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

[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.

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.

Ok. Keep living in 1912.

 

[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.

Ok. Keep living in 1912.

Are you Stephen King?
Cause your stories sure are scary!!!

Don't worry about the facts.
I notice you still haven't posted any.

 

[presonorek]

Are you paying interest on yours? What's the rate?
Where do you send your interest payment?

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

Yes. I pay interest.
The rate ranges from 0.0% up to 24%.
I pay about 6 different banks and the United States treasury at tax time. I can list the banks if necessary. These banks didn't have sufficient money in deposit accounts to make loans. They borrowed the excess from the Federal Government. It was money created out of thin air.
They get their interest payments through promissory note instruments and through my federal tax return. At present I pay them voluntarily but I think they have measures to collect their interest payments if I refuse to pay. Why are you acting oblivious? I haven't said anything earth shattering or top secret. This is common knowledge.

 

[U2Edge]

[


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.

Those people who do not pay Federal income tax don't because they don't make enough money. Their lower class and its better for the country that they spend whatever money they have. Rich peoples business's actually make a lot of money from those in the lower class and lower middle class. In fact, you'll see larger increase in consumer spending from a pay role tax cut. Even someone making minimum wage has 25% of every dollar taken away for pay role taxes that go to social security, medicare etc. If people who make minimum wage did not pay those taxes, the money would go to more consumer spending, often on things that the rich make money on. It would be good for the economy since 80% of economic growth comes from consumer spending.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Those people who do not pay Federal income tax don't because they don't make enough money. Their lower class and its better for the country that they spend whatever money they have.

Its better for the person, and the country if the poor pay a higher tax rate than the wealthy. We so it backwards.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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.

In that period, practically everything was tax deductible and one could create endless exemptions. So using that model, one's 70 percent tax rate would essentially be 5-10 percent. Im down if we're going back to that because Id be paying less.

 

[U2Edge]

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....

Fact say differently. The revenue that came into the government from 1940 to 1980 paid for World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, putting a man on the moon, new social programs while at the same time reducing the national debt as a percentage of GDP at 121% in 1945 to 33% in 1980. At tax rates between 70% and 94%, the United States paid for all kinds of things and successfully reduced the debt burden of the country. You also had faster GDP growth in the 1945 to 1980 period even though the top marginal tax rates for the rich were always above 70%.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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 [sic] 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.

It was stupid of Mr. Obama, even for him, when he made his infamous “You didn't build that.” remark.

It is no less stupid of you now to parrot the same defective logic on which his remark was based.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

But that is not what happened from 1940 to 1980. Business boomed during those years despite a top federal tax rate of between 70% and 94%. McDonalds expanded from a single store in the 1950s, to tens of thousands of locations all across the United States by 1980. Having a top federal tax rate above 70% did not prevent that from happening.

Look at the whole rock n roll industry. Started in the 1950s, booming out of this world by 1978. Again, the top federal tax rate above 70% did not prevent this from happening.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you paying interest on yours? What's the rate?
Where do you send your interest payment?

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

Yes. I pay interest.
The rate ranges from 0.0% up to 24%.
I pay about 6 different banks and the United States treasury at tax time. I can list the banks if necessary. These banks didn't have sufficient money in deposit accounts to make loans. They borrowed the excess from the Federal Government. It was money created out of thin air.
They get their interest payments through promissory note instruments and through my federal tax return. At present I pay them voluntarily but I think they have measures to collect their interest payments if I refuse to pay. Why are you acting oblivious? I haven't said anything earth shattering or top secret. This is common knowledge.

Yes. I pay interest.
The rate ranges from 0.0% up to 24%.
I pay about 6 different banks and the United States treasury at tax time.

You didn't mention the Federal Reserve.....those are Federal Reserve Notes after all.

These banks didn't have sufficient money in deposit accounts to make loans.

You're lying again.

They borrowed the excess from the Federal Government.

How much do you feel they borrow from the Federal Government?
What do you base these feelings on?

