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

[U2Edge]

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.

Balls for what?

 

[task0778]

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.

I think he's got balls. Or she, whatever. But he/she definitely has no brains, to say that a 70% top marginal tax rate would not hurt economic growth is crazy. The French tried it a few years back under Hollande and it was an abject failure that had to be rolled back.

 

[Ambivalent1]

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.

Balls for what?

To step in front of people. To try and take what you want without using the force of others. You're just another puke.

 

[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.

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!

And I guess you believe that having a top federal tax rate of over 70% caused the country to struggle to pay for defense and caused it to drown in debt. Sorry, didn't happen. The country had better economic growth and was on more sound financial footing from 1940 to 1980 than today.

Lets go back to when the national debt was only 33% of GDP back in 1980. Cutting the top federal tax rate from 70% to 37% has helped to create the situation were in today with the national debt at 105% of annual GDP. As the top federal tax rates came down, debt as a percentage of GDP gradually went up.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

Balls for what?

To step in front of people. To try and take what you want without using the force of others. You're just another puke.

Good Lord, I'm talking about government policy. Does not sound like you understand what that is.

 

[boedicca]

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!

And I guess you believe that having a top federal tax rate of over 70% caused the country to struggle to pay for defense and caused it to drown in debt. Sorry, didn't happen. The country had better economic growth and was on more sound financial footing from 1940 to 1980 than today.

Lets go back to when the national debt was only 33% of GDP back in 1980. Cutting the top federal tax rate from 70% to 37% has helped to create the situation were in today with the national debt at 105% of annual GDP. As the top federal tax rates came down, debt as a percentage of GDP gradually went up.

Uh. Dood. The ratio of tax receipts to GDP was not higher back then, so you are spewing nonsense. The real issue we have is overspending, not undertaxing.

 

[Ambivalent1]

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.

Balls for what?

To step in front of people. To try and take what you want without using the force of others. You're just another puke.

Good Lord, I'm talking about government policy. Does not sound like you understand what that is.

You're talking about hiding behind a force.
I'm inviting you to try and take what you want because the powers that be will not support you taking anyone's weapons.

 

[boedicca]

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.

Balls for what?

To step in front of people. To try and take what you want without using the force of others. You're just another puke.

Good Lord, I'm talking about government policy. Does not sound like you understand what that is.

You're talking about hiding behind a force.
I'm inviting you to try and take what you want because the powers that be will not support you taking anyone's weapons.

He's counting on Eric Swalwell nuking gun owners.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

I think he's got balls. Or she, whatever. But he/she definitely has no brains, to say that a 70% top marginal tax rate would not hurt economic growth is crazy. The French tried it a few years back under Hollande and it was an abject failure that had to be rolled back.

FACT: top federal tax rate was over 70% in the 1960s. Average GDP growth in the 1960s was over 5%.

FACT" top federal tax rate since the year 2000 as been less than 40%. Average GDP growth since the year 2000 has been LESS THAN 2%.

So, does increasing the top federal tax rate on the rich hurt economic growth? NO Does cutting the top federal tax rate on the rich increase economic growth? NO

 

[TNHarley]

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.

Our fed gov is corrupt, wasteful, ignorant and selfish. We let them be that way.
You are retarded if you think that is a solution.

 

[boedicca]

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.

I think he's got balls. Or she, whatever. But he/she definitely has no brains, to say that a 70% top marginal tax rate would not hurt economic growth is crazy. The French tried it a few years back under Hollande and it was an abject failure that had to be rolled back.

FACT: top federal tax rate was over 70% in the 1960s. Average GDP growth in the 1960s was over 5%.

FACT" top federal tax rate since the year 2000 as been less than 40%. Average GDP growth since the year 2000 has been LESS THAN 2%.

So, does increasing the top federal tax rate on the rich hurt economic growth? NO Does cutting the top federal tax rate on the rich increase economic growth? NO

You blithering babbling moron. NOBODY paid that rate on their incomes. They had more tax deductions and exemptions.

 

[Ambivalent1]

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.

I think he's got balls. Or she, whatever. But he/she definitely has no brains, to say that a 70% top marginal tax rate would not hurt economic growth is crazy. The French tried it a few years back under Hollande and it was an abject failure that had to be rolled back.

FACT: top federal tax rate was over 70% in the 1960s. Average GDP growth in the 1960s was over 5%.

FACT" top federal tax rate since the year 2000 as been less than 40%. Average GDP growth since the year 2000 has been LESS THAN 2%.

So, does increasing the top federal tax rate on the rich hurt economic growth? NO Does cutting the top federal tax rate on the rich increase economic growth? NO

Come try and take what you want from me....

 

[U2Edge]

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.

Balls for what?

To step in front of people. To try and take what you want without using the force of others. You're just another puke.

Good Lord, I'm talking about government policy. Does not sound like you understand what that is.

You're talking about hiding behind a force.
I'm inviting you to try and take what you want because the powers that be will not support you taking anyone's weapons.

Weapons? This thread is about tax policy. Lawmakers enact tax policies. IF you vote, your voting for a candidate that has a certain tax policy. Provided you vote, you do exactly the same thing as I do. I'm suggesting that the top federal tax rate be increased to 70% because it will not hurt economic growth and allow the country to pay down the national debt and help with spending on defense and other government programs.

Let me remind you that we have laws in this country. Are elected officials decide on the tax rates and then the government enforces them.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

I think he's got balls. Or she, whatever. But he/she definitely has no brains, to say that a 70% top marginal tax rate would not hurt economic growth is crazy. The French tried it a few years back under Hollande and it was an abject failure that had to be rolled back.

