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

[Cellblock2429]

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.

/---/ Don't like debt? Me either. So cut spending.

We can do both
Cut spending and increase taxes until the debt is paid off

The wealthy among us have benefitted the most from our $22 trillion debt. Let’s raise their taxes until the debt is paid off

/----/ "The wealthy among us have benefitted the most from our $22 trillion debt."
Actually it's the politicians who get the biggest benefit from deficit spending - otherwise we'd always have a balanced budget.

 

[Thinker101]

If you think those countries are a better place to live, why don't you move to one of them? You libs praise Sweden and Canada but none of you have ever lived in either or know anyone who has or does. I have a cousin who married a swede, they tried living and raising their kids in Stockholm, but after a few years got fed up with paying huge taxes and trying to deal with an oppressive government and moved back to the US.

I get it. You bring up Venezuela while ignoring the successes is OK.

Fuck you. Quit being such a fucking asshole.

I know a lot of people that live in Sweden. I have done business with Swedish companies.

Both countries are preferable to a Trump America where he lies & assfucks like you believe him.

Great, then you should have no problem integrating into a nice Swedish town...dumbass.

Sorry, dickbreath, but this is my country & I won't let a bunch of Russia lovin' assfucks destroy it.

Destroy "your" country? The one you want to turn into a social experiment? Dumbass.

What social experiment is that?

Is this where you play stupid? Oh, wait, you're not playing.

 

[RealDave]

I get it. You bring up Venezuela while ignoring the successes is OK.

Fuck you. Quit being such a fucking asshole.

I know a lot of people that live in Sweden. I have done business with Swedish companies.

Both countries are preferable to a Trump America where he lies & assfucks like you believe him.

Great, then you should have no problem integrating into a nice Swedish town...dumbass.

Sorry, dickbreath, but this is my country & I won't let a bunch of Russia lovin' assfucks destroy it.

Destroy "your" country? The one you want to turn into a social experiment? Dumbass.

What social experiment is that?

Is this where you play stupid? Oh, wait, you're not playing.

So you don't know. Just as I figured.

 

[Thinker101]

Great, then you should have no problem integrating into a nice Swedish town...dumbass.

Sorry, dickbreath, but this is my country & I won't let a bunch of Russia lovin' assfucks destroy it.

Destroy "your" country? The one you want to turn into a social experiment? Dumbass.

What social experiment is that?

Is this where you play stupid? Oh, wait, you're not playing.

So you don't know. Just as I figured.

I'll put you down as a yes.

 

[RealDave]

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.

But but but the economy is on fire.

Yet we can't afford these things anymore?

I know one thing, cutting revenues while increasing deficits is not the answer.

yes, the economy is doing quite well and federal revenue is up. the deficit needs to be reduced and congress needs to do its job in that regard, do you think the Pelosi house is going to reduce spending?

But Trump is the one spending money without funding it, In fa=ct, the asshole is cutting revenues.

If you were really against deficits, you'd vote Democrat. It was Clinton that balanced the budget & it was the Republicans that took us from there to massive debt. Obama brought us a long way back & now your orange buddy has deficits over a trillion. In good economic times. And you= are still too stupid to get it.

NO, it was Newt forcing Clinton to balance the budget. At least those two were able to work together. Pelosi refuses to even try to find common ground.

Clinton + Republican Congress = Balanced Budget

Bush + same basic Congress = deficits & debt

What changed???????

What did the Republicans do when Bush took office? Cut Taxes twice at a time of war. Massive unfunded spending.

There went that balanced budget so please, don't you dare EVER claim the Republuicans are for cutting the debt. Thery love it,. And you love it elsr you'd be voting Democrat.

It's time you quit lying, quit being ignorant & get a fucking education.

 

[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.

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.

How is Social Security different from any pension plan where some of your income is withheld and matched by your employer?
If your union negotiated some pension contract, and then 40 years later the company tried to reduce pension payouts, that would be illegal and you would sue, right?
Look at Trump's budget and you see that over half of federal spending is for the military. It is actually over 75% once you include things like VA, GIBill, and interest on past military borrowing.
If you do not agree, then come up with some reasons.

 

[RealDave]

Sorry, dickbreath, but this is my country & I won't let a bunch of Russia lovin' assfucks destroy it.

Destroy "your" country? The one you want to turn into a social experiment? Dumbass.

What social experiment is that?

Is this where you play stupid? Oh, wait, you're not playing.

So you don't know. Just as I figured.

I'll put you down as a yes.

