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

[Circe]

You don't understand the way are global interconnected world works in the 21st century and why its necessary for the United States and other countries to defend their interest and global stability around the world. This is no longer the 19th century or earlier. Those days are gone forever.

I don't agree. I read a whole lot of history and military theory, and my reading shows me that whenever potentates (elected or otherwise) have conscripted troops, they WILL play toy soldiers with them: e.g., the pointless and lost Vietnam War. When they don't have conscription, they will often manufacture a crisis to get conscription, e.g., Germany before both WWI and WWII. And then they'll march their soldiers off to war, which was the plan all along.

One solution to this is obvious: never, never, never, never give presidents conscription.

I think feminists may have stopped this -- or tried to -- by forcing acceptance of females into the military, which would upset too many parents and husbands if women were conscripted for one of these losing Forever Wars. Or any hot war, for that matter. It was an interesting tactic by the Left, but I am not sure it will work. Women have been informally conscripted into replacing men in weapons and food production for a long time: Napoleon was the first to bring the concept of Total War into theory, enlisting everyone in the society (actually Danton started the idea, but nobody remembers him). Of course in WWI women did a lot of battlefield nursing and also a lot of very unhealthy artillery manufacture, and got the vote in England for that, but in WWII there were laws in both England and Germany requiring women to work in war factories or as "land girls" farming. I would expect something like that to happen if the concept of women in the military were to stand in the way of some president wanting conscription.

The Vietnam War formed my thinking on this: never, never let a president have conscription. They love to play war, any war they can get. It doesn't have to make sense: like Clinton and his war on Serbia in favor of ......…. MUSLIMS??? And all presidents do have one or more wars --- count 'em up.

 

[Circe]

Well, let's be honest. There are some legitimate functions that the federal gov't has to perform for us that requires revenue and expenditures. I would definitely be down for not spending more money than we take in though.

As a libertarian, I'd say the legitimate functions of government are protecting our borders (current government: fail) against invasion and conquest. Also dealing with and preventing internal crime that crosses state borders. That's pretty much it, except perhaps for highways: a lot of Libertarians think the federal government has a role there, but I can't see it, myself.

 

[progressive hunter]

What's funny about my beliefs? How do the rich get that way? Many of them produce products or services we all use and need to some degree.

Walter E Williams had the best take on this. He said when he was teaching college, his students often asked him what the key was to financial success? To that he said, it's simple: please your fellow man. That's the key.

You may make a great hamburger and get hired to cater cookouts. You please your fellow man by a dozen or so. If you decide to open your own restaurant, you please your fellow many by the thousands. If you decide to franchise your burgers, you please your fellow man by the millions. In each step, financial rewards follow.

You may be very talented at writing and singing songs, so you sing and play your songs at parties, and please your fellow many by the dozens. You then decide to hit the bar scene, and you please your fellow man by the thousands. A recording agent hears about your talent, and you get a recording contract, from there, you are playing arenas and stadiums across the country and please your fellow man by the millions. Again, each step of the way gives you financial rewards.

Yes, you can inherit money, hit the lottery, win a huge lawsuit or something, but most of our wealthy didn't get their money that way. So nobody has me duped on anything.

I don't begrudge anyone making any mount of money.
If a Hedge fund Chief routinely makes a $1 Billion a year (the top 20 do on avg).. Good for him.
He's worth it to the investors in the Fund.

But what's he worth to the country?
That's society's/the GOVT's job to parse.

Is he worth as much as or more than 20,000 Math teachers (at 50k) who taught him his trade, and teach millions more every year?
NO.
He doesn't create a product or impart any great knowledge.. he buys low/sells high already extant cos stocks.
So I have No Problem with society/the Govt setting a much higher Tax rate for him than for others.

Warren Buffett, who only bought cos, doesn't know what to do with his money/$80 Bil..
So he's giving 90% of it to the Bill Gates Foundation.
Bill Gates is giving 90% of his fortune to his Foundation too...
Where it will be spend in the Third World improving health and welfare.
(And Gates would have still gone into his garage and created software no matter the Top tax rate)

I'd rather have Taxed that money more heavily and kept it IN the country by Income or Estate Taxes, and the economy would be better off for it getting spent here than piling up in .1%'s pockets.
`

Then what you are saying is that government can spend your money better than you can. It's not governments business what you do with your money provided it's legal.

Now I've asked this before but never got an answer. So perhaps you can help: The top 20% of wage earners in this country pay 70% of all collected taxes. The top 1% pay 40% of all collected income taxes. How much more should they be paying for the rest of us if 40% or 70% is not enough?

"How much is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

National tax policy is about generating the largest amount of revenue for the federal government without hurting economic growth. Its not about some subjective idea of what is fair for the top income earners to pay in terms of taxes. Its about what is best for the country, not the billionaire individual.

excuse me but where does the constitution say that???

tax policy is based on what the debts of the country are based on the constitutions limitations

The constitution is not a guide for tax policy. There is NOTHING in the constitution that prevents the government from raising the top federal tax rate to 95%! NOTHING. That's why Franklin Roosevelt and Harry S Truman, two of the greatest Presidents in history, and top federal tax rates that high or nearly that high.

the constitution is a guide for everything the feds do, including tax policy


in fact if its not in the constitution the feds have no authority to do it

 

[dblack]

Well, let's be honest. There are some legitimate functions that the federal gov't has to perform for us that requires revenue and expenditures. I would definitely be down for not spending more money than we take in though.

As a libertarian, I'd say the legitimate functions of government are protecting our borders (current government: fail) against invasion and conquest.

I seriously hope you're not referring to the wall nonsense.

 

[danielpalos]

Like ray said, they aren't even worth his time. Doesn't sound like much of a benefit to workers to me.

I'm sure he benefits from a 401K or an IRA, but he's right, many workers owe no federal taxes
so why would you complain they don't benefit from tax deductions?

I was explaining the many ways the rich can benefit where normal workers don't. And I complain because deficits are out of control. Remember when the Repub tax cut was going to pay for itself? I bet you fell for that one.

First off, again as has been said many many many times.... Our government collects more money in taxes, than the GDP of all the countries of the world minus China, Japan and Germany.

If you need more tax money... you are spending too much. Stop over spending on entitlements, and this problem disappears.

The problem isn't revenue. It's spending.

But let me respond to all that you have said.

I would agree with you that most tax deductions benefit the wealthy rather than the poor.

This is natural. Because tax deductions cost money.

There seems to be some sort of mythology about how tax deductions work. I've even heard people say phrases like "The rich get wealthy off tax deductions".

This is impossible.

For example, if I pay the bank $100,000 in interest on a mortgage on my luxury mansion, I get to a tax deduction of $100,000. That sounds like a lot.... but in reality, that only lowers my taxable income by $100,000. The top marginal rate is 37%, which means I reduced by taxes by $37,000.

So the way a tax deduction works, is I spend $100,000, in order to save $37,000. I'm not getting wealthy off this. I lost $63,000 to get a tax deduction of $37,000. If I had not purchased the manage, and not paid interest, would have saved $63,000, and paid $37,000 in tax.

All tax deductions work this way. If a rich man donates $1 Million dollars to a charity, he lost $630K in order to save $370K in taxes.

No one gets wealthy from tax deductions.

The one thing that people on the left seem to ignore though, is why the deductions exist. Do you know who started pushing for deductions? It was left wingers.

Left-wingers started this whole game of tax deductions, with FDR. The left-wing elites at ivy league schools, requested that there be tax deductions for donations to their schools.

Since then, deductions have been used throughout the left-wing, to get people to act in ways they deem good. Such as wealthy people building windmills on their property, to collect massive tax benefits.

The irony is, while the left-wing routinely pushes tax deductions for everything they want, they turn right around and start screaming that the rich take advantage of these deductions to avoid taxes.

Well you can't have it both ways. You can't demand we have deductions for solar panels, and the start crying that the rich are installing solar panels, and not paying any tax. You can't pass tax deductions for energy efficient homes, and then start whining when Bill Gates avoids hundreds of thousands in tax, because he made his mansion more energy efficient.

Total United States tax revenue collection only amounts to 22% of annual GDP, a rate that is lower than 140 other countries in the world, essentially one of the lowest rates in the world.

Maybe because nearly half our citizens pay no income tax at all?

one reason to raise the minimum wage.

 

[danielpalos]

Excuse me, but this is nonsense. Very few people in Washington base their tax policy on the debt and deficits, one party raises taxes so they can spend more money and the other party cuts taxes to spur economic growth. The tax policy on both sides has everything to do with trying to bolster their chances of getting re-elected. Neither side gives a flyin' fuck about the debt.

And I don't think there's anything in the Constitution about tax policy or the debt, limitations or otherwise.

I remember Professor Walter E Williams addressing this when he was filling in for Rush one day. He said "I'm going to run for Congress. My platform is I will bring nothing back from Washington. I will vote every spending bill down. How many people do you suppose would vote for me?"

