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

[Desperado]

You are missing the point... How can anyone justify the government stealing 70% of anyone's income?
Just because at some point, tax rate were at a higher percentage does not make it right It is still theft.

 

[Desperado]

Why the fuck do you want the government to take a larger percentage of your income than you? They haven't proven they are worthy of stealing your money. They spend it on endless wars that do nothing to protect the US, They give it away to foreign governments for no apparent reasons. The US infrastructure and security are not even an after thought.
Fuck the US Government and Fuck anyone crazy enough to want a 70% tax rate

So you think Franklin Roosevelt was wrong to involve the United States in World War II?

Yes
The people did not want the US involved in another world war. So to get us involved he set up Pearl Harbor as a sneak attack, All the ships were in port, lined up bow to stern and our planes were lined up wing tip to wing tip and just by coincidence the carriers were out at sea, Oh by the way they had cracked the Japanese code weeks before the attack.
Americans were conned into WW2 by the socialist FDR

Ah, conspiracy freaks. There were also aliens that landed at roswell NM in 1947, the moon landing was fake and 9/11 was an inside job? I think not.

Fuck you ass wipe, you failed to answer the question by asking another question.
Back to the first question
Why the fuck do you want the government to take a larger percentage of your income than you? Why are they entitled to your money?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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.

Not to mention, you'll invest less where the after-tax return is lower.

 

[Papageorgio]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Tons of waste in the government and we need the spending cuts. I’m dont think it is wise to raise taxes without getting rid of waste.

Spending cuts first then raise taxes.

 

[Markle]

Funny how $Trillions for the MIC, tax cuts for the rich or bailing out too big to jail fail banks never seem to be a problem but when it's about programs for 'ordinary' people it's suddenly unaffordable..

Do you consider $40 TRILLION affordable? Yes? No?

To put it in perspective, that would increase our annual budget from about $4 TRILLION to $8 TRILLION with a $5 TRILLION annual deficit...adding $5 TRILLION to our DEBT every year.

Is that affordable?

 

[Markle]

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

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

Please vote in my poll.

My only income is Social Security Retirement called SSR. I make less than 20k per year so Cortez is no threat to me. I invested well and paid all of the taxes on my investments so the IRS is no threat to me.

So you sold all your investments and just have a pile of cash in your mattress?

 

[Yarddog]

First of all, I doubt you would be getting much revenue from that 70% tax bracket, cuz most rich guys won't be paying it, just like they didn't in the 1950s and 60s. They'll be putting their money in assets or investments that aren't subject to that ridiculous rate. Those rich people in the fortune 500 that make more than $10 mil? Gone. They'll be moving to Canada or somewhere else, or at least their money will be going offshore, you can bet on that. Corp HQs won't be in the US, they'll move to Ireland or somewhere.

My question is, what are the lower tax brackets? What would the rate be for the guy making only $1 mil? $2 mil? $5 mil? Where is the breakdown?

Consider this:

. Super-wealthy families often keep their wealth in the form of investments and other assets that can be converted into taxable income on their own schedule. Jeff Bezos may be worth $160 billion, but in 2017 he reportedly paid himself an annual salary of just $81,840, with total compensation (including deductible expenses) of $1.6 million. Taxing 70 percent of all salary and wages above $10 million (or even $1 million) would not even touch the Amazon founder.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s 70 Percent Tax Cannot Finance Socialism | National Review


BTW, I'm a retiree on a fixed income south of $40k/yr, if anyone cares.

Right, and Lebron James who is due to make 35 Mil a year would take a big hit, Which would be kind of interesting in the sports world. Suddenly all those guys making the super max contracts would be just taking home the same as the run of the mill guys.

 

[Markle]

we need a 70 percent immigration tax that all immigrants pay, wealthy or poor, my friends!

A naturalization tax could pay for upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure.

To do what?

 

[Markle]

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

How amusing.

You totally ignored that web site all through the failed administration of former President Barack Hussein Obama when he doubled that figure from $10 TRILLION to $20 TRILLION in just eight years.

 

[Markle]

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

Depletion allowance

The same thing is available to any business extracting anything from minerals, coal, gold, sand, standing timber and a dozen other things.

Try again?

 

[Markle]

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?

There is a depletion allowance for timber. I'm not a farmer, but when you plant next year, won't there be more soybeans?

 

[Rigby5]

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.

