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

[Thinker101]

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.

WE don't have to worry about the country we live in. While we have problems, we have a competent, well run government, and our electorate is smart enough to get rid of the occasional idiot that gets elected. Yes, Doug Ford, we are talking about you.

In the meantime, Ford's party isn't about to let him commit political suicide, like the Republicans are doing with Trump. But smart conservatives are biding their time until he totally fucks up, which will take slightly longer than it did with his dumb ass brother, but they neither Ford brother is anything close to smart.

You have a competent, well run government that relies heavily on the U.S.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

View attachment 239494

Real Gross Domestic Product

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

Average quarterly real GDP growth during 8 years of Bush: 1.87%

Average quarterly real GDP growth during 8 years of Clinton: 3.62%

The Bush tax cuts FAILED to sustain the growth seen under Clinton or increase. They then FAILED to prevent the decline in economic growth and finally the 2008 recession.

70% to 80% of economic growth does come from consumer spending. The lower Class and Middle Class increase consumer spending when their taxes are cut. The Rich do not increase their consumer spending when taxes are cut.

Warren Buffet does not increase his annual consumption of Big Mac's in any given year based on his tax rate. People in the lower class and middle class do.

 

[RealDave]

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.

Cut Spending then we can talk tax increases.

the deficit can easily be eliminated by cutting spending, there is no need for tax increases.

Yet your buddy & your party keep cutting income through unfunded tax cuts.

whenever tax rates have been cut and/or the tax code simplified, government revenues have increased because the GDP has increased and more people are making more money and paying more taxes.

the idea that tax cuts must be "funded" is a stupid left wing talking point with no basis in fact.

So, by your thinking, if we cut taxes by 5% every 5 years, eventually we will collect no taxes & the government swimming in cash.

 

[Papageorgio]

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

I think the United States should increase the top federal tax rate from where it is now at 39% back to 70% where it was in 1980. The top tax rate in the United States from 1945 to 1980 was NEVER lower than 70%. The time period of 1945 to 1980 saw the strongest average annual GDP growth in United States history. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was at 121% in 1945. But by 1980, the national debt was only 33% of GDP. During this time period, the United States fought the cold war which involved fighting in Korea and Vietnam as well as deterring the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

How was the United States able to fight these wars, have large annual defense spending, pay for new social programs like Social Security, Medicare etc, while reducing the national debt relative to the country's wealth? It was able to do this by having a top tax rate on the richest Americans that was between 70% and 94% during the time period of 1945-1980. These tax rates on wealthy Americans DID NOT hurt the economy, ruin business etc. The country thrived with these tax rates.

Consumer spending is 80% of economic growth. Most consumers are not wealthy. They are lower class or middle class. Making sure their taxes are lower or balanced is important because they spend money when they get a raise, new job, tax break, etc. The rich though do not change their level of consumer spending when they get a tax cut or obtain more wealth. Their wealth is such that their level of consumer spending is not impacted by tax cuts or tax increases.

So going back to a 70% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans will provide more important revenue for the government without hurting the economy. This extra revenue can be used to balance the budget, pay down debt, increase defense spending, provide more money for education and health care.

The national debt has sky rocketed since 1980 and it has been difficult finding enough money for defense and domestic programs. The solution is a higher tax rate, 70% or more on the wealthiest Americans. It won't hurt the economy as shown by the superior economic growth from 1945 to 1980.

I understand your point however we have a government spending problem and until we reign in that part of the equation, government will continue to be wasteful with the citizens money.

So if we can reign in government spending and cutback spending across the board and eliminate waste, then we can look at the tax structure, until that happens, why give government more money to waste?

 

[Rigby5]

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.

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)

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.

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.

False. The Russians nearly starved to death from lack of food and raw materials. Without the lend lease supply program from the Allies, The Russian military would have collapsed. Much of Russia's food producing areas as well as industrial factories were overrun by the Germans. The United States and other countries picked up the slack which saved Russia.

On the Military front, by opening the second front in France, Germany was forced to put 40% of its total military force in areas not involved with the Russian front. This reduction in German troops on the Russian front aided the Russian military in its later offensives to take Russian territory and Eastern Europe from the Germans.

The United States and United Kingdom conducted Industrial Bombing on Germany which weakened its military production. This helped Russia, especially since the Russian Airforce was nearly 100% focused on close air support for the Russian Army and was never involved in the industrial bombing of Germany.

Finally, Russia was not involved until the last two weeks of the war, with the war against Japan. Russia did not have to worry about a second front against Japan thanks to the United States and it allies. It could concentrate all of its military power against Germany.

I disagree.
Lend Lease was never more than 10% of the Soviet military hardware, and was mostly obsolete.
The best thing we gave them were all those Studebaker trucks, that were top notch.
Nor did we send Russia any significant amount of food at all, ever.
The Germans never over ran the food production areas, like the Ukraine.

