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

[danielpalos]

Why is anyone even considering the little idiot socialist's idea?

we have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.

Ok...so I ask again...

Why is anyone even considering the little idiot socialist's idea when she doesn't even know Israel is NOT building settlements in PALESTINE and unemployment is NOT low right now because people are working up-hour work weeks?

she got elected and has the delegated authority to help create law.

No, she is ignorantly flapping her ignorant socialist mouth.

You really think a 70% socialist tax is going to get passed, through the House and Senate?

better solutions at lower cost.

 

[easyt65]

Why is anyone even considering the little idiot socialist's idea?

we have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.

Ok...so I ask again...

Why is anyone even considering the little idiot socialist's idea when she doesn't even know Israel is NOT building settlements in PALESTINE and unemployment is NOT low right now because people are working up-hour work weeks?

she got elected and has the delegated authority to help create law.

No, she is ignorantly flapping her ignorant socialist mouth.

You really think a 70% socialist tax is going to get passed, through the House and Senate?

better solutions at lower cost.

You really think a 70% socialist tax is going to get passed, through the House and Senate?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The only way it was possible to maintain that level of slavery? Tax loopholes so that no one actually paid 70%, and the fact that World War 2 had destroyed the industrial base of every other industrialized country in Europe and Asia....leaving us the only country with any industry.......so if you want to do that, 70% would barely be possible......but now? No way....70% is how you get Venezuela, but with even less food and toilet paper...

Europe was largely rebuilt by the late 1950s/early 1960s. Asia was still largely undeveloped. Tax loopholes became much more common AFTER 1980, but were not common before 1980. Go back to 1978, the height of the disco era, plenty of wealth, but the richest were paying 70% of their income in federal tax. The country was a strong global super power, but the national debt was under control. It was only 33% of annual GDP back in 1978. The period from 1945 to 1980 shows that heavy taxes on the rich will not hurt the economy and will benefit the country as a whole in a variety of ways.

You are delusional.....

I'm just stating the fact that the top federal tax rate from 1945 to 1980 was between 70% and 94% depending on the year. That level of taxation did not hurt the economy since the average annual GDP growth in the time period of 1945 to 1980 in the United States was the highest in the country's history. The benefits were that you had strong economic growth combined with more revenue to pay for defense, domestic programs, balance the budget better, and reduce debt levels relative to GDP over time.

Since 1980, the huge reduction in the top federal tax rate has led huge increases in the national debt and difficulty in paying for defense and other government programs. Essentially, the country is being drowned in debt and starving when it comes to funding its vital foreign, domestic and defense programs simply to insure the rich keep a obscene level of wealth.

Exactly right.
There are many, many examples of how these tax cuts have have actually harmed average Americans over the last forty years but I'd like to share one that I feel is very important. It's a huge hurdle to the upward mobility of Americans. States used to subsidise their public universities to keep tuition affordable for most. Those lost revenues have caused runaway inflation in university tuitions around the country.

View attachment 238582

Sorry, but now...what has caused runaway inflation in University costs is guaranteed student loans......the more loans the government creates, the more tuition and expenses at Universities have increased...there is no governor on the level they can raise their fees......

The new system you are starting to see? Income sharing after graduation...you pay nothing while you are in school and then, when you get a job, you give the University part of your income until you pay off your tuition and fees.....this incentivises the school to make their education cost effective..since if you don't get a job, they don't get anything...

Bullshit.
Get a clue.

State Funding: A Race to the Bottom

A Lost Decade in Higher Education Funding

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You know what's really funny? The Dems want to raise taxes on the rich, except for those who live in high-tax mostly blue states who don't get to deduct their high mortgage interest payments from their federal taxes. Doesn't that strike anybody as being hypocritical?

If you are paying mortage on your primary residence you are not that rich.

But thats not even the point - screwing blue states like that was just WRONG.

You can still deduct up to $10K property & income tax total. Mortgage Interest up to $750K is deductible correct? This is median CA level.

The rich are being squeezed. Big houses, big incomes. That’s what Dems wanted? Correct?

As a percentage of their over all income, they aren't being squeezed at all.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Europe was largely rebuilt by the late 1950s/early 1960s. Asia was still largely undeveloped. Tax loopholes became much more common AFTER 1980, but were not common before 1980. Go back to 1978, the height of the disco era, plenty of wealth, but the richest were paying 70% of their income in federal tax. The country was a strong global super power, but the national debt was under control. It was only 33% of annual GDP back in 1978. The period from 1945 to 1980 shows that heavy taxes on the rich will not hurt the economy and will benefit the country as a whole in a variety of ways.

