Peter to pay Paul, the Paul's of your society generally have no objection. However the top 20% of wage earners in this country pay 70% of all collected income taxes. If that's not enough, then how much should the top 20% be paying? Also out of that number, the top 1% are paying over 40% of all income taxes collected.

John Stossel: Tax The Rich? The Rich Don't Have Enough. Really.

When the rich are hoarding all the wealth there is not other choice.

There is no "the wealth" and never was. We do not live in a bubble where only so much money is around, and if one takes too much, that leaves too little for everybody else.

Money in the US is infinite. You can make as much as you want. Nobody is stopping you. Until the day comes where I go to a bank for a loan, and they tell me I can't have one because the rich have all the money, or I can't get a raise because my boss tells me the same, then the wealth really doesn't exist.

If we took half of all the money away from rich people, it doesn't benefit you one iota. All it does is give government more money to spend.

 

[Brain357]

They wouldn't because as I have already shown, total taxes collected in the United States as a percentage of GDP is one of the lowest rates in the world. As long as their going back to a first world country, they would be taxed the same rate or even higher. As for countries like Iran, Somalia and Afghanistan, there are many reasons not to move back to those countries despite a much lower tax rate.

You could move to Somalia right now and not have to pay ANY taxes of any kind. Why are you not jumping at the opportunity to move to Somalia and pay no taxes?

I never said I didn't believe in paying taxes, I'm saying that I don't believe government deserves more of the money you made than you do.

I don't go to work everyday because I love my government so much. I work to receive a reward. When somebody takes that reward away be it hundreds, thousands or millions of dollars, there is less reason to create wealth. You can make a lot of money in investments and business, but you can lose a lot of money as well. I found that out when I was trading commodities several years ago.

So you increase the tax rate to 60%, and now everybody just moves and takes their money and jobs to Canada where the top rate is 33%.

Canadian income tax rates for individuals - current and previous years - Canada.ca

Except virtually nobody moved there from 1945 to 1980 when the top federal tax rate was at least 70% in the United States. The top federal tax rate in 2016, Obama's last year in office was 42%. Nobody was fleeing to Canada!

Again were not talking about the impact on people making less than $200,000 dollars a year which is well over 95% of the population. They would not be paying the top federal tax rate here. Were talking about individuals making millions of dollars a year or more. The historical record shows that they will continue to work and live in the United States at a higher top federal tax rate.

Well if you rob Peter to pay Paul, the Paul's of your society generally have no objection. However the top 20% of wage earners in this country pay 70% of all collected income taxes. If that's not enough, then how much should the top 20% be paying? Also out of that number, the top 1% are paying over 40% of all income taxes collected.

John Stossel: Tax The Rich? The Rich Don't Have Enough. Really.

When the rich are hoarding all the wealth there is not other choice.

There is no "the wealth" and never was. We do not live in a bubble where only so much money is around, and if one takes too much, that leaves too little for everybody else.

Money in the US is infinite. You can make as much as you want. Nobody is stopping you. Until the day comes where I go to a bank for a loan, and they tell me I can't have one because the rich have all the money, or I can't get a raise because my boss tells me the same, then the wealth really doesn't exist.

If we took half of all the money away from rich people, it doesn't benefit you one iota. All it does is give government more money to spend.

So for most of us wages have been stagnant for years while the rich keep getting richer. Yeah you don't seem to know what you are talking about. Sounds like some rich guy duped you again.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I never said I didn't believe in paying taxes, I'm saying that I don't believe government deserves more of the money you made than you do.

I don't go to work everyday because I love my government so much. I work to receive a reward. When somebody takes that reward away be it hundreds, thousands or millions of dollars, there is less reason to create wealth. You can make a lot of money in investments and business, but you can lose a lot of money as well. I found that out when I was trading commodities several years ago.

So you increase the tax rate to 60%, and now everybody just moves and takes their money and jobs to Canada where the top rate is 33%.

Canadian income tax rates for individuals - current and previous years - Canada.ca

Except virtually nobody moved there from 1945 to 1980 when the top federal tax rate was at least 70% in the United States. The top federal tax rate in 2016, Obama's last year in office was 42%. Nobody was fleeing to Canada!

Again were not talking about the impact on people making less than $200,000 dollars a year which is well over 95% of the population. They would not be paying the top federal tax rate here. Were talking about individuals making millions of dollars a year or more. The historical record shows that they will continue to work and live in the United States at a higher top federal tax rate.

Well if you rob Peter to pay Paul, the Paul's of your society generally have no objection. However the top 20% of wage earners in this country pay 70% of all collected income taxes. If that's not enough, then how much should the top 20% be paying? Also out of that number, the top 1% are paying over 40% of all income taxes collected.

