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

[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.

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.

The more money you take out of circulation and give to the government, the more economic damage you do.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

Government spending benefits every individual in this country. The country would not EXIST without government spending. Without the United States military there would be no United States and that wonderful MARKET that is responsible for all the money that the rich have would not exist either.

The U.S. MARKET is where most of the rich have made their money. They were born into the MARKET, they did not create it. The MARKET was created, built and defended by people and yes government actions long before most of them were ever born.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

Once again, I never said that.

However when it comes to the federal government, our Constitution states what our federal government is for. It says nothing about the dozens and dozens of social programs we have. It says nothing about foreign aid. It says nothing about cash for clunkers.

The problem is not revenue, the problem is spending.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

 

[U2Edge]

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?

What you don't understand is that growing wealth inequality is a threat to democracy and capitalism. In countries with the greatest wealth inequality, you see oligarchy, monopoly, and unfair political power in the hands of the rich. To much wealth in the hands of a few drives down competition, monopolies being a good example. A higher top federal tax rate and more government regulation can help restrain these problems and keep democracy and capitalism safe.

 

[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.

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?

Again, the goal is tax rates that produce maximum revenue to the government without hurting economic growth. We can increase the top federal tax rate to 60% or 70% without economic growth and we should because it will bring in a lot more revenue to the government that can be spent on the military and help balance the budget.

About 44% effectively don't pay federal taxes at the moment. An increase in that number, while increases the top federal rate would likely be very good for the economy and the government. To what level I'm not exactly sure, but certainly moving to 50% not paying a federal tax with that burden being shifted to the top 1% of income earners would work great for the economy and the country.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

The average GDP growth rate after Bush's tax cuts is less than the average GDP growth rate after Obama's tax hikes. That is all the proof you need to show that raising the top federal tax rate does not hurt the economy nor does lowering the top federal tax rate help the economy.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

The more money you take out of circulation and give to the government, the more economic damage you do.

The government spends all the money it receives from taxes so it does not take anything out of circulation. The Rich's spending on the other hand remains primarily flat, not changing at all after tax cuts and tax hikes. The massive government of spending of World War II lifted the United States economy out of the Great Depression of the 1930s! The lower class, middle class, and government all spend new money when they get it. The Rich on the other hand do not.

 

[Circe]

Wait, some people think the U.S. should tax 70% of rich people's money away just because some barmaid from New York, who would never have made more than $29,000 a year if she hadn't been elected to Congress, is jealous of rich people?

Not a good reason.

 

[OldLady]

That's not fair to the people who are the wealthiest. 70% !!!!! Way more than half their income going to the government? That is obscene.

Really?

The top 1% own half the country. You don't think they

A. Can't afford it

B. Shouldn't have to pay something approaching equivalency for that?

To me, comparing them to others -- saying they are the top 1% or that they own half the country-- is totally beside the point. The point is they earned that money and taking even half of it away just like that is outrageous. Why would you continue to live or work somewhere that robs you of over half your lawful earnings like that? NO WONDER PEOPLE CHEAT ON THEIR TAXES!
I'll ask you something, Lesh. What gives us the right to take that much money away from another citizen? To me, saying "he can afford it," is a nonanswer. It seems to me that destroys any incentive to either (1) work hard to build more success or (2) to live here.

Do you not understand that "the money" has to come from somewhere???

Should it come from people who can barely pay their minimum bills...or from those who the system has made wealthy beyond any reasonable way to spend that wealth?

Maybe the government shouldn't spend more money than it can fairly tax its citizens? I am still not able to buy in to this Robin Hood theory. It's too communist for my taste. We are a capitalist society ingrained with the idea that we have the potential to become wealthy through our own hard work and initiative. The government should not have the right to take half of it or more just because they are successful. I have never completely understood why we give so much of our money to the federal government so that it can turn around and dole it back to the states. I can understand the military being taxed that way and federal law enforcement like the FBI and the Intelligence services, but not a lot else.

.

We had Our BEST HALF CENTURY WITH HIGH RATES.

