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

[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.

Sorry Alexmarxia Ocasrtro Cortez. 70% tax rate under any circumstances is ridiculous and Keynesian economics don’t work. Go run off now...protest Wall Street...camp out...crap on the sidewalks...do drugs...play bongo drums.

1945 to 1980, the tax rate was between 70% and 92%. Things worked out just fine. Strongest GDP growth in the nations history during that time. National debt dropped from 121% of annual GDP in 1945 to 33% of annual GDP by 1980. GOOD TIMES!

1945 to 1980, the tax rate was between 70% and 92%. Things worked out just fine.

How many countries should we nuke to get back to a 1945 starting point?

The world had recovered from World War II by the late 50s.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

GDP is the value of all goods and services produced during a given year within a country's borders.

Yup.

Consumer spending is responsible for 70% to 80% of GDP growth in any given year.

Nope.

That's Economics 101.

I don't believe you.

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

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

But Obama raised tax rates, why didn't that result in a much higher growth rate than Bush's?

The Bush tax cuts did not produce any economic growth ABOVE what was seen under Clinton. I

Of course not, the Internet Bubble popped before Bush took office.
Lesson, cutting the top federal tax rate did not help the economy while Bush was President.

How much lower would growth have been if he'd left rates at Clinton levels?​

I NEVER SAID TAX INCREASES on the rich raise GDP growth. Its just that don't prevent GDP growth. They don't hurt the economy.

If he had left rates at Clinton levels, there may have been a couple of more years of surpluses followed by years of smaller budget deficits. The higher rates would not have hurt the economy as has already been shown.

I NEVER SAID TAX INCREASES on the rich raise GDP growth.

That's good, because some idiots actually think higher rates cause growth.

Its just that don't prevent GDP growth. They don't hurt the economy.

No one ever changes their behavior due to high tax rates? Not even a little?

Are you sure?

The higher rates would not have hurt the economy as has already been shown.

I keep asking me to show that. You still haven't.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Yes I did.

Where?

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

What would the growth rates have been if the top rate had remained 28%?

GDP growth would not have been any different, but the budget deficit would have been worse. No budget surpluses of the late 1990s. Tax cuts on the rich do not drive economic growth because such tax cuts do not impact the rich's consumer spending at these levels. That's why the Bush tax cuts in the early 2000s failed to grow the economy above the rates seen by Clinton much less keep those rates steady.

GDP growth would not have been any different,

Cool story. Prove it.

I already have. Multiple examples of where cutting the top federal tax rate did not help the economy.

I posted real GDP after the Bush tax cut in 2003. It hit 7% next quarter.

 

[U2Edge]

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

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.​

On paper that is true.
In reality, things are not nearly a 'equitable' as you would like to claim.

The average Denmark citizen, lives in a tiny apartment, and has no car.



Houses are small, rents are high, and people ride a bike to work, in the snow.

Again, very true on paper. Denmark has way fewer of the super rich, which makes sense. High income taxes do not eliminate the wealthy... it just makes it harder to be wealthy. You are less likely to be able to become the super wealthy in Denmark, than in the US.

By definition an income tax harms people trying to acquire wealth, not those who already have it.

But if you think that a wealthy person in Denmark lives the same as the lower and middle class, because on paper society is more 'equitable'... you are insane.

Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen of Denmark, has a net worth of over $5 Billion dollars. If you think he lives in the same tiny homes, and itty bitty apartments that average Denmark citizens live in, because on paper you see that 'statistically they are more equitable".... then you are insane.

Simply because fewer people in Denmark are able to become wealthy thanks to oppressive taxes, does not mean that the wealthy of Denmark live anywhere close to the standard of living of the middle class. Not even close.

The super wealthy around the world, live hundreds of times better lifestyles than the average, whether in the US, or in Denmark.

I never implied that the rich were just getting by in Denmark. The point of my post was to point out why a higher federal tax rate on the rich would work in the United States an provide lots of additional revenue to the government without raising taxes on lower and middle class people in the United States. Again, because of the of the huge level of wealth in the United States among the rich, the average adult is 41% wealthier than the average adult in Denmark. In reality that's not true, Mr. Median in both countries is about the same. But the point is that there is this extra wealth at the top in the United States which is not being taxed and could really help the country out in balancing its budget and paying for important government programs without damaging economic growth.

Well, as Income Taxes are not levied on Wealth, your entire theory that falls apart.

Try again.