John Stossel: Tax The Rich? The Rich Don't Have Enough. Really.

When the rich are hoarding all the wealth there is not other choice.

There is no "the wealth" and never was. We do not live in a bubble where only so much money is around, and if one takes too much, that leaves too little for everybody else.

Money in the US is infinite. You can make as much as you want. Nobody is stopping you. Until the day comes where I go to a bank for a loan, and they tell me I can't have one because the rich have all the money, or I can't get a raise because my boss tells me the same, then the wealth really doesn't exist.

If we took half of all the money away from rich people, it doesn't benefit you one iota. All it does is give government more money to spend.

So for most of us wages have been stagnant for years while the rich keep getting richer. Yeah you don't seem to know what you are talking about. Sounds like some rich guy duped you again.

Just pointing out the obvious. You wealth envy people believe that if we had less rich people, it would benefit you somehow. If anything, it would be just the opposite.

Money always flows upwards and always will. If you want to stop the rich, then quit giving them your money! Get rid of that computer you are on now. That was manufactured by a multi-billion dollar industry. Since you will have no computer, you won't need the internet either. Cable and internet is another multi-billion dollar industry. And don't forget to turn in or destroy your cell phone. I don't have to tell you what the cell phone industry is worth.

Every day of every week, every month and every year, we willingly send our money to the top. You will buy gasoline sometime soon. You will stop at McDonald's, Burger King or Wendy's. You might buy a new video game system, new video game, a new program or application. Maybe a new car. But one way or another, you are going to willingly send your money to those millionaires and billionaires. You can't stop yourself unless you are Amish.

Okay, now that we've established the rich got that way by making our lives more entertaining, enjoyable or convenient, is it fair to say now that we've giving them all our money for their services, they should give it back with nothing in return?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ok, I was wrong about Bush's last 24 economic quarters saying that it would be lower than the overall average of 1.87% for the total 32 quarters. Its actually a little better for the last 24 at 2.11% average real quarterly GDP growth. Not much better though and still well below Clinton's average of 3.62%.

Here is all of Bush's 32 quarters:

Year / Quarter / GDP

2001 01 -1·1358
2001 02 2·3588
2001 03 -1·6498
2001 04 1.0939
2002 01 3.5442
2002 02 2.4450
2002 03 1·7902
2002 04 0.6207
2003 01 2.2376
2003 02 3·4857
2003 03 6.9678
2003 04 4.6724
2004 01 2.1521
2004 02 3.0833
2004 03 3·8353
2004 04 4·0673
2005 01 4·5019
2005 02 1·8591
2005 03 3.6133
2005 04 2.5499
2006 01 5·4283
2006 02 0·9381
2006 03 0·6200
2006 04 3·4512
2007 01 0·9453
2007 02 2·3113
2007 03 2·1909
2007 04 2.4536
2008 01 -2.2791
2008 02 2.0816
2008 03 -2·1479
2008 04 -8·3784


Obama's last 16 quarters in office after the raising the top federal tax rate saw increase averaged quarterly GDP growth of 2.31%. That beats the GDP average growth rate after Bush's cut in the top federal tax rate. Obama increased the top federal tax rate after which average GDP growth actually improved!

So once again, the LESSON, cutting the top federal tax rate does not increase economic growth and raising the top federal tax rate does not hurt economic growth, at least at these levels.

How much lower would growth have been if Obama hadn't hiked rates?

It would not have been any lower, but it would not have been any higher, because typically tax cuts on the rich do not boost economic growth.

A higher top federal tax rate is coming whether you like it or not. The Rich are wealthier than they have ever been and there are massive budget pressures that are only going to get worse with time. The majority of voters are moving gradually to support this. It conflicts with traditional Republican orthodoxy/ideology but the number of registered Republicans is declining. Plus even among Republicans, there are those, like myself, who realize that tax policy is about maximizing revenue collection while maintaining peak economic growth. Its not about what you THINK is FAIR for an individual to be paying or not paying at a certain income level. Its not about some obscure principle. Its about sound government policy that produces the best results for the entire country.

It would not have been any lower, but it would not have been any higher

Wow! That's one magic tax hike.

because typically tax cuts on the rich do not boost economic growth.

Right, because no one changes their behavior based on tax rates. LOL!

Its been shown that the rich don't change their spending when it comes to tax cuts or tax increases. But people in the lower class and middle class are heavily effected by tax cuts and tax increases which is why any tax cut should be targeting only them and not the rich.

