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

[Redfish]

I fully understand progressive tax rates, what I am telling you is that most liberals don't understand that and they think that they will take 70% of the rich guy's total income to punish him or her for being rich. I am also telling you that in the socialist countries it actually is 70% of all income.

LOL

You just said nothing.
You didn't understand and are now trying to cover. There was no need to add this if you understood.

Ask the people of Denmark if they like paying 65% of everything they earn. All of them, not just the rich.

what I said about Denmark is true, everyone pays 65% of all income.

As to progressive taxes, we have had that system in the USA for many years, In most of our income tax history the tax code included many exemptions and deductions that prevented the very rich from ever paying anywhere near 70%. Congress put those loopholes in the code to protect their rich donors. Many of those loopholes have now been closed and the tax table rates reduced, but federal revenues have increased, not decreased.

the liberal fantasy of equal income for everyone will never happen anywhere on earth. Socialism has failed miserably every place it has ever been tried. Look at Venezuela, once one of the richest countries in the world, now the people are starving and eating their pets and zoo animals.

what I said about Denmark is true, everyone pays 65% of all income.

Great. That only applies to the discussion if you believed the same to be true here.

PS:
Nobody gives a shit about Venezuela.

you and everyone else should give a shit about Venezuela, because it shows exactly what happens when socialists take control of a country.

The highest marginal tax rate was no lower than 70% from WWII to Reagan. The US was not socialist. Your analogy is dumb.

WTF does that have to do with Venezuela failing due to socialism? the only connection is that they tried to fix the mess by taxing the shit out of the rich and the oil companies.

 

[TheDude]

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.

I swear progs. don't have a fucking clue. They say shit they think sounds cool, repeated from someone else. We were the only game in town in 1980, or close. Today we have internet and global trade. A 70% tax would drive everyone away. Who would pay for all the welfare required by your 70% tax?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

LOL

You just said nothing.
You didn't understand and are now trying to cover. There was no need to add this if you understood.

what I said about Denmark is true, everyone pays 65% of all income.

As to progressive taxes, we have had that system in the USA for many years, In most of our income tax history the tax code included many exemptions and deductions that prevented the very rich from ever paying anywhere near 70%. Congress put those loopholes in the code to protect their rich donors. Many of those loopholes have now been closed and the tax table rates reduced, but federal revenues have increased, not decreased.

the liberal fantasy of equal income for everyone will never happen anywhere on earth. Socialism has failed miserably every place it has ever been tried. Look at Venezuela, once one of the richest countries in the world, now the people are starving and eating their pets and zoo animals.

what I said about Denmark is true, everyone pays 65% of all income.

Great. That only applies to the discussion if you believed the same to be true here.

PS:
Nobody gives a shit about Venezuela.

you and everyone else should give a shit about Venezuela, because it shows exactly what happens when socialists take control of a country.

The highest marginal tax rate was no lower than 70% from WWII to Reagan. The US was not socialist. Your analogy is dumb.

WTF does that have to do with Venezuela failing due to socialism? the only connection is that they tried to fix the mess by taxing the shit out of the rich and the oil companies.

It doesn't . That's the point.
You broughy venezula into the discussion.

 

[Thinker101]

what I said about Denmark is true, everyone pays 65% of all income.

As to progressive taxes, we have had that system in the USA for many years, In most of our income tax history the tax code included many exemptions and deductions that prevented the very rich from ever paying anywhere near 70%. Congress put those loopholes in the code to protect their rich donors. Many of those loopholes have now been closed and the tax table rates reduced, but federal revenues have increased, not decreased.

the liberal fantasy of equal income for everyone will never happen anywhere on earth. Socialism has failed miserably every place it has ever been tried. Look at Venezuela, once one of the richest countries in the world, now the people are starving and eating their pets and zoo animals.

what I said about Denmark is true, everyone pays 65% of all income.

Great. That only applies to the discussion if you believed the same to be true here.

PS:
Nobody gives a shit about Venezuela.

you and everyone else should give a shit about Venezuela, because it shows exactly what happens when socialists take control of a country.

The highest marginal tax rate was no lower than 70% from WWII to Reagan. The US was not socialist. Your analogy is dumb.

WTF does that have to do with Venezuela failing due to socialism? the only connection is that they tried to fix the mess by taxing the shit out of the rich and the oil companies.

