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

[Aldo Raine]

Yea right, like more taxation is going to somehow magically make this country more prosperous. At least that is what the Moon Bats think.

Back when we had a 70% tax rate the deductions were such that very few people ever paid at that rate.

Back then the total combined (federal, state and local) cost of government was less than 20% of GDP. Nowadays it is pushing 40%. Everybody paid fewer taxes, even the very rich that had an incremental rate of 70%.

The reason the economy grew so much was not because of the higher taxes at a 70% incremental rate for the very rich but because of the much lower burden on the economy for the cost of government at less than 20% of the GDP.

The LEFT conveniently forgets that the Trump tax cuts also included the removal of many tax DEDUCTIONS to simplify the tax code. So, those higher income earners effective tax rate may be near the same as it was before without the deductions.

No, the uber wealthy got a few extra exemptions. The working class got exemptions taken from them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

I agree with you that it sounds extremely creepy, dark and corrupt.

Nah, it sounds silly and ridiculous.

 

[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.

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

This note is legal tender for all debts public and private. That's the words I was looking for.

 

[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%?

This note is legal tender for all debts public and private. That's the words I was looking for.

This note is legal tender for all debts public and private.

Yes. No mention of it being owed to the Federal Reserve. No mention that I owe interest on it.

I'm glad I could correct your misperception.

 

[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, 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

Its your unverified claim that certain people did not pay the top federal tax rate of 70% or more when they were required to. Even if some of the rich were able to get around, most were not, because the government got the revenue it was looking for to pay for World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, sending a man to the moon, new social programs like Social Security and Medicare, all the while, reducing the national debt as a percentage of GDP from 121% in 1945 down to 33% in 1980.

Its a fact, that the government got all this revenue to pay for these things in the period of 1940 to 1980. If some rich people cheated, fine, but far more than enough of them paid those rates because the government received the money it NEEDED! That's the whole point.

Europe and Japan were rebuilt by the late 1950s and early 1960s. Today the true first world countries only number around 30. Most of them have tax rates far greater than the United States. The rich will not flee to third world countries. Its too risky and unsafe for them. The United States will still be the best game in town for the rich if and when the top federal tax rate returns to 70% or more.

 

[presonorek]

Why do you feel I borrowed this $20?

Currency is the best mode for trading. Barter is too awkward. You probably borrowed $20 to obtain goods or services in a very efficient manner.

I don't blame you. I do the same thing.

 

[boedicca]

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.

The trends are the opposite of what you claim. Fewer people are paying a larger share of income taxes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why do you feel I borrowed this $20?

Currency is the best mode for trading. Barter is too awkward. You probably borrowed $20 to obtain goods or services in a very efficient manner.

I don't blame you. I do the same thing.

You probably borrowed $20 to obtain goods or services in a very efficient manner.

Nope. Didn't borrow the $20.

 

[presonorek]

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%?

This note is legal tender for all debts public and private. That's the words I was looking for.

This note is legal tender for all debts public and private.

Yes. No mention of it being owed to the Federal Reserve. No mention that I owe interest on it.

I'm glad I could correct your misperception.

You are free to use it for any kind of debt. You can lend it or borrow it. The terms are extremely liberal and generous. It is intended to be currency used by the government. Did you expect it to be demanded within 90 days or something? Then they would have to reprint new bills. It is more efficient if the debt is open ended with generous terms. It seems that you understand all of this. You just dont like it very much. I don't like it that delicious food makes me fat. I don't like it that some people commit crimes. I don't like it that my tires wear out after while. This isn't really an argument. This is just a description of our currency. If you can explain how our federal government can constitutionally demand us to pay an income tax then let me know.

This is just what I was taught in Macroeconomics and it sounded extremely logical to me. Most students (if not all) had the same initial reaction as you. If you know something I don't then make the world a better place and teach us.

 

[U2Edge]

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!

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.

And if you're a republican, I'm Lysander Spooner.

I've voted straight Republican every election until 2016. 2016 was the first time I ever voted form someone that was not a Republican, Hillary Clinton.

The first world today is still a tiny fraction of the planet. Most other first world countries have tax rates higher than the United States. Rich people don't flee to third world countries. They remain in the first world and the wealthiest first world country is still the United States. The United States is still the best game in town for the rich and will continue to be even if the top federal tax rate is increased to 70%.