Well, let's be honest. There are some legitimate functions that the federal gov't has to perform for us that requires revenue and expenditures. I would definitely be down for not spending more money than we take in though.

so if they can take in 100% of the peoples money its ok to spend it all???

I highly doubt the federal gov't needs to take in 100% of everybody's income to execute the legitimate functions it needs to perform. Hence the argument about what constitutes legitimate and what doesn't.

Well I don't think the government should be funding PBS, NPR, Planned Parenthood, the arts, Cash for Clunkers, Trains to nowhere, subsidies for electric cars, over 1 billion dollars for a trolly in San Diego, a program to teach Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly, 1.5 million to study why gay women are fat and gay men not, a half-mil to promote animal grooming products, a million dollars a year for NASA to create food menus for the mission to mars which will never happen in our lifetime, over a half-mil to conduct research on people who watch reruns on television, and the list goes on and on.

So what is the solution? The solution lies within the words or James Madison:


"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."
Annals of Congress, 1794.

And if we only adhered to Madison's words, not only would we not have a deficit and debt, we would have a surplus with much lower taxes for everybody.

you mean the guy who launched a foreign invasion with militia and got our WhiteHouse burned?

 

[Andylusion]

You don't relate to how people with money feel, you can't even imagine.

The rich have benefitted most from government, they should be paying the most.

While the U.S. tax system is progressive, the distribution of government spending makes the overall fiscal system more progressive than is apparent from tax distributions alone. Using a microdata model we estimate the distribution of federal, state and local taxes and spending between 1991 and 2004.

We find households in the lowest quintile of income received roughly $8.21 in federal, state and local government spending for every dollar of taxes paid in 2004, while households in the middle quintile received $1.30, and households in the top quintile received $0.41.

Overall, tax payments exceeded government spending received for the top two quintiles of income, resulting in a net fiscal transfer of between $1.031 trillion and $1.527 trillion between quintiles. Both taxes and spending appear to have large distributional effects on households, and these effects have grown since 1991.

The results suggest tax distributions alone are an inadequate measure of progressivity, and policymakers should examine both tax and spending distributions when judging the overall fairness of policy toward income groups.

Bogus, and bogus website, with data that is 15 years old.

Who Pays Taxes and Who Receives Government Spending? An Analysis of Federal, State and Local Tax and Spending Distributions, 1991-2004 | Tax Foundation

Try again.

You're right, things have gotten worse for higher income households and far better (more benefits) for lower income households.

Try again!

Absolutely delusional. Upward mobility in the United States has become little more than a fantasy. It is more frequent in almost every other economically developed country in the world. The United States is a terrible place to be born poor and the absolute best place in the world to be born rich. Numerous studies bear that out. Time you woke up with the rest of us in the 21st century and quit living in some fantasy land of the past.

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/institute/working-papers/17-21.pdf

I actually agree with part of that.

After the 1980s, upward mobility declined. What has happened since then? More welfare, more socialism, more regulations on business. More health care mandates and so on.

The FICA tax in 1970 was under 7%. By 1990, it was over 15%.

Do you think losing 15% of your income in FICA taxes alone, would hinder you from progressing up the income ladder? Of course. You can't invest, if you don't have money to invest. Every dollar taken from your pay check represents an inability to move up.

Additionally, we have promoted the use of drugs through legalization. If there is anything we can learn from those using drugs routinely, it is that they tend to stay where they are.

You don't see many people high as a kite on pot, studying hard for their Harvard entrance exam.

Also we have a break down of the family. It is long known that being married, and having a family, is a maturing factor for both men and women. When you have a man that has a reason to try hard, a reason to exist beyond getting into the next drunken stupor, he tends to work harder, and is more focused on succeeding.

This is why married men do better in college, do better in their careers, and are more successful in life. As fewer and fewer men get married and take responsibility, fewer and fewer have the will or desire to push beyond where they are.

All success in life, takes sacrifice and an amount of blood, sweat and tears. It is hard to justify those things, when all you want out of life is another beer, and another tale-gate party at the next football game, and so on.

When people are not married, or if they think so little of marriage that they believe divorce is an open alternative, then when times get hard, instead of getting to work, and doing the sacrifice, blood sweat and tears to move up from where they are... they bail, and ditch their family.

When you do that, you stay poor.

So I would agree with the thrust of the paper that mobility has declined. But it isn't because of our economic system. If you had a system that prevent Bill Gates from earning another million, that wouldn't do any good to a poor guy, drinking, smoking, and partying away his life.

 

[Andylusion]

Well, let's be honest. There are some legitimate functions that the federal gov't has to perform for us that requires revenue and expenditures. I would definitely be down for not spending more money than we take in though.

William's point was that we are all responsible. We all want things from our government in some way or form and will only vote for people that give us those things.

I am a big fan of Prof Williams, and as usual he's right. We tend to vote for those candidates who will bring home the most bacon so to speak, sad as that is to say. Personally, I vote for the person(s) who will do the best job for the country, and mostly that's a smaller and leaner gov't that finds the most effective and efficient way to solve our problems. Which is just about always less or no gov't intervention at all, at least on the federal level. I totally hate fraud, waste and abuse, and I don't like crony capitalism and corporate welfare.

In order to solve our debt and deficit problems, we not only have to sacrifice, we have to be aware how each of our representative are spending our money, and not just big things either. Open Secretes has lists of wasteful spending the people we vote for might have been in favor of. Accountability is the key.

People on the right are more likely to do that than people on the left who wants government to provide everything from their first diaper to their coffin and everything in between. They seem to have this commune mentality that can't be broken.

I ask you again, what would you like to cut?
Your pie chart shows that the following 6 items are 86% of all Federal spending per year:
1. Defense
2. Social Security
3. Medicare
4. Medicaid
5. interest on the debt
6. Veterans Benefits

So again, which of those six areas would you try to cut and by how much?

Cut defense and you hurt national security. Cut social security and you must pick someone who will not receive their social security check or receive a reduced payment. Cut Medicare or Medicaid and your taken away someone's ability to pay a hospital or doctor when their sick. If you don't pay the interest on the debt, it will only make the debt problem worse. Would you really consider cutting or taking away a veterans benefits?

Slowly get rid of Social Security. Move that, Medicare and Medicaid to the states if they want those programs. We can't cut people who contributed to those programs all of their lives, but for people 25 and younger, start a different system with private markets that allow people to buildup money as they go along.

You can't keep these programs going at current pace because we are finding more ways to keep people alive. We are living longer. EVERYBODY needs to start paying federal income tax to support what we have. I don't care if you're a billionaire or homeless. A consumption tax of five cents on the dollar should help greatly. We also need a law that anybody in child bearing years has to be fixed first before they can collect one dime of an social benefits. No more having kids while on welfare to get more of whatever.

That's part of the problem though.

Social Security is entirely dependent on the income confiscated from the young. The old are pillaging the young, under socialists insecurity.

So while you can say "Let the 25 and younger have an 'opt-out' option, but in reality that would absolutely destroy the system. And the irony is, all the people on the left know this.

While they sit around saying "those who paid in, should get what the paid for"... if that were actually true, then they would have no problem with people opting out.

But they know that if they allowed people to escape the tyranny of socialist security, the system would implode. There wouldn't be any money left, to pay the old people. Government itself would implode.

 

[Andylusion]

You don't relate to how people with money feel, you can't even imagine.

The rich have benefitted most from government, they should be paying the most.

While the U.S. tax system is progressive, the distribution of government spending makes the overall fiscal system more progressive than is apparent from tax distributions alone. Using a microdata model we estimate the distribution of federal, state and local taxes and spending between 1991 and 2004.

We find households in the lowest quintile of income received roughly $8.21 in federal, state and local government spending for every dollar of taxes paid in 2004, while households in the middle quintile received $1.30, and households in the top quintile received $0.41.

Overall, tax payments exceeded government spending received for the top two quintiles of income, resulting in a net fiscal transfer of between $1.031 trillion and $1.527 trillion between quintiles. Both taxes and spending appear to have large distributional effects on households, and these effects have grown since 1991.

The results suggest tax distributions alone are an inadequate measure of progressivity, and policymakers should examine both tax and spending distributions when judging the overall fairness of policy toward income groups.

Bogus, and bogus website, with data that is 15 years old.

Who Pays Taxes and Who Receives Government Spending? An Analysis of Federal, State and Local Tax and Spending Distributions, 1991-2004 | Tax Foundation

Try again.

You're right, things have gotten worse for higher income households and far better (more benefits) for lower income households.

Try again!

Absolutely delusional. Upward mobility in the United States has become little more than a fantasy. It is more frequent in almost every other economically developed country in the world. The United States is a terrible place to be born poor and the absolute best place in the world to be born rich. Numerous studies bear that out. Time you woke up with the rest of us in the 21st century and quit living in some fantasy land of the past.

