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

[francoHFW]

Besides giving us money to invest in the middle class and infrastructure for a change, a 70% top rate is the only way to get CEO pay under control again.

Amazing how the GOP brainwashed doops have so much sympathy for the mega rich but none for the unfortunate, and themselves and friends and family. A disgrace.

A flat tax system like we have now if you count all taxes is a giveaway to the rich and the ruin of the middle class and the country. So now we have the worst inequality and upward Mobility ever and anywhere. Brainwashed functional morons...

 

[boedicca]

If you tax me at 70% then when we get tax discounts my discount should be higher too.

Indeed:

Each and every day, 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner together. The bill for all 10 comes to $100 each day. If the bill were paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The 10th man – the richest – would pay $59. Although the 10 men didn't share the bill equally, they all seemed content enough with the arrangement – until the restaurant owner threw them a curve.

"You're all very good customers," the owner said, "so I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. I'm going to charge you just $80 in total." The 10 men looked at each other and seemed genuinely surprised, but quite happy about the news.

The first four men, of course, are unaffected because they weren't paying anything for their meals anyway. They'll still eat for free. The big question is how to divvy up the $20 in savings among the remaining six in a way that's fair for each of them. They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33, but if they subtract that amount from each person's share, then the fifth and sixth men would end up being paid to eat their meals. The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each person's bill by roughly the same percentage, and he proceeded to work out the amounts that each should pay.

The results? The fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $14, leaving the 10th man with a bill of $50 instead of $59. Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got one dollar out of the $20," said the sixth man, pointing to the 10th man, "and he got $9!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too! It's not fair that he got nine times more than me!" "That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get back $9 when I only got $2? The rich get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine outraged men surrounded the 10th and brutally assaulted him. The next day, he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they faced a problem that they hadn't faced before. They were $50 short.


Overtaxing the rich: A cautionary tale

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Nope. In fact we should eliminate all tax expenditures and LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.

That would be a disaster for the country. Budget Deficits would balloon and the country would no longer be able to defend its interest around the world.

Budget Deficits would balloon and the country would no longer be able to defend its interest around the world.

Do you know what a "tax expenditure" means?

 

[Oddball]

2/3s of the United States defense budget goes to paying the troops and training them. Where is the duplication and the waste in paying the troops and training them?

Horse shit...You can't say that because the Pentagon has defied any attempts to be audited.

The Pentagon is to you what food stamps are to lolberals.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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

So the tax increase did not hurt the economy,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No,

Thanks.

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

Now prove your claim.

The top federal tax rate in 1990 went from 28% then to 40% by 1994. That increase did not prevent the rapid GDP growth of the late 1990s!

That increase did not prevent the rapid GDP growth of the late 1990s!

That increase did not cause the rapid GDP growth of the late 1990s!

 

[U2Edge]

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?

Defending the country is a necessity! If you don't defend the country and its interest, it puts its survival at risk.

National Defense
Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
Veterans Benefits
Paying interest on the national debt

Already, those six things are 81% of the federal budget. You can't really cut any of those things. Such spending is generally a necessity. So its not a spending problem, its an economic growth and tax rate problem. Greater revenue collection is the only answer. The only way you get more revenue is through strong economic growth and a higher top federal tax rate.

 

[Andylusion]

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

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

So the tax increase did not hurt the economy,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No,

Thanks.

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

Now prove your claim.

The top federal tax rate in 1990 went from 28% then to 40% by 1994. That increase did not prevent the rapid GDP growth of the late 1990s!

Actually, Clinton's own panel of economists, said in their own report, that it was the tax cuts of the 1980s, that ended the stag-flation of the 1970s. They openly said tax cuts resulted in the economic growth that continued throughout the 1990s.

And honestly, it is foolish to think otherwise. You had a decade of crappy eocnomic growth. You lower the top marginal rate from 70% to 40%, and then say "see raising it from 28% to 40% didn't harm growth". We lowered it 30%. That's huge. No wonder there was economic growth.

Additionally, just using basic logic..... If wealthy people have more of their own money... what do they do with it? They invest. They produce. They contribute jobs and growth to the economy.

How else do you think growth happens? You think a bunch of impoverish poor people are the ones investing in new company startups? It's wealthy people who do that. And in order for a wealthy person to do that.... they have to have money.

Even a wealthy person, can't invest money he doesn't have. If you have a wealthy person with $10 Million... how much money can he invest in growing a company? $10 Million.

If you tax 70% of that away, so he only has $3 Million... how much does he have to invest in a company? $3 Million.

Which is better for the economy? Investing $10 Million, or $3 Million? Which investment is going to produce more jobs, a $3 Mill investment, or a $10 Mill investment?

