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

[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.

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.

No one can be this stupid.

 

[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.

The only way it was possible to maintain that level of slavery? Tax loopholes so that no one actually paid 70%, and the fact that World War 2 had destroyed the industrial base of every other industrialized country in Europe and Asia....leaving us the only country with any industry.......so if you want to do that, 70% would barely be possible......but now? No way....70% is how you get Venezuela, but with even less food and toilet paper...

Europe was largely rebuilt by the late 1950s/early 1960s. Asia was still largely undeveloped. Tax loopholes became much more common AFTER 1980, but were not common before 1980. Go back to 1978, the height of the disco era, plenty of wealth, but the richest were paying 70% of their income in federal tax. The country was a strong global super power, but the national debt was under control. It was only 33% of annual GDP back in 1978. The period from 1945 to 1980 shows that heavy taxes on the rich will not hurt the economy and will benefit the country as a whole in a variety of ways.

You are delusional.....

No, he is right.

 

[IM2]

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.

Much of what you say I agree with. But I'm not sure what problem you are solving by raising the top Federal tax rate to 70%. And you are missing an important consequence of doing that. The rich will leave because they have the means to do so. So all those people you were counting on paying 70% will be paying 0%. We don't have a revenue problem, we have a government spending problem and a government bloat problem.

The rich will not leave.

 

[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.

Uh.... you don't tax wealth darling, only earnings. You don't get to tax wealth.....


No.

Thank goodness for cash deals and creative tax accounting.

The government will manage to squander any money they get like they always do. Spending with no recourse is always the problem not revenue.

Feel free to send them extra money if you want.

U2Edge is 100 percent correct. Your way has caused the problem.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

No one can be this stupid.

It is difficult to believe Rigby5 is that stupid, but we'll see.

 

[Markle]

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.

There is no credible correlation between the good economy of that time and the tax rate. The problem wasn't that the Percent of GDP was 121% because the taxes were too low. The problem is that the spending was far too high.

In 1945, the national debt was 121% of annual GDP. The top federal tax rate was high in 1945, over 90%, but spending was even higher. It was a necessity at the time given World War II. After World War II, the tax rate remained high between 70% and 94% for the top federal tax rate. Economic growth was good despite those heavier tax rates from 1945 to 1980. By 1980, the national debt was only 33% of annual GDP, a huge drop from where it had been in 1945.

The tax rate did not hurt the economy in the years from 1945 to 1980 despite being above 70% every year.

You're just being goofy. 1945, had we not just come out of a World War?

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, 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

As far as the economy being good from 1945 to the present, why are you forgetting all the recessions?

 

[Markle]

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.

As you know, there was no budget surplus in the Clinton years. What many claim was a surplus only appeared so because all Social Security revenue is included in the general fund. In addition, President Clinton was the "benefactor" of the dotcom bubble. Clinton left President Bush (43) with a recession. Soon after taking office, we also had the 9/11 terrorist attack which could have devastated our economy had Bush not acted with the tax cuts. You know that, why do you dodge that fact?

As you can see, the tax cuts of President Bush grew the economy at a desperate time in our country. Had it not been for the actions of the Democrats, the housing/mortgage/financial meltdown would have never happened.

Failed former President Barack Hussein Obama's massive tax increases and regulations slowed our economy to a snail's pace, malaise. You obviously are a typical progressive who makes every effort to rewrite history in the hopes you can cover up the facts. Why?

 

[Markle]

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

Federal Net Outlays as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

You posted the wrong chart.

Not surprising although your chart is so far off it would seem a child could recognize your error.

Here is the one related to debt and our GDP although it doesn't go back to 1946 (neither does yours) but mine does come up to 2018. Little wonder you didn't want to throw this one up to be seen the damage done by failed former President Barack Hussein Obama.

So, why did you post the wrong information?

 

[Markle]

Because it won't hurt the economy and will add revenue to help with the budget deficit and government programs. The Rich are under taxed in the United States and it does not help the country! The current top federal tax rate can be raised higher without the Rich fleeing or working less.

