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

[Rustic]

That's because from 1945 to 1980 almost nobody paid the top rate.

And they do now?

Lol
It’s foolish to think that the federal government deserves anything other than minimal… But fact is they are feasting like never before… The deep state is accountable to nobody

 

[Oddball]

Ok, so it appears that some of you don't mind hiking tax rates to 1980 levels, where the top bracket was 70%. Going back to those rates, someone currently making $55,000/year would put them into a 68% tax bracket as opposed to the current 25%-30% bracket. Still sound like a good idea?

Most of them are oblivious to the fact that the AMT has already ensnared millions of whom it was never meant to apply to....But all that matters to them is feeding the beast...The Stockhom syndrome is off the charts in this thread.

 

[Rustic]

In any dictionary the word corruption should have the words career politician/deep state after it...

 

[danielpalos]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do you want in my pocket?

So we will tax ourselves to prosperity?

And the government won't waste the money this time? It will be different this time?

Not like: Social Security or the Debt or Medicare

If you are United States citizen living in the United States, whatever is in your pocket is thanks to the MARKET, a MARKET which you were born into and had the opportunity to take advantage of. The U.S. market was created long before you were born and was defended in multiple wars, and was built and grown by generations of people that came before you. To keep it going though requires a stable government that can defend itself and its interest worldwide. That stable government needs revenue that it only can get from taxes. Most of the wealth that can be taxed is in the hands of the rich.

But hey, if you don't like this system, your free to move to a country like Somalia where there is no government. Somalia has a rather chaotic environment though. Its much harder to make money there and there is a high probability of you being killed or robbed of whatever money you do make. No Billionaires in Somalia. Its a rough place, but at least there is no government reaching into your pocket. Would you prefer to live there rather than the United States?

Its a waste of money to have the country's government drowning in debt, and to be struggling to pay for defense, and other social programs while the rich live high off the hog. The rich were still rich in the 1950s even when they were paying 90% of their income in taxes. Raise the tax rates on the rich and you can solve the debt and budget deficit problems that have come about since 1980, while still paying for the defense of the country and important domestic programs.

Liberals are Liars.
When Democrats raise taxes they don't pay the debt, they spend even more.

they had to turn our economy around, last time. it was not about tax cut economics.

 

[U2Edge]

Why do liberals look at Venezuela and see success?

I'm a Republican by the way. I look at the United States from 1945 to 1980 when the top federal tax rate was never below 70% and I see success!

That's because from 1945 to 1980 almost nobody paid the top rate. AND, for much of that time period the US was the only economic game in town, the rest of the world was in shambles coming out of WWII. Look at Britain, Sweden, France, and ANY other country that raised their top marginal tax rate to 70% or higher since 1970, you know what their top income earners did? They left their homeland for somewhere else where the tax burden wasn't so ridiculously high. Democrats always say, if we raise the top rate by 30% then we'll get 30% more revenue from the top earners, BUT the truth is the EVERY TIME they do that it NEVER actually happens. EVERY TIME. Why? Because drastic changes in tax rates ALWAYS results in behavioral changes in rich investors. Such as sell out, pack up, and leave for other places that are more business friendly. And that means less investments, both foreign coming in and domestic, and that means less economic growth. And that means fewer jobs and lower wages.

Class dismissed.

If that were the case then there would have been no reason to increase taxes up to 70% to 94% from 1940 to 1980. There also would not be any reason to cut taxes from 70% to 28% between 1980 to 1990 for top federal rate.

But what are the facts. Regardless of who you believed did or did not pay those tax rates, the government was able to get the revenue needed to pay for World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam War, putting a man on the moon, new social programs, etc, while reducing the national debt from 121% of GDP in 1945 down to 33% of GDP in 1980. Economic growth, average annual GDP growth, was better in the years from 1940 to 1980 than it has been from 1980 to 2019. Better growth, and more revenue to pay for defense and other government problems, plus less debt relative to GDP in 1978 when the top federal tax rate was 70%.

YOU DON'T hurt the economy are having rich people fleeing the country. That did not happen in 1945 to 1980. Elvis Presley stayed in the United States. So did Trumps family. Make up whatever you want about loopholes and what not in the tax code, but on AVERAGE THE RICH PAYED MORE THAN THEY DO TODAY WHICH IS WHY THE GOVERNMENT WAS ON MORE SOUND FINANCIAL FOOTING IN THOSE YEARS!

Taxing the rich does not hurt economic growth as the evidence from 1945 to 1980 proves. Lower taxes on the rich does not help the economy. Average annual GDP growth since the year 2000 is BELOW 2% which is considered anemic by many economist. Average annual GDP growth during the 1960s was over 5% and that is when the top federal tax rate was OVER 70%!

