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

[g5000]

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

Nope. In fact we should eliminate all tax expenditures and LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Read the thread, dolt. Doesn't change a fucking thing I said, nor does it make a convincing backpedal for you.

Let me break it down for you, since you want us to believe you became "rich" without ever having clue one how the most basic things work.

Presuming that your Maserati dealer friend didn't build the car in his backyard and, in fact, got it the normal way a dealer acquires cars (and leaving aside the fact that YOU, not me, digressed from discussions of US taxes to rant about rich elitism):

While Maserati is, indeed, an Italian-based car manufacturer, they do employ Americans. Like most corporations in this global age, they have divisions in more than one country, complete with employees.

Furthermore, dimwit, the act of bringing the car to the US for you to buy it provides employment for all manner of not-rich Americans. Or did you think Maserati employed wizards to just wave their wands and POOF the car to the dealership?

And finally, as I mentioned and you conveniently "missed", your friend's dealership employs any number of not-rich Americans, unless he's working 40-hour days to do it all himself.

 

[boedicca]

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.

Of course I suggested no such thing.

Yes, yes they were super wealthy. Just not like today. It was Reagan who started the trend of tax cuts on the wealthy. It was at 70% before he halved it.

why do liberals and dems hate rich successful business people, but love rich successful Hollywood loonies? Do Streisand and Baldwin and Whoopi support a 70% tax on their ridiculous incomes?

Yeah it is amazing isn't it? What real tangible benefit does the Hollywood elite actually provide? Seriously, what do they really do that makes America better?

These CEOs make cars, make homes, make products, make roads bridges, everything we see in our entire society. Without those CEOs, we'd still be taking baths in the river, and living in log homes.

Without Alec Baldwin, we wouldn't have "having fun with dick and jane" and "suburban girl", and "Hunt for red october". Most of his movies were garbage, but even the few that were worth watching.... I think I could survive without a few films. I would be much worse off without the millions of products that make life better here in the US.

The Hollywood Elite are part of the Trifecta that poisons our culture for the Progs. The other two factions are Academia and the Media. The brainwashing actually works on a lot of people.

 

[task0778]

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.

I'm wondering how it breaks down from 70%, what are the tax rates below the top rate? I gather the rich guy who earns say 5 mil pays $700k out of that top 1 mil, right? What does he pay on the next to last mil, 60%? So, now he pays $1.3 mil ($700k + 600k) for the last $2 mil he earned, right? Then there's the 3rd mil, 50%? Which is $500k, so now his tax bill is up to $1.8 mil; what'll it be on the 2nd mil he earned, say it's 40%. Now the total tax hit is $2.2 mil, what does he pay in his 1st(lowest) mil? $300k? I don't know what the plan details would be, but I could see our guy who earned $5 mil paying half of his total earnings to Uncle Sam. And that's not including state and local taxes. I think most guys at that level are going to take their business and their money elsewhere, or they're going to put it in assets or places where the tax bite isn't so high.

Some democrats never seem to understand (or pretend they don't) that when you raise taxes that much, there will be behavioral changes as a result. Which means you don't get a linear amount of revenue that was expected. The rich guys will do what they always do, find ways to pay less taxes. Consider what has happened in Canada recently:

The nation’s current top politician, Justin Trudeau increased the top tax rate from 29 percent to 33 percent after taking office in late 2015. In the real world, however, it turns out that increasing tax rates is not the same as increasing tax revenue.

Here are some excerpts from a story in the Globe and Mail:

The Liberal government’s tax on Canada’s top 1 per cent failed to produce the promised billions in new revenue in its first year, as high-income earners actually paid $4.6-billion less in federal taxes. …The latest available tax records show that revenue from Canadians earning about $140,000 or more – which had previously been the fourth and highest tax bracket – dropped by $4.6-billion in 2016, the first full year that the Liberal tax changes were in effect. Further, 30,340 fewer Canadians reported incomes in that range for 2016 compared with the year before. …The new top bracket with a 33-per-cent tax rate was predicted to raise about $3-billion a year in new revenue… Critics of the Liberal plan say the CRA’s 2016 numbers justify their concern that a new top tax bracket hurts Canadian efforts to boost competitiveness and attract top talent.

