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.
No mention of it being owed to the Federal Reserve.
They didn't forget. Look on the back.
"Federal Reserve Note"
It doesn't say I owe it to the Federal Reserve on the front or the back.
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.
View attachment 238612
What I'm saying is that the top federal tax rate should go back to 70%. So yes, the rich need to be paying a lot more in taxes although they already do pay a substantial amount. Why? Because that is where the money is, it does not hurt economic growth, and the country is better off when its not drowning in debt and struggling to find money to spend on defense.
What I'm saying is that the top federal tax rate should go back to 70%. So yes, the rich need to be paying a lot more in taxes although they already do pay a substantial amount.
How much did the rich pay when the rate was 70%?
More or less of total taxes paid?
How much did the government collect in all taxes, as a percent of GDP?
Are you under the impression they collected twice as much at 70% as they do at 35%?
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.
View attachment 238612
What I'm saying is that the top federal tax rate should go back to 70%. So yes, the rich need to be paying a lot more in taxes although they already do pay a substantial amount. Why? Because that is where the money is, it does not hurt economic growth, and the country is better off when its not drowning in debt and struggling to find money to spend on defense.
What I'm saying is that the top federal tax rate should go back to 70%. So yes, the rich need to be paying a lot more in taxes although they already do pay a substantial amount.
How much did the rich pay when the rate was 70%?
More or less of total taxes paid?
How much did the government collect in all taxes, as a percent of GDP?
Are you under the impression they collected twice as much at 70% as they do at 35%?
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.
View attachment 238612
What I'm saying is that the top federal tax rate should go back to 70%. So yes, the rich need to be paying a lot more in taxes although they already do pay a substantial amount. Why? Because that is where the money is, it does not hurt economic growth, and the country is better off when its not drowning in debt and struggling to find money to spend on defense.
What I'm saying is that the top federal tax rate should go back to 70%. So yes, the rich need to be paying a lot more in taxes although they already do pay a substantial amount.
How much did the rich pay when the rate was 70%?
More or less of total taxes paid?
How much did the government collect in all taxes, as a percent of GDP?
Are you under the impression they collected twice as much at 70% as they do at 35%?
The rich paid more than they do today and the country was able to fight World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, send men to the moon, bring in new social programs like Social Security and Medicaid, all the while reducing the national debt as a percentage of GDP from 121% in 1945 to 33% in 1980.
I think its obvious that the United States government was better able to pay for things when the top federal tax rate was higher compared to today. The national debt was only 33% of GDP in 1980. Today its at 105% of GDP. The reduction in the top federal tax rate did not lead to superior economic growth after 1980. Average GDP growth since 1980 is less than it was from 1945 to 1980. The idea is that a 70% top federal tax rate would put the country on more sound financial footing, and help to pay for a lot of government programs like defense that are struggling to find enough money in order to be able to function and perform the missions they have been given.
Na, not reallywe 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.
Envy rules over you from day to day apparently... You know what they say about living in a glass houses?LolThe 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
Great. The point is, rich folks were still very, very rich.
Punishing the successful is for weak minded fools like yourselfShould 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.
No mention of it being owed to the Federal Reserve.
They didn't forget. Look on the back.
"Federal Reserve Note"
It doesn't say I owe it to the Federal Reserve on the front or the back.
It must be on the front. I know it says Federal Reserve Note somewhere.
Note is short for promissory note. A promissory note is a legal document you sign promising to repay a loan. Why do I feel like I am repeating myself?
Better yet,
What does the term Federal Reserve Note mean?
Everyone should pay the same amount of tax not the same percentage, but the same amountYou 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.
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.
View attachment 238612
What I'm saying is that the top federal tax rate should go back to 70%. So yes, the rich need to be paying a lot more in taxes although they already do pay a substantial amount. Why? Because that is where the money is, it does not hurt economic growth, and the country is better off when its not drowning in debt and struggling to find money to spend on defense.
What I'm saying is that the top federal tax rate should go back to 70%. So yes, the rich need to be paying a lot more in taxes although they already do pay a substantial amount.
How much did the rich pay when the rate was 70%?
More or less of total taxes paid?
How much did the government collect in all taxes, as a percent of GDP?
Are you under the impression they collected twice as much at 70% as they do at 35%?
The rich paid more than they do today and the country was able to fight World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, send men to the moon, bring in new social programs like Social Security and Medicaid, all the while reducing the national debt as a percentage of GDP from 121% in 1945 to 33% in 1980.
I think its obvious that the United States government was better able to pay for things when the top federal tax rate was higher compared to today. The national debt was only 33% of GDP in 1980. Today its at 105% of GDP. The reduction in the top federal tax rate did not lead to superior economic growth after 1980. Average GDP growth since 1980 is less than it was from 1945 to 1980. The idea is that a 70% top federal tax rate would put the country on more sound financial footing, and help to pay for a lot of government programs like defense that are struggling to find enough money in order to be able to function and perform the missions they have been given.