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)
Historical rates (married couples, filing jointly)

Year/ Top Rate%/ Over

1913 --- 7% 500,000
1914 --- 7% 500,000
1915 --- 7% 500,000
1916 --- 15% 2,000,000
1917 --- 67% 2,000,000
1918 --- 77% 1,000,000
1919 --- 73% 1,000,000
1920 --- 73% 1,000,000
1921 --- 73% 1,000,000
1922 --- 58% 200,000
1923 --- 43.5% 200,000
1924 --- 46% 500,000
1925 --- 25% 100,000
1926 --- 25% 100,000
1927 --- 25% 100,000
1928 --- 25% 100,000
1929 --- 24% 100,000
1930 --- 25% 100,000
1931 --- 25% 100,000
1932 --- 63% 1,000,000
1933 --- 63% 1,000,000
1934 --- 63% 1,000,000
1935 --- 63% 1,000,000
1936 --- 79% 5,000,000
1937 --- 79% 5,000,000
1938 --- 79% 5,000,000
1939 --- 79% 5,000,000
1940 --- 81% 5,000,000
1941 --- 81% 5,000,000
1942 --- 88% 200,000
1943 --- 88% 200,000
1944--- 94 200,000
1945 --- 94% 200,000
1946 --- 86% 200,000
1947 --- 86% 200,000
1948 --- 82.% 400,000
1949 --- 82% 400,000
1950 --- 84.36% 400,000
1951 --- 91% 400,000
1952 --- 92% 400,000
1953 --- 92% 400,000
1954 --- 91% 400,000
1955 --- 91% 400,000
1956 --- 91% 400,000
1957 --- 91% 400,000
1958 --- 91% 400,000
1959 --- 91% 400,000
1960 --- 91% 400,000
1961 --- 91% 400,000
1962 --- 91% 400,000
1963 --- 91% 400,000
1964 --- 77% 400,000
1965 --- 70% 200,000
1966 --- 70% 200,000
1967 --- 70% 200,000
1968 --- 75.25% 200,000
1969 --- 77% 200,000
1970 --- 71.75% 200,000
1971 --- 70% 60% 200,000
1972 --- 70% 50 200,000
1973 --- 70% 50 200,000
1974 --- 70% 50 200,000
1975 ----70% 50 200,000
1976 --- 70% 50 200,000
1977 --- 70% 50 203,200
1978 --- 70% 50 203,200
1979 --- 70% 50 215,400
1980 --- 70% 50 215,400
1981 --- 69% 50 215,400
1982 --- 50% 85,600
1983 --- 50% 109,400
1984 --- 50% 162,400
1985 --- 50 % 169,020
1986 --- 50 % 175,250
1987 --- 38.5% 90,000
1988 --- 28% <8> 29,750 <8>
1989 --- 28% <8> 30,950 <8>
1990 --- 28% <8> 32,450 <8>
1991 --- 31% 82,150
1992 --- 31% 86,500
1993 --- 39.6% 89,150
1994 --- 39.6% 250,000
1995 --- 39.6% 256,500
1996 --- 39.6% 263,750
1997 --- 39.6% 271,050
1998 --- 39.6% 278,450
1999 --- 39.6% 283,150
2000 --- 39.6% 288,350
2001 --- 39.1% 297,350
2002 --- 38.6% 307,050
2003 --- 35% 311,950​

`

During the 1990's, you had the best economic growth, a balanced budget, and low unemployment with a top rate of 39.6% on incomes over $250,000. But you still wage stagnant wages for the working class, and a steady erosion of the wealth of the working and middle class trickling up to the top 20% so this would indicate that the rate which provided the best balance to lift ALL Americans, not just the top 20%, were the tax rates in effect prior to the Reagan tax code changes.

Until 1980, working Americans owned 5% of the wealth of the nation. After 1980, when the promised wage boosts promised once the union movement was destroyed failed to materialize, and workers wages steadily lost buying power, workers used their savings to maintain their lifestyles, until those savings ran out, then they used their credit, and finally goverment assistance in the form of food stamps, earned income credits and other administration heavy and expensive forms of social assistance, in place of real increases in their income.