Stop funding the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Today's CEO is not more productive in one hour than the average workers total work for the entire year!

Make America stronger by properly taxing wealth and investing defense and other government programs as well as bring down the national debt!

 

[Oddball]

Thread has gone 12 pages deep without some nitwit asking "but whatabout muh rooooooads?"....Must be some kind of world record.

 

[leftwinger]

You’re saying the federal government is not corrupt?
We are basically allowing the inmates to run the Asylum

It is a hell of a lot MORE corrupt now than it was two years ago. Or have you missed all the resignations in disgrace.

Yes..the inmates ARE running the asylum as evidenced by that insane press conference just yesterday

You mean the top 7 crooks at the FBI forced out for crminal activity? Obama holdovers. But no court charges fir any of them? Only on fringe civilians like manafort and cohen, weiner. Huh? Why is that?

 

[U2Edge]

Why do liberals look at Venezuela and see success?

I'm a Republican by the way. I look at the United States from 1945 to 1980 when the top federal tax rate was never below 70% and I see success!

That's because from 1945 to 1980 almost nobody paid the top rate. AND, for much of that time period the US was the only economic game in town, the rest of the world was in shambles coming out of WWII. Look at Britain, Sweden, France, and ANY other country that raised their top marginal tax rate to 70% or higher since 1970, you know what their top income earners did? They left their homeland for somewhere else where the tax burden wasn't so ridiculously high. Democrats always say, if we raise the top rate by 30% then we'll get 30% more revenue from the top earners, BUT the truth is the EVERY TIME they do that it NEVER actually happens. EVERY TIME. Why? Because drastic changes in tax rates ALWAYS results in behavioral changes in rich investors. Such as sell out, pack up, and leave for other places that are more business friendly. And that means less investments, both foreign coming in and domestic, and that means less economic growth. And that means fewer jobs and lower wages.

Class dismissed.

Elvis Presley and the Trump family stayed in the United States from 1945 to 1980. Despite what you say, those wealthy families were paying more of a share of their wealth in taxes THEN, than they are today by every measure! No one fled the United States when federal income taxes first started in 1913. No one fled when they were raised to 63% in the 1930s or 94% during World War II. They did not flee the 90% tax rates of the 1950s, or the 70%+ tax rates of the 1960s and 1970s. Regardless of what you say, the revenue was raised. It paid for wars, defense, and the country was on better sound financial footing then than today.

 

[Thinker101]

Thread has gone 12 pages deep without some nitwit asking "but whatabout muh rooooooads?"....Must be some kind of world record.

Not sure about your state, here in California road repair is way down near the bottom of the list. Although making excuses for wanting more money, road repair always gets near top billing.

 

[Rustic]

Why do liberals look at Venezuela and see success?

I'm a Republican by the way. I look at the United States from 1945 to 1980 when the top federal tax rate was never below 70% and I see success!

That's because from 1945 to 1980 almost nobody paid the top rate. AND, for much of that time period the US was the only economic game in town, the rest of the world was in shambles coming out of WWII. Look at Britain, Sweden, France, and ANY other country that raised their top marginal tax rate to 70% or higher since 1970, you know what their top income earners did? They left their homeland for somewhere else where the tax burden wasn't so ridiculously high. Democrats always say, if we raise the top rate by 30% then we'll get 30% more revenue from the top earners, BUT the truth is the EVERY TIME they do that it NEVER actually happens. EVERY TIME. Why? Because drastic changes in tax rates ALWAYS results in behavioral changes in rich investors. Such as sell out, pack up, and leave for other places that are more business friendly. And that means less investments, both foreign coming in and domestic, and that means less economic growth. And that means fewer jobs and lower wages.

Class dismissed.

Elvis Presley and the Trump family stayed in the United States from 1945 to 1980. Despite what you say, those wealthy families were paying more of a share of their wealth in taxes THEN, than they are today by every measure! No one fled the United States when federal income taxes first started in 1913. No one fled when they were raised to 63% in the 1930s or 94% during World War II. They did not flee the 90% tax rates of the 1950s, or the 70%+ tax rates of the 1960s and 1970s. Regardless of what you say, the revenue was raised. It paid for wars, defense, and the country was on better sound financial footing then than today.

Tax increases are all punishment of the successful, There’s no reason to try to be successful if the government is taking it all away

 

[U2Edge]

Why do liberals look at Venezuela and see success?

I'm a Republican by the way. I look at the United States from 1945 to 1980 when the top federal tax rate was never below 70% and I see success!