No, it is illegal to cut social security.
It is just your own money that was withheld, being given back to you at agreed upon interest rates.
To cut social security would be theft and fraud.
It would be like absconding with the pension fund.

Social security is not going broke.
In a couple years it will just have a temporary short fall for awhile.

And forget "Atlas Shrugged" which is a stupid book.
Over half the federal spending is military, so that is all that should be cut.
And no, we are not in a depression at all any more.
We are experiencing slight inflation.

 

[Markle]

Funny how $Trillions for the MIC, tax cuts for the rich or bailing out too big to jail fail banks never seem to be a problem but when it's about programs for 'ordinary' people it's suddenly unaffordable..

Foolish, uninformed statement. Not surprising coming from a radical Progressive.

Specifically, who do you suggest take our place as the leader of the free world?

The tax cuts have stimulated what had been a lagging economy. Have you looked at the jobs market lately?

The rescued by the bank bailout was repaid early, with interest. Not so with the bailout of the American auto manufacturers.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Tons of waste in the government and we need the spending cuts. I’m dont think it is wise to raise taxes without getting rid of waste.

Spending cuts first then raise taxes.

Correct.
And since the military is more than half of federal spending, that is the place to start.

It is actually worse than it looks because you will notice that VA , GIBill, and past military interest is not even included in the 57% blue as it should be, so the total is likely more like 75% military spending.

 

[Markle]

Maybe she’s the uncle you didn’t want to invite to the wedding, but Ocasio-Cortez is part of the Democrat family

i advise they get used to her in the Democrat caucus!

Nothing could make me happier than to see AOC in the Democrat Caucus and anywhere possible on TV! Thank you!

 

[Markle]

Wrong again. Our government relies on the US for NOTHING,

You depend on us for your defense. But hey, who's counting?

Did you ever think that you didn't import as much from America because of your tariffs on our goods?

 

[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.

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.

No, it is illegal to cut social security.
It is just your own money that was withheld, being given back to you at agreed upon interest rates.
To cut social security would be theft and fraud.
It would be like absconding with the pension fund.

Social security is not going broke.
In a couple years it will just have a temporary short fall for awhile.

And forget "Atlas Shrugged" which is a stupid book.
Over half the federal spending is military, so that is all that should be cut.
And no, we are not in a depression at all any more.
We are experiencing slight inflation.

No, it is illegal to cut social security.​

​

Liar​

​

It is just your own money that was withheld, being given back to you at agreed upon interest rates.​

Liar.​

Over half the federal spending is military,

Liar.

 

[deanrd]

Republicans loot the country and they just aren't bright.

No one in the 70% tax rate paid 70%.

There are tax deductions like donating to charity or education.

Remember, Republicans built the interstate highway system and NASA. And they did it with those taxes on the rich. And that benefited the nation.

Democrats dream of building a strong and modern nation.

Republicans dream of how much they can squeeze out of the the same country.

Vastly different perspectives.

 

[Markle]

We had Our BEST HALF CENTURY WITH HIGH RATES.

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)
Historical rates (married couples, filing jointly)

