Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.You still are only stating a few facts and not making any point. Please clearly state your argument. With less whining.(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
I made the point perfectly clear. It's not my problem that you only have a lower brainstem.
we should raise the minimum wage to raise more tax revenue.Tax increases are all punishment of the successful, There’s no reason to try to be successful if the government is taking it all awayWhy 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.
Yes, i am aware the rates are higher today than in 1916. I didn't say anything which contradicted that. I commented on comparing, straight up, the rate between 1980 and today for an income of 55k. And you just agreed with me by mentioning inflation adjustment. I also introduced the idea that the income curves are much different now than in 1980, who you failed to address at all.Bonus points if you can actually do the inflation calculations to see how grossly inflated tax rates are today compared to what was used to justify taxation in the first place.
only promoting the general badfare instead of the general welfare does that.Socialist entitlement programs are the incubator of criminal activity and idleness...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.
But then they won't be making that $250KWhere 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.
I tired to sort thru his nonsense and all I got is that he wants to keep his tax cutYes, i am aware the rates are higher today than in 1916. I didn't say anything which contradicted that. I commented on comparing, straight up, the rate between 1980 and today for an income of 55k. And you just agreed with me by mentioning inflation adjustment. I also introduced the idea that the income curves are much different now than in 1980, who you failed to address at all.Bonus points if you can actually do the inflation calculations to see how grossly inflated tax rates are today compared to what was used to justify taxation in the first place.
So no, I still don't see what big point you are trying to make.
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.....
I'm just stating the fact that the top federal tax rate from 1945 to 1980 was between 70% and 94% depending on the year. That level of taxation did not hurt the economy since the average annual GDP growth in the time period of 1945 to 1980 in the United States was the highest in the country's history. The benefits were that you had strong economic growth combined with more revenue to pay for defense, domestic programs, balance the budget better, and reduce debt levels relative to GDP over time.
Since 1980, the huge reduction in the top federal tax rate has led huge increases in the national debt and difficulty in paying for defense and other government programs. Essentially, the country is being drowned in debt and starving when it comes to funding its vital foreign, domestic and defense programs simply to insure the rich keep a obscene level of wealth.
Yes, i am aware the rates are higher today than in 1916. I didn't say anything which contradicted that. I commented on comparing, straight up, the rate between 1980 and today for an income of 55k. And you just agreed with me by mentioning inflation adjustment. I also introduced the idea that the income curves are much different now than in 1980, who you failed to address at all.Bonus points if you can actually do the inflation calculations to see how grossly inflated tax rates are today compared to what was used to justify taxation in the first place.
So no, I still don't see what big point you are trying to make.
My point is that the tax curve would be much more progressive today than in 1980, given the steeper income curves and geater income disparity today. So we wouldn't simply map over the rates from 1980. We wouldn't have to do so in order to generate the same relative revenue.I tired to sort thru his nonsense and all I got is that he wants to keep his tax cutYes, i am aware the rates are higher today than in 1916. I didn't say anything which contradicted that. I commented on comparing, straight up, the rate between 1980 and today for an income of 55k. And you just agreed with me by mentioning inflation adjustment. I also introduced the idea that the income curves are much different now than in 1980, who you failed to address at all.Bonus points if you can actually do the inflation calculations to see how grossly inflated tax rates are today compared to what was used to justify taxation in the first place.
So no, I still don't see what big point you are trying to make.
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!
But then they won't be making that $250KWhere 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.
We can do both/---/ Don't like debt? Me either. So cut spending.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.
Cut spending and increase taxes until the debt is paid off
The wealthy among us have benefitted the most from our $22 trillion debt. Let’s raise their taxes until the debt is paid off
When the tax code had those high rates, it also had many exemptions and deductions that are no longer in it. No one ever paid 70% or 90% or anything close to that. Those exemptions and deductions were put in the code by rich congressbeings in order to help themselves and their contributors. Its good that they are gone and that we now have reasonable rates and a less discriminatory tax code. Returning to those high rates would force congress to reinstate the deductions and exemptions in order to protect themselves and their cronies. It would accomplish nothing.
LolShould 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 indeed.You are delusional.....
Fred Trump was rich enough to transfer $400m to just one of his children despite the high rates.
Personal income should be none of the business of any part of the federal government… But then again socialism is entirely repugnant
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.
how about, you look that up yourself and post it yourself in order to make your point.During this period, what was the average tax collection as a percentage of GDP?
What was the average tax collection as a percentage of GDP since 1980?
You obviously ignore the fact that Murica had basically the only functioning industrial economy on the planet until the late 1960s...So if you want to return to those halcyon days of "success", I guess you also want to bomb the rest of the world back to the mid-1800s.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!
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.....
I'm just stating the fact that the top federal tax rate from 1945 to 1980 was between 70% and 94% depending on the year. That level of taxation did not hurt the economy since the average annual GDP growth in the time period of 1945 to 1980 in the United States was the highest in the country's history. The benefits were that you had strong economic growth combined with more revenue to pay for defense, domestic programs, balance the budget better, and reduce debt levels relative to GDP over time.
Since 1980, the huge reduction in the top federal tax rate has led huge increases in the national debt and difficulty in paying for defense and other government programs. Essentially, the country is being drowned in debt and starving when it comes to funding its vital foreign, domestic and defense programs simply to insure the rich keep a obscene level of wealth.
Exactly right.
There are many, many examples of how these tax cuts have have actually harmed average Americans over the last forty years but I'd like to share one that I feel is very important. It's a huge hurdle to the upward mobility of Americans. States used to subsidise their public universities to keep tuition affordable for most. Those lost revenues have caused runaway inflation in university tuitions around the country.
View attachment 238582
