Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
socialist or non socialist , no government deserves to take the majority of a person's income. The government already rapes the tax payer when you figure in sales tax, property tax, sin tax, and licensing fees (tax)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.
Without going and looking it up I believe it’s the normal people who were paying 35% not the wealthy corporations.It’s more like corporations. Remember the Trump campaign saying the corporations at 20% paid way too much money?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.
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?
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?
Imagine if we didn’t have a military. You’d be speaking German. You wouldn’t have the nerve to whine to them that you pay taxes.socialist or non socialist , no government deserves to take the majority of a person's income. The government already rapes the tax payer when you figure in sales tax, property tax, sin tax, and licensing fees (tax)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.
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.
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?
I don't have to move. I already live in one of those countries. I've retired to a lovely little resort town which has everything I need, and what it doesn't have, I can order online or go to the City to get. Here I can live independently, close to family, do a bit of travelling, and not have to worry about copays I can't afford, filling out medical paperwork and getting pre-approvals.
I can use my savings to travel, or to indulge my hobbies and my grandchildren.
Oh yeah. Weed is legal. I can go to the dispensary and buy the nicest Lemon Kush for $125 an ounce. Life is good.
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.
Imagine if we didn’t have a military. You’d be speaking German. You wouldn’t have the nerve to whine to them that you pay taxes.socialist or non socialist , no government deserves to take the majority of a person's income. The government already rapes the tax payer when you figure in sales tax, property tax, sin tax, and licensing fees (tax)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.
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.
You really naive enough to think that the Pentagon isn't as duplicative and wasteful as any other federal program?....All that would need to happen is have all the waste and graft wrung out of their budget, and they could survive budget cuts just fine.71% of the federal budget goes to pay for the following five things:
National Defense
Medicaid
Medicare
Social Security
Veterans Benefits
Unless you plan on cutting those things, you need to increase the top federal tax rate. Its not a good idea to cut national defense. What justification would you have for cutting a veteran's benefits or preventing a citizen from collecting their social security pay check for the month?
Without going and looking it up I believe it’s the normal people who were paying 35% not the wealthy corporations.It’s more like corporations. Remember the Trump campaign saying the corporations at 20% paid way too much money?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.
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?
Remember when Republicans were mocking the billionaire who said that his tax rate was lower than his secretaries?
And anyone who thinks corporations will pay a cent more than they absolutely have to is crazy. The whole idea behind business is to make money. They are not charities.
That’s why it’s up to us to regulate them so in their greed they don’t destroy the country.
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.
71% of the federal budget goes to pay for the following five things:
National Defense
Medicaid
Medicare
Social Security
Veterans Benefits
Unless you plan on cutting those things, you need to increase the top federal tax rate. Its not a good idea to cut national defense. What justification would you have for cutting a veteran's benefits or preventing a citizen from collecting their social security pay check for the month?
You really naive enough to think that the Pentagon isn't as duplicative and wasteful as any other federal program?....All that would need to happen is have all the waste and graft wrung out of their budget, and they could survive budget cuts just fine.71% of the federal budget goes to pay for the following five things:
National Defense
Medicaid
Medicare
Social Security
Veterans Benefits
Unless you plan on cutting those things, you need to increase the top federal tax rate. Its not a good idea to cut national defense. What justification would you have for cutting a veteran's benefits or preventing a citizen from collecting their social security pay check for the month?
Imagine if we didn’t have a military. You’d be speaking German. You wouldn’t have the nerve to whine to them that you pay taxes.socialist or non socialist , no government deserves to take the majority of a person's income. The government already rapes the tax payer when you figure in sales tax, property tax, sin tax, and licensing fees (tax)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.
Nonsense.
Russia beat the Germans, not the US.
And the Germans were such paper tigers, they could not even invade England, much less the US.
We really have never been attacked, and likely never could be.
Our military has always been an aggressive offensive force whose goal has ways been just to increase US profits.
And by the way, Hawaii can't possibly be considered part of the US by anyone sane, and torpedoing hostile warships is not the same as trying to invade or attacking the population. That is actually defensive.
Without going and looking it up I believe it’s the normal people who were paying 35% not the wealthy corporations.It’s more like corporations. Remember the Trump campaign saying the corporations at 20% paid way too much money?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.
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?
Remember when Republicans were mocking the billionaire who said that his tax rate was lower than his secretaries?
And anyone who thinks corporations will pay a cent more than they absolutely have to is crazy. The whole idea behind business is to make money. They are not charities.
That’s why it’s up to us to regulate them so in their greed they don’t destroy the country.
Without going and looking it up I believe it’s the normal people who were paying 35% not the wealthy corporations.
The corporate tax rate had been 35% since Clinton raised it in 1993.
Historical Income Tax Rates and Brackets, 1862-2013 - Tax Foundation
Individual rates have bounced around.
Remember when Republicans were mocking the billionaire who said that his tax rate was lower than his secretaries?
Yes, I mocked Buffett's lie several times.
You really naive enough to think that the Pentagon isn't as duplicative and wasteful as any other federal program?....All that would need to happen is have all the waste and graft wrung out of their budget, and they could survive budget cuts just fine.71% of the federal budget goes to pay for the following five things:
National Defense
Medicaid
Medicare
Social Security
Veterans Benefits
Unless you plan on cutting those things, you need to increase the top federal tax rate. Its not a good idea to cut national defense. What justification would you have for cutting a veteran's benefits or preventing a citizen from collecting their social security pay check for the month?
Correct.
It was the Pentagon that lied to use about WMD in Iraq.
We should make them pay back that $3 trillion they causes us to spend, with interest.
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?
I don't have to move. I already live in one of those countries. I've retired to a lovely little resort town which has everything I need, and what it doesn't have, I can order online or go to the City to get. Here I can live independently, close to family, do a bit of travelling, and not have to worry about copays I can't afford, filling out medical paperwork and getting pre-approvals.
I can use my savings to travel, or to indulge my hobbies and my grandchildren.
Oh yeah. Weed is legal. I can go to the dispensary and buy the nicest Lemon Kush for $125 an ounce. Life is good.
Great, another foreigner. How about you just STFU and worry about whatever country you're living in.
Without going and looking it up I believe it’s the normal people who were paying 35% not the wealthy corporations.It’s more like corporations. Remember the Trump campaign saying the corporations at 20% paid way too much money?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.
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?
Remember when Republicans were mocking the billionaire who said that his tax rate was lower than his secretaries?
And anyone who thinks corporations will pay a cent more than they absolutely have to is crazy. The whole idea behind business is to make money. They are not charities.
That’s why it’s up to us to regulate them so in their greed they don’t destroy the country.
Without going and looking it up I believe it’s the normal people who were paying 35% not the wealthy corporations.
The corporate tax rate had been 35% since Clinton raised it in 1993.
Historical Income Tax Rates and Brackets, 1862-2013 - Tax Foundation
Individual rates have bounced around.
Remember when Republicans were mocking the billionaire who said that his tax rate was lower than his secretaries?
Yes, I mocked Buffett's lie several times.
Corporations really almost never pay any taxes, because if they do have a surplus that is profit, they just pay dividends or invest it in infrastructure.
Any corporation that ever pays any taxes is incredibly foolish.
It would even be better to just divide any extra profits into employee bonuses.
Corporations almost never pay any taxes at all.
And Buffett was not lying.
He is correct that owners can pay themselves in stock options instead of cash, so then only get taxed at the 15% capital gains rate.
I would normally be around the 35% bracket, but have never had to pay more than about 20%.
I am just not high enough to be able to negotiate a lower tax rate like 15%.