And no, the German western front was old obsolete weapons, the retires, and school children.
Far less than 10% of the German fighting force was holding off the western front.
The west did not even see a King Tiger, Tiger, or Panther tank until 200 were brought back from the Eastern Front for the Battle of the Bulge. And look what some real German forces did to us. Compare that with something on the eastern front, like the battle of Kursk, with about 3,000 tanks each side. Almost a million men.

The US strategic bombing was the only thing that was significant, but in reality the war had already been lost for Germany by then, and we just helped speed it up a bit.

Japan and Russia had no overlapping interests or areas, and were not relevant.

 

[RealDave]

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.

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.

No one lied about anything. Iraq had used WMD more times than any country since World War I. Over the past 15 years, over 10,000 artillery shells have been found in Iraq filled with Sarin Gas. These Artillery shells date from the Iran/Iraq War, and the purity of the gas in many of the shells has declined, but some of them are still have high purity levels and could wipe out several city blocks. Saddam's Iraq was supposed to have eliminated all these shells over 25 years ago. They did not. Many of them were hidden or buried. All of them are violations resolutions requiring Iraq to disband of ALL WMD!

Finally, the Iraq war was not just about Iraq's possession of WMD, it was also about preventing Iraq from restarting and rebuilding WMD programs in the future. The only way to do that was by removing Saddam from power.

So, we got 4600 soldiers killed because of rusted out canisters & the fear that Sadam might start programs again. I guess Sadam was the only despot who could do this or should we invade them all?

 

[OldLady]

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?

To me, comparing them to others -- saying they are the top 1% or that they own half the country-- is totally beside the point. The point is they earned that money and taking even half of it away just like that is outrageous. Why would you continue to live or work somewhere that robs you of over half your lawful earnings like that? NO WONDER PEOPLE CHEAT ON THEIR TAXES!
I'll ask you something, Lesh. What gives us the right to take that much money away from another citizen? To me, saying "he can afford it," is a nonanswer. It seems to me that destroys any incentive to either (1) work hard to build more success or (2) to live here.

 

[Dragonlady]

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​

`

During the 1990's, you had the best economic growth, a balanced budget, and low unemployment with a top rate of 39.6% on incomes over $250,000. But you still wage stagnant wages for the working class, and a steady erosion of the wealth of the working and middle class trickling up to the top 20% so this would indicate that the rate which provided the best balance to lift ALL Americans, not just the top 20%, were the tax rates in effect prior to the Reagan tax code changes.

Until 1980, working Americans owned 5% of the wealth of the nation. After 1980, when the promised wage boosts promised once the union movement was destroyed failed to materialize, and workers wages steadily lost buying power, workers used their savings to maintain their lifestyles, until those savings ran out, then they used their credit, and finally goverment assistance in the form of food stamps, earned income credits and other administration heavy and expensive forms of social assistance, in place of real increases in their income.

And even as wages stagnated, executive incomes soared, profits are the highest in history, and businesses have absorbed increased costs in equipment, rent, insurance, raw materials, and management salaries, they balk at paying more for their front line workers, the people who do the work which actually generates the profits. Wages, as a percentage of costs, is now back to the same levels as were last seen in the Guilded Age, the age of the Robber Barons.

https://www.history.com/news/second-gilded-age-income-inequality

 

[Redfish]

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

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

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

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

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

PS:
Nobody gives a shit about Venezuela.

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

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

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

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

I gave you an example of what happens to a country when taxes are raised to support socialist bullshit.

 

[OldLady]

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.

I agree that we need to start spending what we bring in, not overspending and robbing the rich with obscene tax rates. But you are targeting the wrong programs to cut--we don't need a military 4x larger than the nearest competition. It's ridiculous. Sure, it is a strong balance wheel in the economy, but I think Obama was right to start chiseling away at it. The fact that the DOD couldn't figure out how to trim the fat is their failure. They should have figured it out instead of making it hard to afford new planes.

 

[Redfish]

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?

what is the other 29%? Sounds like the important stuff is covered by 71%, so lets cut the other 29% to 10%. a net saving of 19%, much more than the annual deficit.

 

[Redfish]

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.

I agree that we need to start spending what we bring in, not overspending and robbing the rich with obscene tax rates. But you are targeting the wrong programs to cut--we don't need a military 4x larger than the nearest competition. It's ridiculous. Sure, it is a strong balance wheel in the economy, but I think Obama was right to start chiseling away at it. The fact that the DOD couldn't figure out how to trim the fat is their failure. They should have figured it out instead of making it hard to afford new planes.

sure, there is waste in the military, there is waste in every department of the government. At least military spending is done in this country and puts blue collar americans to work building ships, planes, guns, ammo, rations, housing, bases, etc. How about if we cut foreign aid to countries that are trying to destroy us? How about if we stop paying farmers to NOT grow crops? How about if we stop funding the abortion mill known as planned parenthood? The federal budget could easily be balanced if every congressperson's pet projects were killed.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Everyone spends money in the economy. That's not an argument for taxing one person differently than another.