It wasn’t due to the tax, it was in spite of the tax… Taxation without representation is the federal governments MOTaxation 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%.
sQUOTE="task0778, post: 21537560, member: 62136"]From U2Edge:
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.
------
What we have here is pure poppycock, from beginning to end. It is we-documented in every source I've ever read that even though the marginal tax rate was high, most people didn't pay it. From the Tax Foundation:
There is a common misconception that high-income Americans are not paying much in taxes compared to what they used to. Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade. However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes. As a result, the tax burden on high-income households today is only slightly lower than what these households faced in the 1950s.
The data shows that, between 1950 and 1959, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average of 42.0 percent of their income in federal, state, and local taxes. Since then, the average effective tax rate of the top 1 percent has declined slightly overall. In 2014, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average tax rate of 36.4 percent.
All things considered, this is not a very large change. To put it another way, the average effective tax rate on the 1 percent highest-income households is about 5.6 percentage points lower today than it was in the 1950s. That’s a noticeable change, but not a radical shift.
How could it be that the tax code of the 1950s had a top marginal tax rate of 91 percent, but resulted in an effective tax rate of only 42 percent on the wealthiest taxpayers? In fact, the situation is even stranger. The 42.0 percent tax rate on the top 1 percent takes into account all taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments, including: income, payroll, corporate, excise, property, and estate taxes. When we look at income taxes specifically, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective rate of only 16.9 percent in income taxes during the 1950s.
There are a few reasons for the discrepancy between the 91 percent top marginal income tax rate and the 16.9 percent effective income tax rate of the 1950s.
Taxes on the Rich Were Not Much Higher in the 1950s - Tax Foundation
- The 91 percent bracket of 1950 only applied to households with income over $200,000 (or about $2 million in today’s dollars). Only a small number of taxpayers would have had enough income to fall into the top bracket – fewer than 10,000 households, according to an article in The Wall Street Journal. Many households in the top 1 percent in the 1950s probably did not fall into the 91 percent bracket to begin with.
- Even among households that did fall into the 91 percent bracket, the majority of their income was not necessarily subject to that top bracket. After all, the 91 percent bracket only applied to income above $200,000, not to every single dollar earned by households.
- Finally, it is very likely that the existence of a 91 percent bracket led to significant tax avoidance and lower reported income.
The REAL reason why 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, was because EVERYBODY paid more in taxes, our tax rates were far less progressive than they are now. AND, gov't spending was under control, we weren't spending gobs of money on all these social welfare programs, and gov't was a heckuva lot smaller then.
sQUOTE="task0778, post: 21537560, member: 62136"]From U2Edge:
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.
------
What we have here is pure poppycock, from beginning to end. It is we-documented in every source I've ever read that even though the marginal tax rate was high, most people didn't pay it. From the Tax Foundation:
There is a common misconception that high-income Americans are not paying much in taxes compared to what they used to. Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade. However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes. As a result, the tax burden on high-income households today is only slightly lower than what these households faced in the 1950s.
The data shows that, between 1950 and 1959, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average of 42.0 percent of their income in federal, state, and local taxes. Since then, the average effective tax rate of the top 1 percent has declined slightly overall. In 2014, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average tax rate of 36.4 percent.
All things considered, this is not a very large change. To put it another way, the average effective tax rate on the 1 percent highest-income households is about 5.6 percentage points lower today than it was in the 1950s. That’s a noticeable change, but not a radical shift.
How could it be that the tax code of the 1950s had a top marginal tax rate of 91 percent, but resulted in an effective tax rate of only 42 percent on the wealthiest taxpayers? In fact, the situation is even stranger. The 42.0 percent tax rate on the top 1 percent takes into account all taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments, including: income, payroll, corporate, excise, property, and estate taxes. When we look at income taxes specifically, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective rate of only 16.9 percent in income taxes during the 1950s.
There are a few reasons for the discrepancy between the 91 percent top marginal income tax rate and the 16.9 percent effective income tax rate of the 1950s.
Taxes on the Rich Were Not Much Higher in the 1950s - Tax Foundation
- The 91 percent bracket of 1950 only applied to households with income over $200,000 (or about $2 million in today’s dollars). Only a small number of taxpayers would have had enough income to fall into the top bracket – fewer than 10,000 households, according to an article in The Wall Street Journal. Many households in the top 1 percent in the 1950s probably did not fall into the 91 percent bracket to begin with.
- Even among households that did fall into the 91 percent bracket, the majority of their income was not necessarily subject to that top bracket. After all, the 91 percent bracket only applied to income above $200,000, not to every single dollar earned by households.
- Finally, it is very likely that the existence of a 91 percent bracket led to significant tax avoidance and lower reported income.
The REAL reason why 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, was because EVERYBODY paid more in taxes, our tax rates were far less progressive than they are now. AND, gov't spending was under control, we weren't spending gobs of money on all these social welfare programs, and gov't was a heckuva lot smaller then.
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.
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.
Tell ya what. Assuming you have a job (I know, a major assumption) why don't you pay 70% of your income to support a dingbat like AOC and tell us all how it goes. K?