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/institute/working-papers/17-21.pdf

I actually agree with part of that.

After the 1980s, upward mobility declined. What has happened since then? More welfare, more socialism, more regulations on business. More health care mandates and so on.

The FICA tax in 1970 was under 7%. By 1990, it was over 15%.

Do you think losing 15% of your income in FICA taxes alone, would hinder you from progressing up the income ladder? Of course. You can't invest, if you don't have money to invest. Every dollar taken from your pay check represents an inability to move up.

Additionally, we have promoted the use of drugs through legalization. If there is anything we can learn from those using drugs routinely, it is that they tend to stay where they are.

You don't see many people high as a kite on pot, studying hard for their Harvard entrance exam.

See the problem with claiming that upward mobility doesn't exist, is that when you look at people who have moved up, verses those who didn't move up, you tend to ignore whether the individuals who didn't, even tried. And the answer is, many didn't.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

William's point was that we are all responsible. We all want things from our government in some way or form and will only vote for people that give us those things.

I am a big fan of Prof Williams, and as usual he's right. We tend to vote for those candidates who will bring home the most bacon so to speak, sad as that is to say. Personally, I vote for the person(s) who will do the best job for the country, and mostly that's a smaller and leaner gov't that finds the most effective and efficient way to solve our problems. Which is just about always less or no gov't intervention at all, at least on the federal level. I totally hate fraud, waste and abuse, and I don't like crony capitalism and corporate welfare.

In order to solve our debt and deficit problems, we not only have to sacrifice, we have to be aware how each of our representative are spending our money, and not just big things either. Open Secretes has lists of wasteful spending the people we vote for might have been in favor of. Accountability is the key.

People on the right are more likely to do that than people on the left who wants government to provide everything from their first diaper to their coffin and everything in between. They seem to have this commune mentality that can't be broken.

I ask you again, what would you like to cut?
Your pie chart shows that the following 6 items are 86% of all Federal spending per year:
1. Defense
2. Social Security
3. Medicare
4. Medicaid
5. interest on the debt
6. Veterans Benefits

So again, which of those six areas would you try to cut and by how much?

Cut defense and you hurt national security. Cut social security and you must pick someone who will not receive their social security check or receive a reduced payment. Cut Medicare or Medicaid and your taken away someone's ability to pay a hospital or doctor when their sick. If you don't pay the interest on the debt, it will only make the debt problem worse. Would you really consider cutting or taking away a veterans benefits?

Slowly get rid of Social Security. Move that, Medicare and Medicaid to the states if they want those programs. We can't cut people who contributed to those programs all of their lives, but for people 25 and younger, start a different system with private markets that allow people to buildup money as they go along.

You can't keep these programs going at current pace because we are finding more ways to keep people alive. We are living longer. EVERYBODY needs to start paying federal income tax to support what we have. I don't care if you're a billionaire or homeless. A consumption tax of five cents on the dollar should help greatly. We also need a law that anybody in child bearing years has to be fixed first before they can collect one dime of an social benefits. No more having kids while on welfare to get more of whatever.

That's part of the problem though.

Social Security is entirely dependent on the income confiscated from the young. The old are pillaging the young, under socialists insecurity.

So while you can say "Let the 25 and younger have an 'opt-out' option, but in reality that would absolutely destroy the system. And the irony is, all the people on the left know this.

While they sit around saying "those who paid in, should get what the paid for"... if that were actually true, then they would have no problem with people opting out.

But they know that if they allowed people to escape the tyranny of socialist security, the system would implode. There wouldn't be any money left, to pay the old people. Government itself would implode.

Not if it's done gradually. George Bush had the best idea, and that was to allow people to take a small percentage of their SS contributions and invest it in a private account. It's still theirs, but it would be gaining compound interest instead of sitting under a government mattress somewhere in Washington.

Had we started that, it wouldn't have bankrupted the country, SS or individuals. In fact it would have helped. Then as time went along, increase the percentage people are allowed for private investment for their retirement. Eventually we could virtually eliminate SS because people would have enough money of their own to live off of.

 

[U2Edge]

Its not about what is best for any ONE individual, but about what is best for the country as a whole.

CONGRATULATIONS. You just aptly defined SOCIALISM, fool.

The United States was founded on personal liberty, meaning that your money is YOUR money, and not subject to what someone else decides would be better for others. Taking YOUR logic to its natural conclusion, ALL income should be paid to the state, then they divide it up EQUALLY so that we all end up with EXACTLY the same amount to live on! So the guy that creates a multi-billion dollar industry employing thousands makes no more than the bum sitting on his couch scratching his ass watching Oprah eating Colonel Sanders.

THAT is the butterfly net of the demented. View attachment 243133

Well, there was once this country called the United States led by President Franklin Roosevelt. It defeated Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and became the most powerful country in the world in 1945. It was the defender of the world against SOVIET communism. It was the protector of democracy, capitalism, and the all important U.S. market. Its top federal tax rate at that time was 94%! It drafted millions of its citizens to serve in the military. It did those things because it was not about what would be best for ONE individual but what would be best for the entire country, whether the people were lower class, middle class, or rich class. It did those things to defend democracy, capitalism and the U.S. market.

THATS NOT SOCIALISM, ITS COMMON SENSE GOVERNMENT POLICY. A POLICY THAT ALLOWED DEMOCRACY, CAPITALISM, and THE U.S. MARKET TO SURVIVE NAZI GERMANY, IMPERIAL JAPAN, AND SOVIET COMMUNISM!

SOCIALIST! Those were highly irregular, extenuating circumstances during a World War! It wasn't common sense, you dumb jackass, it was a nation simply putting 100% of its resources under an emergency into trying to defeat global domination by the Nazis. Is it WWIII now? Are we under a crisis? If you say yes, the southern border, then yes, I'll agree to that and ask that Trump orders an executive order to use emergency funds and procedure and the military to immediately build an impregnable wall and fortify the border AS NEEDED to do whatever it takes to immediate end the crisis.

Then every last illegal fuck we find in this country especially the criminal ones or crossing the border, throw the bums out.

Roosevelt and Truman set up the world that we live in today. The post-World War II world. For the next 45 to 50 years, the United States had to be prepared for World War III to break out at any moment. That's why the United States had B-52's with nuclear weapons in the air every hour for decades. As the Cold War ended, some of these things have been dismantled, but the United States is still committed to defending Europe from Russian aggression, South Korea from North Korea or China, the Pacific Rim including Japan from China and the Persian Gulf in particular Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from ANY threat.

Immigration is a positive economic tool for this country. The only way the United States is going to get back to 3%+ GDP growth per year is through more immigration given the massive labor shortages the country now has with 3.7% unemployment. Only an idiot would be searching for people to deport under these economic conditions. We need more people coming across the border not less. Unfortunately this country still has too many racist idiots who don't like dark skinned people and people that speak another language. But its immigrants from south of the border that will save the United States in the coming decades allowing it grow faster from an economic stand point and prevent the demographic problems that Europe and China will be suffering at mid-century from happening in the United States.

 

[U2Edge]

Well, let's be honest. There are some legitimate functions that the federal gov't has to perform for us that requires revenue and expenditures. I would definitely be down for not spending more money than we take in though.

William's point was that we are all responsible. We all want things from our government in some way or form and will only vote for people that give us those things.

I am a big fan of Prof Williams, and as usual he's right. We tend to vote for those candidates who will bring home the most bacon so to speak, sad as that is to say. Personally, I vote for the person(s) who will do the best job for the country, and mostly that's a smaller and leaner gov't that finds the most effective and efficient way to solve our problems. Which is just about always less or no gov't intervention at all, at least on the federal level. I totally hate fraud, waste and abuse, and I don't like crony capitalism and corporate welfare.

In order to solve our debt and deficit problems, we not only have to sacrifice, we have to be aware how each of our representative are spending our money, and not just big things either. Open Secretes has lists of wasteful spending the people we vote for might have been in favor of. Accountability is the key.

People on the right are more likely to do that than people on the left who wants government to provide everything from their first diaper to their coffin and everything in between. They seem to have this commune mentality that can't be broken.

I ask you again, what would you like to cut?
Your pie chart shows that the following 6 items are 86% of all Federal spending per year:
1. Defense
2. Social Security
3. Medicare
4. Medicaid
5. interest on the debt
6. Veterans Benefits

So again, which of those six areas would you try to cut and by how much?

Cut defense and you hurt national security. Cut social security and you must pick someone who will not receive their social security check or receive a reduced payment. Cut Medicare or Medicaid and your taken away someone's ability to pay a hospital or doctor when their sick. If you don't pay the interest on the debt, it will only make the debt problem worse. Would you really consider cutting or taking away a veterans benefits?

