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

[U2Edge]

There is no justification for the government to take 70% of anyone's income! In fact, it is hard to justify the government taking any more than 20% of anyone's income. When the government just takes that money and gives it to other countries. It should be illegal for US tax money to be spent outside of the borders of the United States,

Harry Truman increased the top federal tax rate to 92%. Why? To pay for the Korean War. The Korean war was paid for up front without borrowing ANY money. Its the only war in United States history where all the direct cost of the war were paid for immediately through tax increases. Sure, there were some rich people who complained, but most felt it their patriotic duty to pay that rate with the country at war. After all, few if any of the rich were fighting on the front lines in Korea risking possible death and dismemberment. Sure, paying 92% in taxes may be tough, but its certainly not as much of a sacrifice as being killed in combat or being severely injured in combat.

 

[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.

5 members voted "Yes" from their posh Southern trailers.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Buying a home does nothing but liquidate the previous owner's investment, fool.

And they.... use that money in the economy.... so the money is still in circulation.

You would be laughed out of any economics class in the entire planet with this line of reasoning.

 

[Avatar4321]

You’re neglecting to factor in the fact that it’s Going to cost jobs.

 

[U2Edge]

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?

Ask them.

I think we both already know the answer. No one wants to pay 70%, rich or poor. What you left wing fools don't understand is that if we were to go to the "government pays for everything" ideology that you seem to want, that YOU would also be paying 70%, unlike now when you pay nothing. the 50% who pay taxes pay for the 50% who don't. Its easy to understand why when you pay nothing you see no personal impact if the govt gives you more free stuff.

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

No one wants to tax the lower class at 70%. The country benefits when the lower class pays no federal tax because THEY SPEND THAT MONEY IN THE ECONOMY! The whole point of having the proper tax rate is to maximize economic growth while at the same time maximizing revenue collection. The only way to do that is to have a much higher tax rate on the rich.

Bartenders and Janitors in Denmark don't pay 65% of their income in taxes. That would hurt economic growth and those individuals would not have enough money to buy what they need to live. You can still get rich in the Scandinavian countries, but you pay a much higher tax rate than you do in the United States. Just as music artist like ABBA and Ace Of Base from Sweden. Very rich and living the life, but yes, they are paying huge tax rates.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

28% is the lowest it has ever been over the past 85 years.

Yup.

That rate proved to be too low. The budget deficits during those years really worsened.

Nah. If Bush had kept his backbone, and controlled spending, we'd have been fine.

The economy actually improved in 1992 every quarter above 4% growth,

I agree, after the tax-hike induced recession, the economy improved.
Don't you wish we'd have had some decent growth under Obama, instead of the weakest recovery since WWII?

Over the mid to late 1990s the economy expanded at one of the fastest rates since World War II.

I know, the Internet Bubble was cool!

The Budget Deficits grew smaller, and finally you had four years of Budget surpluses, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.

Newt Gingrich rocked!!

Paul Krugman sited several economist who think that upper limit might be some where between 75% to 85%. I think that is a little high.

A little? You think? DURR!

The George H.W. Bush tax hike occurred AFTER the United States had already been in a recession for a month. The 1990/1991 recession started on October 1, 1990 and ended by April 1, 1991. Congress and the President did not agree to a tax hike until October 27, 1990, nearly a month after the recession had started. The recession was caused by SADDAM HUSSIENS invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990 which caused disruption in global oil supplies and markets.

So the tax increase did not hurt the economy, and generally excellent economic growth occurred following the tax hikes. President Clinton raised taxes again after he became President, again not impacting economic growth. THE LESSON: Going from a 28% top federal rate in taxes up to 40% top federal rate in taxes did not hurt the economy at all. The economy had some of its best growth rates during the 1990s since the end Of World War II. So its obviously ok to have a top Federal Tax rate of 40%. That 1990s proved that. Lots of revenue was generated thanks to the tax increase and stronger economy growth which produced 4 consecutive years of Budget Surpluses.

So the question is then how much above 40% should the top federal tax rate go. We know 40% is ok and does not hurt the economy. I think the top federal rate can be increased to at least 60% without hurting the economy in any way.

Congress and the President did not agree to a tax hike until October 27, 1990, nearly a month after the recession had started.

How long did the debate go on before he finally caved?

So the tax increase did not hurt the economy,

I don't think you've proven that claim.

President Clinton raised taxes again after he became President, again not impacting economic growth.

I don't think you've proven that claim either.

THE LESSON: Going from a 28% top federal rate in taxes up to 40% top federal rate in taxes did not hurt the economy at all.