And even as wages stagnated, executive incomes soared, profits are the highest in history, and businesses have absorbed increased costs in equipment, rent, insurance, raw materials, and management salaries, they balk at paying more for their front line workers, the people who do the work which actually generates the profits. Wages, as a percentage of costs, is now back to the same levels as were last seen in the Guilded Age, the age of the Robber Barons.

https://www.history.com/news/second-gilded-age-income-inequality

Ronald Reagan oversaw several changes to the tax code that greatly accelerated wealth inequality and inflated executive compensation. First, stock options, which are the largest portion of executive compensation, were no longer required to be expensed by the company. They don't even have to report them on their balance sheet. Say Company A gives their executive 100,000 options to buy the stock at ten bucks. If the stock is sitting at 20 bucks at the close of the fiscal year the company has a one million dollar liability. Before Reagan, they would have to report that on their balance sheet. After Reagan, they didn't.

Then there are accounting firms certifying a companies financial reports. Prior to Reagan if an accounting firm certified results that turned out to be inaccurate they could be held liable for ALL the misstatement. After Reagan, only a small portion. The end result, prior to Reagan maybe a handful of companies would restate their earnings. After Reagan, well it numbers in the hundreds.

Then there are corporate stock buybacks. Prior to Reagan they were considered artificial manipulation of the stock price and were illegal under almost all circumstances. Now, well it is Katy bar the door, and it is common practice.

The first step in slowing the continued increase in wealth inequality is to change those three things back to the way they were. The second step is to do what Reagan actually supported, tax earned and unearned income the same. The third step is to increase the marginal tax rate on the top ten percent of taxpayers. Step four is to revoke Trumps corporate tax cut and honestly, increase the corporate tax rate to somewhere around forty percent.

Increased wealth inequality, a wildly fluctuating stock market, stagnant wages, they are all signs that our low tax rates are not encouraging investing, they are encouraging speculation and rent-seeking. It is past time that we restructured the tax code to encourage real investing and eliminate rent seeking behavior.

You do know that wealth inequality is because you lazy ass fuckers dont get off your welfare asses and get a job. I used to be a minimum wage puke when I was 18 but got skills given to me by God and was able to go to Saudi Arabia and make a small fortune all tax free. Or you can keep being a victim of liberalism and stay poor and yes my income will increase while your stays the same.

What a total bunch of bullshit. Most people that live at or below the poverty level work, and work damn harder than I do, or you do for that matter. Sure, education is the ticket out. My six kids demonstrate that in spades. But a quality education is expensive. People living at the poverty level sometimes devote forty percent or more of their income to support one college student, and that is WITH financial aid and loans. Our system is fubared. Every year we LOSE more great minds than can ever be delivered by the "one percent". Hell, Donald Trump is a shining example of why elitism is a failure. I mean they say he avoids rainstorms because of his hair but I think it is because he is as dumb as a turkey and would drown in one.

Education, in a real college that is teaching how to make a living may be the answer, or getting skills through the trades can be for others. But liberal arts, doesnt get you much except a barista at Starbucks...At least SB is now contributing to that education...

Education is not entirely about getting a job. I detest the fact that our government has been pushing that idea for the past decade.

 

[U2Edge]

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?

Once again, I never said that.

However when it comes to the federal government, our Constitution states what our federal government is for. It says nothing about the dozens and dozens of social programs we have. It says nothing about foreign aid. It says nothing about cash for clunkers.

The problem is not revenue, the problem is spending.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

The overwhelming majority of government spending is for things that are necessary for the country and its citizens as a whole.

More than 80% of the federal spending goes to
The Military
Social Security
Medicare
interest on the debt
Medicaid
Veterans benefits

Why would you cut any of those areas? The Military is underfunded for the missions it is given by the country. Who's social security check are you going to take away? Who's medicare are you going to take away? Why would you cut veterans benefits?

Its wrong and terrible policy to starve these government programs in order to protect the earnings of the rich. It hurts the country which in the long run will end up hurting the rich as well.

 

[U2Edge]

Wait, some people think the U.S. should tax 70% of rich people's money away just because some barmaid from New York, who would never have made more than $29,000 a year if she hadn't been elected to Congress, is jealous of rich people?

Not a good reason.

No, the United States used to have a top federal tax rate above 70% from 1945 to 1980. The time period saw the United States greatest economic expansion. The higher tax rate won't hurt the economy and will help to balance the budget.

 

[U2Edge]

That's not fair to the people who are the wealthiest. 70% !!!!! Way more than half their income going to the government? That is obscene.

Really?