Year/ Top Rate%/ Over

1913 --- 7% 500,000
1914 --- 7% 500,000
1915 --- 7% 500,000
1916 --- 15% 2,000,000
1917 --- 67% 2,000,000
1918 --- 77% 1,000,000
1919 --- 73% 1,000,000
1920 --- 73% 1,000,000
1921 --- 73% 1,000,000
1922 --- 58% 200,000
1923 --- 43.5% 200,000
1924 --- 46% 500,000
1925 --- 25% 100,000
1926 --- 25% 100,000
1927 --- 25% 100,000
1928 --- 25% 100,000
1929 --- 24% 100,000
1930 --- 25% 100,000
1931 --- 25% 100,000
1932 --- 63% 1,000,000
1933 --- 63% 1,000,000
1934 --- 63% 1,000,000
1935 --- 63% 1,000,000
1936 --- 79% 5,000,000
1937 --- 79% 5,000,000
1938 --- 79% 5,000,000
1939 --- 79% 5,000,000
1940 --- 81% 5,000,000
1941 --- 81% 5,000,000
1942 --- 88% 200,000
1943 --- 88% 200,000
1944--- 94 200,000
1945 --- 94% 200,000
1946 --- 86% 200,000
1947 --- 86% 200,000
1948 --- 82.% 400,000
1949 --- 82% 400,000
1950 --- 84.36% 400,000
1951 --- 91% 400,000
1952 --- 92% 400,000
1953 --- 92% 400,000
1954 --- 91% 400,000
1955 --- 91% 400,000
1956 --- 91% 400,000
1957 --- 91% 400,000
1958 --- 91% 400,000
1959 --- 91% 400,000
1960 --- 91% 400,000
1961 --- 91% 400,000
1962 --- 91% 400,000
1963 --- 91% 400,000
1964 --- 77% 400,000
1965 --- 70% 200,000
1966 --- 70% 200,000
1967 --- 70% 200,000
1968 --- 75.25% 200,000
1969 --- 77% 200,000
1970 --- 71.75% 200,000
1971 --- 70% 60% 200,000
1972 --- 70% 50 200,000
1973 --- 70% 50 200,000
1974 --- 70% 50 200,000
1975 ----70% 50 200,000
1976 --- 70% 50 200,000
1977 --- 70% 50 203,200
1978 --- 70% 50 203,200
1979 --- 70% 50 215,400
1980 --- 70% 50 215,400
1981 --- 69% 50 215,400
1982 --- 50% 85,600
1983 --- 50% 109,400
1984 --- 50% 162,400
1985 --- 50 % 169,020
1986 --- 50 % 175,250
1987 --- 38.5% 90,000
1988 --- 28% <8> 29,750 <8>
1989 --- 28% <8> 30,950 <8>
1990 --- 28% <8> 32,450 <8>
1991 --- 31% 82,150
1992 --- 31% 86,500
1993 --- 39.6% 89,150
1994 --- 39.6% 250,000
1995 --- 39.6% 256,500
1996 --- 39.6% 263,750
1997 --- 39.6% 271,050
1998 --- 39.6% 278,450
1999 --- 39.6% 283,150
2000 --- 39.6% 288,350
2001 --- 39.1% 297,350
2002 --- 38.6% 307,050
2003 --- 35% 311,950​

`

That's a lie. For this simple reason. Inflation.

I have done this before but I’ll do it again for your edification, from (1963). It will do for our purposes. Anyone (a single person) earning $4,000 per year or less paid income tax at the rate of 20%. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $31,800.00 per year. That translates to everyone earning LESS THAN $31,800 PER YEAR TODAY WOULD PAY 20% INCOME TAX. Gosh, that sure would eliminate that 48% that pay no income tax today! Way to go!

As for the top rate of your beloved 91% in 1963, that was paid by those earning over $400,000.00 Adjusted for inflation, that would be $3,186,770.00 today. Do you want to tell us that 1% of the nation earns of 3.2 MILLION PER YEAR? Really?

In the same year (1963), employees paid 3.625% for Social Security and the employer paid nothing. Not quite the 15.2% of today.

Now, do you really want to go back to those rates? Are you aware of the long, long list of deductions in 1963? All interest on everything and the list goes on.

Federal Income Tax Brackets for Tax Year 1962 (Filed April 1963)


FICA & SECA Tax Rates

The Inflation Calculator

 

[IM2]

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.

Why do you want in my pocket?

So we will tax ourselves to prosperity?

And the government won't waste the money this time? It will be different this time?

Not like: Social Security or the Debt or Medicare

If you are United States citizen living in the United States, whatever is in your pocket is thanks to the MARKET, a MARKET which you were born into and had the opportunity to take advantage of. The U.S. market was created long before you were born and was defended in multiple wars, and was built and grown by generations of people that came before you. To keep it going though requires a stable government that can defend itself and its interest worldwide. That stable government needs revenue that it only can get from taxes. Most of the wealth that can be taxed is in the hands of the rich.

But hey, if you don't like this system, your free to move to a country like Somalia where there is no government. Somalia has a rather chaotic environment though. Its much harder to make money there and there is a high probability of you being killed or robbed of whatever money you do make. No Billionaires in Somalia. Its a rough place, but at least there is no government reaching into your pocket. Would you prefer to live there rather than the United States?

Its a waste of money to have the country's government drowning in debt, and to be struggling to pay for defense, and other social programs while the rich live high off the hog. The rich were still rich in the 1950s even when they were paying 90% of their income in taxes. Raise the tax rates on the rich and you can solve the debt and budget deficit problems that have come about since 1980, while still paying for the defense of the country and important domestic programs.

I get what you are saying and agree with you but Somalia is a result of our foreign policy.

Having said that, your post is spot on. When you consider the growth during he 50's if we had maintained the same tax rate we would be running huge surpluses without debt or very low debt because the entire population would be included in the wealth.