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

[JoeMoma]

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

I agree even though there are some on this board that claim to earn that much.

 

[Lesh]

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.

Really?

The top 1% own half the country. You don't think they

A. Can't afford it

B. Shouldn't have to pay something approaching equivalency for that?

 

[Papageorgio]

No it would not apply to me .

No shit!

 

[task0778]

First of all, I doubt you would be getting much revenue from that 70% tax bracket, cuz most rich guys won't be paying it, just like they didn't in the 1950s and 60s. They'll be putting their money in assets or investments that aren't subject to that ridiculous rate. Those rich people in the fortune 500 that make more than $10 mil? Gone. They'll be moving to Canada or somewhere else, or at least their money will be going offshore, you can bet on that. Corp HQs won't be in the US, they'll move to Ireland or somewhere.

My question is, what are the lower tax brackets? What would the rate be for the guy making only $1 mil? $2 mil? $5 mil? Where is the breakdown?

Consider this:

. Super-wealthy families often keep their wealth in the form of investments and other assets that can be converted into taxable income on their own schedule. Jeff Bezos may be worth $160 billion, but in 2017 he reportedly paid himself an annual salary of just $81,840, with total compensation (including deductible expenses) of $1.6 million. Taxing 70 percent of all salary and wages above $10 million (or even $1 million) would not even touch the Amazon founder.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s 70 Percent Tax Cannot Finance Socialism | National Review


BTW, I'm a retiree on a fixed income south of $40k/yr, if anyone cares.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Really? I bought a used car that had only 70,000 miles on it, from a rich guy. Mint condition. Good price.

You are crazy. Everything I own right now, was built by a rich guy. My home was built by a rich guy. Clothes were made by rich people. My computer, my phone, my shower, my washer and drier, everything in my kitchen.... all made by rich people, and sold to me.

When I look around at all the wealth I have, it sure seems rich people made my life better.

 

[presonorek]

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?

By Christian ethics the answer is yes.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Can't vote in a poll.. Haven't seen a plan.. Cortez neglects to tell folks that when the TOP marginal rate was over 70% the BOTTOM rate was 20% ish.. No developed socialist country EXCUSES as many folks as we currently EXCUSE from paying ANY INCOME TAX at all. Can't afford those unicorns farting sparkles unless EVERYONE has skin in the game.

Right now 1/2 of tax filers pay ZERO income tax or get a EITC refund. Only 1/2 of workers pay ANYTHING. For all those fantasies -- EVERYBODY is gonna have their taxes raised. Don't need a phony econ degree to figure that out.. LOL.....

 

[task0778]

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?

By Christian ethics the answer is yes.

Well that's interesting, at what point does stealing become an immoral act? I'm pretty sure that by Christian ethics, stealing is immoral no matter who the victim is.

 

[miketx]

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.

Except that anyone looking can see it is not a fantasy and that you are a liar.

 

[Oddball]

By Christian ethics the answer is yes.

 

[boedicca]

Everybody's income will be affected by jacking up taxes on the "tippy top". Higher rates on the rich are usually used to raise all brackets.

It's also worth noting that this increase, assuming static behavior which is optimistic, would increase tax receipts by $72B per year. That doesn't put a dent in her $umptumpteenT utopian nightmare agenda.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Furthermore, it's an Econ proof that if you attempt to break 12% of GDP in Federal Taxes, you hit a brick wall and tax revenues go negative... Something that Cortez might have missed when she was dancing for her grades at Boston College or whereever she bought her phony degree....

Dem party needs to put the Day Care members into Continuing Education classes soon or that party is fucked..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

How do you pay 5% tax on your dividends?

 

[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?

How do you pay 5% tax on your dividends?

I do it every year...and not with the 1040ez

 

[Andylusion]

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

Right, and the gasoline tax hit the poor and middle class.... the AMT hit the middle class.... the tax on social security benefits hit the poor and middle class. The phase out of personal exemptions and itemized deductions, had they fully implemented it would have hammered the lower and middle class more than it did.

Yes, it did bring in more revenue by hammering the poor and middle class.

If that is what you support, at least be open about it.

And while corporate tax revenue did increase for a few years after the tax hike, eventually corporations started moving to limit the tax damage. Corporate tax revenue fell in 1998 from $189 Billion to $131 Billion in 2003. But in 2004 it was $278 Billion. Know what happened in 2003? Bush's tax cuts.

But in reality, the credit for the fiscal conservative federal budget, belongs squarely on Republicans.

You can go look up each and every single budget proposed by Bill Clinton for each of his 8 years in office. Not one of them projected a balanced budget until 1999.

In fact, from 1993 to 1996, his budgets consistently projected endless deficits.

So what happened? The Republicans under-cut his proposed budget every single year. Every year, they would give less money towards nearly all of Bill Clinton's budget goals. They continued to under-cut the presidents budget year after year, until we nearly reached a balanced budget.

The federal budget was not the result of increased taxes. It was the result of reducing spending below what Bill Clinton wanted for almost a decade.

 

[hazlnut]

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.

*crickets*

 

[hazlnut]

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.

The wealthy people control K Street which controls congress.

They will burn the country to the ground before they go back to paying their fair share.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

How do you pay 5% tax on your dividends?

I do it every year...and not with the 1040ez

How? Nothing I've seen shows the dividend rate is that low. What's your secret?

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Really?

The top 1% own half the country. You don't think they

A. Can't afford it

B. Shouldn't have to pay something approaching equivalency for that?

It has nothing to do with can they afford it.

You should give me money. I know you can afford it because you are wasting money on an internet connection, to lecture others about what they can afford.

So since you can afford it, I demand you pay my bills.

That's envy and greed based logic, is exactly what you are suggesting when you say "they can afford it".

I don't care if they can afford it. Taking 70% of the money someone earns, is wrong... period. Whether they can afford it or not.

If we gathered enough people to vote that you must give up your house, to some homeless people.... because you can afford it... does that make it right?

What you own, also doesn't make it right. What if you own a new car. I can't afford a new car. I think you should give me your car, because you should pay something approaching equivalency.... right? We're not equal between you and me. So you should give up most of what you have.

IS that right?

See this is the hypocrisy of the left. If we tried to force on you, the very ideology you are trying to force on others, you would be screaming bloody murder on here.

 

[presonorek]

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?

By Christian ethics the answer is yes.

Well that's interesting, at what point does stealing become an immoral act? I'm pretty sure that by Christian ethics, stealing is immoral no matter who the victim is.

How sure are you?