I think the economy would have been stronger if rates had remained at 28%, disprove my claim.

Well, Bush becomes President in 2001 and slashes the top federal tax rate from 40% to 35%. Average real GDP growth while George W. Bush is President for 8 years comes in at 1.87%! That's down from the average of 3.62% during the Clinton years. So cutting the top federal tax rate did not help the economy at all.

The rich who pay the top federal tax rate do NOT change their consumer spending when they get a tax cut, especially at those levels. That's why the Bush tax cuts for the rich had no impact on economic growth and ended up just making the Budget deficit worse than it had to be.

Tax cuts targeted at those in the lower middle class are the type of cuts that boost economic growth. Most of the Bush tax cuts were directed at the very wealthy. The middle class spends the extra money they get, the rich do not.

Was Clinton's top tax rate responsible for the Internet Bubble?

No, but by increasing the top federal tax rate + the strong economic growth during the Clinton years, allowed for four consecutive years of surpluses. The point is that having the top federal tax rate at 40% does not hurt economic growth. Regardless of what GDP growth is, you'll bring in more revenue with a top federal tax rate of 40% and it won't have a negative impact on the economy.

Was Clinton's top tax rate responsible for the Internet Bubble?

No,

Thanks.

The point is that having the top federal tax rate at 40% does not hurt economic growth

Now prove your claim.

 

[Andylusion]

There is no justification for the government to take 70% of anyone's income! In fact, it is hard to justify the government taking any more than 20% of anyone's income. When the government just takes that money and gives it to other countries. It should be illegal for US tax money to be spent outside of the borders of the United States,

Harry Truman increased the top federal tax rate to 92%. Why? To pay for the Korean War. The Korean war was paid for up front without borrowing ANY money. Its the only war in United States history where all the direct cost of the war were paid for immediately through tax increases. Sure, there were some rich people who complained, but most felt it their patriotic duty to pay that rate with the country at war. After all, few if any of the rich were fighting on the front lines in Korea risking possible death and dismemberment. Sure, paying 92% in taxes may be tough, but its certainly not as much of a sacrifice as being killed in combat or being severely injured in combat.

Huge difference. Taking 92% of someones income, to blow it on political games, bad green energy programs, and paying people who simply don't want to pay their bills forever..... is entirely different than a short term expenditure to doing a military offensive.

 

[U2Edge]

Ask them.

I think we both already know the answer. No one wants to pay 70%, rich or poor. What you left wing fools don't understand is that if we were to go to the "government pays for everything" ideology that you seem to want, that YOU would also be paying 70%, unlike now when you pay nothing. the 50% who pay taxes pay for the 50% who don't. Its easy to understand why when you pay nothing you see no personal impact if the govt gives you more free stuff.

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

LOL
You actually believe this means taking 70% of everything someone earns?


Learn what a marginal and progressive rate is, fool.

Marginal Tax Rate

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.

Nominal annual federal revenues increase over time because of economic and population growth. That's not a sign that a top federal tax rate of 40% in 1998 is the equivalent of or better than a top federal tax rate of 70% in 1978, in terms of revenue collection.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

Yes.....because it will depress our economy destroying jobs, innovation in all sectors and drive us to become like Venezuela....

Why is Venezuela, a country which has had multiple autoritarian leaders, and has been fucked over by the IMF since the 1970's your ONLY example of a socialist democracy?

What about Norway, Canada, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium, Sweden, Finland, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and all of the other first world countries ranking ahead of the USA in health care, education, personal freedom, quality of life, personal safety and happiness? All of these countries have cradle to the grave social programs, universal health care, abortion on demand, equal rights for women, and governments which operate within their means.

What NONE of them have is the world's largest, most expensive army, and none have spent the past 18 years continuously fighting wars on foreign soil. So start by talking realistically about what is the source of your current economic problems, starting with:

STOP RUNNING DEFICITS TO PAY FOR TAX CUTS YOU SHOULD NEVER HAVE MADE.

 

[Desperado]

Instead of taxing people at a 70% tax rate we need to cut our spending. No more playing the World Police, No More Foreign Aid, No More UN, The we can cut numerous domestic programs.

 

[U2Edge]

LOL
You actually believe this means taking 70% of everything someone earns?


Learn what a marginal and progressive rate is, fool.

Marginal Tax Rate

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.

Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, IKE, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter were NOT socialist. Having a higher top federal tax rate on the rich is NOT socialism.

 

[U2Edge]

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?

Ask them.

