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

[leftwinger]

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.

Truman got a 92% rate during the Korean War. Did not use any weapons to do it. Again the top federal rate for taxes was above 70% from 1940 to 1980. No weapons needed to get that rate either.

I'm inviting YOU to try and take what you want from me.
No?

Old Yeller yeller

You a coward also kid?

No i am not a coward that i am aware of, but not really tested. You behind keyboard daring someone to "come take it". Crazy much? The IRS would simply take your bank first, then properties. I suppose you sit home with gold bars under your bed holding a shotgun? Not able to stray far from home?

 

[Indeependent]

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.

Why do Bono and Edge disagree with you?

 

[P F Tinmore]

A flat tax that applied to all income is the fairest kind of tax, all income, no deductions, applies to everyone. Make it 5% or 20%, but apply it equally to everyone and every penny of income. You could even have a floor below which no tax would be due in order to help low income people. But the floor should be quite low, maybe 10K/year.

I don't think our problem is how we are taxed. Any method of taxation with have its share of winners and loser. There is no such thing as "fair taxation". All taxation is unfair in some form or another.

The problem is that we spend too much money on the cost of government and therefore have to raise a ton of money, which winds up fucking everybody. Either directly or indirectly we all pay for this big bloated out of control government.

The real way to have tax reform is to stop spending so much damn money for the cost of government and to stop taxing the people so much.

Of course the welfare queens that suck off the teat of big government would hate that, wouldn't they?

The problem is that we spend too much money on the cost of government and therefore have to raise a ton of money,

Indeed, we have the military industrial complex, the homeland security industrial complex, the private prison industrial complex, the charter school industrial complex, etc..

All this is money out of the pockets of the people and into the pockets of the 1%. All this is brought to you by our corporate owned politicians.

 

[OnePercenter]

Corporations should pay the same percentage of revenue as the middle class pay's in percentage of income.

Excellent idea! As the middle quintile net effective tax rate is about 15%, that would mean a cut in corporate taxes.

The middle class pay's 15% of their total income to federal tax, corporations under the tRump tax cuts pay 1.5% of revenue to federal tax.

 

[OnePercenter]

Corporations should pay the same percentage of revenue as the middle class pay's in percentage of income.

Excellent idea! As the middle quintile net effective tax rate is about 15%, that would mean a cut in corporate taxes.

He wants to tax revenue, not income.
He's an idiot.

You believe in making me richer by fucking yourself? That's not very smart.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Corporations should pay the same percentage of revenue as the middle class pay's in percentage of income.

Excellent idea! As the middle quintile net effective tax rate is about 15%, that would mean a cut in corporate taxes.

He wants to tax revenue, not income.
He's an idiot.

You believe in making me richer by fucking yourself? That's not very smart.

You're an idiot, I'm laughing at you.

 

[Thinker101]

Corporations should pay the same percentage of revenue as the middle class pay's in percentage of income.

Excellent idea! As the middle quintile net effective tax rate is about 15%, that would mean a cut in corporate taxes.

He wants to tax revenue, not income.
He's an idiot.

You believe in making me richer by fucking yourself? That's not very smart.

Not to worry, if Democrats raise taxes you'll become their new best friend.

 

[Dana7360]

Actually that's so not true. Especially when it comes to state and local taxes. Those state and local taxes paid for those schools and roads. Most colleges were privately owned which made them way to expensive for regular Americans to attend,. Local taxes paid for subways too.

As for the Army and Navy, we basically didn't have much of one after the civil war. We didn't have much of one until Theodore Roosevelt became the Assistant Secretary of the Navy. The Secretary of the Navy was a.sick man so he wasn't around much. TR basically did his job. He built up the Navy when he was the Assistant.

The federal government did impose taxes and tariffs on things to pay for expenses. Just because the federal income tax amendment happened in 1913, doesn't mean that the federal and state governments didn't impose and collect taxes.

For instance:

In order to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War, Congress imposed its first personal income tax in 1861.[15] It was part of the Revenue Act of 1861 (3% of all incomes over US $800; rescinded in 1872). Congress also enacted the Revenue Act of 1862, which levied a 3% tax on incomes above $600, rising to 5% for incomes above $10,000. Rates were raised in 1864. This income tax was repealed in 1872.

The government used federal income taxes to pay for wars. When the debt was paid the tax was repealed.

Your simplistic and dishonest meme is ridiculous to those of us who actually know the history of our nation.

 

[Oddball]

Actually that's so not true. Especially when it comes to state and local taxes. Those state and local taxes paid for those schools and roads. Most colleges were privately owned which made them way to expensive for regular Americans to attend,. Local taxes paid for subways too.