Ah, but there is not just income tax. There is also taxes on land, property, purchased products and services, as well as capital gains.

They are already taxed on property in most states - and they already pay sales and excise taxes in most states. And if taxes on capital gains are increased, the very wealthy will move their financial assets out of the country or shelter them in trusts as is already done.

The problem with people like you is that instead of developing policies which are growth oriented, you are static pie grabbers. You can only think of ways to take away from others.

The higher rates worked pretty well from 1945 to 1980. No doom and gloom situations. Most other countries have higher tax rates on their rich than the United States does.

 

[basquebromance]

"socialism is masochistic" - Rowdy Ron Paul

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry Alexmarxia Ocasrtro Cortez. 70% tax rate under any circumstances is ridiculous and Keynesian economics don’t work. Go run off now...protest Wall Street...camp out...crap on the sidewalks...do drugs...play bongo drums.

1945 to 1980, the tax rate was between 70% and 92%. Things worked out just fine. Strongest GDP growth in the nations history during that time. National debt dropped from 121% of annual GDP in 1945 to 33% of annual GDP by 1980. GOOD TIMES!

1945 to 1980, the tax rate was between 70% and 92%. Things worked out just fine.

How many countries should we nuke to get back to a 1945 starting point?

The world had recovered from World War II by the late 50s.

Cool. So how many nukes?
Did every devastated nation have at least 1939 GDP by 1959?

 

[Winston]

Addressing climate change is a national security issue, but renewable energy is also a jobs issue, a health issue and a pocketbook issue for each American family.

throw in the trash the 44 separate energy tax breaks, anchored by advantages for big oil companies that get billions of dollars in beneficial tax treatment.

What advantages do "big oil companies" get that is not available to other businesses?

We have addressed "climate change" which has been happening for billions of years. When does the rest of the world act?

What advantages do "big oil companies" get that is not available to other businesses?

Depletion allowance

How should they depreciate their oil deposits?

Why should they depreciate the deposits? Do I get to "depreciate" my soybeans? How about my lumber?

 

[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.

Sorry Alexmarxia Ocasrtro Cortez. 70% tax rate under any circumstances is ridiculous and Keynesian economics don’t work. Go run off now...protest Wall Street...camp out...crap on the sidewalks...do drugs...play bongo drums.

1945 to 1980, the tax rate was between 70% and 92%. Things worked out just fine. Strongest GDP growth in the nations history during that time. National debt dropped from 121% of annual GDP in 1945 to 33% of annual GDP by 1980. GOOD TIMES!

National debt dropped from 121% of annual GDP in 1945 to 33% of annual GDP by 1980. GOOD TIMES!

View attachment 239759

Federal Net Outlays as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

Well, if you think we should cut Federal spending by 75% over the next 3 years, you've got my support.

You would destroy the country if you cut federal spending by 75%. The answer is to increase the top federal tax rate. It won't hurt economic growth and will increase revenue collection.

 

[danielpalos]

United States should go back to the 5% average tax rate.

why is that?

we have a wartime economy, allegedly. wartime time tax rate would be rational.

 

[Norman]

United States should go back to the 5% average tax rate.

why is that?

we have a wartime economy, allegedly. wartime time tax rate would be rational.

Because we need to make the country more American, great again.

End the war, end the taxes.

 

[Thinker101]

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.

Sorry Alexmarxia Ocasrtro Cortez. 70% tax rate under any circumstances is ridiculous and Keynesian economics don’t work. Go run off now...protest Wall Street...camp out...crap on the sidewalks...do drugs...play bongo drums.

1945 to 1980, the tax rate was between 70% and 92%. Things worked out just fine. Strongest GDP growth in the nations history during that time. National debt dropped from 121% of annual GDP in 1945 to 33% of annual GDP by 1980. GOOD TIMES!

National debt dropped from 121% of annual GDP in 1945 to 33% of annual GDP by 1980. GOOD TIMES!

View attachment 239759

Federal Net Outlays as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

Well, if you think we should cut Federal spending by 75% over the next 3 years, you've got my support.

You would destroy the country if you cut federal spending by 75%. The answer is to increase the top federal tax rate. It won't hurt economic growth and will increase revenue collection.

Say what?? Increasing federal tax rates won't hurt economic growth? What shithole country do you live in?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Addressing climate change is a national security issue, but renewable energy is also a jobs issue, a health issue and a pocketbook issue for each American family.

throw in the trash the 44 separate energy tax breaks, anchored by advantages for big oil companies that get billions of dollars in beneficial tax treatment.