I think we both already know the answer. No one wants to pay 70%, rich or poor. What you left wing fools don't understand is that if we were to go to the "government pays for everything" ideology that you seem to want, that YOU would also be paying 70%, unlike now when you pay nothing. the 50% who pay taxes pay for the 50% who don't. Its easy to understand why when you pay nothing you see no personal impact if the govt gives you more free stuff.

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

LOL
You actually believe this means taking 70% of everything someone earns?


Learn what a marginal and progressive rate is, fool.

Marginal Tax Rate

We all know how marginal rates work.

If the top marginal rate is 70% at $191K, it means if I earn $191K by August, every dollar I earn after August, the government will take 70% of it.

That's a waste. I would simply stop investing, stop making more money. I would invest overseas, where my income would be taxed at a lower rate. So I can spend 3 months living off the income I made from my investments in Ireland, sitting on a vacation home.

Or I would donate the money to charities in my name, and have the deduction lower my taxable income below the $191K.

Or I would simply reduce my income completely. I could do what Warren Buffet does, and take a mere $100K salary. Or like Mark Zuckerberg, and earn a $1 salary. Instead I would pump the money into stocks and dividends, which since I'm the largest share holder, would benefit me the most.

Another possibility, would be to have the company just start doing some crazy investments. Nationwide insurance, has a crazy facility here in Ohio, which was formerly a hotel, but now serves only corporate executives. I worked for another company, that had their own private jet, and it was well know that the CEO would fly to meet a client, and then hang out at the beach.

There are nearly infinite ways to avoid high taxes. When California tried tax yachts docked in the bays, they sailed them miles off shore, and paid someone to boat them out to their yachts.

The bottom line is.... 70% taxes will never work. You will get more people avoiding taxes. The stupid mindless left-wing lemmings will see that statistically the wages of the rich elite will go down on paper. But nothing will change, and you won't get the money you think you will for all your idiotic social programs.

Well, we know that a top federal tax rate of 40% works just fine. You can increases taxes on the rich without it hurting economic growth that is a fact. But its also true than can't tax them at 100%. At some point, too high of a top federal tax rate will have a negative impact. You want the top federal tax rate to go right up to that red line. Is 70% too high? Maybe. But I would suggest that 60% would be just fine and you would see no negative impact to the economy or the productivity and investments of the rich.

 

[Thinker101]

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.

Yes.....because it will depress our economy destroying jobs, innovation in all sectors and drive us to become like Venezuela....

Why is Venezuela, a country which has had multiple autoritarian leaders, and has been fucked over by the IMF since the 1970's your ONLY example of a socialist democracy?

What about Norway, Canada, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium, Sweden, Finland, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and all of the other first world countries ranking ahead of the USA in health care, education, personal freedom, quality of life, personal safety and happiness? All of these countries have cradle to the grave social programs, universal health care, abortion on demand, equal rights for women, and governments which operate within their means.

What NONE of them have is the world's largest, most expensive army, and none have spent the past 18 years continuously fighting wars on foreign soil. So start by talking realistically about what is the source of your current economic problems, starting with:

STOP RUNNING DEFICITS TO PAY FOR TAX CUTS YOU SHOULD NEVER HAVE MADE.

Sounds good, which country are you moving to?

 

[MarcATL]

The drunken old bitch is living rent free thanks to all the millions the Clintons grifted from the KSA etc etc.

You give Hillary power over your life.

Keep thinking about her.

#LOLGOP#TooFunny #CLASSIC

 

[deanrd]

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.

It’s more like corporations. Remember the Trump campaign saying the corporations at 20% paid way too much money?
They should pay nothing at all? Remember that?
They never actually paid 20%. After tax deductions for appreciation and buying new equipment and everything most probably played paid close to zero.
When the tax rate was at 70%, nobody paid 70%.
My feeling is give them a choice. Make the tax rate 70% and then put out deductions like education and Road building, infrastructure and let them donate to that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How does it leave circulation, fool?

Tied up in a $120m yacht registered and moored in Monaco?

Answer the question. Where does it go?

Tied up in a $120m yacht registered and moored in Monaco?​

Lot of those boats built over the last 40 years?

Answer the question. Where does it go?

Where does the wealth of the 3 richest people in the US go?
Bezos......16% of Amazon.
Bill Gates......24% of Microsoft (1996)
Warren Buffett......18% of Berkshire (2016)

I asked you that question, dope.

It certainly doesn't into the pockets of everyday Americans who spend it in the economy where it is further circulated.

70% of GDP is related to consumer spending. Not investment. Use your brain.

I asked you that question
​

Yes, you asked the stupid question.