FACT: top federal tax rate was over 70% in the 1960s. Average GDP growth in the 1960s was over 5%.

FACT" top federal tax rate since the year 2000 as been less than 40%. Average GDP growth since the year 2000 has been LESS THAN 2%.

So, does increasing the top federal tax rate on the rich hurt economic growth? NO Does cutting the top federal tax rate on the rich increase economic growth? NO

Come try and take what you want from me....

I don't want anything from you, I want the government to enact a tax policy where the top federal tax rate goes back to 70%.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

I think he's got balls. Or she, whatever. But he/she definitely has no brains, to say that a 70% top marginal tax rate would not hurt economic growth is crazy. The French tried it a few years back under Hollande and it was an abject failure that had to be rolled back.

FACT: top federal tax rate was over 70% in the 1960s. Average GDP growth in the 1960s was over 5%.

FACT" top federal tax rate since the year 2000 as been less than 40%. Average GDP growth since the year 2000 has been LESS THAN 2%.

So, does increasing the top federal tax rate on the rich hurt economic growth? NO Does cutting the top federal tax rate on the rich increase economic growth? NO

You blithering babbling moron. NOBODY paid that rate on their incomes. They had more tax deductions and exemptions.

Well, then no one should mind going back to those rates.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

I think he's got balls. Or she, whatever. But he/she definitely has no brains, to say that a 70% top marginal tax rate would not hurt economic growth is crazy. The French tried it a few years back under Hollande and it was an abject failure that had to be rolled back.

FACT: top federal tax rate was over 70% in the 1960s. Average GDP growth in the 1960s was over 5%.

FACT" top federal tax rate since the year 2000 as been less than 40%. Average GDP growth since the year 2000 has been LESS THAN 2%.

So, does increasing the top federal tax rate on the rich hurt economic growth? NO Does cutting the top federal tax rate on the rich increase economic growth? NO

So, does increasing the top federal tax rate on the rich hurt economic growth?

Yes, raising the top rate would hurt growth and wouldn't raise nearly the revenue you feel it would.

 

[boedicca]

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.

I think he's got balls. Or she, whatever. But he/she definitely has no brains, to say that a 70% top marginal tax rate would not hurt economic growth is crazy. The French tried it a few years back under Hollande and it was an abject failure that had to be rolled back.

FACT: top federal tax rate was over 70% in the 1960s. Average GDP growth in the 1960s was over 5%.

FACT" top federal tax rate since the year 2000 as been less than 40%. Average GDP growth since the year 2000 has been LESS THAN 2%.

So, does increasing the top federal tax rate on the rich hurt economic growth? NO Does cutting the top federal tax rate on the rich increase economic growth? NO

You blithering babbling moron. NOBODY paid that rate on their incomes. They had more tax deductions and exemptions.

Well, then no one should mind going back to those rates.

You are a babbling fool. We don't have the deductions and exemptions they had back when those rates were in effect. And your advocacy for the increase does not include restoring them.

 

[Ambivalent1]

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.

I think he's got balls. Or she, whatever. But he/she definitely has no brains, to say that a 70% top marginal tax rate would not hurt economic growth is crazy. The French tried it a few years back under Hollande and it was an abject failure that had to be rolled back.

FACT: top federal tax rate was over 70% in the 1960s. Average GDP growth in the 1960s was over 5%.

FACT" top federal tax rate since the year 2000 as been less than 40%. Average GDP growth since the year 2000 has been LESS THAN 2%.

So, does increasing the top federal tax rate on the rich hurt economic growth? NO Does cutting the top federal tax rate on the rich increase economic growth? NO

Come try and take what you want from me....

I don't want anything from you, I want the government to enact a tax policy where the top federal tax rate goes back to 70%.

LOL, good luck.You'll NEED weapons to get a 70% rate.....you would suck AOC's toes. You are sick.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

I think he's got balls. Or she, whatever. But he/she definitely has no brains, to say that a 70% top marginal tax rate would not hurt economic growth is crazy. The French tried it a few years back under Hollande and it was an abject failure that had to be rolled back.

FACT: top federal tax rate was over 70% in the 1960s. Average GDP growth in the 1960s was over 5%.

FACT" top federal tax rate since the year 2000 as been less than 40%. Average GDP growth since the year 2000 has been LESS THAN 2%.

So, does increasing the top federal tax rate on the rich hurt economic growth? NO Does cutting the top federal tax rate on the rich increase economic growth? NO

So, does increasing the top federal tax rate on the rich hurt economic growth?

Yes, raising the top rate would hurt growth and wouldn't raise nearly the revenue you feel it would.

Well, that's false given the top federal tax rates from 1940 to 1980 were above 70% and the economy grew faster during that time period than it has since 1980.

 

[Ambivalent1]

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.

I think he's got balls. Or she, whatever. But he/she definitely has no brains, to say that a 70% top marginal tax rate would not hurt economic growth is crazy. The French tried it a few years back under Hollande and it was an abject failure that had to be rolled back.

FACT: top federal tax rate was over 70% in the 1960s. Average GDP growth in the 1960s was over 5%.

FACT" top federal tax rate since the year 2000 as been less than 40%. Average GDP growth since the year 2000 has been LESS THAN 2%.

So, does increasing the top federal tax rate on the rich hurt economic growth? NO Does cutting the top federal tax rate on the rich increase economic growth? NO

So, does increasing the top federal tax rate on the rich hurt economic growth?

Yes, raising the top rate would hurt growth and wouldn't raise nearly the revenue you feel it would.

Well, that's false given the top federal tax rates from 1940 to 1980 were above 70% and the economy grew faster during that time period than it has since 1980.

Come take my money kid.....