You are correct that Bartenders and Janitors in Denmark are not paying 65% in taxes.... namely because no one is.

So let me help you out with this.

Labour market tax, is an 8% tax that applies to all income, no matter what. If you make $5,000 for an entire year, you still pay 8% in tax.

Regional 1% tax also affects everyone.

The state tax of 15% only applies to people making more than $74,000 a year. So a Janitor would only be hit at the 11.13% rate.

Municipal taxes vary from 23% to 28%. We'll go with 23% for the sake of this example. Just understand most people in the country pay on average 25%.

Lastly the big share tax, which is 42% over dkk 52,900. That is about $8,000 USD.

Combined, even the lowest of income earners, will be hit with a tax bill upward of 40% of their income, if not higher. There are deductions, so you don't end up with the 70% taxes that this document would lead you to believe on its own.

http://taxsummaries.pwc.com/ID/Denmark-Individual-Taxes-on-personal-income


Nevertheless, the lower class in Denmark, is paying more than double the taxes that the lower class in the US is paying.

And the reason is simple. You simply can't tax the rich enough to fund socialist programs. It is not possible. You have to tax the poor and middle class. That is the only way to fund these programs.

And the people are getting fed up with it. This is why right-wing governments have been winning all over Europe. People are tried of living poor, while working hard.

 

[LeftofLeft]

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.

Cut Spending then we can talk tax increases.

the deficit can easily be eliminated by cutting spending, there is no need for tax increases.

Yet your buddy & your party keep cutting income through unfunded tax cuts.

whenever tax rates have been cut and/or the tax code simplified, government revenues have increased because the GDP has increased and more people are making more money and paying more taxes.

the idea that tax cuts must be "funded" is a stupid left wing talking point with no basis in fact.

So, by your thinking, if we cut taxes by 5% every 5 years, eventually we will collect no taxes & the government swimming in cash.

In the short-term, forseable future, tax cuts make sense. When liberals are in control, net revenues go down while tax cuts go away while at the same time, Liberals consider a 12 percent increase funding request ending up at 7 percent increase to be a “spending cut”.

 

[OldLady]

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.

I agree that we need to start spending what we bring in, not overspending and robbing the rich with obscene tax rates. But you are targeting the wrong programs to cut--we don't need a military 4x larger than the nearest competition. It's ridiculous. Sure, it is a strong balance wheel in the economy, but I think Obama was right to start chiseling away at it. The fact that the DOD couldn't figure out how to trim the fat is their failure. They should have figured it out instead of making it hard to afford new planes.

sure, there is waste in the military, there is waste in every department of the government. At least military spending is done in this country and puts blue collar americans to work building ships, planes, guns, ammo, rations, housing, bases, etc. How about if we cut foreign aid to countries that are trying to destroy us? How about if we stop paying farmers to NOT grow crops? How about if we stop funding the abortion mill known as planned parenthood? The federal budget could easily be balanced if every congressperson's pet projects were killed.

Yet the things you listed are not "pet projects." There are very solid reasons to supply nominal aid to foreign countries. If we're paying farmers not to grow crops, it is to keep their prices at a level where they can afford to keep producing the crops. Planned Parenthood is just your pet peeve; that's extraneous to the argument.

The DOD is a blood sucker. Political minds shouldn't be in charge of making it more efficient and of a sensible size. That will never work. Get some really good business minds in there to analyze it and SLOWLY reduce the redundancies and get some actual incentive to save money not blindly pay whatever a contractor asks. I know I'm dreaming. It will never happen. Since the Report From Iron Mountain, we've known that America cannot survive without a thriving military, but it doesn't have to be THIS big.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why does anyone care about a rise in the Income tax for those who earn more in a year than the vast number of our citizens will earn in a lifetime?

A true progressive income tax would not have so few tax brackets, reduced by Ryan and signed by Trump which didn't benefit the many, only the very few.

The argument - lol - that the wealthy create most of the jobs is BULLSHIT. One more lie by the elite establishment to keep more than their fair share, and supported by the Republican Party.

The Importance of Young Firms for Economic Growth

Food for thought from the LINK:

"Welcome Immigrants
"Immigrants were nearly twice as likely as native-born Americans to start businesses in 2014. The creation of a visa for immigrant entrepreneurs would allow these job creators to start companies in the United States."

'Remove Regulatory Barriers to Growth
"As regulations build up over time, they represent an increasing and disproportionate cost to entrepreneurial firms. Ideas to counter regulatory accumulation include the establishment of a commission to review and recommend regulatory changes to Congress and implementing sunset dates on major regulations." [NOT EO's by the Executive]

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Cut Spending then we can talk tax increases.

the deficit can easily be eliminated by cutting spending, there is no need for tax increases.

