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

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

I think the suggestion in the OP is taking 70% of their total income and that would be all levels combined.

 

[G.T.]

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?

I think the suggestion in the OP is taking 70% of their total income and that would be all levels combined.

The OP suggests to go back to the rates in 1980.

It wasnt an effective tax rate of all dollars, every dollar is taxed the same up all brackets...


a guy making 30k a year is taxed the same on his first 30k as a guy making 250k is taxed on HIS 1st 30k....

thats how tax brackets work.


70% is stupid, in my opinion..

but people think its WAY crazier than it is.....and a lot of the confusion is that they think its 70% on every dollar earned being taxed.

its not.

 

[Flash]

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?

What did we get for the hundreds of billions in friggin welfare except millions of illegals flooding across the border to get some of it?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

I think the suggestion in the OP is taking 70% of their total income and that would be all levels combined.

The OP suggests to go back to the rates in 1980.

It wasnt an effective tax rate of all dollars, every dollar is taxed the same up all brackets...


a guy making 30k a year is taxed the same on his first 30k as a guy making 250k is taxed on HIS 1st 30k....

thats how tax brackets work.


70% is stupid, in my opinion..

but people think its WAY crazier than it is.....and a lot of the confusion is that they think its 70% on every dollar earned being taxed.

its not.

I don't know the specifics of the OP, I'm just making assumptions based on what I read. But in my opinion, when you increase taxes whatever percentage on the wealthy, they just don't sit back and take it. They go into action to recoup or protect that money, and usually they recoup it from the little people.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

What did we get for the hundreds of billions in friggin welfare except millions of illegals flooding across the border to get some of it?

The truth of the matter is some have no choice but to be on welfare. Not everybody is gifted with the same intelligence or physical abilities. However I do agree that way too many take advantage of that. They are able to work, make responsible decisions in life, and are reasonably intelligent enough to make a living. But they are also smart enough to know how to play the system. But because of those people, I see no need to make those suffer who have no choice.

 

[toobfreak]

Roosevelt and Truman set up the world that we live in today.

Actually, WWII set up the world we live in today. Roosevelt and Truman merely responded to it as they thought they had to.

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.

LEGAL immigration is a positive economic tool for the country. Deporting illegals isn't racism, it is law enforcement and national security, just ask Obama who deported 2 million of them and we know HE can't be racist because he's black. There is no massive labor shortage in this country, merely a lack of qualified people and unskilled foreigners from Guatemala who have no money, training or ability to speak English are not going to fill it.

 

[francoHFW]

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?

What did we get for the hundreds of billions in friggin welfare except millions of illegals flooding across the border to get some of it?

They come here to work they don't vote or get welfare. They go to school here, the kids -that's all dip s***LOL

 

[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.

Average GDP growth per year in the 1970s was 5.3%.

BS.

1960s the average was 5.3%, not the 1970s although the 70s had much better GDP growth than the average post 2000.

 

[U2Edge]

Roosevelt and Truman set up the world that we live in today.

Actually, WWII set up the world we live in today. Roosevelt and Truman merely responded to it as they thought they had to.

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.

LEGAL immigration is a positive economic tool for the country. Deporting illegals isn't racism, it is law enforcement and national security, just ask Obama who deported 2 million of them and we know HE can't be racist because he's black. There is no massive labor shortage in this country, merely a lack of qualified people and unskilled foreigners from Guatemala who have no money, training or ability to speak English are not going to fill it.

With unemployment at 3.7% and there are labor shortages in nearly every industry out there, especially in jobs that are essentially unskilled manual labor. Stronger enforcement of immigration made sense when Obama was President and the unemployment rate was near historic highs of 10%, but the environment today is the opposite.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

The draft was officially ended on June 30, 1973 in the United States. Since that time the United States has had an all volunteer military force. A draft is no longer needed given the scale of wars, and technology, although there still could be one if the situation was extreme enough. There is no such thing as a "forever war". The United States only lost the Vietnam war because liberal congressman forced the President to abandon aid to South Vietnam which was finally starting to gain the upper hand when Congress passed the Case Church amendment in the summer of 1973 blocking any further U.S. military involvement in the war. The Case Church amendment was passed with a veto proof majority in both houses of congress. They then slowly cut of financial and military aid to the South Vietnamese government in the months after that while the Soviet Union and China were overloading the North Vietnamese with new military equipment. The result is that in early 1975, a starved South Vietnam, lacking fuel and ammo for many of its military formations, thanks to congress cutting off most aid, became easy prey for the well Soviet/Chinese supplied North Vietnamese military. The United States abandonment of South Vietnam in 1973, an ally it had helped for the previous 18 years and had a treaty to defend its territorial integrity, is the most shameful act in U.S. Foreign Policy history.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

Its an economic fact that consumer spending is 70% to 80% of what drives GDP growth. When you hinder that in any way, especially through sales taxes, you hurt GDP growth, regardless of whether some little county was able to sneak one in and still maintain growth.

The Rich always pay higher taxes. Its not consider robbing or negative, but a necessity to defend the country and especially the MARKET which is primarily responsible for the Rich mans wealth. There is a reason they don't have billionaires in Somalia.