The top 1% own half the country. You don't think they

A. Can't afford it

B. Shouldn't have to pay something approaching equivalency for that?

To me, comparing them to others -- saying they are the top 1% or that they own half the country-- is totally beside the point. The point is they earned that money and taking even half of it away just like that is outrageous. Why would you continue to live or work somewhere that robs you of over half your lawful earnings like that? NO WONDER PEOPLE CHEAT ON THEIR TAXES!
I'll ask you something, Lesh. What gives us the right to take that much money away from another citizen? To me, saying "he can afford it," is a nonanswer. It seems to me that destroys any incentive to either (1) work hard to build more success or (2) to live here.

Do you not understand that "the money" has to come from somewhere???

Should it come from people who can barely pay their minimum bills...or from those who the system has made wealthy beyond any reasonable way to spend that wealth?

Maybe the government shouldn't spend more money than it can fairly tax its citizens? I am still not able to buy in to this Robin Hood theory. It's too communist for my taste. We are a capitalist society ingrained with the idea that we have the potential to become wealthy through our own hard work and initiative. The government should not have the right to take half of it or more just because they are successful. I have never completely understood why we give so much of our money to the federal government so that it can turn around and dole it back to the states. I can understand the military being taxed that way and federal law enforcement like the FBI and the Intelligence services, but not a lot else.

.

During the 1990's, you had the best economic growth, a balanced budget, and low unemployment with a top rate of 39.6% on incomes over $250,000. But you still wage stagnant wages for the working class, and a steady erosion of the wealth of the working and middle class trickling up to the top 20% so this would indicate that the rate which provided the best balance to lift ALL Americans, not just the top 20%, were the tax rates in effect prior to the Reagan tax code changes.

Until 1980, working Americans owned 5% of the wealth of the nation. After 1980, when the promised wage boosts promised once the union movement was destroyed failed to materialize, and workers wages steadily lost buying power, workers used their savings to maintain their lifestyles, until those savings ran out, then they used their credit, and finally goverment assistance in the form of food stamps, earned income credits and other administration heavy and expensive forms of social assistance, in place of real increases in their income.

And even as wages stagnated, executive incomes soared, profits are the highest in history, and businesses have absorbed increased costs in equipment, rent, insurance, raw materials, and management salaries, they balk at paying more for their front line workers, the people who do the work which actually generates the profits. Wages, as a percentage of costs, is now back to the same levels as were last seen in the Guilded Age, the age of the Robber Barons.

https://www.history.com/news/second-gilded-age-income-inequality

Ronald Reagan oversaw several changes to the tax code that greatly accelerated wealth inequality and inflated executive compensation. First, stock options, which are the largest portion of executive compensation, were no longer required to be expensed by the company. They don't even have to report them on their balance sheet. Say Company A gives their executive 100,000 options to buy the stock at ten bucks. If the stock is sitting at 20 bucks at the close of the fiscal year the company has a one million dollar liability. Before Reagan, they would have to report that on their balance sheet. After Reagan, they didn't.

Then there are accounting firms certifying a companies financial reports. Prior to Reagan if an accounting firm certified results that turned out to be inaccurate they could be held liable for ALL the misstatement. After Reagan, only a small portion. The end result, prior to Reagan maybe a handful of companies would restate their earnings. After Reagan, well it numbers in the hundreds.

Then there are corporate stock buybacks. Prior to Reagan they were considered artificial manipulation of the stock price and were illegal under almost all circumstances. Now, well it is Katy bar the door, and it is common practice.

The first step in slowing the continued increase in wealth inequality is to change those three things back to the way they were. The second step is to do what Reagan actually supported, tax earned and unearned income the same. The third step is to increase the marginal tax rate on the top ten percent of taxpayers. Step four is to revoke Trumps corporate tax cut and honestly, increase the corporate tax rate to somewhere around forty percent.

Increased wealth inequality, a wildly fluctuating stock market, stagnant wages, they are all signs that our low tax rates are not encouraging investing, they are encouraging speculation and rent-seeking. It is past time that we restructured the tax code to encourage real investing and eliminate rent seeking behavior.

You do know that wealth inequality is because you lazy ass fuckers dont get off your welfare asses and get a job. I used to be a minimum wage puke when I was 18 but got skills given to me by God and was able to go to Saudi Arabia and make a small fortune all tax free. Or you can keep being a victim of liberalism and stay poor and yes my income will increase while your stays the same.