What advantages do "big oil companies" get that is not available to other businesses?

We have addressed "climate change" which has been happening for billions of years. When does the rest of the world act?

What advantages do "big oil companies" get that is not available to other businesses?

Depletion allowance

How should they depreciate their oil deposits?

Why should they depreciate the deposits? Do I get to "depreciate" my soybeans? How about my lumber?

Why should they depreciate the deposits?

If you buy an oil field with 1,000,000 barrels and you extract 200,000 barrels is
the oil field worth as much as when you started?

Do I get to "depreciate" my soybeans?

Are you drilling for your soybeans?

How about my lumber?

Lumber has a depletion allowance.

 

[Winston]

Addressing climate change is a national security issue, but renewable energy is also a jobs issue, a health issue and a pocketbook issue for each American family.

throw in the trash the 44 separate energy tax breaks, anchored by advantages for big oil companies that get billions of dollars in beneficial tax treatment.

What advantages do "big oil companies" get that is not available to other businesses?

We have addressed "climate change" which has been happening for billions of years. When does the rest of the world act?

What advantages do "big oil companies" get that is not available to other businesses?

Depletion allowance

How should they depreciate their oil deposits?

Why should they depreciate the deposits? Do I get to "depreciate" my soybeans? How about my lumber?

Why should they depreciate the deposits?

If you buy an oil field with 1,000,000 barrels and you extract 200,000 barrels is
the oil field worth as much as when you started?

Do I get to "depreciate" my soybeans?

Are you drilling for your soybeans?

How about my lumber?

Lumber has a depletion allowance.

Did I miss something. Did the company not get paid for those 200,000 barrels of oil? And yeah, I drill soybeans. It is how they get in the ground.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry Alexmarxia Ocasrtro Cortez. 70% tax rate under any circumstances is ridiculous and Keynesian economics don’t work. Go run off now...protest Wall Street...camp out...crap on the sidewalks...do drugs...play bongo drums.

1945 to 1980, the tax rate was between 70% and 92%. Things worked out just fine. Strongest GDP growth in the nations history during that time. National debt dropped from 121% of annual GDP in 1945 to 33% of annual GDP by 1980. GOOD TIMES!

National debt dropped from 121% of annual GDP in 1945 to 33% of annual GDP by 1980. GOOD TIMES!

View attachment 239759

Federal Net Outlays as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

Well, if you think we should cut Federal spending by 75% over the next 3 years, you've got my support.

You would destroy the country if you cut federal spending by 75%. The answer is to increase the top federal tax rate. It won't hurt economic growth and will increase revenue collection.

You would destroy the country if you cut federal spending by 75%.

But they did that between 1945-1948, the beginning of the grooviest period in US history.
The country survived, thrived even.

The answer is to increase the top federal tax rate.

Tell you what, if we cut federal spending by 50%, I'll support boosting the rate above $10 million to 45%.
Cutting federal spending won't hurt economic growth.

 

[Andylusion]

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.​

On paper that is true.
In reality, things are not nearly a 'equitable' as you would like to claim.

The average Denmark citizen, lives in a tiny apartment, and has no car.



Houses are small, rents are high, and people ride a bike to work, in the snow.

Again, very true on paper. Denmark has way fewer of the super rich, which makes sense. High income taxes do not eliminate the wealthy... it just makes it harder to be wealthy. You are less likely to be able to become the super wealthy in Denmark, than in the US.

By definition an income tax harms people trying to acquire wealth, not those who already have it.

But if you think that a wealthy person in Denmark lives the same as the lower and middle class, because on paper society is more 'equitable'... you are insane.

Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen of Denmark, has a net worth of over $5 Billion dollars. If you think he lives in the same tiny homes, and itty bitty apartments that average Denmark citizens live in, because on paper you see that 'statistically they are more equitable".... then you are insane.

Simply because fewer people in Denmark are able to become wealthy thanks to oppressive taxes, does not mean that the wealthy of Denmark live anywhere close to the standard of living of the middle class. Not even close.

The super wealthy around the world, live hundreds of times better lifestyles than the average, whether in the US, or in Denmark.

