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

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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

Your claim was, "Bush's cut of the top federal tax rate from 40% to 35% did not produce any economic growth"

How many quarters of 7% real growth did we see after Obama hiked the top rate?

The Bush tax cuts FAILED to sustain the growth seen under Clinton or increase.

I'll be the first to admit that Internet Bubbles are COOL!

What was Obama's real GDP growth during his 8 years?

70% to 80% of economic growth does come from consumer spending.

I've noticed your inability to understand what GDP means.

Warren Buffet does not increase his annual consumption of Big Mac's in any given year based on his tax rate.

It's good that the purpose of tax cuts isn't to get him to eat more Big Macs.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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.

Last year WalMart had revenues of about $500 billion with net income of less than $9.9 billion.
Your 7% example sounds a lot better than their 2%.

 

[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.

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.

Last year WalMart had revenues of about $500 billion with net income of less than $9.9 billion.
Your 7% example sounds a lot better than their 2%.

In actual dollars of profit, Walmart probably made more that Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics. Not a good choice on my part on profit margin. Grocery stores typically make very small profit %.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Okay, let's cut through the bullshit. The leftists here would LOVE for this to be a discussion about "wouldn't it be wonderful for us if we had all that money to spend?!" We need to stop accommodating them in this. The only question that matters is, "Do you have any right whatsoever to two-thirds of someone else's income?"

The answer is no. And there's no amount of "But look what we could spend with it" that's going to change that answer.

No.

 

[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.

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.

I disagree that a "strong military is the primary purpose of the federal government." It is one purpose, but certainly not the only one that matters.

 

[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.

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.

Okay, if the problem doesn't lie with contractors who charge what the market will bear, let's focus on the rest of the problems.

 

[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.

I disagree that a "strong military is the primary purpose of the federal government." It is one purpose, but certainly not the only one that matters.

providing for the security of the nation is the number one responsibility of the federal government. What do you think is a higher priority? Running the court system? providing police and fire protection? handing out welfare?

 

[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.

Okay, if the problem doesn't lie with contractors who charge what the market will bear, let's focus on the rest of the problems.

you just don't know how government contacting works. Even in a sole source procurement there is a price negotiation between the company and the government. "what the market will bear" is a stupid statement.

but yeah, lets focus on the waste and lets start in the halls of congress and their staffs.

 

[Rambunctious]

Why wait, go now!

I'm waiting to watch CNN again when Trump wins re election....

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

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

Such a misguided Kuunt… We know the real history of income inequality, because when Clinton decided to raise everyones taxes in 1993, his Demonrats lost the house for the 1st time since the 1940's and Newt came in with the Contract with America, which Bill Clinton signed 7 of the 10. Because of that, Rapist Bill was able to take credit for a continuing of Reagan's prosperity that happened when the marginal tax rates were cut and people were allowed to keep more of their money. All this was happening, while Bill Clinton was putting a Cuban cigar where it wasn't supposed to be. Then the Clintons were miraculously able to put forth a fortune over 250 million dollars, on his speaking fees, and the wife's secretary fees. Ah yep, nothing like a liberal how rewrites history...

 

[Rigby5]

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.

I disagree that a "strong military is the primary purpose of the federal government." It is one purpose, but certainly not the only one that matters.

providing for the security of the nation is the number one responsibility of the federal government. What do you think is a higher priority? Running the court system? providing police and fire protection? handing out welfare?

Since we have never been attacked since 1812, likely the courts protecting individual rights are more important than the military.
The military is supposed to be state run militias with citizen soldiers.

And if you bring up Pearl Harbor, not only should Hawaii not be occupied by the US, but Pearl Harbor was a defensive attack on offensive ships of war, not an attack on or invasion of the civilian society.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Okay, if the problem doesn't lie with contractors who charge what the market will bear, let's focus on the rest of the problems.

you just don't know how government contacting works. Even in a sole source procurement there is a price negotiation between the company and the government. "what the market will bear" is a stupid statement.

but yeah, lets focus on the waste and lets start in the halls of congress and their staffs.

Well you do have a point that the trillions Bush borrowed to invade Iraq was not profit to contractors, except for Blackwater Security.

We sent pallets of currency to Iraq.

 

[Aldo Raine]

Why wait, go now!

I'm waiting to watch CNN again when Trump wins re election....

Why wait, take your Tundra and go!

 

[Lesh]

That's not fair to the people who are the wealthiest. 70% !!!!! Way more than half their income going to the government? That is obscene.

Really?

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

A. Can't afford it

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

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.

Do you not understand that "the money" has to come from somewhere???

Should it come from people who can barely pay their minimum bills...or from those who the system has made wealthy beyond any reasonable way to spend that wealth?

 

[georgephillip]

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.

You should also consider how the "Washington Consensus" allowed the US to shift the financial burden of wars in Korea and Vietnam onto foreign central banks:

https://michael-hudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/superimperialism.pdf (P. 29)

"Chart 1 shows that foreign governments financed the entire increase in publicly held U.S. federal debt between the end of World War II and March 1973, and were still doing this throughout the 1990s. (How the system ended up after that time is outlined in my sequel to this book, Global Fracture.)

"The process reached its first crisis during 1968- 72, peaking in the inflationary blowout that culminated in the quadrupling of grain and oil prices in 1972-73.

"Of the $47 billion increase in net public debt the publicly held federal debt during this five-year period – the gross public debt, less that which the government owes to its own Social Security and other trust funds and the Federal Reserve System – foreign governments financed $42 billion"

 

[danielpalos]

View attachment 239421

He should have said, Raise the minimum wage to raise more tax revenue and solve for unemployment with simple compensation.

Liar.

it could have been a Gospel Truth.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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.

Last year WalMart had revenues of about $500 billion with net income of less than $9.9 billion.
Your 7% example sounds a lot better than their 2%.

In actual dollars of profit, Walmart probably made more that Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics. Not a good choice on my part on profit margin. Grocery stores typically make very small profit %.

Yes, not the best choice. I made a mistake too, I took after tax profit to come up with my 2% number.
Pre-tax profit was about $15 billion, for a 3% profit margin.

I see Exxon had about a 7.8% profit margin for FY 2017.

 

[Toronado3800]

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.

Not the worst of ideas. The smaller world we live in works against it but in generally I'm in favor or raising that rate and providing loopholes through which you can get out of some of it. These loopholes have to be good for America of course.

 

[Rambunctious]

Why wait, go now!

I'm waiting to watch CNN again when Trump wins re election....

Why wait, take your Tundra and go!

Don't need a Tundra in Fiji....just one of these;

and a whole lot of these;

and a couple of these;

Shit I may go anyway....

 

[OnePercenter]

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

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

Please vote in my poll.

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

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

So you agree that the American worker needs a raise.