It’s quite possible, as noted in the article, that some of the foregone revenue might be the result of one-time changes, such as upper-income taxpayers shifting income from 2016 to 2015 (rich people do have considerable control over the timing, level, and composition of their income).

A report from Global News reviews an analysis about the degree to which revenues dropped for transitory reasons:

The Liberal government’s 2016 tax hike on Canada’s top one per cent not only failed to yield the promised billions, but resulted in a net revenue loss for government coffers… After adjusting for economic changes and one-time factors, the paper estimates, based on 2016 tax data, that the Liberals’ new tax bracket for top earners creates $1.2 billion in new revenue for the federal government but a $1.3 billion loss for provincial governments. …Finance Minister Bill Morneau’s office, however, has maintained that the revenue drop for 2016 was a one-off event. …But an analysis of the data that adjusts for the impact of the dividends maneuver and economic factors still shows that the tax hike would have fallen far short of the hype… Studies have shown that top earners are more likely than lower-income taxpayers to react to tax increases by reducing their taxable income. This may be because the wealthy have access to more sophisticated tax advice, are more easily able to shift assets to lower-tax jurisdictions or can afford to simply decide to work less given that they get to keep less of their money.

Canada's Laffer Curve Lesson: Government Collects Less Revenue from High-Income Earners after Trudeau Tax Hike | Daniel J. Mitchell

I can almost guarantee it, if the US raises it's top federal marginal tax rate to 70%, there is no way on God's green earth that revenues will increase as much as expected. No chance in hell. In fact, I would posit that revenues would actually drop, at every level of gov't. To go from the current top rate of 37% up to 70% would be economic suicide, even if you did it incrementally. Canada only raised their top rate from 29% to 33%, can you imagine what the result would be to go to 70%?

 

[Centrista]

I would like to know which members of the USMB here warm over $10 million a year.

The income above 10 million will be taxed at 70%.

Please vote in my poll.

 

[occupied]

Anyone making that kind of cash has better things to do than hang out on this board.

 

[Timmy]

No it would not apply to me .

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I would like to know which members of the USMB here warm over $10 million a year.

The income above 10 million will be taxed at 70%.

Please vote in my poll.

Only if it is "EARNED" income. Dividend and capital gains wont fall into the earned income part, and most people who make over $10 million get it through options again not getting taxed as earned income. So this is all smoke and mirrors but supposed to make the petulant impoverished welfare queens and queers feel like she is working for them....


My earned income is around 30 thousand dollars a year. I have dividends coming in around $440,000 a year I only am taxed about $22,000 on that dividend income and $6,000 on the earned income.....See the difference?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressives are complete fucking economic illiterates.

Read the OP if you wonder how they run an entire country like Venezuela into the dirt in a generation

 

[danielpalos]

Progressives are complete fucking economic illiterates.

Read the OP if you wonder how they run an entire country like Venezuela into the dirt in a generation

that always happens in right wing fantasy.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I would like to know which members of the USMB here warm over $10 million a year.

The income above 10 million will be taxed at 70%.

Please vote in my poll.

Only if it is "EARNED" income. Dividend and capital gains wont fall into the earned income part, and most people who make over $10 million get it through options again not getting taxed as earned income. So this is all smoke and mirrors but supposed to make the petulant impoverished welfare queens and queers feel like she is working for them....


My earned income is around 30 thousand dollars a year. I have dividends coming in around $440,000 a year I only am taxed about $22,000 on that dividend income and $6,000 on the earned income.....See the difference?

I am hoping with my HEMP investment that if it does like CMG (chipotle Mexican grill) and goes to $700 a share, I could end up having over $10 million dollars of income. I would be going against George Soros and try to bankrupt that son of a bitch...