Its been shown that the rich don't change their spending when it comes to tax cuts or tax increases.

I don't believe you.
If they don't spend it, they must eat it.

But people in the lower class and middle class are heavily effected by tax cuts

We should increase the percentage of people who pay zero taxes?
To how much? 60%? 70%?
Maybe only the top 10% should pay taxes?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

8 quarters aren't enough to see if tax cuts help growth, if tax hikes hurt growth?

Whether it hurts or helps is best determined by the total time the rate is in effect.

Did the Bush cut help over the next 8 quarters?

GDP growth improved during that time but was not sustained beyond that. Overall the last 24 quarters of Bush Presidency with that top federal cut in the tax rates saw an average quarterly GDP growth rate of 2.11%. This is much lower than the average of 3.62% when Clinton was President. So it appears to have not done a damn thing except make the budget deficit worse than it had to be.

Had 100% of the Bush tax cuts been targeted at people making less than $100,000 dollars a year either through cutting federal income taxes or cutting pay role taxes for those that don't make enough to pay federal income tax, then you might have seen some healthy GDP growth more in line with the 1990s. But unfortunately, most of the Bush tax cuts went to the rich who don't increase their consumer spending. Consumer spending is what drives GDP growth.

This is much lower than the average of 3.62% when Clinton was President.

Yes, Internet Bubbles are cool!

But unfortunately, most of the Bush tax cuts went to the rich who don't increase their consumer spending.

You have any proof for that claim?

The proof is in the lower GDP numbers + the facts of what the rich do with their extra money. The rich don't eat out more or buy more products, it just goes into savings. The middle class and lower class on the other hand immediately spend the extra money. Consumer Spending is 70% to 80% of what drives GDP growth.

None of the top federal rate tax cuts since the year 2000 have helped GDP growth. Average GDP growth since the year 2000 has been an anemic 1.9% overall.

The proof is in the lower GDP numbers

Did the 2003 tax cut cause the crash 5 years later?

None of the top federal rate tax cuts since the year 2000 have helped GDP growth.

If only you had proof. Tell you what, let's count all the quarters with 7% real GDP growth
after the Bush tax cut and compare that to the number with 7% after the Obama tax hike.

 

[danielpalos]

Why just 8 quarters? The Bush tax cuts lasted for the rest of his time in office. That's 24 quarters, not 8.

8 quarters aren't enough to see if tax cuts help growth, if tax hikes hurt growth?

Whether it hurts or helps is best determined by the total time the rate is in effect.

Did the Bush cut help over the next 8 quarters?

GDP growth improved during that time but was not sustained beyond that. Overall the last 24 quarters of Bush Presidency with that top federal cut in the tax rates saw an average quarterly GDP growth rate of 2.11%. This is much lower than the average of 3.62% when Clinton was President. So it appears to have not done a damn thing except make the budget deficit worse than it had to be.

Had 100% of the Bush tax cuts been targeted at people making less than $100,000 dollars a year either through cutting federal income taxes or cutting pay role taxes for those that don't make enough to pay federal income tax, then you might have seen some healthy GDP growth more in line with the 1990s. But unfortunately, most of the Bush tax cuts went to the rich who don't increase their consumer spending. Consumer spending is what drives GDP growth.

This is much lower than the average of 3.62% when Clinton was President.

Yes, Internet Bubbles are cool!

But unfortunately, most of the Bush tax cuts went to the rich who don't increase their consumer spending.

You have any proof for that claim?

How much consumer spending can a few individuals increase?

The Poor have the law of large numbers on our side.

 

[U2Edge]

Not true because nearly every first world country has higher tax rates than the United States given that the United States taxes as a percentage of its annual GDP is one of the lowest in the world. Would a doctor from Iran, Afghanistan or Somalia return to those countries because of a 50% or 70% tax rate, I seriously doubt it. Although most doctors probably would not be paying the top federal tax rate in the first place.

Sure they would. As I stated, when you add in all the other taxes to pay, you don't end up with very much. You would probably make out the same or better in your own country. Plus I'm sure a lot of those people would rather be in their own country with family, friends and people they are used to being with.

They wouldn't because as I have already shown, total taxes collected in the United States as a percentage of GDP is one of the lowest rates in the world. As long as their going back to a first world country, they would be taxed the same rate or even higher. As for countries like Iran, Somalia and Afghanistan, there are many reasons not to move back to those countries despite a much lower tax rate.

You could move to Somalia right now and not have to pay ANY taxes of any kind. Why are you not jumping at the opportunity to move to Somalia and pay no taxes?

I never said I didn't believe in paying taxes, I'm saying that I don't believe government deserves more of the money you made than you do.