What a total bunch of bullshit. Most people that live at or below the poverty level work, and work damn harder than I do, or you do for that matter. Sure, education is the ticket out. My six kids demonstrate that in spades. But a quality education is expensive. People living at the poverty level sometimes devote forty percent or more of their income to support one college student, and that is WITH financial aid and loans. Our system is fubared. Every year we LOSE more great minds than can ever be delivered by the "one percent". Hell, Donald Trump is a shining example of why elitism is a failure. I mean they say he avoids rainstorms because of his hair but I think it is because he is as dumb as a turkey and would drown in one.

Education, in a real college that is teaching how to make a living may be the answer, or getting skills through the trades can be for others. But liberal arts, doesnt get you much except a barista at Starbucks...At least SB is now contributing to that education...

Education is not entirely about getting a job. I detest the fact that our government has been pushing that idea for the past decade.

Do you think people should get their social security checks? Medicare insurance? Medicaid? What about paying down the interest on the national debt and Veterans Benefits. Then yes there is the Military. That right there is over 80% of government spending.

 

[OldLady]

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?

Once again, I never said that.

However when it comes to the federal government, our Constitution states what our federal government is for. It says nothing about the dozens and dozens of social programs we have. It says nothing about foreign aid. It says nothing about cash for clunkers.

The problem is not revenue, the problem is spending.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

The overwhelming majority of government spending is for things that are necessary for the country and its citizens as a whole.

More than 80% of the federal spending goes to
The Military
Social Security
Medicare
interest on the debt
Medicaid
Veterans benefits

Why would you cut any of those areas? The Military is underfunded for the missions it is given by the country. Who's social security check are you going to take away? Who's medicare are you going to take away? Why would you cut veterans benefits?

Its wrong and terrible policy to starve these government programs in order to protect the earnings of the rich. It hurts the country which in the long run will end up hurting the rich as well.

I forgot about SS and Medicare/Medicaid. The Military is way too big, imo, and although it needs to be downsized slowly and smartly, we definitely need to think about why we are supporting such a huge force.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

Once again, I never said that.

However when it comes to the federal government, our Constitution states what our federal government is for. It says nothing about the dozens and dozens of social programs we have. It says nothing about foreign aid. It says nothing about cash for clunkers.

The problem is not revenue, the problem is spending.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

The overwhelming majority of government spending is for things that are necessary for the country and its citizens as a whole.

More than 80% of the federal spending goes to
The Military
Social Security
Medicare
interest on the debt
Medicaid
Veterans benefits

Why would you cut any of those areas? The Military is underfunded for the missions it is given by the country. Who's social security check are you going to take away? Who's medicare are you going to take away? Why would you cut veterans benefits?

Its wrong and terrible policy to starve these government programs in order to protect the earnings of the rich. It hurts the country which in the long run will end up hurting the rich as well.

Again, where is this spending authorized by our founders in the Constitution? I have no problem with taking care of our military as they always seem to get the short end of the stick, but social programs belong to that of a state--not the federal government.


The only thing authorized by the Constitution in your list is military spending because it's the federal governments sole responsibility to protect this nation and a military is the only way to do it.

https://singlemotherguide.com/federal-welfare-programs/

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's not fair to the people who are the wealthiest. 70% !!!!! Way more than half their income going to the government? That is obscene.

Really?

The top 1% own half the country. You don't think they

A. Can't afford it

B. Shouldn't have to pay something approaching equivalency for that?

To me, comparing them to others -- saying they are the top 1% or that they own half the country-- is totally beside the point. The point is they earned that money and taking even half of it away just like that is outrageous. Why would you continue to live or work somewhere that robs you of over half your lawful earnings like that? NO WONDER PEOPLE CHEAT ON THEIR TAXES!
I'll ask you something, Lesh. What gives us the right to take that much money away from another citizen? To me, saying "he can afford it," is a nonanswer. It seems to me that destroys any incentive to either (1) work hard to build more success or (2) to live here.

Do you not understand that "the money" has to come from somewhere???

Should it come from people who can barely pay their minimum bills...or from those who the system has made wealthy beyond any reasonable way to spend that wealth?

