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

[Oddball]

Sorry, but now...what has caused runaway inflation in University costs is guaranteed student loans......the more loans the government creates, the more tuition and expenses at Universities have increased...there is no governor on the level they can raise their fees......

The new system you are starting to see? Income sharing after graduation...you pay nothing while you are in school and then, when you get a job, you give the University part of your income until you pay off your tuition and fees.....this incentivises the school to make their education cost effective..since if you don't get a job, they don't get anything...

Econ 101 is completely over the heads of the common moonbat.

 

[kyzr]

Sorry, but now...what has caused runaway inflation in University costs is guaranteed student loans......the more loans the government creates, the more tuition and expenses at Universities have increased...there is no governor on the level they can raise their fees......

The new system you are starting to see? Income sharing after graduation...you pay nothing while you are in school and then, when you get a job, you give the University part of your income until you pay off your tuition and fees.....this incentivises the school to make their education cost effective..since if you don't get a job, they don't get anything...

Econ 101 is completely over the heads of the common moonbat.

They raise tuition so kids can't afford college even though they have billions in their endowments:
The 100 Richest Universities: Their Generosity and Commitment to Research 2018

Harvard $36b
Yale $27b
Texas $26b
Stanford $25b
Princeton $24b
MIT $15b
Penn & Texas A&M $12b
Michigan $11b
Northwestern $11b and on and on the list goes...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sorry, but now...what has caused runaway inflation in University costs is guaranteed student loans......the more loans the government creates, the more tuition and expenses at Universities have increased...there is no governor on the level they can raise their fees......

The new system you are starting to see? Income sharing after graduation...you pay nothing while you are in school and then, when you get a job, you give the University part of your income until you pay off your tuition and fees.....this incentivises the school to make their education cost effective..since if you don't get a job, they don't get anything...

Econ 101 is completely over the heads of the common moonbat.

Considering the idiotic things you say about taxes...you would quickly fail an econ 101 test.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

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.

We should experiment with this idea by imposing a 90% tax rate in the Democrat congressional Districts for a few decades to see how well it works.
We should also stop the pay of Congress and the Senate during government shutdowns.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We should experiment with this idea by imposing a 90% tax rate in the Democrat congressional Districts for a few decades to see how well it works.

Dang this is dumb, too.

 

[Oddball]

Sorry, but now...what has caused runaway inflation in University costs is guaranteed student loans......the more loans the government creates, the more tuition and expenses at Universities have increased...there is no governor on the level they can raise their fees......

The new system you are starting to see? Income sharing after graduation...you pay nothing while you are in school and then, when you get a job, you give the University part of your income until you pay off your tuition and fees.....this incentivises the school to make their education cost effective..since if you don't get a job, they don't get anything...

Econ 101 is completely over the heads of the common moonbat.

Considering the idiotic things you say about taxes...you would quickly fail an econ 101 test.

They're only "idiotic" to worshipers of The State, which you clearly are.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sorry, but now...what has caused runaway inflation in University costs is guaranteed student loans......the more loans the government creates, the more tuition and expenses at Universities have increased...there is no governor on the level they can raise their fees......

The new system you are starting to see? Income sharing after graduation...you pay nothing while you are in school and then, when you get a job, you give the University part of your income until you pay off your tuition and fees.....this incentivises the school to make their education cost effective..since if you don't get a job, they don't get anything...

Econ 101 is completely over the heads of the common moonbat.

Considering the idiotic things you say about taxes...you would quickly fail an econ 101 test.

They're only "idiotic" to worshipers of The State, which you clearly are.

Hmm,no, they are idiotic by any academic standard. You are just another worthless fool touting the "taxes are the" canard that has been the object of ridicule for quite a long time. The next thing you read or learn about taxes or economics will be the first.

 

[AntonToo]

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

No, we just need to undo recent tax-cuts and have the well off ACTUALLY PAY somewhere near current tax rates.

As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes. For real.

 

[task0778]

You know what's really funny? The Dems want to raise taxes on the rich, except for those who live in high-tax mostly blue states who don't get to deduct their high mortgage interest payments from their federal taxes. Doesn't that strike anybody as being hypocritical?

 

[AntonToo]

You know what's really funny? The Dems want to raise taxes on the rich, except for those who live in high-tax mostly blue states who don't get to deduct their high mortgage interest payments from their federal taxes. Doesn't that strike anybody as being hypocritical?

If you are paying mortage on your primary residence you are not that rich.

But thats not even the point - screwing blue states like that was just WRONG.

 

[Oddball]

Sorry, but now...what has caused runaway inflation in University costs is guaranteed student loans......the more loans the government creates, the more tuition and expenses at Universities have increased...there is no governor on the level they can raise their fees......

