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

[Rustic]

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.

Lol
Thank God for the electoral college

 

[U2Edge]

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.

The rich paid more than they do today

You're mistaken.

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.

We didn't have insane, unfunded transfer payments back then like we do today.

The United States spent far more on national defense as a percentage of GDP from 1940 to 1980 than it does today. Today defense spending has dropped to 3% of annual GDP. During the 1980s it averaged 6% of GDP. During the Vietnam War it averaged 10% of GDP. In the 1950s it was even higher. During World War II it was 37% of GDP. Tax revenue was obtained to pay for these things whether you think the rich paid more or not. The top federal tax rate was 70% to 94% from 1940 to 1980. Its much lower now.

The United States can increase revenue coming into the government by raising the top federal tax rate. Doing so will make balancing the budget easier, and provide more money for many government programs especially defense. The tax increase on the rich won't hurt the economy because the rich don't change their consumer spending regardless of their tax rate.

 

[Rustic]

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.

Oh, so you're a goddamn neocon.

Fuck off, progressive globalist scum.

Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush W., as well as Hillary Clinton all have a lot in common when it comes to various policies. I did not vote for Bill Clinton, but was forced to vote for Hillary Clinton when crazy Trump won the nomination.

I was forced to write in a candidate... Elmer Fudd
Basically because I knew Trump would overwhelmingly when South Dakota, and Hildabeast would’ve destroyed this country with in two years

 

[Ambivalent1]

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.

The rich paid more than they do today

You're mistaken.

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.

We didn't have insane, unfunded transfer payments back then like we do today.

The United States spent far more on national defense as a percentage of GDP from 1940 to 1980 than it does today. Today defense spending has dropped to 3% of annual GDP. During the 1980s it averaged 6% of GDP. During the Vietnam War it averaged 10% of GDP. In the 1950s it was even higher. During World War II it was 37% of GDP. Tax revenue was obtained to pay for these things whether you think the rich paid more or not. The top federal tax rate was 70% to 94% from 1940 to 1980. Its much lower now.

The United States can increase revenue coming into the government by raising the top federal tax rate. Doing so will make balancing the budget easier, and provide more money for many government programs especially defense. The tax increase on the rich won't hurt the economy because the rich don't change their consumer spending regardless of their tax rate.

We make 200k....how much do you want and are you willing to come get it yourself?

 

[U2Edge]

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.

Oh the Cognitive Dissonance and Sophistry combined!

WWII was a temporary bulge of spending for the war effort. After the war, Truman wanted to re-ignite the New Deal programs and increase government spending. DEMOCRATS in Congress refused. Taxes were lowered. Economic growth was ignited. And tax receipts enabled the pay down of the debt.

The top federal tax rate was above 80% while Truman was President.

 

[Rustic]

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.

Its [sic] the truth though. The market is what decides what your house is worth and much money you make at your job.

No, it is not truth. It was stupid when Mr. Obama said it, and it is just as stupid now, with you trying to say it. Saying “market” when everyone can clearly see that you mean “government”, and are trying to use it as an excuse for government to take a bigger share of the wealth that we work for and create, changes nothing, other than to demonstrate your deceitfulness.

The government protects and regulates the market, but no the government is not the market. Without the U.S. military and U.S. government, the U.S. market in which you make your money would not exist.

Again, go to Somalia where there is no government and see if you can make a good living in the market there.

Conservatives cannot exist in a socialist government… It’s a slow and agonizing death

 

[Rustic]

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.

Oh the Cognitive Dissonance and Sophistry combined!

WWII was a temporary bulge of spending for the war effort. After the war, Truman wanted to re-ignite the New Deal programs and increase government spending. DEMOCRATS in Congress refused. Taxes were lowered. Economic growth was ignited. And tax receipts enabled the pay down of the debt.

The top federal tax rate was above 80% while Truman was President.

Socialism has never been able to hold up its own weight

 

[Rustic]

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.

Socialist entitlements programs are a direct result of a progressive overbearing hi taxation oriented government

 

[U2Edge]

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%?

People modify their behaviors based on the marginal benefit of marginal after tax earnings. Too high of a tax, the extra work is not worth the effort. The economy has a maximum tolerance for taxation.