George Soros is pure evil, and he owns all of the high-ranking Democrats like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and, of course, Hillary Clinton.
Nazi George Soros' Evil Video EXPOSED, Declares War On ...
madworldnews.com/nazi-george-soros-evil-video/

 

[EvilCat Breath]

How did Occasional Cortex's plan work in Venezuela?

 

[Oddball]

I would like to know which members of the USMB here warm over $10 million a year.

The income above 10 million will be taxed at 70%.

Please vote in my poll.

Why do you care?

Does looting suddenly become a moral act because you limit your plunder to the really, really, really rich part of town?

 

[Hossfly]

But I ain't got no money, honey

 

[JWBooth]

I would like to know which members of the USMB here warm over $10 million a year.

The income above 10 million will be taxed at 70%.

Please vote in my poll.

Thuggery and theft aren’t excused because others are multi millionaires and we are not.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oh, I know!!!

Let's take money from people who know how to make it and turn it over to an entity that loses $1,000,000,000,000 annually!

 

[Lesh]

Then again...the Clinton tax increase (called the biggest tax increase in history by Republicans) increased revenues and ushered in amazing growth and a budget surplus.

70% ? Too big a jump too fast but an increase is clearly a good idea.

45%-50% for the top tax bracket?

Sure

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Oh, I know!!!

Let's take money from people who know how to make it and turn it over to an entity that loses $1,000,000,000,000 annually!

They want to up the welfare payments to over $2 trillion a year, that would end that ole war on poverty..

 

[Rambunctious]

Would your income be affected by Ocasio Cortez’s 70% marginal tax rate plan

No because I would be living in Fiji if that ever happened....

 

[Andylusion]

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.

There is no such thing as "money tied up". Ridiculous.

So apparently you have no concept of how wealth is created or destroyed.

No money is tied up. When you buy a house, the money doesn't magically go into the house and stay there. It is used to buy lumber, materials, electrical cords, and everything else that goes into a house. That results in value of those materials increasing in value.

The raw cost of materials is lower, than the value of the house. The house is worth more money, than the sum total value of the individual materials.

This is how wealth is created. This is how a poor nation becomes a rich nation.

But the money doesn't dissolve into the house. The money goes to the suppliers and builders, who then pay their employees, or pay their suppliers.... and so on.

It is a benefit to the economy. There is no money 'out of circulation'. That is ridiculous.

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

Of course it is. Of course that money is circulating in the US economy right now.

LOL.....

What do you think they did with it? You think that they paid their Italian workers with US dollars, that they can't use to pay their bills or buy food or products with? Of course not.

The only place that US dollars are usable in, are the United States, or in the very few areas that circulate US dollars.

All money spent abroad, comes back to the US. It has to, because the French don't pay their workers in USD.... the Chinese don't pay their workers in USD. What do you think those people are doing with US dollars? Sleeping on them?

Yes, absolutely your US money that you spent elsewhere in ther world, all comes back to the US. The people who have those dollars must spend them in the US somewhere. The only alternative is to buy US government bonds with them, but then the US government has that money and spend it in the US. So all US dollars come back, one way or another.

You do realize that FIAT bought out Chrysler, correct? Where did they get the US dollars to buy a US company with? ....... think about it.....

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.

Again money is not tied up. You paid someone for that house. The money went to whomever you paid.

Additionally, you are actually incorrect. Your house benefits everyone. As in everyone.

A rich person who builds a house, means there is another house that exists in the market. Basic concept of supply and demand is, if supply increases, prices go down. If the price of homes go down, then that makes it easier for the lower and middle class to own a home.

This is true, even if the house a rich person builds, is a home that only a rich person could afford. Because even if they move into a $1 million dollar home, that means they are not living in a $500,000 home, or a $200,000 home, or a $100,000 home. Every single home that is built, increases the over all supply in the market, that allows the lower and middle class to have homes to live in.

So you are incorrect. Building a home benefits everyone.