You are delusional.....

You are delusional.....

You are indeed.
Fred Trump was rich enough to transfer $400m to just one of his children despite the high rates.

Lol
Personal income should be none of the business of any part of the federal government… But then again socialism is entirely repugnant

Great. The point is, rich folks were still very, very rich.

Envy rules over you from day to day apparently... You know what they say about living in a glass houses?

Envy doesn't even enter the equation, dope.

Speak to the point. If you can.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.


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.

None of these fools get that you're talking about the uber wealthy. Those who over the last forty years who have pulled an obscene amount of money out of circulation. Taxation and govt spending put it directly back into circulation causing growth.

After Reagan started the trend of tax cuts, the uber wealthy have been pulling a larger and larger share of cash out of the economy.

 

[easyt65]

Why do Democrats hate this country so much that they want to destroy the strongest economy and prosperity in decades to turn this country into Venezuela?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

None of these fools get that you're talking about the uber wealthy. Those who over the last forty years who have pulled an obscene amount of money out of circulation. Taxation and govt spending put it directly back into circulation causing growth.

After Reagan started the trend of tax cuts, the uber wealthy have been pulling a larger and larger share of cash out of the economy.
View attachment 238770

Those who over the last forty years who have pulled an obscene amount of money out of circulation.


Hate that greedy duck.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

None of these fools get that you're talking about the uber wealthy. Those who over the last forty years who have pulled an obscene amount of money out of circulation. Taxation and govt spending put it directly back into circulation causing growth.

After Reagan started the trend of tax cuts, the uber wealthy have been pulling a larger and larger share of cash out of the economy.
View attachment 238770

Those who over the last forty years who have pulled an obscene amount of money out of circulation.


Hate that greedy duck.

It's really not surprising that you use cartoons to express your ideas.

 

[danielpalos]

Why do Democrats hate this country so much that they want to destroy the strongest economy and prosperity in decades to turn this country into Venezuela?

the right wing is worse.

 

[Third Party]

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.

Sounds good but, we did not have the social spending then we do now. To be fair, every percent hike in the "rich" tax would be matched by an equal per cent reduction in welfare or other social programs. At some point the two will hit a sweet spot and everybody will be happy!

 

[Andylusion]

Europe was largely rebuilt by the late 1950s/early 1960s. Asia was still largely undeveloped. Tax loopholes became much more common AFTER 1980, but were not common before 1980. Go back to 1978, the height of the disco era, plenty of wealth, but the richest were paying 70% of their income in federal tax. The country was a strong global super power, but the national debt was under control. It was only 33% of annual GDP back in 1978. The period from 1945 to 1980 shows that heavy taxes on the rich will not hurt the economy and will benefit the country as a whole in a variety of ways.

You are delusional.....

I'm just stating the fact that the top federal tax rate from 1945 to 1980 was between 70% and 94% depending on the year. That level of taxation did not hurt the economy since the average annual GDP growth in the time period of 1945 to 1980 in the United States was the highest in the country's history. The benefits were that you had strong economic growth combined with more revenue to pay for defense, domestic programs, balance the budget better, and reduce debt levels relative to GDP over time.

Since 1980, the huge reduction in the top federal tax rate has led huge increases in the national debt and difficulty in paying for defense and other government programs. Essentially, the country is being drowned in debt and starving when it comes to funding its vital foreign, domestic and defense programs simply to insure the rich keep a obscene level of wealth.

Exactly right.
There are many, many examples of how these tax cuts have have actually harmed average Americans over the last forty years but I'd like to share one that I feel is very important. It's a huge hurdle to the upward mobility of Americans. States used to subsidise their public universities to keep tuition affordable for most. Those lost revenues have caused runaway inflation in university tuitions around the country.

View attachment 238582

Sorry, but now...what has caused runaway inflation in University costs is guaranteed student loans......the more loans the government creates, the more tuition and expenses at Universities have increased...there is no governor on the level they can raise their fees......

The new system you are starting to see? Income sharing after graduation...you pay nothing while you are in school and then, when you get a job, you give the University part of your income until you pay off your tuition and fees.....this incentivises the school to make their education cost effective..since if you don't get a job, they don't get anything...