It certainly doesn't into the pockets of everyday Americans who spend it in the economy

It used to, until a bunch of liberal twats decided a luxury tax on boats was a great idea.
Fucking morons.

70% of GDP is related to consumer spending

100% of GDP is related to domestic production.

Not investment.

Domestic production isn't related to investment?
You must be a liberal.

Use your brain.

You first.

He means 70% of real GDP growth comes from consumer spending. Some put it even higher at 80%. A tax cut on lower class, and middle class income increases consumer spending. A tax cut on the rich has no impact on consumer spending.

That's why Bush's cut of the top federal tax rate from 40% to 35% did not produce any economic growth.

He means 70% of real GDP growth comes from consumer spending.

I mean it's an idiotic claim and that he's an idiot.

A tax cut on lower class, and middle class income increases consumer spending.

Ok.

A tax cut on the rich has no impact on consumer spending.

Because rich people don't buy stuff? LOL!
What do they do with their money?

That's why Bush's cut of the top federal tax rate from 40% to 35% did not produce any economic growth.

The final Bush tax cut was signed in May 2003.

Real Gross Domestic Product

I guess there was no real GDP growth after it passed.

 

[abu afak]

We had Our BEST HALF CENTURY WITH HIGH RATES.

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)
Historical rates (married couples, filing jointly)

Year/ Top Rate%/ Over

1913 --- 7% 500,000
1914 --- 7% 500,000
1915 --- 7% 500,000
1916 --- 15% 2,000,000
1917 --- 67% 2,000,000
1918 --- 77% 1,000,000
1919 --- 73% 1,000,000
1920 --- 73% 1,000,000
1921 --- 73% 1,000,000
1922 --- 58% 200,000
1923 --- 43.5% 200,000
1924 --- 46% 500,000
1925 --- 25% 100,000
1926 --- 25% 100,000
1927 --- 25% 100,000
1928 --- 25% 100,000
1929 --- 24% 100,000
1930 --- 25% 100,000
1931 --- 25% 100,000
1932 --- 63% 1,000,000
1933 --- 63% 1,000,000
1934 --- 63% 1,000,000
1935 --- 63% 1,000,000
1936 --- 79% 5,000,000
1937 --- 79% 5,000,000
1938 --- 79% 5,000,000
1939 --- 79% 5,000,000
1940 --- 81% 5,000,000
1941 --- 81% 5,000,000
1942 --- 88% 200,000
1943 --- 88% 200,000
1944--- 94 200,000
1945 --- 94% 200,000
1946 --- 86% 200,000
1947 --- 86% 200,000
1948 --- 82.% 400,000
1949 --- 82% 400,000
1950 --- 84.36% 400,000
1951 --- 91% 400,000
1952 --- 92% 400,000
1953 --- 92% 400,000
1954 --- 91% 400,000
1955 --- 91% 400,000
1956 --- 91% 400,000
1957 --- 91% 400,000
1958 --- 91% 400,000
1959 --- 91% 400,000
1960 --- 91% 400,000
1961 --- 91% 400,000
1962 --- 91% 400,000
1963 --- 91% 400,000
1964 --- 77% 400,000
1965 --- 70% 200,000
1966 --- 70% 200,000
1967 --- 70% 200,000
1968 --- 75.25% 200,000
1969 --- 77% 200,000
1970 --- 71.75% 200,000
1971 --- 70% 60% 200,000
1972 --- 70% 50 200,000
1973 --- 70% 50 200,000
1974 --- 70% 50 200,000
1975 ----70% 50 200,000
1976 --- 70% 50 200,000
1977 --- 70% 50 203,200
1978 --- 70% 50 203,200
1979 --- 70% 50 215,400
1980 --- 70% 50 215,400
1981 --- 69% 50 215,400
1982 --- 50% 85,600
1983 --- 50% 109,400
1984 --- 50% 162,400
1985 --- 50 % 169,020
1986 --- 50 % 175,250
1987 --- 38.5% 90,000
1988 --- 28% <8> 29,750 <8>
1989 --- 28% <8> 30,950 <8>
1990 --- 28% <8> 32,450 <8>
1991 --- 31% 82,150
1992 --- 31% 86,500
1993 --- 39.6% 89,150
1994 --- 39.6% 250,000
1995 --- 39.6% 256,500
1996 --- 39.6% 263,750
1997 --- 39.6% 271,050
1998 --- 39.6% 278,450
1999 --- 39.6% 283,150
2000 --- 39.6% 288,350
2001 --- 39.1% 297,350
2002 --- 38.6% 307,050
2003 --- 35% 311,950​

`

 

[deanrd]

The bottom line is it’s really sad. Most Republicans will let their own family suffer just so they can give tax breaks to billionaires.
Because they believe in their heart of hearts that one day their ship will come in and one day they’ll be billionaires too so they’re just protecting their future money.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

It’s more like corporations. Remember the Trump campaign saying the corporations at 20% paid way too much money?
They should pay nothing at all? Remember that?
They never actually paid 20%. After tax deductions for appreciation and buying new equipment and everything most probably played paid close to zero.
When the tax rate was at 70%, nobody paid 70%.
My feeling is give them a choice. Make the tax rate 70% and then put out deductions like education and Road building, infrastructure and let them donate to that.

