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

[Flash]

[


You would destroy the country with that tax rate. The United States Government would not be able to do its job and the U.S. military would disappear. Without money to defend the country and its interest, the United States would effectively cease to exist.

There are a few legitimate needs for government. Defense, courts, police etc.

On the Federal level we could have a great government for about $1.5 trillion a year that would take care of all the things we really need at the federal level.

The things we absolutely don't need are all these social programs where money is taken from the people that earn it and given away to people that didn't earn it. Not only is that immortal thievery but it has a disastrous effect on economic growth.

The $4 trillion a year we spend on the cost of this filthy ass Federal government is greater than the total GDP for all but four other countries in the world. If you add in state and local expenditures then the cost of government in the US is greater than the GDP of all but three other countries.

We spend too damn much money on government.

Were a country of $330 million people and unless you want to stop funding social security, medicare, and most of the national defense budget, your never going to get down to spending levels you so desire. The solution is the raise the top federal tax rate on the rich back to 70% where it always was from 1945 to 1980. Then you have the money to balance the budget and pay for the needs of government and national defense. Plus the rich will still be rich just as Elvis Presley was in the 1970s and the Trump family was in the 1970s.

We need to stop funding a lot of shit. I don't need the frigging government to force me to participate in a retirement program or to take my money and use it to pay other people's bills.

The solution is never to tax more. The solution is to spend less money for the cost of government.

There are almost half the people in this country that don't have to pay Federal income tax so they are getting a free ride on the trillion a year that is collected in income tax so you Moon Bats need to stop you greedy bitching about other people (besides yourselves)having to pay more.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Feel free to specify what you feel would be accurate numbers

Well, for one, you have to triple that income number. For two, you have to compare the income distribution curves between then and now. I won't sit down and do all the analysis, but it's not so simple as you suggest, which ia my point.

 

[Rustic]

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.

Socialist entitlement programs are the incubator of criminal activity and idleness...

 

[EverCurious]

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.

What part of there was no where to go do you not understand? America was the only game in town back then... Now we have options.

 

[Thinker101]

Feel free to specify what you feel would be accurate numbers

Well, for one, you have to triple that income number. For two, you have to compare the income distribution curves between then and now. I won't sit down and do all the analysis, but it's not so simple as you suggest, which ia my point.

So you have no percentage in mind that you feel would be acceptable? Thinking the tax bracket for someone making $55,000 would not change is complete ignorance.

 

[danielpalos]

raising the minimum wage puts the law of large numbers on our side regarding raising more tax revenue and creating more demand.

 

[boedicca]

Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy:

No.

Any more questions?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So you have no percentage in mind that you feel would be acceptable.

For the top earners? 100% or thereabouts would work for me. Then work down from there.

 

[leftwinger]

$20T GDP. Max Fed Tax revenue = $4T (based on 100 years of data).

Dont know exactly why the 20% figure is almost never exceeded? No matter where they set the upper Tax bracket.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Thinking the tax bracket for someone making $55,000 would not change is complete ignorance.

Well,I gotta tell ya, that's not a compelling case. Especially in light of your last attempt of analysis, I don't think your authoritative declarations carry much weight.

 

[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

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%.

Lol
Trickle down taxation has never been successful proven for the last 100+ In this country, success was acquired in spite of the federal government.
Big brother never has the best interests of the country in mind....

 

[Toro]

The 8 people who voted Yes did so sarcastically, right?

 

[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 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.

Welfare is a big burden on this country. For instance those filthy ass Illegals cost this country $160 billion a year. That doesn't even include the burden on our schools systems for the filthy ass anchor children. If we returned that money to the productive economy then that would be one hellva stimulus package, wouldn't it?

The only necessary expenditures this bloated corrupt debt ridden Federal government really needs to spend is for defense and courts and a state department and few other minor things. Most Federal government agencies are unnecessary or could could be greatly reduced. All welfare, subsidies, bailouts and grants are totally unnecessary. Social Security is unnecessary. I can provide for my own retirement thank you very much. If you can't provide for yours then piss on you. That is not my problem.

 

[Rustic]

The 8 people who voted Yes did so sarcastically, right?

Lol
Yep, Only a fucking moron would trust the federal government with 70% of their income

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I think welfare folks should work for the money they receive from taxpayers.

I think this comment is irrelevant to the Thread.

 

[Rustic]

I think welfare folks should work for the money they receive from taxpayers.

I think this comment is irrelevant to the Thread.

I think you’re irrelevant to reality

 

[leftwinger]

raising the minimum wage puts the law of large numbers on our side regarding raising more tax revenue and creating more demand.

Would it explode a cycle....leads....techs....managers....Marketing would also have to rise? Cost of goods goes up. Now yu need a re-raise for bottom to buy Ford Fiesta to get to work.

$15/hr in silicon valley puts you homeless. You need $30/hr to live in agony.

 

[Polishprince]

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


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.

What you are failing to realize U2E is that doubling the tax rate will not double the governmental receipts.

You see, when you tax something, you get less of it. And when you implement Draconian style taxes, you'll get a lot less of it.

When I was a kid back in the 1960's, cigarette taxes were low. All of the adults and teens were smoking like chimneys everywhere, half the commercials on TV were for coffin nails of one variety or another.

The government saw this, and they greedily thought how much they could make by implementing much larger taxes on the product.

The result is that large numbers of people said "the hell with this" and quit smoking. Others cut down dramatically on the number of butts they burned, reducing the amount of cigarette tax they paid.

Most of the money the government hoped for went up in smoke, and a lot of what they do make is now going to combat trafficking in untaxed tobacco.

Same thing will happen here. People won't keep their nose to the grindstone to make more, when most of the increase just goes to the government. Instead of new McDonalds opening up thousands of restaurants, they'll figure they can do just as well with a handful and millions won't get the opportunity to work for them.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

The only way it was possible to maintain that level of slavery? Tax loopholes so that no one actually paid 70%, and the fact that World War 2 had destroyed the industrial base of every other industrialized country in Europe and Asia....leaving us the only country with any industry.......so if you want to do that, 70% would barely be possible......but now? No way....70% is how you get Venezuela, but with even less food and toilet paper...

Europe was largely rebuilt by the late 1950s/early 1960s. Asia was still largely undeveloped. Tax loopholes became much more common AFTER 1980, but were not common before 1980. Go back to 1978, the height of the disco era, plenty of wealth, but the richest were paying 70% of their income in federal tax. The country was a strong global super power, but the national debt was under control. It was only 33% of annual GDP back in 1978. The period from 1945 to 1980 shows that heavy taxes on the rich will not hurt the economy and will benefit the country as a whole in a variety of ways.

You are delusional.....

You are delusional.....

You are indeed.
Fred Trump was rich enough to transfer $400m to just one of his children despite the high rates.

 

[boedicca]

Thinking the tax bracket for someone making $55,000 would not change is complete ignorance.

Well,I gotta tell ya, that's not a compelling case. Especially in light of your last attempt of analysis, I don't think your authoritative declarations carry much weight.

Think again (or whatever you do to simulate cognitive processes):