This is basic logic. Use your brain. Reducing taxes ALWAYS results in more long term growth.

You say increasing the top marginal rate from 28% to 40% didn't harm growth.... well of course it did. The amount of growth would have been larger, if tax rates had been lower. It was still good growth.... yes. But it still would have been larger, if taxes had been lower.

This is economics 101. If people have money, they spend it, invest it, or save it, and all 3 of those results in growth.

 

[U2Edge]

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

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

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

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

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

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

No,

Thanks.

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

Now prove your claim.

The top federal tax rate in 1990 went from 28% then to 40% by 1994. That increase did not prevent the rapid GDP growth of the late 1990s!

That increase did not prevent the rapid GDP growth of the late 1990s!

That increase did not cause the rapid GDP growth of the late 1990s!

I never claimed it did. Choosing the top federal tax rate is about choosing the rate that does not hurt economic growth and maximizes revenue collection. This was successfully done in the late 1990s and it suggest the top federal tax rate could have been even higher than 40% and you will still of had the same GDP growth.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

What so Congress can continue to get rich like Nancy pelosi?


No one ever paid 70% in tax

Yeah. They forget about all the loopholes back then that have been closed. Tards have a knack for killing the golden goose.

To be honest, I think tax rates should DROP as a person becomes more valuable to society. It would provide incentive to advance yourself.

 

[Andylusion]

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?

Defending the country is a necessity! If you don't defend the country and its interest, it puts its survival at risk.

National Defense
Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
Veterans Benefits
Paying interest on the national debt

Already, those six things are 81% of the federal budget. You can't really cut any of those things. Such spending is generally a necessity. So its not a spending problem, its an economic growth and tax rate problem. Greater revenue collection is the only answer. The only way you get more revenue is through strong economic growth and a higher top federal tax rate.

Of course we can. In fact.... we have to. There is no choice. Social Security WILL BE CUT. It has to happen. There is no other option. Medicare and Medicaid MUST BE CUT. Guaranteed, it's got to happen.

Paying debt interest has to be paid, but we could cut the two things above, and pay down our debts.

Veteran benefits will likely be cut at some point.

To say we can't cut these government handouts is insane. Look at Greece. They said the same thing. Then the entire country went broke, and hospitals closed, and pensions were cut (I think) 60%?

Just because you demand it, and say it can't be cut, doesn't change math. Social Security is going to go broke. It will be cut. Medicare and Medicaid are going broke. It will be cut. Absolutely. It's called 'math'. Go read Atlas Shrugged. You can't legislate that 1 + 1 = 11. Doesn't work. The cost of these programs, is more than the country can support. We'll be in a depression 10X worse than the 1930s.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

how is it moral for any government to confiscate 70% of your INCOME? Remember, income is not even "profit."

Well, where does your income come from? If you are a U.S. citizen living in the United States, it comes from the U.S. MARKET. Your income is based essentially on your market value. How much your house is worth is based on the MARKET. You were lucky to be born into the United States and its market. You are lucky to be able to take advantage of that market. The U.S. market was built long before you were born. It was protected, built, and grown by generations that came before you. In order for that market to continue, it needs a stable government that is able to protect it and maintain order. The government needs revenue to do that and the only way it can get that revenue is through taxes.

What so Congress can continue to get rich like Nancy pelosi?


No one ever paid 70% in tax.


.

That's debatable. The rich have in the recent past paid a top federal rate of 40% all evidence points to the fact that they could pay a lot more without it hurting the economy.

all evidence points to the fact that they could pay a lot more without it hurting the economy.

You're lying.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes. In Italy, fool.

And? What does location have to do with the current discussion? You said "The wealthy spread cash among themselves. Working folks never get a taste." You never specified rich or working in a specific country.

Besides, I'm guessing that the guy you bought your Maserati from ALSO employs quite a few less-rich people in his dealership, as well, unless he's filing his own paperwork and moonlighting as a mechanic.

Read the thread before jumping in, dope.
We're talking about the US economy which should be obvious in a thread about US tax rates.

Read the thread, dolt. Doesn't change a fucking thing I said, nor does it make a convincing backpedal for you.

Let me break it down for you, since you want us to believe you became "rich" without ever having clue one how the most basic things work.

Presuming that your Maserati dealer friend didn't build the car in his backyard and, in fact, got it the normal way a dealer acquires cars (and leaving aside the fact that YOU, not me, digressed from discussions of US taxes to rant about rich elitism):

While Maserati is, indeed, an Italian-based car manufacturer, they do employ Americans. Like most corporations in this global age, they have divisions in more than one country, complete with employees.

Furthermore, dimwit, the act of bringing the car to the US for you to buy it provides employment for all manner of not-rich Americans. Or did you think Maserati employed wizards to just wave their wands and POOF the car to the dealership?