The top federal tax rate from 1945 to 1980 was ALWAYS above 70% every year. It NEVER caused any relevant negative reaction from the rich.

 

[U2Edge]

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?

Most European countries have higher tax rates and are very successful at collecting a lot more revenue for the government as a percentage of GDP. There are several countries in Europe that have revenue collection rates that are 55% of annual GDP. In the United States, revenue collection is only 22% of annual GDP because of the much lower tax rates. So there is a lot of room to raise the top federal rate and the United States would benefit as a result.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

Federal outlays as a percentage of annual GDP are the same today as they were in 1976! Most of the budget problems of the past 38 years stem from cutting the top federal rate from 70% to as low as 28%. Finally, if no one really pays the top federal rate, then no one should complain about it being raised.

86% of the budget goes to six things:
Defense
Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
Interest on the debt
Veterans benefits

It would be unwise to cut any of those six things unless there was a national emergency that required it. There is very little meat on the bone to cut. The answer to budget problems is growing the economy and increasing the top federal tax rate on the rich.

 

[U2Edge]

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?

Increased stability in various parts of the world, maintenance of Alliances vital to U.S. security, and preventing threats to United States security that would require a military response. The Foreign Aid Budget needs to be doubled! It helps bring stability and prevent war which in the long run saves the United States unbelievable amounts of money.

 

[U2Edge]

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?

The top federal rate kicks in on earnings made after a certain point, like $10 million dollars. Money made in the first $10 million is taxed at a lower rate. Worked just fine from 1945 to 1980 when the top federal rate was above 70% every year. In the 1950s it was above 80% every year. In 1951 the top federal rate was 92%.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

Increased stability in various parts of the world, maintenance of Alliances vital to U.S. security, and preventing threats to United States security that would require a military response. The Foreign Aid Budget needs to be doubled! It helps bring stability and prevent war which in the long run saves the United States unbelievable amounts of money.

This is true. Look at the stability of China since we funded 2.5 million dollars to help Chinese prostitutes drink alcohol more responsibly.

 

[Flash]

[

The truth of the matter is some have no choice but to be on welfare. .

Ray

You and I agree on almost everything but I will have to respectfully disagree that we should have a system where some people can go on welfare.

I just don't think the government should ever be in the business of taking money from somebody that earns it and giving it somebody else. No welfare, subsidizes, entitlements, grants or bailouts.

The Bible teaches that charity should come from the heart, family and church. Charity can take care of the few that really need some help to survive. We don't need the government to institutionalize getting free stuff.

 

[danielpalos]

raising the minimum wage is more cost effective.

 

[Flash]

[


Most European countries have higher tax rates and are very successful at collecting a lot more revenue for the government as a percentage of GDP. There are several countries in Europe that have revenue collection rates that are 55% of annual GDP. In the United States, revenue collection is only 22% of annual GDP because of the much lower tax rates. So there is a lot of room to raise the top federal rate and the United States would benefit as a result.

Two things that you are missing.

The way the tax code was structured very few people ever paid at that rate. The loopholes were such that the rich were able to shield their income from being taxed at that rate.

The second thing is that the combined cost of government was lower at that time meaning less tax burden for everybody, including the rich. People paid less Federal, State and Local taxes. About 50% less for a good portion of that time frame.

It is immoral to use the government steal money from somebody else so that I can benefit. Nothing more than thievery. Progressive taxation is immoral as hell.

There are certain legitimate functions of government. Defense, police, roads, courts etc. We should all be taxed equally to pay our share the needed things. Progressive taxation is just another filthy ass way of the greedy welfare queens to raise revenue to get their free stuff and it is wrong. After all Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for supper.

The welfare queens demand to use the government to steal from the rich so they don't have to pay their own bills. Disgusting, isn't it?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

[

The truth of the matter is some have no choice but to be on welfare. .

Ray

You and I agree on almost everything but I will have to respectfully disagree that we should have a system where some people can go on welfare.

I just don't think the government should ever be in the business of taking money from somebody that earns it and giving it somebody else. No welfare, subsidizes, entitlements, grants or bailouts.

The Bible teaches that charity should come from the heart, family and church. Charity can take care of the few that really need some help to survive. We don't need the government to institutionalize getting free stuff.

Charity does not always work, especially if you don’t subscribe to a religion.

Years ago my cousin got married and had two children. Her husband discovered drugs which eventually led to him losing a great job followed by their divorce. There she was with two small children and no income. Her entire dream shattered.

She went on welfare so she could raise her children. When they got old enough to attend school, she did the same. She graduated college and got a job. She paid off her college loans and later purchased a home. When her children graduated high school, they went to college too.

In the meantime, the taxes she created by working more than repaid what she used in welfare. Because she contributed to Social Security and started an IRA, she will be able to comfortably retire and not be a burden to taxpayers.

Now imagine her fate had there been nothing for her to fall back on. Where would her kids be today?

The problem with our social programs is few use them as my cousin did, and then everybody gets stereotyped and we demand an end to it all.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com