Yet your buddy & your party keep cutting income through unfunded tax cuts.

whenever tax rates have been cut and/or the tax code simplified, government revenues have increased because the GDP has increased and more people are making more money and paying more taxes.

the idea that tax cuts must be "funded" is a stupid left wing talking point with no basis in fact.

So, by your thinking, if we cut taxes by 5% every 5 years, eventually we will collect no taxes & the government swimming in cash.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

I love how you ass napkins always try to lump in national defense and veteran benefits with dipshit social programs. Like that's going to somehow legitimize you.

How about THIS little breakdown?

Federal spending is broken down into three parts: Mandatory, discretionary, and interest on the national debt. Interest on the debt makes up 6.03%, discretionary spending is 29.34%, and mandatory spending is 64.63%.

Military spending falls under the heading of discretionary spending. Of the 30% of federal spending that is discretionary, the military makes up about 54%. If my math isn't entirely off, that would mean the military is less than 1/5 of federal spending.

Mandatory spending, on the other hand, would encompass Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and veterans' benefits. Of that massive 2/3 of spending that goes here, veterans' benefits are about 5%. Medicare and Medicaid make up about 40% of that, and Social Security makes up just under half. That would mean about 1/3 of federal spending is Social Security.

 

[Redfish]

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.

I agree that we need to start spending what we bring in, not overspending and robbing the rich with obscene tax rates. But you are targeting the wrong programs to cut--we don't need a military 4x larger than the nearest competition. It's ridiculous. Sure, it is a strong balance wheel in the economy, but I think Obama was right to start chiseling away at it. The fact that the DOD couldn't figure out how to trim the fat is their failure. They should have figured it out instead of making it hard to afford new planes.

sure, there is waste in the military, there is waste in every department of the government. At least military spending is done in this country and puts blue collar americans to work building ships, planes, guns, ammo, rations, housing, bases, etc. How about if we cut foreign aid to countries that are trying to destroy us? How about if we stop paying farmers to NOT grow crops? How about if we stop funding the abortion mill known as planned parenthood? The federal budget could easily be balanced if every congressperson's pet projects were killed.

Yet the things you listed are not "pet projects." There are very solid reasons to supply nominal aid to foreign countries. If we're paying farmers not to grow crops, it is to keep their prices at a level where they can afford to keep producing the crops. Planned Parenthood is just your pet peeve; that's extraneous to the argument.

The DOD is a blood sucker. Political minds shouldn't be in charge of making it more efficient and of a sensible size. That will never work. Get some really good business minds in there to analyze it and SLOWLY reduce the redundancies and get some actual incentive to save money not blindly pay whatever a contractor asks. I know I'm dreaming. It will never happen. Since the Report From Iron Mountain, we've known that America cannot survive without a thriving military, but it doesn't have to be THIS big.

Having been a defense contractor for over 40 years I can tell you that the profit rates are not that great. Not even close to the profit rates made by big pharma, Wal Mart, or the oil companies. shipbuilders are lucky if they can realize 7% profit on delivery of a ship to the Navy or Coast Guard. government payment provisions require shipbuilders to self finance most of the cost because government payment clauses only reimburse a portion of the cost until final delivery, and in the case of a large ship that can be 5 years or more. The airframe and electronics suppliers may make a little more but again, nothing like the drug or oil companies.


and yes, there is a lot of waste in the pentagon that could be cut out, including unnecessary levels of bureaucracy and time wasting approval and acceptance requirements. But, having said that, a strong military is the primary purpose of the federal government and if we ignore that we jeopardize the future of the USA.

 

[Redfish]

Why does anyone care about a rise in the Income tax for those who earn more in a year than the vast number of our citizens will earn in a lifetime?

A true progressive income tax would not have so few tax brackets, reduced by Ryan and signed by Trump which didn't benefit the many, only the very few.

The argument - lol - that the wealthy create most of the jobs is BULLSHIT. One more lie by the elite establishment to keep more than their fair share, and supported by the Republican Party.

The Importance of Young Firms for Economic Growth

Food for thought from the LINK:

"Welcome Immigrants
"Immigrants were nearly twice as likely as native-born Americans to start businesses in 2014. The creation of a visa for immigrant entrepreneurs would allow these job creators to start companies in the United States."

'Remove Regulatory Barriers to Growth
"As regulations build up over time, they represent an increasing and disproportionate cost to entrepreneurial firms. Ideas to counter regulatory accumulation include the establishment of a commission to review and recommend regulatory changes to Congress and implementing sunset dates on major regulations." [NOT EO's by the Executive]

your ideas have been tried in Venezuela, once one of the richest nations on earth, now the people are eating their pets and zoo animals.