I don't go to work everyday because I love my government so much. I work to receive a reward. When somebody takes that reward away be it hundreds, thousands or millions of dollars, there is less reason to create wealth. You can make a lot of money in investments and business, but you can lose a lot of money as well. I found that out when I was trading commodities several years ago.

So you increase the tax rate to 60%, and now everybody just moves and takes their money and jobs to Canada where the top rate is 33%.

Canadian income tax rates for individuals - current and previous years - Canada.ca

Except virtually nobody moved there from 1945 to 1980 when the top federal tax rate was at least 70% in the United States. The top federal tax rate in 2016, Obama's last year in office was 42%. Nobody was fleeing to Canada!

Again were not talking about the impact on people making less than $200,000 dollars a year which is well over 95% of the population. They would not be paying the top federal tax rate here. Were talking about individuals making millions of dollars a year or more. The historical record shows that they will continue to work and live in the United States at a higher top federal tax rate.

Well if you rob Peter to pay Paul, the Paul's of your society generally have no objection. However the top 20% of wage earners in this country pay 70% of all collected income taxes. If that's not enough, then how much should the top 20% be paying? Also out of that number, the top 1% are paying over 40% of all income taxes collected.

John Stossel: Tax The Rich? The Rich Don't Have Enough. Really.

Again, the rate that maximizes tax revenue coming into the government without hurting the economy is best. Its not about the individual, its about what is best for the country's budget and economic growth.

 

[U2Edge]

No one is suggesting a top federal rate of 100%. The top federal rate should be the rate which maximizes tax revenue to the government without hurting economic growth. The vast majority of economist believe that sweet rate is well above the current 37% top federal rate. Some believe it is as high as 85%. Its a rate where the rich don't flee the country or stop working and maximizes the revenue that goes into the government.

Your OP is about 70% taxation. It's more than just about the wealthy that we have now, we need to encourage others to open up new businesses for the future.

It's not that much different than those of us who have blue collar jobs. The less you make, the less you are going to take an interest in working. If you have enough resources where you don't have to work, but do so because you enjoy making money, a great reduction of pay would eliminate that enjoyment.

So if not 70%, then what new number are you suggesting?

Again, the best top federal tax rate is that number which does not hurt economic growth and maximizes tax revenue collection for the government. Many economist think that special sweet rate is as high as 85%. The Rich are still motivated to work despite the higher rate, the economy still grows, and you get far better revenue collection for the government to balance the budget and pay for important things like the military.

Some think that number is 70% or 60%. I tend to favor the 60% number, but realize it may be higher. Its certainly higher than the 35% to 42% rates of the last quarter century.

Okay, let's go with 60%. Then add in other taxes, and it's more like 75%. Would you work and invest your money (which is always at high risk of being lost) for only 25% of what you made? Most people wouldn't do that.

Wealthy people didn't get that way by letting everybody else take their money. If you increase their taxes by only 5%, it's going to have some negative effect. It's going to cost somebody other than the wealthy guy because he finds ways to recoup that money. Ten fold if taxes were ever that high.

AGAIN, the top federal tax rate from 1945 to 1980 was ALWAYS above 70% EVERY YEAR! The rich worked just as hard if not harder back then given that average GDP growth per year was much higher in those years, 1945-1980, than it has been since the year 2000.

The top federal tax rate was only 28% in 1990. Then Bush and Clinton increased the top federal rate to 40% by 1995! The rich did not flee or stop working. The economy took off!

WE KNOW WE CAN RAISE THE TOP FEDERAL RATE MUCH HIGHER BECAUSE THE TOP FEDERAL HAS ALREADY BEEN THAT HIGH IN THE PAST WITHOUT ANY OF THE CONSEQUENCES YOU ALLEGE!

Those were different times my friend. There were few places to move companies and still be able to conduct business in the US. That's not the case today. However businesses still moved out during the 70's and kept moving out afterwards.

You see the results of increased taxes on the rich in places like California and New York. The rich people are packing their bags and heading for higher grounds. When states or cities try to get new businesses to move there, or expand businesses, they offer tax incentives like abatements and do so because they work. Here we were able to land two new Amazon facilities using abatements. They took deserted malls, leveled them, built state of the art facilities, and created hundreds of jobs.

Moving to avoid state and local taxes is one thing, moving out of the country to avoid federal taxes is another. Nearly all the other first world countries have much higher tax rates than the United States so the rich would be improving their situation by moving. Yes they could move to a third world country, but most will not take that risk.

Again, why not move to Somalia since you think taxes and government are such bad things?