That's because from 1945 to 1980 almost nobody paid the top rate. AND, for much of that time period the US was the only economic game in town, the rest of the world was in shambles coming out of WWII. Look at Britain, Sweden, France, and ANY other country that raised their top marginal tax rate to 70% or higher since 1970, you know what their top income earners did? They left their homeland for somewhere else where the tax burden wasn't so ridiculously high. Democrats always say, if we raise the top rate by 30% then we'll get 30% more revenue from the top earners, BUT the truth is the EVERY TIME they do that it NEVER actually happens. EVERY TIME. Why? Because drastic changes in tax rates ALWAYS results in behavioral changes in rich investors. Such as sell out, pack up, and leave for other places that are more business friendly. And that means less investments, both foreign coming in and domestic, and that means less economic growth. And that means fewer jobs and lower wages.

Class dismissed.

Most first world countries in Europe had recovered from World War II by the late 1950s early 1960s. So that is rubbish. Plus in 2019, most countries around the world tax far more than the United States does. ABBA was wildy rich in the 70s and they were from Sweden. Elvis did not feel the need to move from the United States to Sweden. Neither did the Trump family.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ok, so it appears that some of you don't mind hiking tax rates to 1980 levels, where the top bracket was 70%. Going back to those rates, someone currently making $55,000/year would put them into a 68% tax bracket as opposed to the current 25%-30% bracket. Still sound like a good idea?

That's a silly analysis. For one, you didn't adjust for inflation. Second, the wealth curve today looks much different than in 1980, so taxes could be much more progressive now than in 1980. I.E., those rates would rise more like the wealth curve and, even after adjusted for inflation, the tax rate would not have to be so high for someone in that tax bracket.

 

[Flash]

A flat tax that applied to all income is the fairest kind of tax, all income, no deductions, applies to everyone. Make it 5% or 20%, but apply it equally to everyone and every penny of income. You could even have a floor below which no tax would be due in order to help low income people. But the floor should be quite low, maybe 10K/year.

I don't think our problem is how we are taxed. Any method of taxation with have its share of winners and loser. There is no such thing as "fair taxation". All taxation is unfair in some form or another.

The problem is that we spend too much money on the cost of government and therefore have to raise a ton of money, which winds up fucking everybody. Either directly or indirectly we all pay for this big bloated out of control government.

The real way to have tax reform is to stop spending so much damn money for the cost of government and to stop taxing the people so much.

Of course the welfare queens that suck off the teat of big government would hate that, wouldn't they?

The rich are the true welfare queens because they keep far too much money thanks to being lucky in the MARKET while the rest of the country struggles to defend it and essentially maintain rich peoples wealth levels. The idea that a CEO is more productive in one hour than the average worker is in an entire year is laughable.

There are many welfare queens that suck off the teat of big government. Everything form the inner city shitheads that the Democrats use for welfare voting vassals to the big banks and corporations that Obama bailed out and subsidized to the Illegals that come here and sign up for welfare and burden our school districts with their filthy anchor children.

The best way to stop all that shit is to join me in advocating that we reduce the size of government to stop all transfer of money and only fund the minimal necessary government services.

As far as CEOs salaries are concerned then all you have to do is not buy any goods or services form a corporation that you think pays its employees too much money. Problem solved.

 

[U2Edge]

Why do liberals look at Venezuela and see success?

I'm a Republican by the way. I look at the United States from 1945 to 1980 when the top federal tax rate was never below 70% and I see success!

That's because from 1945 to 1980 almost nobody paid the top rate. AND, for much of that time period the US was the only economic game in town, the rest of the world was in shambles coming out of WWII. Look at Britain, Sweden, France, and ANY other country that raised their top marginal tax rate to 70% or higher since 1970, you know what their top income earners did? They left their homeland for somewhere else where the tax burden wasn't so ridiculously high. Democrats always say, if we raise the top rate by 30% then we'll get 30% more revenue from the top earners, BUT the truth is the EVERY TIME they do that it NEVER actually happens. EVERY TIME. Why? Because drastic changes in tax rates ALWAYS results in behavioral changes in rich investors. Such as sell out, pack up, and leave for other places that are more business friendly. And that means less investments, both foreign coming in and domestic, and that means less economic growth. And that means fewer jobs and lower wages.

Class dismissed.

Elvis Presley and the Trump family stayed in the United States from 1945 to 1980. Despite what you say, those wealthy families were paying more of a share of their wealth in taxes THEN, than they are today by every measure! No one fled the United States when federal income taxes first started in 1913. No one fled when they were raised to 63% in the 1930s or 94% during World War II. They did not flee the 90% tax rates of the 1950s, or the 70%+ tax rates of the 1960s and 1970s. Regardless of what you say, the revenue was raised. It paid for wars, defense, and the country was on better sound financial footing then than today.

Tax increases are all punishment of the successful, There’s no reason to try to be successful if the government is taking it all away

The United States was a very successful country from 1945 to 1980 when the top federal tax rate was always at least 70%. Elvis Presley was not discouraged in become rich and famous because of a top federal tax rate of over 70%.