Please explain how the rich, as you claim, are undertaxed in the United States.

Doesn't it appear to you that it's not the rich who are undertaxed but rather the other 95%? After all, as you know, when tax rates were where you covet, the lower income brackets paid much higher rates. Doesn't that seem fair to all concerned?

THANKS: Top 1% paid as much in federal income taxes as bottom 95%
January 22, 2018 By Andrew Moran
THANKS: Top 1% paid as much in federal income taxes as bottom 95%

 

[gtopa1]

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.

Yes, but only for DemoKKKrats!!!

Greg

 

[Aponi]

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.

You fail to take into consideration it got started after ww2 when we grew a lot because the rest of the world was bombed back to the stone age while our industrial power was the top dog and little to no competition for a couple decades or more

 

[Markle]

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.

"A temporary short fall [shortfall]for awhile [a while]." You mean Social Security will just be broke for a while?

You are also, as you know, lying about the amount we spend on our defense. Why?

The percentage of our budget spent on defense is about 21 percent.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

i know how to appeal to charts, not ignorance.

 

[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.

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

End the war, end the taxes.

we don't need the taxes if we abolish our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Even if they could, it's still immoral to suggest that they should.

 

[Redfish]

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

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

Huge difference. Taking 92% of someones income, to blow it on political games, bad green energy programs, and paying people who simply don't want to pay their bills forever..... is entirely different than a short term expenditure to doing a military offensive.

71% of the federal budget goes to pay for the following five things:

National Defense
Medicaid
Medicare
Social Security
Veterans Benefits

Unless you plan on cutting those things, you need to increase the top federal tax rate. Its not a good idea to cut national defense. What justification would you have for cutting a veteran's benefits or preventing a citizen from collecting their social security pay check for the month?

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

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.

everything on your list could be eliminated or drastically cut and no one would know the difference. We are 20 trillion in debt, we cannot afford those unnecessary things any longer.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Its not a secret where defense spending goes. What the men and women make when serving in the armed forces plus the cost of their training when added up equals 2/3s of defense spending. Its not a secret regardless of whether you think the Pentagon has been successfully audited or not.

sure there is a lot of waste in the pentagon, and it should be audited every year and anyone found wasting or cheating should be fired. That same principle should be applied to every government agency, including congress.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Even if they could, it's still immoral to suggest that they should.

Yes, and even if the top 5% was taxed at 100% it would not create enough revenue to balance the budget. The libs just don't understand basic economics and math.

 

[Redfish]

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.

There is no credible correlation between the good economy of that time and the tax rate. The problem wasn't that the Percent of GDP was 121% because the taxes were too low. The problem is that the spending was far too high.

In 1945, the national debt was 121% of annual GDP. The top federal tax rate was high in 1945, over 90%, but spending was even higher. It was a necessity at the time given World War II. After World War II, the tax rate remained high between 70% and 94% for the top federal tax rate. Economic growth was good despite those heavier tax rates from 1945 to 1980. By 1980, the national debt was only 33% of annual GDP, a huge drop from where it had been in 1945.

The tax rate did not hurt the economy in the years from 1945 to 1980 despite being above 70% every year.

How many times must you be told? No one ever paid anywhere near 70% in those days. The tax code protected the very rich just as it does today. Warren Buffet says he paid 14% and he files in total compliance with the tax code. Trump's 2005 return showed that he paid around 25%, more than the Clintons or obamas or bidens. and all of them filed in compliance with the code.

The problem is not the top rate, the problems are that the government spends too much, the bottom 50% pay nothing, and the congress has helped their rich donors for years with exemptions and deductions in the code.

 

[Desperado]

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.

Its not a secret where defense spending goes. What the men and women make when serving in the armed forces plus the cost of their training when added up equals 2/3s of defense spending. Its not a secret regardless of whether you think the Pentagon has been successfully audited or not.

sure there is a lot of waste in the pentagon, and it should be audited every year and anyone found wasting or cheating should be fired. That same principle should be applied to every government agency, including congress.

Every Government department needs a yearly audit. Way too much waste.
and the FED should be included in the yearly audits