So you made the post & can't back it up. I am not surprised.

 

[Cellblock2429]

When the tax code had those high rates, it also had many exemptions and deductions that are no longer in it. No one ever paid 70% or 90% or anything close to that. Those exemptions and deductions were put in the code by rich congressbeings in order to help themselves and their contributors. Its good that they are gone and that we now have reasonable rates and a less discriminatory tax code. Returning to those high rates would force congress to reinstate the deductions and exemptions in order to protect themselves and their cronies. It would accomplish nothing.

/----/

 

[danielpalos]

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.

/---/ Don't like debt? Me either. So cut spending.

We can do both
Cut spending and increase taxes until the debt is paid off

The wealthy among us have benefitted the most from our $22 trillion debt. Let’s raise their taxes until the debt is paid off

/----/ "The wealthy among us have benefitted the most from our $22 trillion debt."
Actually it's the politicians who get the biggest benefit from deficit spending - otherwise we'd always have a balanced budget.

There is an entire battalion of them in Congress; we should expect better solutions in modern times.

 

[Oddball]

This thread, especially the OP....

 

[Thinker101]

Destroy "your" country? The one you want to turn into a social experiment? Dumbass.

What social experiment is that?

Is this where you play stupid? Oh, wait, you're not playing.

So you don't know. Just as I figured.

I'll put you down as a yes.

So you made the post & can't back it up. I am not surprised.

Really? Next time you can do your own research...dumbass.

Does socialism work? A classroom experiment - The Commentator

Venezuela's Failed Socialist Experiment

 

[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.

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.

Both wrong.
The 70's were very prosperous because of corruption.
We were borrowing money hand over fist for Vietnam.
And we all knew the fighting in Vietnam was totally corrupt and wrong, and that Ho Chi Minh was extremely popular in both north and south Vietnam.
Sure there was a 70% tax rate, but no one was pay that because it is easy to use tax code loopholes, and the wealthy were very happy because they were getting all these military contracts, like to make illegal chemical weapons, like agent orange.

Look at the national debt history. Clearly Vietnam prevented reduction of debt after WWII, and was a continuation of the bloated war profiteering of the Military Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned us about.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

The rich essentially have already left.
They may still live here, but they have mostly moved their wealth and production over seas.
Companies like Apple only have offices in the US.
Their production and workers are all in China.

 

[RealDave]

What social experiment is that?

Is this where you play stupid? Oh, wait, you're not playing.

So you don't know. Just as I figured.

I'll put you down as a yes.

So you made the post & can't back it up. I am not surprised.

Really? Next time you can do your own research...dumbass.

Does socialism work? A classroom experiment - The Commentator

Venezuela's Failed Socialist Experiment

What social experiment was being done here in the US like you said.

I laugh when you bring up Venezuela & ignore the ,any successes.

 

[Redfish]

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.

But but but the economy is on fire.

Yet we can't afford these things anymore?

I know one thing, cutting revenues while increasing deficits is not the answer.

yes, the economy is doing quite well and federal revenue is up. the deficit needs to be reduced and congress needs to do its job in that regard, do you think the Pelosi house is going to reduce spending?

But Trump is the one spending money without funding it, In fa=ct, the asshole is cutting revenues.

If you were really against deficits, you'd vote Democrat. It was Clinton that balanced the budget & it was the Republicans that took us from there to massive debt. Obama brought us a long way back & now your orange buddy has deficits over a trillion. In good economic times. And you= are still too stupid to get it.

NO, it was Newt forcing Clinton to balance the budget. At least those two were able to work together. Pelosi refuses to even try to find common ground.

Clinton + Republican Congress = Balanced Budget

Bush + same basic Congress = deficits & debt

What changed???????

What did the Republicans do when Bush took office? Cut Taxes twice at a time of war. Massive unfunded spending.

There went that balanced budget so please, don't you dare EVER claim the Republuicans are for cutting the debt. Thery love it,. And you love it elsr you'd be voting Democrat.

It's time you quit lying, quit being ignorant & get a fucking education.

all politicians like deficit spending because its the only way they can repay their donors, Yes, both parties. BUT the difference is what they spend the money on, the republicans spend it on defense (which creates American jobs for American workers that pay American taxes) the democrats spend it on welfare programs, free stuff, and payments to foreign countries who never pay us back.

Yes, deficit spending is bad, and yes, both parties do it. But the motives of the parties are different when they do it.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

But but but the economy is on fire.

Yet we can't afford these things anymore?