View attachment 238619

Well, the rich did not behave that way from 1940 to 1980. They continued to pay top federal tax rate above 70%. Plus having low tax rates on the rich since the year 2000 has not spurred economic growth. Average annual GDP growth since the year 2000 has been under 2%.

 

[Rustic]

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%?

People modify their behaviors based on the marginal benefit of marginal after tax earnings. Too high of a tax, the extra work is not worth the effort. The economy has a maximum tolerance for taxation.

View attachment 238619

Well, the rich did not behave that way from 1940 to 1980. They continued to pay top federal tax rate above 70%. Plus having low tax rates on the rich since the year 2000 has not spurred economic growth. Average annual GDP growth since the year 2000 has been under 2%.

Like I said only a fucking fool trusts the federal government with 70% of their income

 

[task0778]

Further info, about those high marginal tax rates in the 50s: (This was written in 2015)


A study from the Congressional Research Service concludes that the effective tax rate for the top 0.01 percent of income earners during the period of 91-percent income taxes was actually 45 percent. Given that the top bracket is so much lower today ($3,425,766 in 1955 vs. $413,200 in 2015), the 39.6 percent top marginal rate probably yields something pretty close. [Above numbers adjusted for inflation]

Some of this was because corporate rates have always been lower than 50 percent. And as Alan Reynolds noted, when the personal income tax rates were reduced, it “… induced thousands of businesses to switch from filing under the corporate tax system to filing under the individual tax system.” In other words, many rich people kept their money in corporate entities when personal tax rates were higher.

Another major factor was the myriad of deductions and loop holes that used to be available. Many of these were eliminated by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which by no coincidence coincided with the biggest rate deductions. For one, interest had previously been deductible on all loans. After the act, it has only been deductible on home mortgages.

But what was probably the biggest lost deduction for wealthy individuals was the elimination of deductions on passive investment losses on real estate. Before 1986, wealthy individuals would often buy real estate with no hopes at all of it cash flowing. That wasn’t the point. The point was that real estate is depreciated every year in the eyes of the IRS. Even though in the long run, properties usually go up in value, the IRS assumes that every twenty-seven-and-a-half years a property’s value will depreciate to zero.

This “loss” can be written off. So, for example, say a man earning $100,000 a year buys a property worth $275,000. He rents out the property and breaks even on it. The tax code allows that person to write off $10,000 as a loss which he can count against his income for that year. So now he only has to pay taxes on $90,000. If he owned ten such properties, his income would be zero, at least according to the IRS.

The Good Ol' Days: When Tax Rates Were 90 Percent | Andrew Syrios

 

[boedicca]

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.

The rich paid more than they do today

You're mistaken.

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.

We didn't have insane, unfunded transfer payments back then like we do today.

The United States spent far more on national defense as a percentage of GDP from 1940 to 1980 than it does today. Today defense spending has dropped to 3% of annual GDP. During the 1980s it averaged 6% of GDP. During the Vietnam War it averaged 10% of GDP. In the 1950s it was even higher. During World War II it was 37% of GDP. Tax revenue was obtained to pay for these things whether you think the rich paid more or not. The top federal tax rate was 70% to 94% from 1940 to 1980. Its much lower now.

The United States can increase revenue coming into the government by raising the top federal tax rate. Doing so will make balancing the budget easier, and provide more money for many government programs especially defense. The tax increase on the rich won't hurt the economy because the rich don't change their consumer spending regardless of their tax rate.

And we spend far more on Entitlements today than we did back then. It's clear you NEVER actually try to verify the "data" you spew.

 

[task0778]

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%?

People modify their behaviors based on the marginal benefit of marginal after tax earnings. Too high of a tax, the extra work is not worth the effort. The economy has a maximum tolerance for taxation.

View attachment 238619

Well, the rich did not behave that way from 1940 to 1980. They continued to pay top federal tax rate above 70%. Plus having low tax rates on the rich since the year 2000 has not spurred economic growth. Average annual GDP growth since the year 2000 has been under 2%.

Not true. Why in hell would you think that? Show me the link that says that, I think you flat out made it up.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

The rich paid more than they do today

You're mistaken.