They get their interest payments through promissory note instruments

Tell me more.

and through my federal tax return.

Your tax return is based on your income, not the imaginary money you feel the government lent to your bank.

Why are you acting oblivious?

Why are you posting fiction?

I haven't said anything earth shattering or top secret.

You haven't said anything accurate either.
Who do I owe for the $20 sitting in front of me?
What rate do I owe them? Why do you feel I borrowed this $20?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[


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.

Those people who do not pay Federal income tax don't because they don't make enough money. Their lower class and its better for the country that they spend whatever money they have. Rich peoples business's actually make a lot of money from those in the lower class and lower middle class. In fact, you'll see larger increase in consumer spending from a pay role tax cut. Even someone making minimum wage has 25% of every dollar taken away for pay role taxes that go to social security, medicare etc. If people who make minimum wage did not pay those taxes, the money would go to more consumer spending, often on things that the rich make money on. It would be good for the economy since 80% of economic growth comes from consumer spending.

Even someone making minimum wage has 25% of every dollar taken away for pay role taxes that go to social security, medicare etc.

Ummm….payroll taxes are currently 7.65%, not 25%.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

In that period, practically everything was tax deductible and one could create endless exemptions. So using that model, one's 70 percent tax rate would essentially be 5-10 percent. Im down if we're going back to that because Id be paying less.

Well, if that were the case, how did the United States pay for World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam War, sending a man to the moon new social programs while at the same time reduce the national debt as a percentage of GDP from 121% in 1945 to 33% in 1980?

Sorry, but the rich paid far more in taxes back then as opposed to today. There also would have been nor reason to increase taxes to 70% or 94% like it was in World War II, if the increased tax rates did not generate more revenue. There also would not be any reason to reduce those top federal tax rates if rich people were only paying 5 to 10% effectively. Again, the facts show that the rich paid more back then than they do today and the country prospered as a result and was on more sound financial ground.

 

[presonorek]

Are you paying interest on yours? What's the rate?
Where do you send your interest payment?

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

Yes. I pay interest.
The rate ranges from 0.0% up to 24%.
I pay about 6 different banks and the United States treasury at tax time. I can list the banks if necessary. These banks didn't have sufficient money in deposit accounts to make loans. They borrowed the excess from the Federal Government. It was money created out of thin air.
They get their interest payments through promissory note instruments and through my federal tax return. At present I pay them voluntarily but I think they have measures to collect their interest payments if I refuse to pay. Why are you acting oblivious? I haven't said anything earth shattering or top secret. This is common knowledge.

Yes. I pay interest.
The rate ranges from 0.0% up to 24%.
I pay about 6 different banks and the United States treasury at tax time.

You didn't mention the Federal Reserve.....those are Federal Reserve Notes after all.

These banks didn't have sufficient money in deposit accounts to make loans.

You're lying again.

They borrowed the excess from the Federal Government.

How much do you feel they borrow from the Federal Government?
What do you base these feelings on?

They get their interest payments through promissory note instruments

Tell me more.

and through my federal tax return.

Your tax return is based on your income, not the imaginary money you feel the government lent to your bank.

Why are you acting oblivious?

Why are you posting fiction?

I haven't said anything earth shattering or top secret.

You haven't said anything accurate either.
Who do I owe for the $20 sitting in front of me?
What rate do I owe them? Why do you feel I borrowed this $20?

The terms are on the front of the dollar 'bill'. The term bill is not a pun. It really is a bill. Do you have a dollar bill handy? I can get one in about ten minutes and see what it says exactly but the terms are on the front. They are absurdly lenient.

 

[U2Edge]

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 country did just fine with a top federal tax rate of between 70% and 94% from 1940 to 1980. The rich paid more during that time than they do today and it benefited the country. The country was on more sound financial footing from 1940 to 1980 than it is today. Those are the facts. Also, average annual GDP growth was higher from 1940 to 1980 than it has been since 1980. Cutting the top federal tax rate down to the 39% has NOT IMPROVED ANNUAL GDP GROWTH!