Maybe the government shouldn't spend more money than it can fairly tax its citizens? I am still not able to buy in to this Robin Hood theory. It's too communist for my taste. We are a capitalist society ingrained with the idea that we have the potential to become wealthy through our own hard work and initiative. The government should not have the right to take half of it or more just because they are successful. I have never completely understood why we give so much of our money to the federal government so that it can turn around and dole it back to the states. I can understand the military being taxed that way and federal law enforcement like the FBI and the Intelligence services, but not a lot else.

.

Ronald Reagan oversaw several changes to the tax code that greatly accelerated wealth inequality and inflated executive compensation. First, stock options, which are the largest portion of executive compensation, were no longer required to be expensed by the company. They don't even have to report them on their balance sheet. Say Company A gives their executive 100,000 options to buy the stock at ten bucks. If the stock is sitting at 20 bucks at the close of the fiscal year the company has a one million dollar liability. Before Reagan, they would have to report that on their balance sheet. After Reagan, they didn't.

Then there are accounting firms certifying a companies financial reports. Prior to Reagan if an accounting firm certified results that turned out to be inaccurate they could be held liable for ALL the misstatement. After Reagan, only a small portion. The end result, prior to Reagan maybe a handful of companies would restate their earnings. After Reagan, well it numbers in the hundreds.

Then there are corporate stock buybacks. Prior to Reagan they were considered artificial manipulation of the stock price and were illegal under almost all circumstances. Now, well it is Katy bar the door, and it is common practice.

The first step in slowing the continued increase in wealth inequality is to change those three things back to the way they were. The second step is to do what Reagan actually supported, tax earned and unearned income the same. The third step is to increase the marginal tax rate on the top ten percent of taxpayers. Step four is to revoke Trumps corporate tax cut and honestly, increase the corporate tax rate to somewhere around forty percent.

Increased wealth inequality, a wildly fluctuating stock market, stagnant wages, they are all signs that our low tax rates are not encouraging investing, they are encouraging speculation and rent-seeking. It is past time that we restructured the tax code to encourage real investing and eliminate rent seeking behavior.

You do know that wealth inequality is because you lazy ass fuckers dont get off your welfare asses and get a job. I used to be a minimum wage puke when I was 18 but got skills given to me by God and was able to go to Saudi Arabia and make a small fortune all tax free. Or you can keep being a victim of liberalism and stay poor and yes my income will increase while your stays the same.

What a total bunch of bullshit. Most people that live at or below the poverty level work, and work damn harder than I do, or you do for that matter. Sure, education is the ticket out. My six kids demonstrate that in spades. But a quality education is expensive. People living at the poverty level sometimes devote forty percent or more of their income to support one college student, and that is WITH financial aid and loans. Our system is fubared. Every year we LOSE more great minds than can ever be delivered by the "one percent". Hell, Donald Trump is a shining example of why elitism is a failure. I mean they say he avoids rainstorms because of his hair but I think it is because he is as dumb as a turkey and would drown in one.

Education, in a real college that is teaching how to make a living may be the answer, or getting skills through the trades can be for others. But liberal arts, doesnt get you much except a barista at Starbucks...At least SB is now contributing to that education...

Education is not entirely about getting a job. I detest the fact that our government has been pushing that idea for the past decade.

Do you think people should get their social security checks? Medicare insurance? Medicaid? What about paying down the interest on the national debt and Veterans Benefits. Then yes there is the Military. That right there is over 80% of government spending.

 

[OldLady]

Really?

The top 1% own half the country. You don't think they

A. Can't afford it

B. Shouldn't have to pay something approaching equivalency for that?

To me, comparing them to others -- saying they are the top 1% or that they own half the country-- is totally beside the point. The point is they earned that money and taking even half of it away just like that is outrageous. Why would you continue to live or work somewhere that robs you of over half your lawful earnings like that? NO WONDER PEOPLE CHEAT ON THEIR TAXES!
I'll ask you something, Lesh. What gives us the right to take that much money away from another citizen? To me, saying "he can afford it," is a nonanswer. It seems to me that destroys any incentive to either (1) work hard to build more success or (2) to live here.

Do you not understand that "the money" has to come from somewhere???

Should it come from people who can barely pay their minimum bills...or from those who the system has made wealthy beyond any reasonable way to spend that wealth?