I never implied that the rich were just getting by in Denmark. The point of my post was to point out why a higher federal tax rate on the rich would work in the United States an provide lots of additional revenue to the government without raising taxes on lower and middle class people in the United States. Again, because of the of the huge level of wealth in the United States among the rich, the average adult is 41% wealthier than the average adult in Denmark. In reality that's not true, Mr. Median in both countries is about the same. But the point is that there is this extra wealth at the top in the United States which is not being taxed and could really help the country out in balancing its budget and paying for important government programs without damaging economic growth.

Well, as Income Taxes are not levied on Wealth, your entire theory that falls apart.

Try again.

Ah, but there is not just income tax. There is also taxes on land, property, purchased products and services, as well as capital gains.

They are already taxed on property in most states - and they already pay sales and excise taxes in most states. And if taxes on capital gains are increased, the very wealthy will move their financial assets out of the country or shelter them in trusts as is already done.

The problem with people like you is that instead of developing policies which are growth oriented, you are static pie grabbers. You can only think of ways to take away from others.

The higher rates worked pretty well from 1945 to 1980. No doom and gloom situations. Most other countries have higher tax rates on their rich than the United States does.

And they would have worked better had they been lower.

High taxes does not necessarily mean 'doom and gloom'. But if you think we would all be better off with less money, and somehow the economy would do just as well without people having money in their pockets, as with.... then that is also not very logical.

Again, as I'm sure many people have pointed out. Our economy was artificially bolstered by two world wars, that left the US being the manufacturing center of the planet. It doesn't surprise me that our economy was able to handle high tax rates, when everyone on the planet was coming to us for stuff.

That doesn't change the fact that lower taxes would have resulted in even more economic growth.

Even JFK admits this. Lower taxes = economic growth. Because people use that money to invest, to spend, and to save. All of which is a benefit to the economy.

Equally, high taxes simply means people have less money. If I have less money, that means I'll invest less, spend less, and save less. That reality doesn't matter if I'm in the top income bracket, or lowest.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What advantages do "big oil companies" get that is not available to other businesses?

We have addressed "climate change" which has been happening for billions of years. When does the rest of the world act?

What advantages do "big oil companies" get that is not available to other businesses?

Depletion allowance

How should they depreciate their oil deposits?

Why should they depreciate the deposits? Do I get to "depreciate" my soybeans? How about my lumber?

Why should they depreciate the deposits?

If you buy an oil field with 1,000,000 barrels and you extract 200,000 barrels is
the oil field worth as much as when you started?

Do I get to "depreciate" my soybeans?

Are you drilling for your soybeans?

How about my lumber?

Lumber has a depletion allowance.

Did I miss something. Did the company not get paid for those 200,000 barrels of oil? And yeah, I drill soybeans. It is how they get in the ground.

Did I miss something. Did the company not get paid for those 200,000 barrels of oil?

Did I miss something? Did the company not buy those 1,000,000 barrels of oil?

And yeah, I drill soybeans. It is how they get in the ground.

And you depreciate the drill.

No comment about the lumber depletion?

 

[boedicca]

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.

Sorry Alexmarxia Ocasrtro Cortez. 70% tax rate under any circumstances is ridiculous and Keynesian economics don’t work. Go run off now...protest Wall Street...camp out...crap on the sidewalks...do drugs...play bongo drums.

1945 to 1980, the tax rate was between 70% and 92%. Things worked out just fine. Strongest GDP growth in the nations history during that time. National debt dropped from 121% of annual GDP in 1945 to 33% of annual GDP by 1980. GOOD TIMES!

National debt dropped from 121% of annual GDP in 1945 to 33% of annual GDP by 1980. GOOD TIMES!

View attachment 239759

Federal Net Outlays as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

Well, if you think we should cut Federal spending by 75% over the next 3 years, you've got my support.

You would destroy the country if you cut federal spending by 75%. The answer is to increase the top federal tax rate. It won't hurt economic growth and will increase revenue collection.

You would destroy the country if you cut federal spending by 75%.

But they did that between 1945-1948, the beginning of the grooviest period in US history.
The country survived, thrived even.

The answer is to increase the top federal tax rate.

Tell you what, if we cut federal spending by 50%, I'll support boosting the rate above $10 million to 45%.
Cutting federal spending won't hurt economic growth.

Let's go back the tax rates used to get the 16th Amendment passed in the first place...indexed for inflation and then cut federal spending to be funded within tax receipts.

 

[Brain357]

Think about this.... You win the lottery for 10 million dollars
The government then takes 7 million of that. You still feel they are justified to take it?
Or do you feel like you were just robbed

That's not how taxes work. They would take 70% of what you earn over 10 million.