As for the Army and Navy, we basically didn't have much of one after the civil war. We didn't have much of one until Theodore Roosevelt became the Assistant Secretary of the Navy. The Secretary of the Navy was a.sick man so he wasn't around much. TR basically did his job. He built up the Navy when he was the Assistant.

The federal government did impose taxes and tariffs on things to pay for expenses. Just because the federal income tax amendment happened in 1913, doesn't mean that the federal and state governments didn't impose and collect taxes.

For instance:

In order to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War, Congress imposed its first personal income tax in 1861.[15] It was part of the Revenue Act of 1861 (3% of all incomes over US $800; rescinded in 1872). Congress also enacted the Revenue Act of 1862, which levied a 3% tax on incomes above $600, rising to 5% for incomes above $10,000. Rates were raised in 1864. This income tax was repealed in 1872.

The government used federal income taxes to pay for wars. When the debt was paid the tax was repealed.

Your simplistic and dishonest meme is ridiculous to those of us who actually know the history of our nation.

There was still no federal income tax, yet all those things still got done, and that's the point that flew over your head.

 

[boedicca]

Corporations should pay the same percentage of revenue as the middle class pay's in percentage of income.

Excellent idea! As the middle quintile net effective tax rate is about 15%, that would mean a cut in corporate taxes.

He wants to tax revenue, not income.
He's an idiot.

Ack. Good catch. Yes, he is an idiot.

 

[boedicca]

Corporations should pay the same percentage of revenue as the middle class pay's in percentage of income.

Excellent idea! As the middle quintile net effective tax rate is about 15%, that would mean a cut in corporate taxes.

The middle class pay's 15% of their total income to federal tax, corporations under the tRump tax cuts pay 1.5% of revenue to federal tax.

Excellent! Lower Taxes is Mo Bettah.

 

[U2Edge]

Enough made that type of income that Truman raised the tax rate and paid directly for the Korean War instead of borrowing! Guess what. It worked. The Korean war is the only war in U.S. history besides the Gulf War where the United States did not borrow money to pay for it. It was paid directly by taxes that were raised by Truman! The money was there, it was taxed and was enough to pay for the war and it did not hurt the economy.

The Dems cut taxes after WWII and economic growth paid for the Korean War.

But thanks for playing!

Truman cut tax rates after World War II. The top federal rate came down to 81%. After the Korean war started in the summer of 1950 the top federal tax rate increase to 92%. The direct cost of the Korean War was paid for with tax dollars. No borrowing. Only time that has happened in U.S. history with regards to a war, except the Gulf War where Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Germany and Japan paid for the cost.

I suggest that you look at those brackets indexed for inflation than look up Federal Effective Tax rates to understand how nobody paid those amounts.

Its the fact that the direct cost of the Korean war were paid for in increased U.S. tax dollars, no borrowing. The rich can pay more than they do not in taxes. They will eventually. Political support is growing to make them do so. It won't hurt the economy and will help the country. Its the only way to solve the debt problem and continue to pay for defense, social security, medicare, Medicaid and other government programs.

I call shenanigans. You have spewed a great deal of your economic and tax theories. Please provide credible and empirical evidence for what you are claiming.

In RealityLand, the Federal government ran a cumulative deficit for the Korean War period,

View attachment 238633

Never said there wasn't a deficit during the Korean War, just that the direct cost of the war in 1950, 1951, 1952, and 1953 was paid up with tax dollars.

 

[U2Edge]

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.


View attachment 238630

So what. The government can get more money out of rich without hurting the economy. It will benefit the rest of the country. Its good policy and should be implemented. It will help pay down the national debt and provide for vital government programs including national defense. The rich are living high off the hog. A higher top federal tax rate is coming whether you like it or not. There is simply no other solution.

Yes there is: LESS SPENDING. The federal gov't has to reform the entitlement programs and bring deficit spending under control. THAT is the only real solution. You don't seem to understand, you're not going to get that much extra revenue by raising taxes.

I strongly disagree that you would not be able to get much extra revenue by raising taxes. It would be stupid to cut defense spending giving all of the United States national security commitments across the world. Cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid would be a non-starter for most voters. But raising taxes on the top 1%. That is something that most people could support. Mr. Median makes about the same amount of money now as he did in 1980, while the top 1% wealth and income has ballooned.

Finally, most countries around the world have much higher tax rates than the United States does. That would not be the case if higher tax rates did not bring in more revenue as you claim. In Norway, annual tax revenue is 54% of GDP, in the United States its only 22% of GDP. Guess which country has the higher standard of living?

 

[U2Edge]

Yep, I guess that guy Warren Buffet has not either since he supports the same tax policy.

Why does he need to support a new policy?
If he thinks he should pay more to the government, he can simply cut a check.

It's weird though, that by giving billions to charity, he's actually paying zero to the government.
I guess we should look at his actions more than his words.