 

[leftwinger]

Who docks a yacht few states over to avoid taxes and fees? For example.

If you want less of something, tax it? Does the old saying still hold true?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

As far as CEOs salaries are concerned then all you have to do is not buy any goods or services form a corporation that you think pays its employees too much money. Problem solved.

Dang this is dumb.

 

[Thinker101]

Ok, so it appears that some of you don't mind hiking tax rates to 1980 levels, where the top bracket was 70%. Going back to those rates, someone currently making $55,000/year would put them into a 68% tax bracket as opposed to the current 25%-30% bracket. Still sound like a good idea?

That's a silly analysis. For one, you didn't adjust for inflation. Second, the wealth curve today looks much different than in 1980, so taxes could be much more progressive now than in 1980. I.E., those rates would rise more like the wealth curve and, even after adjusted for inflation, the tax rate would not have to be so high for someone in that tax bracket.

Feel free to specify what you feel would be accurate numbers.

 

[U2Edge]

A flat tax that applied to all income is the fairest kind of tax, all income, no deductions, applies to everyone. Make it 5% or 20%, but apply it equally to everyone and every penny of income. You could even have a floor below which no tax would be due in order to help low income people. But the floor should be quite low, maybe 10K/year.

I don't think our problem is how we are taxed. Any method of taxation with have its share of winners and loser. There is no such thing as "fair taxation". All taxation is unfair in some form or another.

The problem is that we spend too much money on the cost of government and therefore have to raise a ton of money, which winds up fucking everybody. Either directly or indirectly we all pay for this big bloated out of control government.

The real way to have tax reform is to stop spending so much damn money for the cost of government and to stop taxing the people so much.

Of course the welfare queens that suck off the teat of big government would hate that, wouldn't they?

The rich are the true welfare queens because they keep far too much money thanks to being lucky in the MARKET while the rest of the country struggles to defend it and essentially maintain rich peoples wealth levels. The idea that a CEO is more productive in one hour than the average worker is in an entire year is laughable.

There are many welfare queens that suck off the teat of big government. Everything form the inner city shitheads that the Democrats use for welfare voting vassals to the big banks and corporations that Obama bailed out and subsidized to the Illegals that come here and sign up for welfare and burden our school districts with their anchor children.

The best way to stop all that shit is to join me in advocating that we reduce the size of government to stop all transfer of money and only fund the minimal necessary government services.

As far as CEOs salaries are concerned then all you have to do is not buy any goods or services form a corporation that you think pays its employees too much money. Problem solved.

Total welfare spending is less than 10% of the federal budget. You could eliminate the entire welfare budget and won't solve anything. You'll actually create added cost to other programs as well when people get sick and start dying. Crime would also increase which would cost the government more as well as society.

 

[sparky]

We need to be objective

The mid class has declined substaintially over the last few generations

Trickle down didn't work

We now have the greatest wealth disparity in our history

We now have the largest GND in our history, much of which went into the coffers of the 1% of the 1%

~S~

 

[Rustic]

Why do liberals look at Venezuela and see success?

I'm a Republican by the way. I look at the United States from 1945 to 1980 when the top federal tax rate was never below 70% and I see success!

That's because from 1945 to 1980 almost nobody paid the top rate. AND, for much of that time period the US was the only economic game in town, the rest of the world was in shambles coming out of WWII. Look at Britain, Sweden, France, and ANY other country that raised their top marginal tax rate to 70% or higher since 1970, you know what their top income earners did? They left their homeland for somewhere else where the tax burden wasn't so ridiculously high. Democrats always say, if we raise the top rate by 30% then we'll get 30% more revenue from the top earners, BUT the truth is the EVERY TIME they do that it NEVER actually happens. EVERY TIME. Why? Because drastic changes in tax rates ALWAYS results in behavioral changes in rich investors. Such as sell out, pack up, and leave for other places that are more business friendly. And that means less investments, both foreign coming in and domestic, and that means less economic growth. And that means fewer jobs and lower wages.

Class dismissed.

Most first world countries in Europe had recovered from World War II by the late 1950s early 1960s. So that is rubbish. Plus in 2019, most countries around the world tax far more than the United States does. ABBA was wildy rich in the 70s and they were from Sweden. Elvis did not feel the need to move from the United States to Sweden. Neither did the Trump family.

You don’t understand reality, the divide in this Country is not financial or race. It’s urban America and rural America, What works for one will never work for the other.
A former presidential candidate/ambulance chaser one said there are two Americas… Yes there is but not in his context, Rural America and urban America can not be any more different.
Forcing one into the other is a recipe for disaster, obviously for the last hundred plus years.