Maybe the government shouldn't spend more money than it can fairly tax its citizens? I am still not able to buy in to this Robin Hood theory. It's too communist for my taste. We are a capitalist society ingrained with the idea that we have the potential to become wealthy through our own hard work and initiative. The government should not have the right to take half of it or more just because they are successful. I have never completely understood why we give so much of our money to the federal government so that it can turn around and dole it back to the states. I can understand the military being taxed that way and federal law enforcement like the FBI and the Intelligence services, but not a lot else.

.

You do know that wealth inequality is because you lazy ass fuckers dont get off your welfare asses and get a job. I used to be a minimum wage puke when I was 18 but got skills given to me by God and was able to go to Saudi Arabia and make a small fortune all tax free. Or you can keep being a victim of liberalism and stay poor and yes my income will increase while your stays the same.

What a total bunch of bullshit. Most people that live at or below the poverty level work, and work damn harder than I do, or you do for that matter. Sure, education is the ticket out. My six kids demonstrate that in spades. But a quality education is expensive. People living at the poverty level sometimes devote forty percent or more of their income to support one college student, and that is WITH financial aid and loans. Our system is fubared. Every year we LOSE more great minds than can ever be delivered by the "one percent". Hell, Donald Trump is a shining example of why elitism is a failure. I mean they say he avoids rainstorms because of his hair but I think it is because he is as dumb as a turkey and would drown in one.

Education, in a real college that is teaching how to make a living may be the answer, or getting skills through the trades can be for others. But liberal arts, doesnt get you much except a barista at Starbucks...At least SB is now contributing to that education...

Education is not entirely about getting a job. I detest the fact that our government has been pushing that idea for the past decade.

Do you think people should get their social security checks? Medicare insurance? Medicaid? What about paying down the interest on the national debt and Veterans Benefits. Then yes there is the Military. That right there is over 80% of government spending.

View attachment 242270

What is "Labor" included with Social Security and Unemployment?

 

[Brain357]

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?

Your beliefs are funny. The rich are getting richer and wages for everyone else are stagnant. Sorry, but you are wrong. The rich sure have you duped.

 

[Circe]

The Military is way too big, imo, and although it needs to be downsized slowly and smartly, we definitely need to think about why we are supporting such a huge force.

Oh, it's always the same reason, IMO: because the bigger it is, the more the pols can play with it, send it off to this and that Sandland to get the troops' legs blown off. I have a very low opinion of all these long, losing Forever Wars, and this tin soldiers for presidents business (every, EVERY president has his very own war and Trump will too) is why I am opposed to conscription.

Ever.

 

[Natural Citizen]

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

I think the United States should increase the top federal tax rate from where it is now at 39% back to 70% where it was in 1980. The top tax rate in the United States from 1945 to 1980 was NEVER lower than 70%. The time period of 1945 to 1980 saw the strongest average annual GDP growth in United States history. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was at 121% in 1945. But by 1980, the national debt was only 33% of GDP. During this time period, the United States fought the cold war which involved fighting in Korea and Vietnam as well as deterring the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

How was the United States able to fight these wars, have large annual defense spending, pay for new social programs like Social Security, Medicare etc, while reducing the national debt relative to the country's wealth? It was able to do this by having a top tax rate on the richest Americans that was between 70% and 94% during the time period of 1945-1980. These tax rates on wealthy Americans DID NOT hurt the economy, ruin business etc. The country thrived with these tax rates.

Consumer spending is 80% of economic growth. Most consumers are not wealthy. They are lower class or middle class. Making sure their taxes are lower or balanced is important because they spend money when they get a raise, new job, tax break, etc. The rich though do not change their level of consumer spending when they get a tax cut or obtain more wealth. Their wealth is such that their level of consumer spending is not impacted by tax cuts or tax increases.

So going back to a 70% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans will provide more important revenue for the government without hurting the economy. This extra revenue can be used to balance the budget, pay down debt, increase defense spending, provide more money for education and health care.

The national debt has sky rocketed since 1980 and it has been difficult finding enough money for defense and domestic programs. The solution is a higher tax rate, 70% or more on the wealthiest Americans. It won't hurt the economy as shown by the superior economic growth from 1945 to 1980.

Income tax is theft. And the way they collect it is unconstitutional.

 

[Brain357]

Even with extremely low unemployment the rich have figured out how to not increase wages. The workers are getting hosed.