Sure, but Warren Buffet is not the only wealthy person out there. You need a policy in place to make it work.

Sure, but Warren Buffet is not the only wealthy person out there.

Of course not. He's just a guy worth $80 billion who thinks the rich should pay more, while he does all he can to pay ZERO.

You need a policy in place to make it work.

He should lead by example.
He could give half his net worth to the federal government.
He could give $40 billion to the federal government next week.
Just to show everyone how they should give more.

Don't disagree, but a new tax policy implemented by the government will bring in more revenue than a generous donation by Warren Buffet and a few other people.

How much new revenue did the recent hikes in Connecticut bring in?
Did growth suffer?

Or when Illinois raised rates from 3% to 4.95%?
We must have balanced the Illinois budget, eh?

Don't care about individual state issues that may or may not advance that idea that raising taxes on the rich is a bad idea. At the national level, I think the top federal tax rate can be significantly increased without hurting economic growth. That will automatically bring in more revenue.

The Bush and Clinton tax hikes in the 1990s did not hurt economic growth and brought in more revenue. In fact, by Clinton's second term there were four solid years of budget surpluses. PROOF, that tax hikes worked to bring in more revenue while not hurting the economy!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why does he need to support a new policy?
If he thinks he should pay more to the government, he can simply cut a check.

It's weird though, that by giving billions to charity, he's actually paying zero to the government.
I guess we should look at his actions more than his words.

Sure, but Warren Buffet is not the only wealthy person out there. You need a policy in place to make it work.

Sure, but Warren Buffet is not the only wealthy person out there.

Of course not. He's just a guy worth $80 billion who thinks the rich should pay more, while he does all he can to pay ZERO.

You need a policy in place to make it work.

He should lead by example.
He could give half his net worth to the federal government.
He could give $40 billion to the federal government next week.
Just to show everyone how they should give more.

Don't disagree, but a new tax policy implemented by the government will bring in more revenue than a generous donation by Warren Buffet and a few other people.

How much new revenue did the recent hikes in Connecticut bring in?
Did growth suffer?

Or when Illinois raised rates from 3% to 4.95%?
We must have balanced the Illinois budget, eh?

Don't care about individual state issues that may or may not advance that idea that raising taxes on the rich is a bad idea. At the national level, I think the top federal tax rate can be significantly increased without hurting economic growth. That will automatically bring in more revenue.

The Bush and Clinton tax hikes in the 1990s did not hurt economic growth and brought in more revenue. In fact, by Clinton's second term there were four solid years of budget surpluses. PROOF, that tax hikes worked to bring in more revenue while not hurting the economy!

Don't care about individual state issues

Of course you don't.
Because it refutes your claims that higher rates don't harm the economy and raise lots of revenue.

At the national level, I think the top federal tax rate can be significantly increased without hurting economic growth.

And I think you're wrong.

The Bush and Clinton tax hikes in the 1990s did not hurt economic growth

Prove it.

In fact, by Clinton's second term there were four solid years of budget surpluses.

Gingrich wouldn't let him spend and the Internet Bubble temporarily inflated revenues.

 

[task0778]

Why does he need to support a new policy?
If he thinks he should pay more to the government, he can simply cut a check.

It's weird though, that by giving billions to charity, he's actually paying zero to the government.
I guess we should look at his actions more than his words.

Sure, but Warren Buffet is not the only wealthy person out there. You need a policy in place to make it work.

Sure, but Warren Buffet is not the only wealthy person out there.

Of course not. He's just a guy worth $80 billion who thinks the rich should pay more, while he does all he can to pay ZERO.

You need a policy in place to make it work.

He should lead by example.
He could give half his net worth to the federal government.
He could give $40 billion to the federal government next week.
Just to show everyone how they should give more.

Don't disagree, but a new tax policy implemented by the government will bring in more revenue than a generous donation by Warren Buffet and a few other people.

How much new revenue did the recent hikes in Connecticut bring in?
Did growth suffer?

Or when Illinois raised rates from 3% to 4.95%?
We must have balanced the Illinois budget, eh?

Don't care about individual state issues that may or may not advance that idea that raising taxes on the rich is a bad idea. At the national level, I think the top federal tax rate can be significantly increased without hurting economic growth. That will automatically bring in more revenue.

The Bush and Clinton tax hikes in the 1990s did not hurt economic growth and brought in more revenue. In fact, by Clinton's second term there were four solid years of budget surpluses. PROOF, that tax hikes worked to bring in more revenue while not hurting the economy!

A few things left to talk about:

1. I presented the French tax hikes back in 2012 or thereabouts, but you ignored that, why? It didn't work for them and they had to repeal it, what makes you think it would work for us? They didn't get the expected increase in revenue, so why do you think it would be different for us?