Slowly get rid of Social Security. Move that, Medicare and Medicaid to the states if they want those programs. We can't cut people who contributed to those programs all of their lives, but for people 25 and younger, start a different system with private markets that allow people to buildup money as they go along.

You can't keep these programs going at current pace because we are finding more ways to keep people alive. We are living longer. EVERYBODY needs to start paying federal income tax to support what we have. I don't care if you're a billionaire or homeless. A consumption tax of five cents on the dollar should help greatly. We also need a law that anybody in child bearing years has to be fixed first before they can collect one dime of an social benefits. No more having kids while on welfare to get more of whatever.

Never tax consumption because that is where 80% of GDP growth comes from. When GDP growth is strong and fast, it improves the standard of living of the country as a whole and brings much needed revenue into the Treasury. Social Security is a safety net. Replacing it with people putting the money in private stock options or not saving at all is a bad idea. That is one of the big lessons of the GREAT DEPRESSION of the 1930s. Moving Medicare and Medicaid to the states would simply result in massive increases in state taxes. So that is not really a solution.

As life expectancy increases you simply raise the age at which people can collect Social Security or Medicare.

The only true cut you suggest is with Social Security, but that would be a long way off if that was done and would not be wise given what can happen to savings in the market. Once again, Social Security is designed as a safety net.

So essentially, as of right now there really is very little you can cut from the federal budget. That's why raising the top federal tax rate is the answer to balancing the budget.

 

[U2Edge]

If any of you stupid confused greedy Moon Bat think that it is moral for the filthy government to take 70%of somebody's income then when you figure out your taxes this year then send the government 70% of yours. Put your money where your fucking mouth is.

Tax policy is not about morality. Its about sound public policy. You keep taxes low or non-existent on the lower class and middle class in order to boost national consumer spending. Consumer spending is 70% of what drives GDP growth. You raise taxes on the rich to much higher levels because such tax rates do not lower the rich class's level of consumer spending. Essentially, higher tax rates on the rich don't hurt the economy.

What happens with this policy is that you maximize economic growth while also maximizing revenue going into the government. Its a sound policy and everyone benefits. The country as a whole is better off.

I will gladly return to the system where the rich is taxed at 70% if we can return to the fiscal policy when the combined cost of government was less than 20% of GDP instead of the ridiculous and economy destroying 40% that it is now. That was sound public policy to not have such a bloated cost of government.

However, to address your stupid comment. Bullshit on you confused idea that taxing the rich doesn't hurt the economy. The money that the rich has is what drives investment, jobs and economic growth. Poor people don't create jobs except for Liquor stores and crack dealers. Rich people like Bill Gates have created hundred of thousands of jobs and have created billions in tax revenues. If you would have taken 70% of his money to give to the filthy ass welfare queens and illegals he never would have been able to create his Microsoft empire, as an example.

If you ever took a course in Economics and paid attention you would understand things like that.

1. Total Federal Outlays in 2017 were 20.8% of GDP.

2. Most Economist support raising the top federal tax rate well above the current 37%.

3. Paul Krugman and other economist support a top federal tax rate of between 70% and 85%.

4. The strongest annual GDP growth year after year in the United States post World War II was during the 1960s when the top federal tax rate was always above 70%. Average GDP growth per year in the 1970s was 5.3%. Since the year 2000 it has averaged an anemic 1.9%.

5. Consumer demand and consumer spending is what creates jobs. Most consumer spending is done by the lower class and middle class, not the rich class. Nearly 80% of GDP growth comes from consumer spending.

6. The Rich respond to business opportunities created by the demand from the lower and middle classes. The Rich will only build a new Taco Bell or McDonalds when they know that particular geographic area has the money and demand for such a new store. So its the demand and money of the lower class and middle class which makes the new McDonalds or Taco Bell in that particular area possible. McDonalds does have the technical ability to open a store in Somalia, but they won't be at this time and they never have before.

7. The United States has always had rich people and thriving industries. From 1945 to 1980, the top federal tax rate ever year was between 70% and 92%. The rate did not prevent the creation of businesses. Business thrived. Its the time period when McDonalds was started.

You are really confused about this. . You need to understand the concept of reading comprehension.

I said combined cost of government. That includes State and Local, which combined with Federal is about 40% of the friggin GDP.

This country spends more money on the cost of government than the GDP of all but the top four richest countries in the world according to the CIA Fact Book. That is despicable! If you only count Federal government it only adds a couple of more countries to the list.

When you look at the direct and indirect cost of government to Americans you see that it is usually the highest household expenditure even if you are in the group that doesn't have to pay into that filthy ass income tax. No wonder Americans have such a difficult time meeting ends.

I am retired now but when I worked as an Engineering Director and my wife was a teacher the combined indirect and direct taxes for my household was about what my wife brought home in pay. In other words we had two working adults and the salary of one was needed just to pay the frigging taxes. Talk about despicable.

Even now in retirement our combine direct and indirect cost of government is an enormous household expense every year.

If you think the shithass government is entitled to 70% of a person income then why don't you be a sport and give the government 70% of what you make? Put your money where your mouth is for a change? I suspect being a greedy Moon Bat you don't want to pay that amount but you want others to do it.

If you take money away from the investors and job creators and give it to the welfare queens and Illegals guess what? You have no more investment and job creation.

I will agree to return to that 70% tax if you idiot Moon Bats agree to limit the combined cost of government to what we had when we had those rates.

By the way, it was JFK that changed those rates. Isn't he the darling of you Moon Bats? What did he get wrong?

The top federal tax rate was still above 70% under JFK, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ford, and Carter. It did not start to come down from 70% until Reagan entered office.

Total Federal outlays as a percentage of GDP were 20.8% in 1976. The top federal tax rate at that time was 70%.

Total Federal outlays as a percentage of GDP were 20.8% in 2017. The top federal tax rate at that time was 37%

You and your wife are middle class and would not be impacted by the top federal tax rate of 70%.

The reason you don't want the lower class and middle class paying a 70% tax rate is because it hurts consumer spending and the economy. The 70% rate is for the rich, a top federal rate, because even at such rates, the rich do not change their level of consumer spending. It does not hurt the economy and brings in much needed money for the treasury.

Its not about what you think is fair for a particular individual, its about what is the best way to maximize economic growth while also maximizing revenue coming into the treasury. You accomplish that with a progressive tax structure where much of the burden is placed on the rich, while the lower class and middle class are protected.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If any of you stupid confused greedy Moon Bat think that it is moral for the filthy government to take 70%of somebody's income then when you figure out your taxes this year then send the government 70% of yours. Put your money where your fucking mouth is.

Tax policy is not about morality. Its about sound public policy. You keep taxes low or non-existent on the lower class and middle class in order to boost national consumer spending. Consumer spending is 70% of what drives GDP growth. You raise taxes on the rich to much higher levels because such tax rates do not lower the rich class's level of consumer spending. Essentially, higher tax rates on the rich don't hurt the economy.

What happens with this policy is that you maximize economic growth while also maximizing revenue going into the government. Its a sound policy and everyone benefits. The country as a whole is better off.

I will gladly return to the system where the rich is taxed at 70% if we can return to the fiscal policy when the combined cost of government was less than 20% of GDP instead of the ridiculous and economy destroying 40% that it is now. That was sound public policy to not have such a bloated cost of government.

However, to address your stupid comment. Bullshit on you confused idea that taxing the rich doesn't hurt the economy. The money that the rich has is what drives investment, jobs and economic growth. Poor people don't create jobs except for Liquor stores and crack dealers. Rich people like Bill Gates have created hundred of thousands of jobs and have created billions in tax revenues. If you would have taken 70% of his money to give to the filthy ass welfare queens and illegals he never would have been able to create his Microsoft empire, as an example.

If you ever took a course in Economics and paid attention you would understand things like that.

1. Total Federal Outlays in 2017 were 20.8% of GDP.

2. Most Economist support raising the top federal tax rate well above the current 37%.

3. Paul Krugman and other economist support a top federal tax rate of between 70% and 85%.

4. The strongest annual GDP growth year after year in the United States post World War II was during the 1960s when the top federal tax rate was always above 70%. Average GDP growth per year in the 1970s was 5.3%. Since the year 2000 it has averaged an anemic 1.9%.

5. Consumer demand and consumer spending is what creates jobs. Most consumer spending is done by the lower class and middle class, not the rich class. Nearly 80% of GDP growth comes from consumer spending.

6. The Rich respond to business opportunities created by the demand from the lower and middle classes. The Rich will only build a new Taco Bell or McDonalds when they know that particular geographic area has the money and demand for such a new store. So its the demand and money of the lower class and middle class which makes the new McDonalds or Taco Bell in that particular area possible. McDonalds does have the technical ability to open a store in Somalia, but they won't be at this time and they never have before.