 

[U2Edge]

Taxation retards success… Every time

Except from 1940 to 1980 when the United States saw the most successful annual GDP growth rates in its history despite a top federal tax rate of between 70% and 94%.

 

[Aldo Raine]

I will abandon you nitwits to your socialist graves before I give 70% because you fucks can't get your shit straight and earn money for yourselves or stop fucking blowing money out your asses on dumb unprofitable shit. Me and mine are already paying fucking 70% of the damned bill for the nation, piss off.

Sure you are!

 

[westwall]

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.

Do the rich and powerful still get all of their tax loopholes that lowered their effective tax rates down to below where they are today? You people always seem to ignore that fact. In case you hadn't heard, with the tax relief trump enacted Federal revenue is UP. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you paying interest on yours? What's the rate?
Where do you send your interest payment?

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

Yes. I pay interest.
The rate ranges from 0.0% up to 24%.
I pay about 6 different banks and the United States treasury at tax time. I can list the banks if necessary. These banks didn't have sufficient money in deposit accounts to make loans. They borrowed the excess from the Federal Government. It was money created out of thin air.
They get their interest payments through promissory note instruments and through my federal tax return. At present I pay them voluntarily but I think they have measures to collect their interest payments if I refuse to pay. Why are you acting oblivious? I haven't said anything earth shattering or top secret. This is common knowledge.

Yes. I pay interest.
The rate ranges from 0.0% up to 24%.
I pay about 6 different banks and the United States treasury at tax time.

You didn't mention the Federal Reserve.....those are Federal Reserve Notes after all.

These banks didn't have sufficient money in deposit accounts to make loans.

You're lying again.

They borrowed the excess from the Federal Government.

How much do you feel they borrow from the Federal Government?
What do you base these feelings on?

They get their interest payments through promissory note instruments

Tell me more.

and through my federal tax return.

Your tax return is based on your income, not the imaginary money you feel the government lent to your bank.

Why are you acting oblivious?

Why are you posting fiction?

I haven't said anything earth shattering or top secret.

You haven't said anything accurate either.
Who do I owe for the $20 sitting in front of me?
What rate do I owe them? Why do you feel I borrowed this $20?

The terms are on the front of the dollar 'bill'. The term bill is not a pun. It really is a bill. Do you have a dollar bill handy? I can get one in about ten minutes and see what it says exactly but the terms are on the front. They are absurdly lenient.

Lenient?
Like I never have to pay it back and the interest rate is 0%?

 

[presonorek]

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.

Ok. Keep living in 1912.

Are you Stephen King?
Cause your stories sure are scary!!!

Don't worry about the facts.
I notice you still haven't posted any.

I agree with you that it sounds extremely creepy, dark and corrupt. It probably is all of those things. However the three alternatives for society are way more devastating. Hyperinflation, deflation, barter system or a debt based currency are the four choices. Maybe you can be the genius that gives us that amazing fifth choice. I dont see the problem with debt based currency except there is an extremely small number of people that are getting absurdly rich off of it. That's creepy to me. However, day to day life and planning for the future is better because of debt based currency.

Do you know how unstable the United States economy was prior to 1913? Deflation is devastating. It doesn't take two days in economics class to understand why asset based currency would cause deflation within a few years. Rich people would love it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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 country did just fine with a top federal tax rate of between 70% and 94% from 1940 to 1980. The rich paid more during that time than they do today and it benefited the country. The country was on more sound financial footing from 1940 to 1980 than it is today. Those are the facts. Also, average annual GDP growth was higher from 1940 to 1980 than it has been since 1980. Cutting the top federal tax rate down to the 39% has NOT IMPROVED ANNUAL GDP GROWTH!

The country did just fine with a top federal tax rate of between 70% and 94% from 1940 to 1980.

You're confusing "did fine with high marginal rates" with "did fine because of high marginal rates".