OK lets say you won a hundred million now the government takes 70 million you still believe the government is entitled to that money? I guess you like being raped by the government

Your numbers aren't quite right again. But I would still be quite rich for no work.

 

[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.

Sorry Alexmarxia Ocasrtro Cortez. 70% tax rate under any circumstances is ridiculous and Keynesian economics don’t work. Go run off now...protest Wall Street...camp out...crap on the sidewalks...do drugs...play bongo drums.

1945 to 1980, the tax rate was between 70% and 92%. Things worked out just fine. Strongest GDP growth in the nations history during that time. National debt dropped from 121% of annual GDP in 1945 to 33% of annual GDP by 1980. GOOD TIMES!

National debt dropped from 121% of annual GDP in 1945 to 33% of annual GDP by 1980. GOOD TIMES!

View attachment 239759

Federal Net Outlays as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

Well, if you think we should cut Federal spending by 75% over the next 3 years, you've got my support.

You would destroy the country if you cut federal spending by 75%. The answer is to increase the top federal tax rate. It won't hurt economic growth and will increase revenue collection.

They did that in the 1940s. It did not destroy the country.

If you increase revenue into the government.... by definition that means there is less money in the economy. If someone in society has less money, because the government taxed it away... then they can't save it, or invest it, or spend it. So by definition, you will harm the economy.

And the real kicker in all this is, you still won't have enough money. Socialism does not work. It does not matter how much money to throw at socialism, it will never be enough.

Again... look at Greece. If taxing did not harm the economy, and if higher taxes resulted in the government having enough money.... then explain how Greece, with Social Security tax of 28% on employers, 16% on employees, 40% personal income tax, 24% sales tax, and a Corporate tax of 49%..... by any estimate, Greece's tax rates were nearly double the US rates.

Did this result in an economic utopia? No. Did this result in a government flush with money? No.

Instead it resulted in the economic catastrophe, that you claim reducing government spending would result in.

 

[boedicca]

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.

Sorry Alexmarxia Ocasrtro Cortez. 70% tax rate under any circumstances is ridiculous and Keynesian economics don’t work. Go run off now...protest Wall Street...camp out...crap on the sidewalks...do drugs...play bongo drums.

1945 to 1980, the tax rate was between 70% and 92%. Things worked out just fine. Strongest GDP growth in the nations history during that time. National debt dropped from 121% of annual GDP in 1945 to 33% of annual GDP by 1980. GOOD TIMES!

National debt dropped from 121% of annual GDP in 1945 to 33% of annual GDP by 1980. GOOD TIMES!

View attachment 239759

Federal Net Outlays as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

Well, if you think we should cut Federal spending by 75% over the next 3 years, you've got my support.

You would destroy the country if you cut federal spending by 75%. The answer is to increase the top federal tax rate. It won't hurt economic growth and will increase revenue collection.

They did that in the 1940s. It did not destroy the country.

If you increase revenue into the government.... by definition that means there is less money in the economy. If someone in society has less money, because the government taxed it away... then they can't save it, or invest it, or spend it. So by definition, you will harm the economy.

And the real kicker in all this is, you still won't have enough money. Socialism does not work. It does not matter how much money to throw at socialism, it will never be enough.

Again... look at Greece. If taxing did not harm the economy, and if higher taxes resulted in the government having enough money.... then explain how Greece, with Social Security tax of 28% on employers, 16% on employees, 40% personal income tax, 24% sales tax, and a Corporate tax of 49%..... by any estimate, Greece's tax rates were nearly double the US rates.

Did this result in an economic utopia? No. Did this result in a government flush with money? No.

Instead it resulted in the economic catastrophe, that you claim reducing government spending would result in.

It's very interesting to look how tax brackets have changed.

https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal.pdf

The original rates were quite low...up until WWI, when they were increased dramatically. And that's the clue. Our high taxes are largely devoted to a permanent war economy. Rates were lowered after WWII, but once FDR got a hold of the government, taxes increased to punitive levels (hardly a surprise that the Great Depression continued for years). Note in the 1930s the transition in the highest tax bracket of 79% at $5M going to 81% in 1940, and then Boom! in 1941 the rate is increased to 88% on $200K. That's because the real target of income taxes is never the Incredibly Wealthy...it's the productive class that works. Anyone who thins 70% rates aren't going to be aimed at the upper middle class is delusional.