7. The United States has always had rich people and thriving industries. From 1945 to 1980, the top federal tax rate ever year was between 70% and 92%. The rate did not prevent the creation of businesses. Business thrived. Its the time period when McDonalds was started.

You are really confused about this. . You need to understand the concept of reading comprehension.

I said combined cost of government. That includes State and Local, which combined with Federal is about 40% of the friggin GDP.

This country spends more money on the cost of government than the GDP of all but the top four richest countries in the world according to the CIA Fact Book. That is despicable! If you only count Federal government it only adds a couple of more countries to the list.

When you look at the direct and indirect cost of government to Americans you see that it is usually the highest household expenditure even if you are in the group that doesn't have to pay into that filthy ass income tax. No wonder Americans have such a difficult time meeting ends.

I am retired now but when I worked as an Engineering Director and my wife was a teacher the combined indirect and direct taxes for my household was about what my wife brought home in pay. In other words we had two working adults and the salary of one was needed just to pay the frigging taxes. Talk about despicable.

Even now in retirement our combine direct and indirect cost of government is an enormous household expense every year.

If you think the shithass government is entitled to 70% of a person income then why don't you be a sport and give the government 70% of what you make? Put your money where your mouth is for a change? I suspect being a greedy Moon Bat you don't want to pay that amount but you want others to do it.

If you take money away from the investors and job creators and give it to the welfare queens and Illegals guess what? You have no more investment and job creation.

I will agree to return to that 70% tax if you idiot Moon Bats agree to limit the combined cost of government to what we had when we had those rates.

By the way, it was JFK that changed those rates. Isn't he the darling of you Moon Bats? What did he get wrong?

The top federal tax rate was still above 70% under JFK, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ford, and Carter. It did not start to come down from 70% until Reagan entered office.

Total Federal outlays as a percentage of GDP were 20.8% in 1976. The top federal tax rate at that time was 70%.

Total Federal outlays as a percentage of GDP were 20.8% in 2017. The top federal tax rate at that time was 37%

You and your wife are middle class and would not be impacted by the top federal tax rate of 70%.

The reason you don't want the lower class and middle class paying a 70% tax rate is because it hurts consumer spending and the economy. The 70% rate is for the rich, a top federal rate, because even at such rates, the rich do not change their level of consumer spending. It does not hurt the economy and brings in much needed money for the treasury.

Its not about what you think is fair for a particular individual, its about what is the best way to maximize economic growth while also maximizing revenue coming into the treasury. You accomplish that with a progressive tax structure where much of the burden is placed on the rich, while the lower class and middle class are protected.

The 70% rate is for the rich, a top federal rate, because even at such rates, the rich do not change their level of consumer spending. It does not hurt the economy and brings in much needed money for the treasury.

How much is it going to bring in for the Treasury?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

William's point was that we are all responsible. We all want things from our government in some way or form and will only vote for people that give us those things.

I am a big fan of Prof Williams, and as usual he's right. We tend to vote for those candidates who will bring home the most bacon so to speak, sad as that is to say. Personally, I vote for the person(s) who will do the best job for the country, and mostly that's a smaller and leaner gov't that finds the most effective and efficient way to solve our problems. Which is just about always less or no gov't intervention at all, at least on the federal level. I totally hate fraud, waste and abuse, and I don't like crony capitalism and corporate welfare.

In order to solve our debt and deficit problems, we not only have to sacrifice, we have to be aware how each of our representative are spending our money, and not just big things either. Open Secretes has lists of wasteful spending the people we vote for might have been in favor of. Accountability is the key.

People on the right are more likely to do that than people on the left who wants government to provide everything from their first diaper to their coffin and everything in between. They seem to have this commune mentality that can't be broken.

I ask you again, what would you like to cut?
Your pie chart shows that the following 6 items are 86% of all Federal spending per year:
1. Defense
2. Social Security
3. Medicare
4. Medicaid
5. interest on the debt
6. Veterans Benefits

So again, which of those six areas would you try to cut and by how much?

Cut defense and you hurt national security. Cut social security and you must pick someone who will not receive their social security check or receive a reduced payment. Cut Medicare or Medicaid and your taken away someone's ability to pay a hospital or doctor when their sick. If you don't pay the interest on the debt, it will only make the debt problem worse. Would you really consider cutting or taking away a veterans benefits?

Slowly get rid of Social Security. Move that, Medicare and Medicaid to the states if they want those programs. We can't cut people who contributed to those programs all of their lives, but for people 25 and younger, start a different system with private markets that allow people to buildup money as they go along.

You can't keep these programs going at current pace because we are finding more ways to keep people alive. We are living longer. EVERYBODY needs to start paying federal income tax to support what we have. I don't care if you're a billionaire or homeless. A consumption tax of five cents on the dollar should help greatly. We also need a law that anybody in child bearing years has to be fixed first before they can collect one dime of an social benefits. No more having kids while on welfare to get more of whatever.

Never tax consumption because that is where 80% of GDP growth comes from. When GDP growth is strong and fast, it improves the standard of living of the country as a whole and brings much needed revenue into the Treasury. Social Security is a safety net. Replacing it with people putting the money in private stock options or not saving at all is a bad idea. That is one of the big lessons of the GREAT DEPRESSION of the 1930s. Moving Medicare and Medicaid to the states would simply result in massive increases in state taxes. So that is not really a solution.

As life expectancy increases you simply raise the age at which people can collect Social Security or Medicare.

The only true cut you suggest is with Social Security, but that would be a long way off if that was done and would not be wise given what can happen to savings in the market. Once again, Social Security is designed as a safety net.

So essentially, as of right now there really is very little you can cut from the federal budget. That's why raising the top federal tax rate is the answer to balancing the budget.

No, because what you don't understand is the philosophy of Action and Reaction.

If we ever decided to meet in person at a bar, and I greeted you by extending my hand, you would likely do the same and we'd shake hands. However if I pushed you against the wall instead, you would likely do the same in return. This is action and reaction. In most cases, a positive action will cause a positive reaction, and a negative action will cause a negative reaction.

So what you are saying is if we rob the rich of their money--a negative action, it will cause a positive reaction. Not likely. Taking a negative action against the wealthy will cause a negative reaction just like it always does. They are not going to sit there and just let you get away with it.

As I stated, here in Cuyahoga county, we do have a consumption tax. Our economy grew right along with the rest of the country. Our tax on non-food and beverage items is 8 cents on the dollar. Anything you purchase here is subject to that tax no matter who you are. If it works here, it can work for the rest of the country and our wealthy wouldn't be that much affected at all. That's good for our markets, good for jobs and growth, good for our economy.

 

[task0778]

Tax policy is not about morality. Its about sound public policy. You keep taxes low or non-existent on the lower class and middle class in order to boost national consumer spending. Consumer spending is 70% of what drives GDP growth. You raise taxes on the rich to much higher levels because such tax rates do not lower the rich class's level of consumer spending. Essentially, higher tax rates on the rich don't hurt the economy.

What happens with this policy is that you maximize economic growth while also maximizing revenue going into the government. Its a sound policy and everyone benefits. The country as a whole is better off.

I will gladly return to the system where the rich is taxed at 70% if we can return to the fiscal policy when the combined cost of government was less than 20% of GDP instead of the ridiculous and economy destroying 40% that it is now. That was sound public policy to not have such a bloated cost of government.

However, to address your stupid comment. Bullshit on you confused idea that taxing the rich doesn't hurt the economy. The money that the rich has is what drives investment, jobs and economic growth. Poor people don't create jobs except for Liquor stores and crack dealers. Rich people like Bill Gates have created hundred of thousands of jobs and have created billions in tax revenues. If you would have taken 70% of his money to give to the filthy ass welfare queens and illegals he never would have been able to create his Microsoft empire, as an example.

If you ever took a course in Economics and paid attention you would understand things like that.

1. Total Federal Outlays in 2017 were 20.8% of GDP.

2. Most Economist support raising the top federal tax rate well above the current 37%.

3. Paul Krugman and other economist support a top federal tax rate of between 70% and 85%.

4. The strongest annual GDP growth year after year in the United States post World War II was during the 1960s when the top federal tax rate was always above 70%. Average GDP growth per year in the 1970s was 5.3%. Since the year 2000 it has averaged an anemic 1.9%.

5. Consumer demand and consumer spending is what creates jobs. Most consumer spending is done by the lower class and middle class, not the rich class. Nearly 80% of GDP growth comes from consumer spending.

6. The Rich respond to business opportunities created by the demand from the lower and middle classes. The Rich will only build a new Taco Bell or McDonalds when they know that particular geographic area has the money and demand for such a new store. So its the demand and money of the lower class and middle class which makes the new McDonalds or Taco Bell in that particular area possible. McDonalds does have the technical ability to open a store in Somalia, but they won't be at this time and they never have before.