It doesn't . That's the point.
You broughy venezula into the discussion.

Well, can we unbroughy venezula from the discussion?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Great. That only applies to the discussion if you believed the same to be true here.

PS:
Nobody gives a shit about Venezuela.

you and everyone else should give a shit about Venezuela, because it shows exactly what happens when socialists take control of a country.

The highest marginal tax rate was no lower than 70% from WWII to Reagan. The US was not socialist. Your analogy is dumb.

WTF does that have to do with Venezuela failing due to socialism? the only connection is that they tried to fix the mess by taxing the shit out of the rich and the oil companies.

It doesn't . That's the point.
You broughy venezula into the discussion.

Well, can we unbroughy venezula from the discussion?

You thoughy that's funny and worth a post?

 

[Thinker101]

you and everyone else should give a shit about Venezuela, because it shows exactly what happens when socialists take control of a country.

The highest marginal tax rate was no lower than 70% from WWII to Reagan. The US was not socialist. Your analogy is dumb.

WTF does that have to do with Venezuela failing due to socialism? the only connection is that they tried to fix the mess by taxing the shit out of the rich and the oil companies.

It doesn't . That's the point.
You broughy venezula into the discussion.

Well, can we unbroughy venezula from the discussion?

You thoughy that's funny and worth a post?

You're the one that brought up broughying...dumbass.

 

[Andylusion]

Not an answer, dope.

All economic investment is around 15% of GDP.
Consumer spending is 70%.

Spending is circulation. Increased circulation is growth.

Rich folks don't spend more because they received tax breaks.

All economic investment is around 15% of GDP.

It's amazing!! That investment produces 100% of GDP and all the income those consumers get to spend.

Rich folks don't spend more because they received tax breaks.

I know, they fill up their gold swimming pools.

I knew you had nothing, loser.

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

Durr!

Moron.

This guy is a total idiot. They actually believe they are pulling money out of circulation....... Public schools man...... Public education showing through.

You're right of course. My third house just added it's 100th employee and announced profit sharing for this year!

So you say something completely disconnected from the point at hand.

Do you, or do you not, believe that money is somehow removed from circulation? If you do... you are an idiot. Nothing you posted there, contradicts that fact.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

All economic investment is around 15% of GDP.

It's amazing!! That investment produces 100% of GDP and all the income those consumers get to spend.

Rich folks don't spend more because they received tax breaks.

I know, they fill up their gold swimming pools.

I knew you had nothing, loser.

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

Durr!

Moron.

This guy is a total idiot. They actually believe they are pulling money out of circulation....... Public schools man...... Public education showing through.

You're right of course. My third house just added it's 100th employee and announced profit sharing for this year!

So you say something completely disconnected from the point at hand.

Do you, or do you not, believe that money is somehow removed from circulation? If you do... you are an idiot. Nothing you posted there, contradicts that fact.

The point was the money is tied up in the house and is not benefitting anyone except me and my lender. Rich folks own a lot of real estate.
Great returns if done well. They also have accounts around the world.

Maybe you should explain why you believe the cash I spent for my home in Tuscany is still in circulation in the American economy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I knew you had nothing, loser.

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

Durr!

Moron.

This guy is a total idiot. They actually believe they are pulling money out of circulation....... Public schools man...... Public education showing through.

You're right of course. My third house just added it's 100th employee and announced profit sharing for this year!

So you say something completely disconnected from the point at hand.

Do you, or do you not, believe that money is somehow removed from circulation? If you do... you are an idiot. Nothing you posted there, contradicts that fact.

The point was the money is tied up in the house and is not benefitting anyone except me and my lender. Rich folks own a lot of real estate.
Great returns if done well. They also have accounts around the world.

Maybe you should explain why you believe the cash I spent for my home in Tuscany is still in circulation in the American economy.

The point was the money is tied up in the house and is not benefitting anyone except me and my lender. Rich folks own a lot of real estate.

The money you spent on your house doesn't get buried in the basement you idiot.
If it's new, it paid for the land, materials and construction labor.
If it was already built, the seller now has a pile of money to spend or invest.
In either case, only an idiot thinks the money is "taken out of circulation".

Maybe you should explain why you believe the cash I spent for my home in Tuscany is still in circulation in the American economy.