And finally, as I mentioned and you conveniently "missed", your friend's dealership employs any number of not-rich Americans, unless he's working 40-hour days to do it all himself.

Read the thread, dolt. Doesn't change a fucking thing I said, nor does it make a convincing backpedal for you.

It absolutely does.
A car manufactured in Italy does nothing for workers in America, dope

Yikes.

That isn't entirely true.

What if the competition causes US manufacturers to either make better cars, or reduce the price of existing cars.

Do workers benefit from having higher quality, or lower cost cars? I think so. So while you might be accurate in saying that it won't directly help those workers of car companies..... it does benefit ALL workers across our entire country.

If you doubt that, look at India. So India had for 70 years prior, a completely closed economy. Specifically in the car market, it was locked down. As a result they had the Hindustan Ambassador. This car was designed in 1955, and Hindustan Motors bought the design, and started producing this car in 1957.

They continued to produce this garbage car until 2014. How could a car company, make the exact same car for just under 60 years? Because there was no competition from foreign companies. Without any competition, the company had no reason to come up with a newer, or better design.

In the late 90s, they liberalized the economy, and allowed foreign competition. Throughout the 2000s, the car fell dramatically in popularity, as foreign companies offered much better alternatives to a 60 year old design.

So did the workers who made the Ambassador benefit from this? Not directly. They likely were laid off.

But everyone.... all workers, including those who now needed new jobs, all had newer and better cars to purchase. Everyone was better off.

Exactly!!



Behold, the two-stroke Trabant!
The pinnacle of the East German automobile industry.
Available after putting your name on a 10-13 year waiting list.

Trabant - Wikipedia

Puts the West German Mercedes and BMW to shame, doesn't it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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

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

No,

Thanks.

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

Now prove your claim.

The top federal tax rate in 1990 went from 28% then to 40% by 1994. That increase did not prevent the rapid GDP growth of the late 1990s!

That increase did not prevent the rapid GDP growth of the late 1990s!

That increase did not cause the rapid GDP growth of the late 1990s!

I never claimed it did. Choosing the top federal tax rate is about choosing the rate that does not hurt economic growth and maximizes revenue collection. This was successfully done in the late 1990s and it suggest the top federal tax rate could have been even higher than 40% and you will still of had the same GDP growth.

I never claimed it did.

Great. You also never proved the higher rates didn't harm GDP growth.

 

[U2Edge]

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

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

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.

Nearly a quarter of the other 29% is paying interest on the national debt. You have to pay that or the debt will grow even larger. Other things in that 29% include, international affairs/diplomacy, General Science, Space, Technology, Agriculture, Administration of Justice, General Government, Energy, Natural Resources, Environment, Housing, Transportation, Community and regional development, Education, Training, Employment, Social Services, income security.

 

[danielpalos]

how is it moral for any government to confiscate 70% of your INCOME? Remember, income is not even "profit."

Well, where does your income come from? If you are a U.S. citizen living in the United States, it comes from the U.S. MARKET. Your income is based essentially on your market value. How much your house is worth is based on the MARKET. You were lucky to be born into the United States and its market. You are lucky to be able to take advantage of that market. The U.S. market was built long before you were born. It was protected, built, and grown by generations that came before you. In order for that market to continue, it needs a stable government that is able to protect it and maintain order. The government needs revenue to do that and the only way it can get that revenue is through taxes.

What so Congress can continue to get rich like Nancy pelosi?


No one ever paid 70% in tax.


.

That's debatable. The rich have in the recent past paid a top federal rate of 40% all evidence points to the fact that they could pay a lot more without it hurting the economy.

all evidence points to the fact that they could pay a lot more without it hurting the economy.

You're lying.

we don't need our alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror if they don't merit the wartime tax rates required to even attempt to successfully prosecute.

 

[U2Edge]

Of course I suggested no such thing.

Yes, yes they were super wealthy. Just not like today. It was Reagan who started the trend of tax cuts on the wealthy. It was at 70% before he halved it.

why do liberals and dems hate rich successful business people, but love rich successful Hollywood loonies? Do Streisand and Baldwin and Whoopi support a 70% tax on their ridiculous incomes?

Ask them.

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

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

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.

View attachment 239516

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.

The United States is wealthier than Denmark even when looking at things on per capita basis. Just looking at GDP per capita, the United States is at $60,000 while Denmark is at $50,000. By that measure, the United States is 20% wealthier with much of that wealth concentrated in the top 1% or top 10%. In Denmark, that is a more equitable distribution of wealth which is why higher taxes on the middle and lower class make sense and work.

