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

[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.

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

View attachment 238570

(You forgot to make a point)

 

[Oddball]

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.

Only a very few paid the income tax in 1913, and those who were concerned that the rate could go as high a 10% were derided as alarmists....Now we have fake "republicans" like you, arguing for a top marginal rate of 70%.

I will never cease to be amazed at the historical and economic ignorance, which drives the sheer lunacy of the statists of toady.

 

[Rustic]

Taxation retards success… Every time

 

[Hutch Starskey]

how is it moral for any government to confiscate 70% of your INCOME? Remember, income is not even "profit."

Well, where does your income come from? If you are a U.S. citizen living in the United States, it comes from the U.S. MARKET. Your income is based essentially on your market value. How much your house is worth is based on the MARKET. You were lucky to be born into the United States and its market. You are lucky to be able to take advantage of that market. The U.S. market was built long before you were born. It was protected, built, and grown by generations that came before you. In order for that market to continue, it needs a stable government that is able to protect it and maintain order. The government needs revenue to do that and the only way it can get that revenue is through taxes.

Much of what you say I agree with. But I'm not sure what problem you are solving by raising the top Federal tax rate to 70%. And you are missing an important consequence of doing that. The rich will leave because they have the means to do so. So all those people you were counting on paying 70% will be paying 0%. We don't have a revenue problem, we have a government spending problem and a government bloat problem.

How do you arrive at that conclusion?
History doesn't agree.

 

[Rustic]

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.

Lol
Personal income should be none of the business of any part of the federal government… But then again socialism is entirely repugnant

 

[Oddball]

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~

Trickled on big gubmint has never worked.

 

[bodecea]

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.

That's when the Middle Class was the strongest....I say yes.

 

[Oddball]

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):

View attachment 238570

And $1,000,000 was nearly 100X the value it is today.

These statist flunkies make me SMH.

 

[Polishprince]

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.

Only a very few paid the income tax in 1913, and those who were concerned that the rate could go as high a 10% were derided as alarmists....Now we have fake "republicans" like you, arguing for a top marginal rate of 70%.

I will never cease to be amazed at the historical and economic ignorance, which drives the sheer lunacy of the statists of toady.

The income tax was established to pave the way for Prohibition. Before the income tax was started in 1913, liquor taxes were the big generator of cash for the government. The IRS should have been abolished with the 21st amendment

 

[Oddball]

The income tax was established to pave the way for Prohibition. Before the income tax was started in 1913, liquor taxes were the big generator of cash for the government. The IRS should have been abolished with the 21st amendment

The income tax was established as a way to pay interest to the Fed for their worthless fiat money scam....There's a reason both passed in 1913.

 

[task0778]

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, you don't sound like a Republican to me. But whatever, Elvis wasn't wasn't discouraged about the high tax rates probably because he and most other people didn't pay it. There were loopholes and deductions galore, and frankly after expenses I doubt he made that much money personally. Didja know that at the time of his death (1977) his estate was worth slightly less than $5 mil? Do you understand that there were a lot of people who were paid handsomely for their services as part of his entourage and business expenses, I have no idea what his income was, but IMHO you can safely bet it wasn't that great. And seriously, where else was he going to go to be a recording and movie star? You don't think he and Col Parker employed tax consultants and accountants to find ways to avoid paying as much taxes as possible?

For most of that period of time between 1945 and 1980, the US was the only game in town for big-monied investors. Why? Cuz the rest of the world was in shambles due to WWII, and it took decades for that to change into the global economy we have today. You can talk about how things were then, but that was then and this is now, and the world is a lot different. Maybe you should take a lesson from the French:

François Hollande’s unpopular tax changes that imposed a 75% rate on earnings above €1m (£780,000) will quietly disappear into the history books from Thursday.

The French socialist president announced plans for the controversial measure during his 2012 election campaign as a means of forcing the wealthiest to help dig the country out of economic crisis.

Although supported by the left, the reform sparked accusations of an anti-business agenda. After the “supertax” was announced in September 2012 the government was accused of shooting itself in the foot by risking an exodus of high-profile personalities. Business leaders expressed fears that investors would pull out of France.

France’s richest man, Bernard Arnault, the chief executive of luxury group LVMH, took out Belgian nationality, and the actor Gérard Depardieu also moved across the border to Belgium before obtaining Russian citizenship.

High-earning French footballers threatened strike action, while league bosses warned they would no longer be able to attract world class players.

A majority of French taxpayers disapproved of the 75% rate, although polls showed that six out of 10 voters were in favour of raising income taxes on the wealthy.

Despite the backlash Hollande clung to the principle of the supertax even after it was dismissed by the country’s highest court, fearing a revolt by his leftwing allies. The tax was subsequently adjusted to a 50% rate payable by companies after the constitutional council ruling in December 2012.