 

[Nova78]

Can you believe some of the fucktards on here voted yes on 70 % tax, guess because they do not work.

 

[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.

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!

Completely irrelevant to my point.

And you've once again completely ignored the fact that Murica has the only functioning industrial economy on the planet until the late '60s, as every other one had been bombed out of existence during the war.....You can get away with a lot of foolhardy monetary, fiscal, and tax policy, when your nation holds the defact monopoly on production of industrial consumer goods.

And you progressive clods have the nerve to accuse those who oppose your foolishness of living in the past.

 

[presonorek]

Nope. Didn't borrow the $20.

If that $20 bill didn't come from a bank then it was counterfeit. Banks borrow money and lend money.

How did you get a $20 if it didn't originate from a bank? I feel like you got this and you totally understand. You seem like a smart guy.

 

[Nova78]

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!

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.

And if you're a republican, I'm Lysander Spooner.

I've voted straight Republican every election until 2016. 2016 was the first time I ever voted form someone that was not a Republican, Hillary Clinton.

The first world today is still a tiny fraction of the planet. Most other first world countries have tax rates higher than the United States. Rich people don't flee to third world countries. They remain in the first world and the wealthiest first world country is still the United States. The United States is still the best game in town for the rich and will continue to be even if the top federal tax rate is increased to 70%.

When did you go retarded?

 

[U2Edge]

1913 America was weak in many ways. Had we stayed that way we would have been defeated in World War II easily.

 

[Oddball]

I've voted straight Republican every election until 2016. 2016 was the first time I ever voted form someone that was not a Republican, Hillary Clinton.

I call bullshit....if you were ever any kind of republican, you could have never voted for that corrupt prog tyrant.

The first world today is still a tiny fraction of the planet. Most other first world countries have tax rates higher than the United States. Rich people don't flee to third world countries. They remain in the first world and the wealthiest first world country is still the United States. The United States is still the best game in town for the rich and will continue to be even if the top federal tax rate is increased to 70%.

I couldn't give a flying fuck what the rest of the world does...Our ancestors fled those hellholes and came here because it was different...Now, idiot savants like you want to make Murica more like the places they fled.

 

[U2Edge]

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!

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.

And if you're a republican, I'm Lysander Spooner.

I've voted straight Republican every election until 2016. 2016 was the first time I ever voted form someone that was not a Republican, Hillary Clinton.

The first world today is still a tiny fraction of the planet. Most other first world countries have tax rates higher than the United States. Rich people don't flee to third world countries. They remain in the first world and the wealthiest first world country is still the United States. The United States is still the best game in town for the rich and will continue to be even if the top federal tax rate is increased to 70%.

When did you go retarded?
View attachment 238615

Actually, Bill and Hillary Clinton are very similar to many Republicans when it comes to policies they support. As a Republican, Hillary was far more like George W. Bush than Donald Trump.

 

[presonorek]

Can you believe some of the fucktards on here voted yes on 70 % tax, guess because they do not work.

I voted yes and I do work.

 

[U2Edge]

I've voted straight Republican every election until 2016. 2016 was the first time I ever voted form someone that was not a Republican, Hillary Clinton.

I call bullshit....if you were ever any kind of republican, you could have never voted for that corrupt prog tyrant.

The first world today is still a tiny fraction of the planet. Most other first world countries have tax rates higher than the United States. Rich people don't flee to third world countries. They remain in the first world and the wealthiest first world country is still the United States. The United States is still the best game in town for the rich and will continue to be even if the top federal tax rate is increased to 70%.

I couldn't give a flying fuck what the rest of the world does...Our ancestors fled those hellholes and came here because it was different...Now, idiot savants like you want to make Murica more like the places they fled.

I voted for Hillary Clinton, because she was far more like George W. Bush in the policies she supported than Donald Trump.

 

[Oddball]

1913 America was weak in many ways. Had we stayed that way we would have been defeated in World War II easily.

Had we not embraced Wilsonian progressivism, we wouldn't have been sucked into WWI, which precipitated WWII.

Your ignorance of economics is only exceeded by your ignorance of history.