Remember the Trump campaign saying the corporations at 20% paid way too much money?

Ummmm….the corporate rate was 35%, not 20%.

After tax deductions for appreciation and buying new equipment and everything most probably played paid close to zero.

Well, if DEPRECIATION and other business expenses drop your net profit to zero, why would you pay more than zero taxes?

 

[deanrd]

We had Our BEST HALF CENTURY WITH HIGH RATES.

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)
Historical rates (married couples, filing jointly)

Year/ Top Rate%/ Over

1913 --- 7% 500,000
1914 --- 7% 500,000
1915 --- 7% 500,000
1916 --- 15% 2,000,000
1917 --- 67% 2,000,000
1918 --- 77% 1,000,000
1919 --- 73% 1,000,000
1920 --- 73% 1,000,000
1921 --- 73% 1,000,000
1922 --- 58% 200,000
1923 --- 43.5% 200,000
1924 --- 46% 500,000
1925 --- 25% 100,000
1926 --- 25% 100,000
1927 --- 25% 100,000
1928 --- 25% 100,000
1929 --- 24% 100,000
1930 --- 25% 100,000
1931 --- 25% 100,000
1932 --- 63% 1,000,000
1933 --- 63% 1,000,000
1934 --- 63% 1,000,000
1935 --- 63% 1,000,000
1936 --- 79% 5,000,000
1937 --- 79% 5,000,000
1938 --- 79% 5,000,000
1939 --- 79% 5,000,000
1940 --- 81% 5,000,000
1941 --- 81% 5,000,000
1942 --- 88% 200,000
1943 --- 88% 200,000
1944--- 94 200,000
1945 --- 94% 200,000
1946 --- 86% 200,000
1947 --- 86% 200,000
1948 --- 82.% 400,000
1949 --- 82% 400,000
1950 --- 84.36% 400,000
1951 --- 91% 400,000
1952 --- 92% 400,000
1953 --- 92% 400,000
1954 --- 91% 400,000
1955 --- 91% 400,000
1956 --- 91% 400,000
1957 --- 91% 400,000
1958 --- 91% 400,000
1959 --- 91% 400,000
1960 --- 91% 400,000
1961 --- 91% 400,000
1962 --- 91% 400,000
1963 --- 91% 400,000
1964 --- 77% 400,000
1965 --- 70% 200,000
1966 --- 70% 200,000
1967 --- 70% 200,000
1968 --- 75.25% 200,000
1969 --- 77% 200,000
1970 --- 71.75% 200,000
1971 --- 70% 60% 200,000
1972 --- 70% 50 200,000
1973 --- 70% 50 200,000
1974 --- 70% 50 200,000
1975 ----70% 50 200,000
1976 --- 70% 50 200,000
1977 --- 70% 50 203,200
1978 --- 70% 50 203,200
1979 --- 70% 50 215,400
1980 --- 70% 50 215,400
1981 --- 69% 50 215,400
1982 --- 50% 85,600
1983 --- 50% 109,400
1984 --- 50% 162,400
1985 --- 50 % 169,020
1986 --- 50 % 175,250
1987 --- 38.5% 90,000
1988 --- 28% <8> 29,750 <8>
1989 --- 28% <8> 30,950 <8>
1990 --- 28% <8> 32,450 <8>
1991 --- 31% 82,150
1992 --- 31% 86,500
1993 --- 39.6% 89,150
1994 --- 39.6% 250,000
1995 --- 39.6% 256,500
1996 --- 39.6% 263,750
1997 --- 39.6% 271,050
1998 --- 39.6% 278,450
1999 --- 39.6% 283,150
2000 --- 39.6% 288,350
2001 --- 39.1% 297,350
2002 --- 38.6% 307,050
2003 --- 35% 311,950​

`

Wow look at that. All the times of steep economic growth and that’s when the tax rates for the rich were highest.

Does that mean Republicans have been lying to us?

Again?