7. The United States has always had rich people and thriving industries. From 1945 to 1980, the top federal tax rate ever year was between 70% and 92%. The rate did not prevent the creation of businesses. Business thrived. Its the time period when McDonalds was started.

You are really confused about this. . You need to understand the concept of reading comprehension.

I said combined cost of government. That includes State and Local, which combined with Federal is about 40% of the friggin GDP.

This country spends more money on the cost of government than the GDP of all but the top four richest countries in the world according to the CIA Fact Book. That is despicable! If you only count Federal government it only adds a couple of more countries to the list.

When you look at the direct and indirect cost of government to Americans you see that it is usually the highest household expenditure even if you are in the group that doesn't have to pay into that filthy ass income tax. No wonder Americans have such a difficult time meeting ends.

I am retired now but when I worked as an Engineering Director and my wife was a teacher the combined indirect and direct taxes for my household was about what my wife brought home in pay. In other words we had two working adults and the salary of one was needed just to pay the frigging taxes. Talk about despicable.

Even now in retirement our combine direct and indirect cost of government is an enormous household expense every year.

If you think the shithass government is entitled to 70% of a person income then why don't you be a sport and give the government 70% of what you make? Put your money where your mouth is for a change? I suspect being a greedy Moon Bat you don't want to pay that amount but you want others to do it.

If you take money away from the investors and job creators and give it to the welfare queens and Illegals guess what? You have no more investment and job creation.

I will agree to return to that 70% tax if you idiot Moon Bats agree to limit the combined cost of government to what we had when we had those rates.

By the way, it was JFK that changed those rates. Isn't he the darling of you Moon Bats? What did he get wrong?

The top federal tax rate was still above 70% under JFK, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ford, and Carter. It did not start to come down from 70% until Reagan entered office.

Total Federal outlays as a percentage of GDP were 20.8% in 1976. The top federal tax rate at that time was 70%.

Total Federal outlays as a percentage of GDP were 20.8% in 2017. The top federal tax rate at that time was 37%

You and your wife are middle class and would not be impacted by the top federal tax rate of 70%.

The reason you don't want the lower class and middle class paying a 70% tax rate is because it hurts consumer spending and the economy. The 70% rate is for the rich, a top federal rate, because even at such rates, the rich do not change their level of consumer spending. It does not hurt the economy and brings in much needed money for the treasury.

Its not about what you think is fair for a particular individual, its about what is the best way to maximize economic growth while also maximizing revenue coming into the treasury. You accomplish that with a progressive tax structure where much of the burden is placed on the rich, while the lower class and middle class are protected.

The 70% rate is for the rich, a top federal rate, because even at such rates, the rich do not change their level of consumer spending. It does not hurt the economy and brings in much needed money for the treasury.

How much is it going to bring in for the Treasury?

It's not going to being anywhere near the extra revenue that the Lib/Dems think it will. They do this every single time, linear math just does not work and never has when it comes to raising marginal tax rate for the simple reason that nobody wants to play that ridiculously high rate and so they invest their money in ways that avoid paying anything close to 70%. Or they move their business and investments overseas somewhere. Time after time, country after country it has always played out the same - you NEVER get anywhere near the revenue you thought you would get, but you know what? Most of the lib/dems don't care, cuz for them it ain't about revenue, it's about mother fucking fairness. Obama admitted it, he'd raise rates on the wealthy even if it didn't raise an extra dime of revenue. They don't give a shit about the economy, they don't care about the impact on jobs and growth.

Look at Sweden in the 80s, look at Britain when they raised their rates, look at France what, 10 back or so, they raised rates and it didn't work. We've seen it here in the US, when states raise their marginal income tax rates, the rich guys leave for someplace else. The rich guys IN EVERY CASE said fuck you, I ain't paying that and they left or they changed their investing and the economy suffered as a result. So here's the reality: would you rather get $20 if a rich guy gets $80 or would you rather get $10 if the rich guy only gets $40?

 

[Flash]

If any of you stupid confused greedy Moon Bat think that it is moral for the filthy government to take 70%of somebody's income then when you figure out your taxes this year then send the government 70% of yours. Put your money where your fucking mouth is.

Tax policy is not about morality. Its about sound public policy. You keep taxes low or non-existent on the lower class and middle class in order to boost national consumer spending. Consumer spending is 70% of what drives GDP growth. You raise taxes on the rich to much higher levels because such tax rates do not lower the rich class's level of consumer spending. Essentially, higher tax rates on the rich don't hurt the economy.

What happens with this policy is that you maximize economic growth while also maximizing revenue going into the government. Its a sound policy and everyone benefits. The country as a whole is better off.

I will gladly return to the system where the rich is taxed at 70% if we can return to the fiscal policy when the combined cost of government was less than 20% of GDP instead of the ridiculous and economy destroying 40% that it is now. That was sound public policy to not have such a bloated cost of government.

However, to address your stupid comment. Bullshit on you confused idea that taxing the rich doesn't hurt the economy. The money that the rich has is what drives investment, jobs and economic growth. Poor people don't create jobs except for Liquor stores and crack dealers. Rich people like Bill Gates have created hundred of thousands of jobs and have created billions in tax revenues. If you would have taken 70% of his money to give to the filthy ass welfare queens and illegals he never would have been able to create his Microsoft empire, as an example.

If you ever took a course in Economics and paid attention you would understand things like that.

1. Total Federal Outlays in 2017 were 20.8% of GDP.

2. Most Economist support raising the top federal tax rate well above the current 37%.

3. Paul Krugman and other economist support a top federal tax rate of between 70% and 85%.

4. The strongest annual GDP growth year after year in the United States post World War II was during the 1960s when the top federal tax rate was always above 70%. Average GDP growth per year in the 1970s was 5.3%. Since the year 2000 it has averaged an anemic 1.9%.

5. Consumer demand and consumer spending is what creates jobs. Most consumer spending is done by the lower class and middle class, not the rich class. Nearly 80% of GDP growth comes from consumer spending.

6. The Rich respond to business opportunities created by the demand from the lower and middle classes. The Rich will only build a new Taco Bell or McDonalds when they know that particular geographic area has the money and demand for such a new store. So its the demand and money of the lower class and middle class which makes the new McDonalds or Taco Bell in that particular area possible. McDonalds does have the technical ability to open a store in Somalia, but they won't be at this time and they never have before.

7. The United States has always had rich people and thriving industries. From 1945 to 1980, the top federal tax rate ever year was between 70% and 92%. The rate did not prevent the creation of businesses. Business thrived. Its the time period when McDonalds was started.

You are really confused about this. . You need to understand the concept of reading comprehension.

I said combined cost of government. That includes State and Local, which combined with Federal is about 40% of the friggin GDP.

This country spends more money on the cost of government than the GDP of all but the top four richest countries in the world according to the CIA Fact Book. That is despicable! If you only count Federal government it only adds a couple of more countries to the list.

When you look at the direct and indirect cost of government to Americans you see that it is usually the highest household expenditure even if you are in the group that doesn't have to pay into that filthy ass income tax. No wonder Americans have such a difficult time meeting ends.

I am retired now but when I worked as an Engineering Director and my wife was a teacher the combined indirect and direct taxes for my household was about what my wife brought home in pay. In other words we had two working adults and the salary of one was needed just to pay the frigging taxes. Talk about despicable.

Even now in retirement our combine direct and indirect cost of government is an enormous household expense every year.

If you think the shithass government is entitled to 70% of a person income then why don't you be a sport and give the government 70% of what you make? Put your money where your mouth is for a change? I suspect being a greedy Moon Bat you don't want to pay that amount but you want others to do it.

If you take money away from the investors and job creators and give it to the welfare queens and Illegals guess what? You have no more investment and job creation.

I will agree to return to that 70% tax if you idiot Moon Bats agree to limit the combined cost of government to what we had when we had those rates.

By the way, it was JFK that changed those rates. Isn't he the darling of you Moon Bats? What did he get wrong?

The top federal tax rate was still above 70% under JFK, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ford, and Carter. It did not start to come down from 70% until Reagan entered office.

Total Federal outlays as a percentage of GDP were 20.8% in 1976. The top federal tax rate at that time was 70%.

Total Federal outlays as a percentage of GDP were 20.8% in 2017. The top federal tax rate at that time was 37%

You and your wife are middle class and would not be impacted by the top federal tax rate of 70%.

The reason you don't want the lower class and middle class paying a 70% tax rate is because it hurts consumer spending and the economy. The 70% rate is for the rich, a top federal rate, because even at such rates, the rich do not change their level of consumer spending. It does not hurt the economy and brings in much needed money for the treasury.

Its not about what you think is fair for a particular individual, its about what is the best way to maximize economic growth while also maximizing revenue coming into the treasury. You accomplish that with a progressive tax structure where much of the burden is placed on the rich, while the lower class and middle class are protected.