The final nail in the coffin came from the former investment banker who is now France’s economy minister, Emmanuel Macron. A former economic adviser to Hollande, Macron described the supertax as “Cuba without the sun”.

With the party leftwingers having marched out of government in the days and months following the appointment of the openly pro-business Manuel Valls as prime minister last March, it was only a matter of time before the tax was dropped. The prime minister confirmed it would not be renewed in 2015 during a visit to London in October, where he addressed business leaders.

“The reform clearly damaged France’s reputation and competitiveness,” said Jorg Stegemann, the head of the executive search firm Kennedy Executive. “It clearly has become harder to attract international senior managers to come to France than it was.”

Tax lawyer Jean-Philippe Delsol, author on a book on tax exiles called Why I Am Going To Leave France, said last month many high earners had agreed with their companies that salaries would be limited during the two years the tax rate applied, and they would “come to an arrangement afterwards”.

Finance ministry studies showed that despite all the publicity, the sums obtained from the supertax were meagre, standing at €260m in 2013 and €160m in 2014, and affecting 1,000 staff in 470 companies. Over the same period, the budget deficit soared to €84.7bn.

France forced to drop 75% supertax after meagre returns

 

[Lesh]

Taxation retards success… Every time

Every time?

We were at our strongest when taxation was at its highest.

Hmmm

 

[leftwinger]

Where should the top bracket 70% start at? Same in NYC as STL? Who decides that? Joe Biden?


$250K is king living many places. But near middle class others. I suppose the rich could move to Witchita or Mexico.

 

[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):

View attachment 238570

(You forgot to make a point)

^^^ Proving my point on his lack of cognitive processes ^^^

Take a gander at the tax rates in 1916 (note the income levels are 1916 dollar, not present day). And then think about how they compare to today's rates. Setting aside adjusting for inflation, the rate at $55K of income increased from 4% in 1916 to 22% today (7 points higher than the rate used for $2M of income in 1916). I doubt you can follow the logic, so this is posted for people who can think.

 

[Oddball]

Taxation retards success… Every time

Every time?

We were at our strongest when taxation was at its highest.

Hmmm

Yeah....And every other industrialized nation being reduced to rubble in a global war had nothing to do with that.

I'd ask if you could possibly be more ignorant, if It wouldn't be taken as a challenge to be met.

 

[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.

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

View attachment 238570

(You forgot to make a point)

^^^ Proving my point on his lack of cognitive processes ^^^

Take a gander at the tax rates in 1916 (note the income levels are 1916 dollar, not present day). And then think about how they compare to today's rates. Setting aside adjusting for inflation, the rate at $55K of income increased from 4% in 1916 to 22% today (7 points higher than the rate used for $2M of income in 1916). I doubt you can follow the logic, so this is posted for people who can think.

View attachment 238572

You still are only stating a few facts and not making any point. Please clearly state your argument. With less whining.

So tax rates are higher now than in 1916? Ok. Neat. Your point?

 

[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):

View attachment 238570

And $1,000,000 was nearly 100X the value it is today.

These statist flunkies make me SMH.

Indeed. And the $55K income in 1916 would be $1.27M today.

But TAX THE RICH DEY BE EVUL!

 

[Hutch Starskey]

We have RECORD FEDERAL TAX REVENUE coming in right now. Why hurt economic expansion, growth and record employment by raising tax RATES?

Economic expansion for whom?

 

[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):

View attachment 238570

(You forgot to make a point)

^^^ Proving my point on his lack of cognitive processes ^^^

Take a gander at the tax rates in 1916 (note the income levels are 1916 dollar, not present day). And then think about how they compare to today's rates. Setting aside adjusting for inflation, the rate at $55K of income increased from 4% in 1916 to 22% today (7 points higher than the rate used for $2M of income in 1916). I doubt you can follow the logic, so this is posted for people who can think.

View attachment 238572

You still are only stating a few facts and not making any point. Please clearly state your argument. With less whining.

I made the point perfectly clear. It's not my problem that you only have a lower brainstem.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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):

View attachment 238570

(You forgot to make a point)

^^^ Proving my point on his lack of cognitive processes ^^^

Take a gander at the tax rates in 1916 (note the income levels are 1916 dollar, not present day). And then think about how they compare to today's rates. Setting aside adjusting for inflation, the rate at $55K of income increased from 4% in 1916 to 22% today (7 points higher than the rate used for $2M of income in 1916). I doubt you can follow the logic, so this is posted for people who can think.

View attachment 238572

You still are only stating a few facts and not making any point. Please clearly state your argument. With less whining.

I made the point perfectly clear. It's not my problem that you only have a lower brainstem.

You did not clearly state your point. And you still haven't. Please clearly state your argument, and ...if you can manage....relate it specifically to a comment i have made. Put on your big boy pants and give it a shot.