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.

We didn't have insane, unfunded transfer payments back then like we do today.

The United States spent far more on national defense as a percentage of GDP from 1940 to 1980 than it does today. Today defense spending has dropped to 3% of annual GDP. During the 1980s it averaged 6% of GDP. During the Vietnam War it averaged 10% of GDP. In the 1950s it was even higher. During World War II it was 37% of GDP. Tax revenue was obtained to pay for these things whether you think the rich paid more or not. The top federal tax rate was 70% to 94% from 1940 to 1980. Its much lower now.

The United States can increase revenue coming into the government by raising the top federal tax rate. Doing so will make balancing the budget easier, and provide more money for many government programs especially defense. The tax increase on the rich won't hurt the economy because the rich don't change their consumer spending regardless of their tax rate.

We make 200k....how much do you want and are you willing to come get it yourself?

I'm willing to vote to have the government increase the top federal tax rate back to 70% because I think it will put the country on more sound financial footing and help to pay for a lot of the country's spending priorities while also not hurting economic growth.

 

[boedicca]

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.

The rich paid more than they do today

You're mistaken.

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.

We didn't have insane, unfunded transfer payments back then like we do today.

The United States spent far more on national defense as a percentage of GDP from 1940 to 1980 than it does today. Today defense spending has dropped to 3% of annual GDP. During the 1980s it averaged 6% of GDP. During the Vietnam War it averaged 10% of GDP. In the 1950s it was even higher. During World War II it was 37% of GDP. Tax revenue was obtained to pay for these things whether you think the rich paid more or not. The top federal tax rate was 70% to 94% from 1940 to 1980. Its much lower now.

The United States can increase revenue coming into the government by raising the top federal tax rate. Doing so will make balancing the budget easier, and provide more money for many government programs especially defense. The tax increase on the rich won't hurt the economy because the rich don't change their consumer spending regardless of their tax rate.

We make 200k....how much do you want and are you willing to come get it yourself?

I'm willing to vote to have the government increase the top federal tax rate back to 70% because I think it will put the country on more sound financial footing and help to pay for a lot of the country's spending priorities while also not hurting economic growth.

Your FeelZ are clearly not the basis for sound fiscal policy.

 

[task0778]

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.

The rich paid more than they do today

You're mistaken.

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.

We didn't have insane, unfunded transfer payments back then like we do today.

The United States spent far more on national defense as a percentage of GDP from 1940 to 1980 than it does today. Today defense spending has dropped to 3% of annual GDP. During the 1980s it averaged 6% of GDP. During the Vietnam War it averaged 10% of GDP. In the 1950s it was even higher. During World War II it was 37% of GDP. Tax revenue was obtained to pay for these things whether you think the rich paid more or not. The top federal tax rate was 70% to 94% from 1940 to 1980. Its much lower now.

The United States can increase revenue coming into the government by raising the top federal tax rate. Doing so will make balancing the budget easier, and provide more money for many government programs especially defense. The tax increase on the rich won't hurt the economy because the rich don't change their consumer spending regardless of their tax rate.

We make 200k....how much do you want and are you willing to come get it yourself?

I'm willing to vote to have the government increase the top federal tax rate back to 70% because I think it will put the country on more sound financial footing and help to pay for a lot of the country's spending priorities while also not hurting economic growth.

If we raised the top marginal rate it would NOT put the country on more sound financial footing, cuz you know damn well they'd just increase spending. And to say that economic growth would not be hurt is pure nonsense. Spare me the crap about the 1950s, that was then and this is now and in today's global economy high tax rates JUST DON'T WORK.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

The rich paid more than they do today

You're mistaken.

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.

We didn't have insane, unfunded transfer payments back then like we do today.

The United States spent far more on national defense as a percentage of GDP from 1940 to 1980 than it does today. Today defense spending has dropped to 3% of annual GDP. During the 1980s it averaged 6% of GDP. During the Vietnam War it averaged 10% of GDP. In the 1950s it was even higher. During World War II it was 37% of GDP. Tax revenue was obtained to pay for these things whether you think the rich paid more or not. The top federal tax rate was 70% to 94% from 1940 to 1980. Its much lower now.