Well, in most cases, the seller is going to exchange your dollars into Euros, assuming you didn't change your dollars into Euros first. Is the seller going to bury your dollars in his basement? Maybe he'll buy a T-Bill with it.
Suddenly the dollars are "back in the US".

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

Durr!

Moron.

This guy is a total idiot. They actually believe they are pulling money out of circulation....... Public schools man...... Public education showing through.

You're right of course. My third house just added it's 100th employee and announced profit sharing for this year!

So you say something completely disconnected from the point at hand.

Do you, or do you not, believe that money is somehow removed from circulation? If you do... you are an idiot. Nothing you posted there, contradicts that fact.

The point was the money is tied up in the house and is not benefitting anyone except me and my lender. Rich folks own a lot of real estate.
Great returns if done well. They also have accounts around the world.

Maybe you should explain why you believe the cash I spent for my home in Tuscany is still in circulation in the American economy.

The point was the money is tied up in the house and is not benefitting anyone except me and my lender. Rich folks own a lot of real estate.

The money you spent on your house doesn't get buried in the basement you idiot.
If it's new, it paid for the land, materials and construction labor.
If it was already built, the seller now has a pile of money to spend or invest.
In either case, only an idiot thinks the money is "taken out of circulation".

Maybe you should explain why you believe the cash I spent for my home in Tuscany is still in circulation in the American economy.

Well, in most cases, the seller is going to exchange your dollars into Euros, assuming you didn't change your dollars into Euros first. Is the seller going to bury your dollars in his basement? Maybe he'll buy a T-Bill with it.
Suddenly the dollars are "back in the US".

You're assuming there was a profit for the seller.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This guy is a total idiot. They actually believe they are pulling money out of circulation....... Public schools man...... Public education showing through.

You're right of course. My third house just added it's 100th employee and announced profit sharing for this year!

So you say something completely disconnected from the point at hand.

Do you, or do you not, believe that money is somehow removed from circulation? If you do... you are an idiot. Nothing you posted there, contradicts that fact.

The point was the money is tied up in the house and is not benefitting anyone except me and my lender. Rich folks own a lot of real estate.
Great returns if done well. They also have accounts around the world.

Maybe you should explain why you believe the cash I spent for my home in Tuscany is still in circulation in the American economy.

The point was the money is tied up in the house and is not benefitting anyone except me and my lender. Rich folks own a lot of real estate.

The money you spent on your house doesn't get buried in the basement you idiot.
If it's new, it paid for the land, materials and construction labor.
If it was already built, the seller now has a pile of money to spend or invest.
In either case, only an idiot thinks the money is "taken out of circulation".

Maybe you should explain why you believe the cash I spent for my home in Tuscany is still in circulation in the American economy.

Well, in most cases, the seller is going to exchange your dollars into Euros, assuming you didn't change your dollars into Euros first. Is the seller going to bury your dollars in his basement? Maybe he'll buy a T-Bill with it.
Suddenly the dollars are "back in the US".

You're assuming there was a profit for the seller.

Doesn't matter.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You're right of course. My third house just added it's 100th employee and announced profit sharing for this year!

So you say something completely disconnected from the point at hand.

Do you, or do you not, believe that money is somehow removed from circulation? If you do... you are an idiot. Nothing you posted there, contradicts that fact.

The point was the money is tied up in the house and is not benefitting anyone except me and my lender. Rich folks own a lot of real estate.
Great returns if done well. They also have accounts around the world.

Maybe you should explain why you believe the cash I spent for my home in Tuscany is still in circulation in the American economy.

The point was the money is tied up in the house and is not benefitting anyone except me and my lender. Rich folks own a lot of real estate.

The money you spent on your house doesn't get buried in the basement you idiot.
If it's new, it paid for the land, materials and construction labor.
If it was already built, the seller now has a pile of money to spend or invest.
In either case, only an idiot thinks the money is "taken out of circulation".

Maybe you should explain why you believe the cash I spent for my home in Tuscany is still in circulation in the American economy.

Well, in most cases, the seller is going to exchange your dollars into Euros, assuming you didn't change your dollars into Euros first. Is the seller going to bury your dollars in his basement? Maybe he'll buy a T-Bill with it.
Suddenly the dollars are "back in the US".

You're assuming there was a profit for the seller.

Doesn't matter.