The new system you are starting to see? Income sharing after graduation...you pay nothing while you are in school and then, when you get a job, you give the University part of your income until you pay off your tuition and fees.....this incentivises the school to make their education cost effective..since if you don't get a job, they don't get anything...

Econ 101 is completely over the heads of the common moonbat.

Considering the idiotic things you say about taxes...you would quickly fail an econ 101 test.

They're only "idiotic" to worshipers of The State, which you clearly are.

Hmm,no, they are idiotic by any academic standard. You are just another worthless fool touting the "taxes are the" canard that has been the object of ridicule for quite a long time. The next thing you read or learn about taxes or economics will be the first.

It's only the object of ridicule by bootlicking statist tools like you, whose only answer to any given situation is to grow The State.

And you don't know jack shit about economics.

BTW, thanks for chiming in to self--identify as a common moonbat, moonbat.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Why do liberals look at Venezuela and see success?

Why do Conservatives look at Somalia and see success?

None do. Somalia is NOT "conservative." Only a tard sees these Muslim shitholes as conservative.

 

[presonorek]

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

A dollar bill is property of the federal reserve. You can't own them. You can only borrow them. They are Federal Reserve Notes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

A dollar bill is property of the federal reserve. You can't own them. You can only borrow them. They are Federal Reserve Notes.

A dollar bill is property of the federal reserve.

LOL!

You can't own them.

Liar.

You can only borrow them.

I'm holding a bunch that I didn't borrow from anyone.
Are you paying interest on yours? What's the rate?
Where do you send your interest payment?

They are Federal Reserve Notes.

These ones are MY Federal Reserve Notes.

 

[presonorek]

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.

The format of money changed. We used to have "certificates". Now we have "notes". This is extremely significant and changes everything.

With the old certificates you owned the money thus the income tax was illegal. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was passed almost the same time the 16th Amendment was passed. The government has the right to demand every federal reserve note back thus 100% is legally and morally correct. 70% is child's play.

 

[Oddball]

 

[presonorek]

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

A dollar bill is property of the federal reserve. You can't own them. You can only borrow them. They are Federal Reserve Notes.

A dollar bill is property of the federal reserve.

LOL!

You can't own them.

Liar.

You can only borrow them.

I'm holding a bunch that I didn't borrow from anyone.
Are you paying interest on yours? What's the rate?
Where do you send your interest payment?

They are Federal Reserve Notes.

These ones are MY Federal Reserve Notes.

Holding it in your hand is consent to borrowing it from the Federal Reserve. The terms are extremely lenient. Most countries have debt based currency. You are acting like this is new information. Debt based currency is more stable than government backed currency. Debt based currency can't be printed into oblivion and devastate the economy with hyperinflation. Debt based currency doesn't incentivize savings to the extent that deflation strips money from the hands of regular folks like asset based currency. Debt based currency was a genius invention that has been around for over 100 years.

 

[presonorek]

The currency changed. We used to have gold certificates and silver certificates. You will have to go to the conspiracy theory thread to learn how this happens. The name I often hear is, 'Rothschild'.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

A dollar bill is property of the federal reserve. You can't own them. You can only borrow them. They are Federal Reserve Notes.

A dollar bill is property of the federal reserve.

LOL!

You can't own them.

Liar.

You can only borrow them.

I'm holding a bunch that I didn't borrow from anyone.
Are you paying interest on yours? What's the rate?
Where do you send your interest payment?

They are Federal Reserve Notes.

These ones are MY Federal Reserve Notes.

Holding it in your hand is consent to borrowing it from the Federal Reserve. The terms are extremely lenient. Most countries have debt based currency. You are acting like this is new information. Debt based currency is more stable than government backed currency. Debt based currency can't be printed into oblivion and devastate the economy with hyperinflation. Debt based currency doesn't incentivize savings to the extent that deflation strips money from the hands of regular folks like asset based currency. Debt based currency was a genius invention that has been around for over 100 years.

Holding it in your hand is consent to borrowing it from the Federal Reserve.

You're wrong. I own it. I don't have to pay it back and I certainly don't pay interest for it.

Who do you pay? What rate? How do they get it from you?

Be specific.

You are acting like this is new information

I'm pointing out that this is fiction.

 

[leftwinger]

You know what's really funny? The Dems want to raise taxes on the rich, except for those who live in high-tax mostly blue states who don't get to deduct their high mortgage interest payments from their federal taxes. Doesn't that strike anybody as being hypocritical?

If you are paying mortage on your primary residence you are not that rich.

But thats not even the point - screwing blue states like that was just WRONG.

You can still deduct up to $10K property & income tax total. Mortgage Interest up to $750K is deductible correct? This is median CA level.

The rich are being squeezed. Big houses, big incomes. That’s what Dems wanted? Correct?