The United States can increase revenue coming into the government by raising the top federal tax rate. Doing so will make balancing the budget easier, and provide more money for many government programs especially defense. The tax increase on the rich won't hurt the economy because the rich don't change their consumer spending regardless of their tax rate.

The United States spent far more on national defense as a percentage of GDP from 1940 to 1980 than it does today. Today defense spending has dropped to 3% of annual GDP. During the 1980s it averaged 6% of GDP.

And how much do we spend today on transfer payments?
How much did we spend on them in 1980? In 1940?

 

[Ambivalent1]

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.

The rich paid more than they do today

You're mistaken.

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.

We didn't have insane, unfunded transfer payments back then like we do today.

The United States spent far more on national defense as a percentage of GDP from 1940 to 1980 than it does today. Today defense spending has dropped to 3% of annual GDP. During the 1980s it averaged 6% of GDP. During the Vietnam War it averaged 10% of GDP. In the 1950s it was even higher. During World War II it was 37% of GDP. Tax revenue was obtained to pay for these things whether you think the rich paid more or not. The top federal tax rate was 70% to 94% from 1940 to 1980. Its much lower now.

The United States can increase revenue coming into the government by raising the top federal tax rate. Doing so will make balancing the budget easier, and provide more money for many government programs especially defense. The tax increase on the rich won't hurt the economy because the rich don't change their consumer spending regardless of their tax rate.

We make 200k....how much do you want and are you willing to come get it yourself?

I'm willing to vote to have the government increase the top federal tax rate back to 70% because I think it will put the country on more sound financial footing and help to pay for a lot of the country's spending priorities while also not hurting economic growth.

Of course you're willing to "vote".
You have no balls.

 

[U2Edge]

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%?

People modify their behaviors based on the marginal benefit of marginal after tax earnings. Too high of a tax, the extra work is not worth the effort. The economy has a maximum tolerance for taxation.

View attachment 238619

Well, the rich did not behave that way from 1940 to 1980. They continued to pay top federal tax rate above 70%. Plus having low tax rates on the rich since the year 2000 has not spurred economic growth. Average annual GDP growth since the year 2000 has been under 2%.

Not true. Why in hell would you think that? Show me the link that says that, I think you flat out made it up.

1. Average annual GDP growth from 1940 to 1980 was higher than 1980 to 2018.

2. Large amounts of revenue came into the government to pay for wars and manage the national debt from 1940 to 1980.

3. So the tax rates did not hurt economic growth and allowed the country to pay for a lot of things.

4. I don't see any evidence that rich people work harder today than they did 1940 - 1980. Given that average annual GDP growth is less than 2%, it would suggest that they work less or are less productive than they were from 1940 to 1980.

5. Bottom line, the tax policy of 1940 to 1980, saw the country have stronger economic growth and be on a more sound financial footing than it is today!

 

[boedicca]

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%?

People modify their behaviors based on the marginal benefit of marginal after tax earnings. Too high of a tax, the extra work is not worth the effort. The economy has a maximum tolerance for taxation.

View attachment 238619

Well, the rich did not behave that way from 1940 to 1980. They continued to pay top federal tax rate above 70%. Plus having low tax rates on the rich since the year 2000 has not spurred economic growth. Average annual GDP growth since the year 2000 has been under 2%.

Not true. Why in hell would you think that? Show me the link that says that, I think you flat out made it up.

1. Average annual GDP growth from 1940 to 1980 was higher than 1980 to 2018.

2. Large amounts of revenue came into the government to pay for wars and manage the national debt from 1940 to 1980.

3. So the tax rates did not hurt economic growth and allowed the country to pay for a lot of things.

4. I don't see any evidence that rich people work harder today than they did 1940 - 1980. Given that average annual GDP growth is less than 2%, it would suggest that they work less or are less productive than they were from 1940 to 1980.

5. Bottom line, the tax policy of 1940 to 1980, saw the country have stronger economic growth and be on a more sound financial footing than it is today!

Ah, I see that you follow the Underpants Gnome school of logic:

1. High Taxes
2. ???
3. Economic Growth!