I know one thing, cutting revenues while increasing deficits is not the answer.

yes, the economy is doing quite well and federal revenue is up. the deficit needs to be reduced and congress needs to do its job in that regard, do you think the Pelosi house is going to reduce spending?

But Trump is the one spending money without funding it, In fa=ct, the asshole is cutting revenues.

If you were really against deficits, you'd vote Democrat. It was Clinton that balanced the budget & it was the Republicans that took us from there to massive debt. Obama brought us a long way back & now your orange buddy has deficits over a trillion. In good economic times. And you= are still too stupid to get it.

NO, it was Newt forcing Clinton to balance the budget. At least those two were able to work together. Pelosi refuses to even try to find common ground.

Clinton + Republican Congress = Balanced Budget

Bush + same basic Congress = deficits & debt

What changed???????

What did the Republicans do when Bush took office? Cut Taxes twice at a time of war. Massive unfunded spending.

There went that balanced budget so please, don't you dare EVER claim the Republuicans are for cutting the debt. Thery love it,. And you love it elsr you'd be voting Democrat.

It's time you quit lying, quit being ignorant & get a fucking education.

What you said was correct, but conservatives did not support what Bush did, and it was Hillary and democrats in Congress who did support what Bush did,
In fact, republicans in general are against needless foreign wars, and Hillary was in favor of war/forced regime change, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Palestine, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Panama, Grenada, etc.

This is not easily looked at through partisan blinders.

 

[saveliberty]

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 failed to show actual causation of GDP to tax rates. All you really did was suggest redistributing income to the government was a better way to spend. If you spend it on debit reduction, that doesn't create jobs or build a thing. Overlooking pent up demand post WWII and the effect of technology on our lives as the real sources of economic spending is laughable.

 

[Thinker101]

Is this where you play stupid? Oh, wait, you're not playing.

So you don't know. Just as I figured.

I'll put you down as a yes.

So you made the post & can't back it up. I am not surprised.

Really? Next time you can do your own research...dumbass.

Does socialism work? A classroom experiment - The Commentator

Venezuela's Failed Socialist Experiment

What social experiment was being done here in the US like you said.

I laugh when you bring up Venezuela & ignore the ,any successes.

Once again...Is this where you play stupid? Oh, wait, you're not playing.

 

[Redfish]

Is this where you play stupid? Oh, wait, you're not playing.

So you don't know. Just as I figured.

I'll put you down as a yes.

So you made the post & can't back it up. I am not surprised.

Really? Next time you can do your own research...dumbass.

Does socialism work? A classroom experiment - The Commentator

Venezuela's Failed Socialist Experiment

What social experiment was being done here in the US like you said.

I laugh when you bring up Venezuela & ignore the ,any successes.

which socialist countries have been economic successes? Which capitalist countries have been economic failures?

 

[Rigby5]

But but but the economy is on fire.

Yet we can't afford these things anymore?

I know one thing, cutting revenues while increasing deficits is not the answer.

yes, the economy is doing quite well and federal revenue is up. the deficit needs to be reduced and congress needs to do its job in that regard, do you think the Pelosi house is going to reduce spending?

But Trump is the one spending money without funding it, In fa=ct, the asshole is cutting revenues.

If you were really against deficits, you'd vote Democrat. It was Clinton that balanced the budget & it was the Republicans that took us from there to massive debt. Obama brought us a long way back & now your orange buddy has deficits over a trillion. In good economic times. And you= are still too stupid to get it.

NO, it was Newt forcing Clinton to balance the budget. At least those two were able to work together. Pelosi refuses to even try to find common ground.

Clinton + Republican Congress = Balanced Budget

Bush + same basic Congress = deficits & debt

What changed???????

What did the Republicans do when Bush took office? Cut Taxes twice at a time of war. Massive unfunded spending.

There went that balanced budget so please, don't you dare EVER claim the Republuicans are for cutting the debt. Thery love it,. And you love it elsr you'd be voting Democrat.

It's time you quit lying, quit being ignorant & get a fucking education.

all politicians like deficit spending because its the only way they can repay their donors, Yes, both parties. BUT the difference is what they spend the money on, the republicans spend it on defense (which creates American jobs for American workers that pay American taxes) the democrats spend it on welfare programs, free stuff, and payments to foreign countries who never pay us back.

Yes, deficit spending is bad, and yes, both parties do it. But the motives of the parties are different when they do it.

If your analogy is correct, the results are not because the wealthy invest overseas and do not improve the US economy, while the poor who get better educations do return that investment inside the US, and do improve the economy.