...an nobody hardly ever paid that amount because of the exemptions. Besides, like I have said, the total cost of combined government was half what it is now. The country did fine on a much smaller size government with a lot less regulations than we have now.

Just get off this greedy "tax the rich bullshit". That is how countries are destroyed.

We don't need this big bloated out of control debt ridden monstrosity of a government that you greedy stupid Moon Bat love more than life itself.

We need to reduce taxes for everybody, rich and poor alike. We need to reduce the size of this government to only the minimal necessary functions like defense, courts, border protection, state department etc. We need to stop all welfare, subsidies, grants, entitlements and bailouts. We sure as hell don't need all these wasteful alphabet agencies that do nothing more than take our money and give it to special interest groups.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Tax policy is not about morality. Its about sound public policy. You keep taxes low or non-existent on the lower class and middle class in order to boost national consumer spending. Consumer spending is 70% of what drives GDP growth. You raise taxes on the rich to much higher levels because such tax rates do not lower the rich class's level of consumer spending. Essentially, higher tax rates on the rich don't hurt the economy.

What happens with this policy is that you maximize economic growth while also maximizing revenue going into the government. Its a sound policy and everyone benefits. The country as a whole is better off.

I will gladly return to the system where the rich is taxed at 70% if we can return to the fiscal policy when the combined cost of government was less than 20% of GDP instead of the ridiculous and economy destroying 40% that it is now. That was sound public policy to not have such a bloated cost of government.

However, to address your stupid comment. Bullshit on you confused idea that taxing the rich doesn't hurt the economy. The money that the rich has is what drives investment, jobs and economic growth. Poor people don't create jobs except for Liquor stores and crack dealers. Rich people like Bill Gates have created hundred of thousands of jobs and have created billions in tax revenues. If you would have taken 70% of his money to give to the filthy ass welfare queens and illegals he never would have been able to create his Microsoft empire, as an example.

If you ever took a course in Economics and paid attention you would understand things like that.

1. Total Federal Outlays in 2017 were 20.8% of GDP.

2. Most Economist support raising the top federal tax rate well above the current 37%.

3. Paul Krugman and other economist support a top federal tax rate of between 70% and 85%.

4. The strongest annual GDP growth year after year in the United States post World War II was during the 1960s when the top federal tax rate was always above 70%. Average GDP growth per year in the 1970s was 5.3%. Since the year 2000 it has averaged an anemic 1.9%.

5. Consumer demand and consumer spending is what creates jobs. Most consumer spending is done by the lower class and middle class, not the rich class. Nearly 80% of GDP growth comes from consumer spending.

6. The Rich respond to business opportunities created by the demand from the lower and middle classes. The Rich will only build a new Taco Bell or McDonalds when they know that particular geographic area has the money and demand for such a new store. So its the demand and money of the lower class and middle class which makes the new McDonalds or Taco Bell in that particular area possible. McDonalds does have the technical ability to open a store in Somalia, but they won't be at this time and they never have before.

7. The United States has always had rich people and thriving industries. From 1945 to 1980, the top federal tax rate ever year was between 70% and 92%. The rate did not prevent the creation of businesses. Business thrived. Its the time period when McDonalds was started.

You are really confused about this. . You need to understand the concept of reading comprehension.

I said combined cost of government. That includes State and Local, which combined with Federal is about 40% of the friggin GDP.

This country spends more money on the cost of government than the GDP of all but the top four richest countries in the world according to the CIA Fact Book. That is despicable! If you only count Federal government it only adds a couple of more countries to the list.

When you look at the direct and indirect cost of government to Americans you see that it is usually the highest household expenditure even if you are in the group that doesn't have to pay into that filthy ass income tax. No wonder Americans have such a difficult time meeting ends.

I am retired now but when I worked as an Engineering Director and my wife was a teacher the combined indirect and direct taxes for my household was about what my wife brought home in pay. In other words we had two working adults and the salary of one was needed just to pay the frigging taxes. Talk about despicable.

Even now in retirement our combine direct and indirect cost of government is an enormous household expense every year.

If you think the shithass government is entitled to 70% of a person income then why don't you be a sport and give the government 70% of what you make? Put your money where your mouth is for a change? I suspect being a greedy Moon Bat you don't want to pay that amount but you want others to do it.

If you take money away from the investors and job creators and give it to the welfare queens and Illegals guess what? You have no more investment and job creation.

I will agree to return to that 70% tax if you idiot Moon Bats agree to limit the combined cost of government to what we had when we had those rates.

By the way, it was JFK that changed those rates. Isn't he the darling of you Moon Bats? What did he get wrong?

The top federal tax rate was still above 70% under JFK, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ford, and Carter. It did not start to come down from 70% until Reagan entered office.

Total Federal outlays as a percentage of GDP were 20.8% in 1976. The top federal tax rate at that time was 70%.

Total Federal outlays as a percentage of GDP were 20.8% in 2017. The top federal tax rate at that time was 37%

You and your wife are middle class and would not be impacted by the top federal tax rate of 70%.

The reason you don't want the lower class and middle class paying a 70% tax rate is because it hurts consumer spending and the economy. The 70% rate is for the rich, a top federal rate, because even at such rates, the rich do not change their level of consumer spending. It does not hurt the economy and brings in much needed money for the treasury.

Its not about what you think is fair for a particular individual, its about what is the best way to maximize economic growth while also maximizing revenue coming into the treasury. You accomplish that with a progressive tax structure where much of the burden is placed on the rich, while the lower class and middle class are protected.

...an nobody hardly ever paid that amount because of the exemptions. Besides, like I have said, the total cost of combined government was half what it is now. The country did fine on a much smaller size government with a lot less regulations than we have now.

Just get off this greedy "tax the rich bullshit". That is how countries are destroyed.

We don't need this big bloated out of control debt ridden monstrosity of a government that you greedy stupid Moon Bat love more than life itself.

We need to reduce taxes for everybody, rich and poor alike. We need to reduce the size of this government to only the minimal necessary functions like defense, courts, border protection, state department etc. We need to stop all welfare, subsidies, grants, entitlements and bailouts. We sure as hell don't need all these wasteful alphabet agencies that do nothing more than take our money and give it to special interest groups.

In 2017, we spent over 50 billion dollars in foreign aid alone. What did we get for that money?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I will gladly return to the system where the rich is taxed at 70% if we can return to the fiscal policy when the combined cost of government was less than 20% of GDP instead of the ridiculous and economy destroying 40% that it is now. That was sound public policy to not have such a bloated cost of government.

However, to address your stupid comment. Bullshit on you confused idea that taxing the rich doesn't hurt the economy. The money that the rich has is what drives investment, jobs and economic growth. Poor people don't create jobs except for Liquor stores and crack dealers. Rich people like Bill Gates have created hundred of thousands of jobs and have created billions in tax revenues. If you would have taken 70% of his money to give to the filthy ass welfare queens and illegals he never would have been able to create his Microsoft empire, as an example.

If you ever took a course in Economics and paid attention you would understand things like that.

1. Total Federal Outlays in 2017 were 20.8% of GDP.

2. Most Economist support raising the top federal tax rate well above the current 37%.

3. Paul Krugman and other economist support a top federal tax rate of between 70% and 85%.

4. The strongest annual GDP growth year after year in the United States post World War II was during the 1960s when the top federal tax rate was always above 70%. Average GDP growth per year in the 1970s was 5.3%. Since the year 2000 it has averaged an anemic 1.9%.

5. Consumer demand and consumer spending is what creates jobs. Most consumer spending is done by the lower class and middle class, not the rich class. Nearly 80% of GDP growth comes from consumer spending.

6. The Rich respond to business opportunities created by the demand from the lower and middle classes. The Rich will only build a new Taco Bell or McDonalds when they know that particular geographic area has the money and demand for such a new store. So its the demand and money of the lower class and middle class which makes the new McDonalds or Taco Bell in that particular area possible. McDonalds does have the technical ability to open a store in Somalia, but they won't be at this time and they never have before.

7. The United States has always had rich people and thriving industries. From 1945 to 1980, the top federal tax rate ever year was between 70% and 92%. The rate did not prevent the creation of businesses. Business thrived. Its the time period when McDonalds was started.

You are really confused about this. . You need to understand the concept of reading comprehension.

I said combined cost of government. That includes State and Local, which combined with Federal is about 40% of the friggin GDP.

This country spends more money on the cost of government than the GDP of all but the top four richest countries in the world according to the CIA Fact Book. That is despicable! If you only count Federal government it only adds a couple of more countries to the list.

When you look at the direct and indirect cost of government to Americans you see that it is usually the highest household expenditure even if you are in the group that doesn't have to pay into that filthy ass income tax. No wonder Americans have such a difficult time meeting ends.

I am retired now but when I worked as an Engineering Director and my wife was a teacher the combined indirect and direct taxes for my household was about what my wife brought home in pay. In other words we had two working adults and the salary of one was needed just to pay the frigging taxes. Talk about despicable.