Looking at Average wealth per adult in America VS. Denmark we get, $403,974 in the U.S.A VS. $286,712 in Denmark. So the difference based on the average per adult when it comes to total wealth shows the average American is 41% wealthier than the average adult in Denmark. Once again this is just the average adult. That result is not really representative of the average American because so much of that wealth is in the top 1% or top 10%.

Take a look at median wealth per adult in United States VS. Denmark and its $61,677 in the United States VS. $60,999 in Denmark. The United States is lot wealthier than Denmark but you won't find that wealth by looking at Mr. Median.

All of this excess wealth that the United States has which makes its average adult 41% richer than the average adult in Denmark is all concentrated in the top 1% or top 10% in the United States. That is why a higher top federal tax rate would provide the government with lots of money that you would not get in Denmark. Its why Denmark needs extra revenue collected from the middle and lower classes.

The lesson, is that while Denmark may not be able to fund its government with just high tax rates on the rich, the United States can do to the extreme concentration of wealth among the rich in the United States which is not present in Denmark.

List of countries by wealth per adult - Wikipedia

 

[U2Edge]

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

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

No,

Thanks.

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

Now prove your claim.

The top federal tax rate in 1990 went from 28% then to 40% by 1994. That increase did not prevent the rapid GDP growth of the late 1990s!

That increase did not prevent the rapid GDP growth of the late 1990s!

That increase did not cause the rapid GDP growth of the late 1990s!

I never claimed it did. Choosing the top federal tax rate is about choosing the rate that does not hurt economic growth and maximizes revenue collection. This was successfully done in the late 1990s and it suggest the top federal tax rate could have been even higher than 40% and you will still of had the same GDP growth.

I never claimed it did.

Great. You also never proved the higher rates didn't harm GDP growth.

Yes I did. The higher tax rates of the 1990s did not prevent the historic GDP growth rates of the 1990s.

 

[U2Edge]

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

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

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.

When push comes to shove, most people would view national defense spending is mandatory and everything else as discretionary. In a World War III scenario, no one is going to be worried about sending out John Smith's social security checks or whether he gets to a hospital if needed and can pay for the services.

In any event, during normal times, most people in the country will eventually be dependent on Medicare and Social Security to some degree, so those are not exactly "dipshit" programs.

I picked the programs that I don't think you can cut in any given year. I forgot to add interest on the debt to that which would bring that percentage up to 77%. Defense spending may get labeled as discretionary, but its really not, since its actually underfunded given the job that the military has been given. So I put Defense spending in there since cutting it is out of the question if you want to properly defend the country and its interest around the world, which is the most important job of the government.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

GDP is the value of all goods and services produced during a given year within a country's borders. Consumer spending is responsible for 70% to 80% of GDP growth in any given year. That's Economics 101.

Bush Jr. average real quarterly GDP growth over 8 years: 1.87%

Obama average real quarterly GDP growth over 8 years: 1.90%

The Bush tax cuts did not produce any economic growth ABOVE what was seen under Clinton. In fact, Clinton levels of growth, average of 3.62% growth was not even sustained by the Bush Tax cuts. Growth averaged 1.87%, worst since the 1930s. Lesson, cutting the top federal tax rate did not help the economy while Bush was President.

 

[U2Edge]

This is scary foolish. Yeah, the top rate used to be 70%, but that was before we had Medicaid and Medicare and a fraction of the regulations that we have now, and we had hundreds of billions of dollars parked overseas precisely because of that absurd top marginal rate.

In case you haven't noticed, the economy has begun to boom under Trump and his historic tax cuts. We haven't seen this kind of growth in manufacturing jobs in decades. Just last month the economy added over 300,000 new jobs.

Thats a pipe dream.
Americans are failing financially.

Over the past few decades, tax burden has been shifted from the upper class to the lower and middle. Whether you know it or not, class warfare began some time ago and the 99% are losing.

That is all true, but the solution is not to tax and spend more, but to tax and spend less.
We need to balance the budget and start paying down the national debt.
Clearly the problem is not the tax rate but excess military spending.

We just wasted over $3 trillion invading Iraq and Afghanistan on fraudulent lies.
We should make the liars pay it all back.

It was not a waste because Saddam needed to removed from power in Iraq and the Taliban needed to be removed from power in Afghanistan. Saddam continued to threaten Persian Gulf oil supply and was getting out from under sanctions and the weapons embargo. Removing Saddam then rather than LATER was the far better choice. Removing him later would have seen him in a stronger position making the cost of war that much greater. Afghanistan had become a terrorist base for attacking the west. The Taliban were involved in that and had to go. Despite these wars, annual defense spending as percent of GDP was less than the peacetime defense spending of the 1980s over the last 20 years.