Sure it does, silly.

The wealthy spread the cash amongst themselves. Rich folks sell to rich folks.
The guy I bought my Maserati from lives two doors down.

Working folks certainly never get a taste. It doesn't circulate their way.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you say something completely disconnected from the point at hand.

Do you, or do you not, believe that money is somehow removed from circulation? If you do... you are an idiot. Nothing you posted there, contradicts that fact.

The point was the money is tied up in the house and is not benefitting anyone except me and my lender. Rich folks own a lot of real estate.
Great returns if done well. They also have accounts around the world.

Maybe you should explain why you believe the cash I spent for my home in Tuscany is still in circulation in the American economy.

The point was the money is tied up in the house and is not benefitting anyone except me and my lender. Rich folks own a lot of real estate.

The money you spent on your house doesn't get buried in the basement you idiot.
If it's new, it paid for the land, materials and construction labor.
If it was already built, the seller now has a pile of money to spend or invest.
In either case, only an idiot thinks the money is "taken out of circulation".

Maybe you should explain why you believe the cash I spent for my home in Tuscany is still in circulation in the American economy.

Well, in most cases, the seller is going to exchange your dollars into Euros, assuming you didn't change your dollars into Euros first. Is the seller going to bury your dollars in his basement? Maybe he'll buy a T-Bill with it.
Suddenly the dollars are "back in the US".

You're assuming there was a profit for the seller.

Doesn't matter.

Sure it does, silly.

The wealthy spread the cash amongst themselves. Rich folks sell to rich folks.
The guy I bought my Maserati from lives two doors down.

Working folks certainly never get a taste. It doesn't circulate their way.

Sure it does, silly.

Give me a home buying scenario and I'll show you your error.

The guy I bought my Maserati from lives two doors down.

It's awful! Car dealerships and repair shops never make any money.

Working folks certainly never get a taste.

Of course not.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So you say something completely disconnected from the point at hand.

Do you, or do you not, believe that money is somehow removed from circulation? If you do... you are an idiot. Nothing you posted there, contradicts that fact.

The point was the money is tied up in the house and is not benefitting anyone except me and my lender. Rich folks own a lot of real estate.
Great returns if done well. They also have accounts around the world.

Maybe you should explain why you believe the cash I spent for my home in Tuscany is still in circulation in the American economy.

The point was the money is tied up in the house and is not benefitting anyone except me and my lender. Rich folks own a lot of real estate.

The money you spent on your house doesn't get buried in the basement you idiot.
If it's new, it paid for the land, materials and construction labor.
If it was already built, the seller now has a pile of money to spend or invest.
In either case, only an idiot thinks the money is "taken out of circulation".

Maybe you should explain why you believe the cash I spent for my home in Tuscany is still in circulation in the American economy.

Well, in most cases, the seller is going to exchange your dollars into Euros, assuming you didn't change your dollars into Euros first. Is the seller going to bury your dollars in his basement? Maybe he'll buy a T-Bill with it.
Suddenly the dollars are "back in the US".

You're assuming there was a profit for the seller.

Doesn't matter.

Sure it does, silly.

The wealthy spread the cash amongst themselves. Rich folks sell to rich folks.
The guy I bought my Maserati from lives two doors down.

Working folks certainly never get a taste. It doesn't circulate their way.

Dumbass, the guy you BOUGHT the Maserati from may be rich, but unless he built that bad boy with his own two hands, there were a whole lot of other people getting paid throughout the creation of it, and most of them were probably poorer than he is.

In the real world, rich people engage in commerce with poor people all the time.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The point was the money is tied up in the house and is not benefitting anyone except me and my lender. Rich folks own a lot of real estate.
Great returns if done well. They also have accounts around the world.

Maybe you should explain why you believe the cash I spent for my home in Tuscany is still in circulation in the American economy.

The point was the money is tied up in the house and is not benefitting anyone except me and my lender. Rich folks own a lot of real estate.

The money you spent on your house doesn't get buried in the basement you idiot.
If it's new, it paid for the land, materials and construction labor.
If it was already built, the seller now has a pile of money to spend or invest.
In either case, only an idiot thinks the money is "taken out of circulation".

Maybe you should explain why you believe the cash I spent for my home in Tuscany is still in circulation in the American economy.