Bullshit.
Get a clue.

State Funding: A Race to the Bottom

A Lost Decade in Higher Education Funding

Which is why all the best universities in the world, are mostly in the US.
Which explains why all the other OECD countries have much higher taxes, to pay for their much fewer highest quality schools.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

None of these fools get that you're talking about the uber wealthy. Those who over the last forty years who have pulled an obscene amount of money out of circulation. Taxation and govt spending put it directly back into circulation causing growth.

After Reagan started the trend of tax cuts, the uber wealthy have been pulling a larger and larger share of cash out of the economy.
View attachment 238770

Are you completely ignorant?

Are you seriously suggesting that the wealthy have vaults of money all over the place?

By the way, you are wrong about the Reagan tax cuts causing this. The super wealthy, were super wealthy, long before the tax cuts.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

None of these fools get that you're talking about the uber wealthy. Those who over the last forty years who have pulled an obscene amount of money out of circulation. Taxation and govt spending put it directly back into circulation causing growth.

After Reagan started the trend of tax cuts, the uber wealthy have been pulling a larger and larger share of cash out of the economy.
View attachment 238770

Those who over the last forty years who have pulled an obscene amount of money out of circulation.


Hate that greedy duck.

It's really not surprising that you use cartoons to express your ideas.

I agree, your moronic claim that wealthy people "pull money out of circulation" is cartoonish at best.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

None of these fools get that you're talking about the uber wealthy. Those who over the last forty years who have pulled an obscene amount of money out of circulation. Taxation and govt spending put it directly back into circulation causing growth.

After Reagan started the trend of tax cuts, the uber wealthy have been pulling a larger and larger share of cash out of the economy.
View attachment 238770

Those who over the last forty years who have pulled an obscene amount of money out of circulation.


Hate that greedy duck.

It's really not surprising that you use cartoons to express your ideas.

I agree, your moronic claim that wealthy people "pull money out of circulation" is cartoonish at best.

Where does it go, fool?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

None of these fools get that you're talking about the uber wealthy. Those who over the last forty years who have pulled an obscene amount of money out of circulation. Taxation and govt spending put it directly back into circulation causing growth.

After Reagan started the trend of tax cuts, the uber wealthy have been pulling a larger and larger share of cash out of the economy.
View attachment 238770

Those who over the last forty years who have pulled an obscene amount of money out of circulation.


Hate that greedy duck.

It's really not surprising that you use cartoons to express your ideas.

I agree, your moronic claim that wealthy people "pull money out of circulation" is cartoonish at best.

Where does it go, fool?

How does it leave circulation, fool?

 

[Dana7360]

how is it moral for any government to confiscate 70% of your INCOME? Remember, income is not even "profit."

Well, where does your income come from? If you are a U.S. citizen living in the United States, it comes from the U.S. MARKET. Your income is based essentially on your market value. How much your house is worth is based on the MARKET. You were lucky to be born into the United States and its market. You are lucky to be able to take advantage of that market. The U.S. market was built long before you were born. It was protected, built, and grown by generations that came before you. In order for that market to continue, it needs a stable government that is able to protect it and maintain order. The government needs revenue to do that and the only way it can get that revenue is through taxes.

If I make $100mil and my tax bracket is 40% I pay $40mil. How much more do you want me to pay?! Wtf!?

If you make $100M, your people create a corporation in a tax friendly State such as Nevada, which reduces your federal tax liability to $1.5M. Bill gates is a Nevada corporation.

If you make $100M, your people create a corporation in a tax friendly State such as Nevada, which reduces your federal tax liability to $1.5M

Liar.

Prove Bill Gates isn't a Nevada corporation.

Are you saying that Microsoft is based or headquartered in Nevada?

If so that's not true. Their headquarters and base is in Redmond Washington.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that's headquartered or based in Seattle. On 5th Avenue across from the Seattle Center.

Bill and Melinda Gates live in Medina Washington.

If you mean something else please explain.

 

[Redfish]

As a thought experiment, Id like to see someone flesh this out using an average income and living an average life with averages used for all taxes and fees, and then if they havent done this math, I'd like to see them stop imagining arbitrary numbers to fit into the pessimistic view regarding life, in general.