Even now in retirement our combine direct and indirect cost of government is an enormous household expense every year.

If you think the shithass government is entitled to 70% of a person income then why don't you be a sport and give the government 70% of what you make? Put your money where your mouth is for a change? I suspect being a greedy Moon Bat you don't want to pay that amount but you want others to do it.

If you take money away from the investors and job creators and give it to the welfare queens and Illegals guess what? You have no more investment and job creation.

I will agree to return to that 70% tax if you idiot Moon Bats agree to limit the combined cost of government to what we had when we had those rates.

By the way, it was JFK that changed those rates. Isn't he the darling of you Moon Bats? What did he get wrong?

The top federal tax rate was still above 70% under JFK, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ford, and Carter. It did not start to come down from 70% until Reagan entered office.

Total Federal outlays as a percentage of GDP were 20.8% in 1976. The top federal tax rate at that time was 70%.

Total Federal outlays as a percentage of GDP were 20.8% in 2017. The top federal tax rate at that time was 37%

You and your wife are middle class and would not be impacted by the top federal tax rate of 70%.

The reason you don't want the lower class and middle class paying a 70% tax rate is because it hurts consumer spending and the economy. The 70% rate is for the rich, a top federal rate, because even at such rates, the rich do not change their level of consumer spending. It does not hurt the economy and brings in much needed money for the treasury.

Its not about what you think is fair for a particular individual, its about what is the best way to maximize economic growth while also maximizing revenue coming into the treasury. You accomplish that with a progressive tax structure where much of the burden is placed on the rich, while the lower class and middle class are protected.

The 70% rate is for the rich, a top federal rate, because even at such rates, the rich do not change their level of consumer spending. It does not hurt the economy and brings in much needed money for the treasury.

How much is it going to bring in for the Treasury?

It's not going to being anywhere near the extra revenue that the Lib/Dems think it will. They do this every single time, linear math just does not work and never has when it comes to raising marginal tax rate for the simple reason that nobody wants to play that ridiculously high rate and so they invest their money in ways that avoid paying anything close to 70%. Or they move their business and investments overseas somewhere. Time after time, country after country it has always played out the same - you NEVER get anywhere near the revenue you thought you would get, but you know what? Most of the lib/dems don't care, cuz for them it ain't about revenue, it's about mother fucking fairness. Obama admitted it, he'd raise rates on the wealthy even if it didn't raise an extra dime of revenue. They don't give a shit about the economy, they don't care about the impact on jobs and growth.

Look at Sweden in the 80s, look at Britain when they raised their rates, look at France what, 10 back or so, they raised rates and it didn't work. We've seen it here in the US, when states raise their marginal income tax rates, the rich guys leave for someplace else. The rich guys IN EVERY CASE said fuck you, I ain't paying that and they left or they changed their investing and the economy suffered as a result. So here's the reality: would you rather get $20 if a rich guy gets $80 or would you rather get $10 if the rich guy only gets $40?

As I pointed out earlier, federal taxes are not the only taxes the rich pay. If you take 70% of their income just for federal, think of the total after they pay state, county, and city taxes. They'd be paying somewhere between 85% and 90%. Who would work for only ten or fifteen percent of the money you make?

 

[G.T.]

1. Total Federal Outlays in 2017 were 20.8% of GDP.

2. Most Economist support raising the top federal tax rate well above the current 37%.

3. Paul Krugman and other economist support a top federal tax rate of between 70% and 85%.

4. The strongest annual GDP growth year after year in the United States post World War II was during the 1960s when the top federal tax rate was always above 70%. Average GDP growth per year in the 1970s was 5.3%. Since the year 2000 it has averaged an anemic 1.9%.

5. Consumer demand and consumer spending is what creates jobs. Most consumer spending is done by the lower class and middle class, not the rich class. Nearly 80% of GDP growth comes from consumer spending.

6. The Rich respond to business opportunities created by the demand from the lower and middle classes. The Rich will only build a new Taco Bell or McDonalds when they know that particular geographic area has the money and demand for such a new store. So its the demand and money of the lower class and middle class which makes the new McDonalds or Taco Bell in that particular area possible. McDonalds does have the technical ability to open a store in Somalia, but they won't be at this time and they never have before.

7. The United States has always had rich people and thriving industries. From 1945 to 1980, the top federal tax rate ever year was between 70% and 92%. The rate did not prevent the creation of businesses. Business thrived. Its the time period when McDonalds was started.

You are really confused about this. . You need to understand the concept of reading comprehension.

I said combined cost of government. That includes State and Local, which combined with Federal is about 40% of the friggin GDP.

This country spends more money on the cost of government than the GDP of all but the top four richest countries in the world according to the CIA Fact Book. That is despicable! If you only count Federal government it only adds a couple of more countries to the list.

When you look at the direct and indirect cost of government to Americans you see that it is usually the highest household expenditure even if you are in the group that doesn't have to pay into that filthy ass income tax. No wonder Americans have such a difficult time meeting ends.

I am retired now but when I worked as an Engineering Director and my wife was a teacher the combined indirect and direct taxes for my household was about what my wife brought home in pay. In other words we had two working adults and the salary of one was needed just to pay the frigging taxes. Talk about despicable.

Even now in retirement our combine direct and indirect cost of government is an enormous household expense every year.

If you think the shithass government is entitled to 70% of a person income then why don't you be a sport and give the government 70% of what you make? Put your money where your mouth is for a change? I suspect being a greedy Moon Bat you don't want to pay that amount but you want others to do it.

If you take money away from the investors and job creators and give it to the welfare queens and Illegals guess what? You have no more investment and job creation.

I will agree to return to that 70% tax if you idiot Moon Bats agree to limit the combined cost of government to what we had when we had those rates.

By the way, it was JFK that changed those rates. Isn't he the darling of you Moon Bats? What did he get wrong?

The top federal tax rate was still above 70% under JFK, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ford, and Carter. It did not start to come down from 70% until Reagan entered office.

Total Federal outlays as a percentage of GDP were 20.8% in 1976. The top federal tax rate at that time was 70%.

Total Federal outlays as a percentage of GDP were 20.8% in 2017. The top federal tax rate at that time was 37%

You and your wife are middle class and would not be impacted by the top federal tax rate of 70%.

The reason you don't want the lower class and middle class paying a 70% tax rate is because it hurts consumer spending and the economy. The 70% rate is for the rich, a top federal rate, because even at such rates, the rich do not change their level of consumer spending. It does not hurt the economy and brings in much needed money for the treasury.

Its not about what you think is fair for a particular individual, its about what is the best way to maximize economic growth while also maximizing revenue coming into the treasury. You accomplish that with a progressive tax structure where much of the burden is placed on the rich, while the lower class and middle class are protected.

The 70% rate is for the rich, a top federal rate, because even at such rates, the rich do not change their level of consumer spending. It does not hurt the economy and brings in much needed money for the treasury.

How much is it going to bring in for the Treasury?

It's not going to being anywhere near the extra revenue that the Lib/Dems think it will. They do this every single time, linear math just does not work and never has when it comes to raising marginal tax rate for the simple reason that nobody wants to play that ridiculously high rate and so they invest their money in ways that avoid paying anything close to 70%. Or they move their business and investments overseas somewhere. Time after time, country after country it has always played out the same - you NEVER get anywhere near the revenue you thought you would get, but you know what? Most of the lib/dems don't care, cuz for them it ain't about revenue, it's about mother fucking fairness. Obama admitted it, he'd raise rates on the wealthy even if it didn't raise an extra dime of revenue. They don't give a shit about the economy, they don't care about the impact on jobs and growth.

Look at Sweden in the 80s, look at Britain when they raised their rates, look at France what, 10 back or so, they raised rates and it didn't work. We've seen it here in the US, when states raise their marginal income tax rates, the rich guys leave for someplace else. The rich guys IN EVERY CASE said fuck you, I ain't paying that and they left or they changed their investing and the economy suffered as a result. So here's the reality: would you rather get $20 if a rich guy gets $80 or would you rather get $10 if the rich guy only gets $40?

As I pointed out earlier, federal taxes are not the only taxes the rich pay. If you take 70% of their income just for federal, think of the total after they pay state, county, and city taxes. They'd be paying somewhere between 85% and 90%. Who would work for only ten or fifteen percent of the money you make?

Ray, if someone's income bracket is in the 70% bracket -

out of curiousity, what percent do you think they pay on their 1st ten thousand dollars in income?

Ray, EVERYONE pays the same % in each bracket, allll the way up the ladder.....meaning theyd pay x-percent of dollars 0 through the end of bracket one, y-percent in the 2nd bracket and so forth.

the 70% number....not that im supporting it**

is 70% on just a PORTION of their overall income, not 70% of their total dollars


how many people do you think actually understand this shit?