Well, in most cases, the seller is going to exchange your dollars into Euros, assuming you didn't change your dollars into Euros first. Is the seller going to bury your dollars in his basement? Maybe he'll buy a T-Bill with it.
Suddenly the dollars are "back in the US".

You're assuming there was a profit for the seller.

Doesn't matter.

Sure it does, silly.

The wealthy spread the cash amongst themselves. Rich folks sell to rich folks.
The guy I bought my Maserati from lives two doors down.

Working folks certainly never get a taste. It doesn't circulate their way.

Dumbass, the guy you BOUGHT the Maserati from may be rich, but unless he built that bad boy with his own two hands, there were a whole lot of other people getting paid throughout the creation of it, and most of them were probably poorer than he is.

In the real world, rich people engage in commerce with poor people all the time.

Yes. In Italy, fool.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The point was the money is tied up in the house and is not benefitting anyone except me and my lender. Rich folks own a lot of real estate.

The money you spent on your house doesn't get buried in the basement you idiot.
If it's new, it paid for the land, materials and construction labor.
If it was already built, the seller now has a pile of money to spend or invest.
In either case, only an idiot thinks the money is "taken out of circulation".

Maybe you should explain why you believe the cash I spent for my home in Tuscany is still in circulation in the American economy.

Well, in most cases, the seller is going to exchange your dollars into Euros, assuming you didn't change your dollars into Euros first. Is the seller going to bury your dollars in his basement? Maybe he'll buy a T-Bill with it.
Suddenly the dollars are "back in the US".

You're assuming there was a profit for the seller.

Doesn't matter.

Sure it does, silly.

The wealthy spread the cash amongst themselves. Rich folks sell to rich folks.
The guy I bought my Maserati from lives two doors down.

Working folks certainly never get a taste. It doesn't circulate their way.

Dumbass, the guy you BOUGHT the Maserati from may be rich, but unless he built that bad boy with his own two hands, there were a whole lot of other people getting paid throughout the creation of it, and most of them were probably poorer than he is.

In the real world, rich people engage in commerce with poor people all the time.

Yes. In Italy, fool.

And? What does location have to do with the current discussion? You said "The wealthy spread cash among themselves. Working folks never get a taste." You never specified rich or working in a specific country.

Besides, I'm guessing that the guy you bought your Maserati from ALSO employs quite a few less-rich people in his dealership, as well, unless he's filing his own paperwork and moonlighting as a mechanic.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You're assuming there was a profit for the seller.

Doesn't matter.

Sure it does, silly.

The wealthy spread the cash amongst themselves. Rich folks sell to rich folks.
The guy I bought my Maserati from lives two doors down.

Working folks certainly never get a taste. It doesn't circulate their way.

Dumbass, the guy you BOUGHT the Maserati from may be rich, but unless he built that bad boy with his own two hands, there were a whole lot of other people getting paid throughout the creation of it, and most of them were probably poorer than he is.

In the real world, rich people engage in commerce with poor people all the time.

Yes. In Italy, fool.

And? What does location have to do with the current discussion? You said "The wealthy spread cash among themselves. Working folks never get a taste." You never specified rich or working in a specific country.

Besides, I'm guessing that the guy you bought your Maserati from ALSO employs quite a few less-rich people in his dealership, as well, unless he's filing his own paperwork and moonlighting as a mechanic.

Read the thread before jumping in, dope.
We're talking about the US economy which should be obvious in a thread about US tax rates.

 

[OldLady]

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.

That's not fair to the people who are the wealthiest. 70% !!!!! Way more than half their income going to the government? That is obscene.

 

[Lesh]

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.

That's not fair to the people who are the wealthiest. 70% !!!!! Way more than half their income going to the government? That is obscene.

Do you understand how progressive taxation works? Are you thinking that ALL of their income is taxed at that amount?

 

[OldLady]

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.

That's not fair to the people who are the wealthiest. 70% !!!!! Way more than half their income going to the government? That is obscene.

Do you understand how progressive taxation works? Are you thinking that ALL of their income is taxed at that amount?

Sure, I was thinking all their income was taxed at that amount. And even if it were only a part--say over 4 million dollars--that is still obscene. They earned that money, Lesh. I don't know anything about economics, but it doesn't seem to me that it is fair to leech off the rich to run a bloated government that can spend thousands on a goddamned toilet seat.