2. In your other post #493, you talked about Norway and other countries with a higher tax rate. Are you aware that those countries employ a VAT tax that is in the neighborhood of 25% that everybody pays? Which is in addition to the income taxes and other taxes, which totals up to around an average tax burden of 50%, you wanna try running for office on that here in the US? And everybody pays taxes, everybody. None of this stuff where almost half the population pays no income tax.

3. And Norway is sort of a special case cuz they got oil out the ying-yang and so with their small population they don't have to tax their citizens as much as Sweden, Finland, and Denmark do. The thing is about those countries, they have small, heterogeneous populations and they are a lot less diverse than we are, at least until they started letting in so many refugees from the ME and Africa. So what works for them won't necessarily work for us, and they don't have much of a national defense cuz we pretty much have their backs, you know?

4. I'll give you this much, sometimes raising taxes is a good idea to slow down a booming economy like the one we had under Clinton back in the 90s. Which he didn't have jack squat to do with, he just got lucky but that's when you want to raise taxes and interest rates. But you're not supposed to spend the extra revenue, you're supposed to pay down the debt, which of course the pols in Washington in both parties will never do. So, the Clinton tax hikes didn't hurt the economy at all cuz it was going gangbusters anyway and the rate hike wasn't that much, but there are times when a tax hike is a bad idea, such as when the economy isn't booming and in fact is slowing. Ditto interest rate hikes, there are times when it isn't smart to do that and right now is not the time. Because tax rate hikes WILL slow down an economy if it's significant enough. And trust me, a 70% top marginal rate is more than significant enough.

And a tax rate like what you're talking about, from today's 37% marginal rate up to 70% would be suicidal for our economy. I could pretty much guarantee a recession or a depression if that happened, but the good news is that the GOP Senate would NEVER pass that and even if they did Trump would veto it, so it ain't going to happen. Now, if a Dem gets elected to the WH and the Dems take the Senate and keep the House then we'll see. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that if that happened, say if the Senate Dems passed a tax hike like that using the nuclear option and the Dem POTUS signed it then you'd see the biggest Red Wave in history in 2022 and 2024. But frankly I don't think the Dems are that stupid, they might pass a smaller tax hike but nothing even close to 70%.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.


View attachment 238630

So what. The government can get more money out of rich without hurting the economy. It will benefit the rest of the country. Its good policy and should be implemented. It will help pay down the national debt and provide for vital government programs including national defense. The rich are living high off the hog. A higher top federal tax rate is coming whether you like it or not. There is simply no other solution.

Yes there is: LESS SPENDING. The federal gov't has to reform the entitlement programs and bring deficit spending under control. THAT is the only real solution. You don't seem to understand, you're not going to get that much extra revenue by raising taxes.

I strongly disagree that you would not be able to get much extra revenue by raising taxes. It would be stupid to cut defense spending giving all of the United States national security commitments across the world. Cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid would be a non-starter for most voters. But raising taxes on the top 1%. That is something that most people could support. Mr. Median makes about the same amount of money now as he did in 1980, while the top 1% wealth and income has ballooned.

Finally, most countries around the world have much higher tax rates than the United States does. That would not be the case if higher tax rates did not bring in more revenue as you claim. In Norway, annual tax revenue is 54% of GDP, in the United States its only 22% of GDP. Guess which country has the higher standard of living?

In Norway, annual tax revenue is 54% of GDP, in the United States its only 22% of GDP. Guess which country has the higher standard of living?

Is it the one with trillions worth of government owned oil deposits?
The one with fewer than 6 million people?
The one with less than 9% non-Europeans?
The one that spends less than half what we do on defense?

 

[Redfish]

With a 21 trillion dollar debt it is inevitable that tax rates will rise. Trickle down economics has never worked. 70% tax rate seems over the top, but raising the top marginal rate to between 45 to 50% may be in the offing if the national debt continues to spiral out of control.

Why is it over the top? Americans were just fine with a top federal tax rate of between 70% and 94% from 1940 to 1980. The United States was a superpower without all the funding and debt problems we have today.

no one paid those rates back then, there were exemptions and deductions that allowed high earners to write off much of their income, so no one actually ever paid 70% or 94%, no one, ever.

 

[LeftofLeft]

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.

Cut Spending then we can talk tax increases.

 

[Redfish]

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.

When a person is paying more than 50% in taxes they are no longer working for themselves.
They have become a government slave.

So from 1940 to 1980, the rich were government slaves and suffering? Do you really think Elvis Presley lived the life of a SLAVE?

Elvis never paid 70% either. So if you tell Beyoncé and Streisand and Baldwin that they have to pay 700K of every million they make to the government, guess what, they will all move to Monte Carlo or Luxemburg where the tax rates are much lower. That also applies to rich CEOs, who would move their companies and all of their employees to lower tax countries.