I've done the math with my personal situation factoring in my income then adding up all the taxes I pay annually. Many taxes are hidden, or hidden as "fees", but they are still taxes if they come from government, or quasi government. I think you'd be shocked at the total tax burden many pay that are even just middle income earners.

I believe in reducing the tax burdens on the lower and middle classes because doing so translates into increase consumer spending which helps the economy. The problems is with income and wealth above 100,000 dollars. Rates for them should stay the same and then gradually increase as you go up the economic later with the top rate needing to be increased from 39% to 70%.

that system is exactly what we have today. the top 5% already pay most of the tax burden. Tax them more and they will take their businesses and money to another country.

 

[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.

I must concede that I have been wrong on this issue. I did so after looking at each year of revenue collection and level of spending from 1940 to 1980. Over those 41 years, only 8 of them actually saw a surplus. For most years, the country was still running a deficit. This to me strongly suggest that few people were actually paying 70% to 94% at the top federal tax rate.

But the deficits are smaller. Several of the surpluses, years 1951, 1956, 1957, 1960, occurred when the reported top federal rate was above 90%. But still, those surpluses were small.

Someone else posted in here a while back a site that said the "effective top federal tax rate" back then was more like 42% or 43%. That's higher than today, but not by a lot, and not nearly as much as 70% or 94%.

So the question is what is the maximum rate you can tax higher incomes, before you start to see negative economic effects or the flight of capital out the country?

I don't think spending can really be cut, in any significant way. I actually think that the defense budget needs to be increased to adequately meet our national security priorities around the world. I don't think there is anyway to cut Social Security and Medicare, unless you raise the age at which you can receive such benefits.

I still think there is room for some tax increases on the rich. But probably more in the range of 45% to 50% for the top federal tax rate.

The other way of course to solve these financial and funding problems is through some sort of economic miracle where the economy was growing at a steady 5% every year. But the average since the year 2000 as been a rather anemic slightly below 2% rate. The tax cuts for the wealthy under Bush and Trump have not led to any real increase in GDP. Its only made U.S. debt and funding problems more difficult.

Bottom line, I think I was wrong about the 70% top federal tax rate, but I still think there is room to raise the top federal tax rate from where it is now, without hurting the economy. I think a top federal tax rate of between 45% to 50%, could bring in more revenue to help with the country's budget problems without hurting the economy.

raising it from 39% to 50% would not raise enough money to make any difference in the federal budget. In the days of very high tax rates we also did not have massive social spending, and we were not supporting tens of millions of illegal aliens with our tax dollars.

the real answer is to reprioritize federal spending, eliminate waste, and demand efficiency in every federal agency, including congress. Will that ever happen-----------------when pigs fly.

 

[Redfish]

If workers had the same deductions/loopholes/subsidies as corporations, you'd be much better off.

WalMart has COGS, their workers don't.
That's not a subsidy for WalMart.

The vast majority of Americans, even before the Trump tax cuts, used the standard deduction.
WalMart didn't get to use that loophole.

WalMart has COGS, their workers don't.
That's not a subsidy for WalMart.

Workers don't have costs? Workers should be able to deduct rent/mortgage, cost of transportation to and from work.

I don't think you want to get into a conversation and Walmart subsidies.....You NEVER do well.

The vast majority of Americans, even before the Trump tax cuts, used the standard deduction.
WalMart didn't get to use that loophole.

The vast majority of American Workers don't make enough money (even with the tRump tax cuts) to itemize.

Walmart as well as all corporations have much better tax benefits than the standard deduction.

Great! Then let's lower taxes for EVERYONE!

The better idea is to raise pay for American Workers.

Which then leads to inflation, raising the cost of goods and services...resulting in nullification of the pay raise.

Not necessarily;

-Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2019 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.

-Companies with unlimited employees; employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2019 price structure.

-Remove the FICA limit.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 15 years which will eliminate inflation.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

-Make inversion illegal.

My plan would reduce business costs for employees and taxes to 30%. That's a 15%-30% drop.

My plan would put BILLIONS into the economy daily.

My plan would put the $100 trillion plus currently owned by corporate America back into the economy.

My plan would end all welfare.

My plan would significantly increase social security and pension payments.

My plan would hold prices for 10 years, thus eliminating inflation.

Then of course you have Chick-fil-A which raised their starting pay to $18.00/hr WITHOUT increasing prices.

are you crazy? we do not tax revenue, we tax profit. did you fail econ 101?