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

[Redfish]

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.

wealthy money only goes overseas when its a better financial deal due to tax rates, etc. Reducing taxes on corporations keeps American money in America. Its really quite simple.

 

[Rigby5]

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?

That is easy.
The US is one of the most socialist countries in the world, with things like Social Security, subsidized college tuition, Hoover Dam, St. Lawrence Seaway, etc. and all socialist programs make the whole country far more economically successful.
Capitalist countries like the Soviet Union under Stalin, failed totally because they were too greedy and centralized decision making to one individual instead of a socialist democracy.
If that confuses you, just remember that socialist means communal, which means democracy.
While capitalist means individual greed, which means dictatorship.

 

[danielpalos]

This thread, especially the OP....


View attachment 239896

true witness bearing is a moral commandment from a God.

 

[Thinker101]

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?

That is easy.
The US is one of the most socialist countries in the world, with things like Social Security, subsidized college tuition, Hoover Dam, St. Lawrence Seaway, etc. and all socialist programs make the whole country far more economically successful.
Capitalist countries like the Soviet Union under Stalin, failed totally because they were too greedy and centralized decision making to one individual instead of a socialist democracy.
If that confuses you, just remember that socialist means communal, which means democracy.
While capitalist means individual greed, which means dictatorship.

When you say "one of the most socialist", do you have a different list?
Top 10 Most Socialist Countries in the World - Business Habit

 

[Rigby5]

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.

wealthy money only goes overseas when its a better financial deal due to tax rates, etc. Reducing taxes on corporations keeps American money in America. Its really quite simple.

The wealthy are not offshoring due to taxes, as they just pay accountants to use loopholes they have paid politicians to install. They are offshoring to pay less than a forth the wages. Cutting taxes is not going to bring their investment back. You need to use tariffs for that.

 

[RealDave]

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.

The republicans deficit spend (borrow from Americans) to give to corporate America.

Under Clinton the deficits were eliminated. Under Obama cut by 2/3ds.

Under Bush, they went from zero to 1.5 trillion/yr. Trump already has it back over a trillion.

 

[RealDave]

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?

That is easy.
The US is one of the most socialist countries in the world, with things like Social Security, subsidized college tuition, Hoover Dam, St. Lawrence Seaway, etc. and all socialist programs make the whole country far more economically successful.
Capitalist countries like the Soviet Union under Stalin, failed totally because they were too greedy and centralized decision making to one individual instead of a socialist democracy.
If that confuses you, just remember that socialist means communal, which means democracy.
While capitalist means individual greed, which means dictatorship.

When you say "one of the most socialist", do you have a different list?
Top 10 Most Socialist Countries in the World - Business Habit

"One of" means "top ten"?

 

[Thinker101]

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?

That is easy.
The US is one of the most socialist countries in the world, with things like Social Security, subsidized college tuition, Hoover Dam, St. Lawrence Seaway, etc. and all socialist programs make the whole country far more economically successful.
Capitalist countries like the Soviet Union under Stalin, failed totally because they were too greedy and centralized decision making to one individual instead of a socialist democracy.
If that confuses you, just remember that socialist means communal, which means democracy.
While capitalist means individual greed, which means dictatorship.

When you say "one of the most socialist", do you have a different list?
Top 10 Most Socialist Countries in the World - Business Habit

"One of" means "top ten"?

"One of the most" and not in the "top ten", don't quite line up too well. Dang, you aren't one of them intelligent liberals are you?

 

[Andylusion]

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

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

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

View attachment 239759

Federal Net Outlays as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely. I keep telling left-wingers this, and they live in a delusion where because they said the rich would pay for everything, then they magically will.

Every time anyone says "we'll tax the rich to pay for x", what they are saying is, we're going to tax you.

Every tax ends up hitting the lower and middle class.

The yacht tax in the 90s. All the yachting companies started laying off people, because the rich were buying yachts from France and Asia. Shocking thing about yachts, you can float them back to where you live. Who was hurt? The Rich? No, they got their yachts cheaper elsewhere, and didn't pay the tax.

It was the lower and middle class who worked at those companies, who ended up laid off. They paid the price for those taxes.

Same is true of the luxury phone tax, that the lower and middle class ended up paying the bulk of.

Same is true of social security. Social Security was originally a 1% tax. Now people lose 15% of their income to the social security tax. And it is STILL not enough money! Social Security will go into deficit in the next 10 years last I read.

And the same is true of the income tax. Yeah, you put a 70% on income over $1 Million. Then you start spending money based on this revenue you assume you will get.

Then the rich change how they live, to reduce their tax burden, but the spending continues. Faced with deficits and national debt, the government has no choice but to widen the tax base. Soon it's 70% on people earning $500K, then $200K, and then you have the AMT hitting retired workers.

In the end, taxes aimed at the rich, always harm the lower and middle class. It is unavoidable.

If it wasn't unavoidable, then why hasn't any country in Europe done it? Every single European country, with free health care and education and pensions..... every single one of them has a massive tax burden on the poorest and middle class people of their country.

Why is France burning right now? Why are they protesting across the entire country? I thought everyone was happy in their socialist utopia! They have free health care! They have free education! They have massive pensions! Why is everyone not happy like the left-wing idiots in the US claim they all are?

Because they are living poor, while working hard, to fund their socialist system. That's the reality.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

You posted the wrong chart.

No I didn't.

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

I posted a chart that showed Federal spending during the other posters 1945-1980 "high-tax, high growth" period. To make the point that we could spend much, much less to reduce the debt, rather than tax much, much more.
​

Here is the one related to debt and our GDP although it doesn't go back to 1946 (neither does yours) ​

Mine goes back to 1/1/1944.
​

Little wonder you didn't want to throw this one up to be seen the damage done by failed former President Barack Hussein Obama.​

I'll assume it's the late hour that caused your confusion.
I have no reluctance in pointing out the multiple failures of Obama.​

 

[Rigby5]

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?

That is easy.
The US is one of the most socialist countries in the world, with things like Social Security, subsidized college tuition, Hoover Dam, St. Lawrence Seaway, etc. and all socialist programs make the whole country far more economically successful.
Capitalist countries like the Soviet Union under Stalin, failed totally because they were too greedy and centralized decision making to one individual instead of a socialist democracy.
If that confuses you, just remember that socialist means communal, which means democracy.
While capitalist means individual greed, which means dictatorship.

When you say "one of the most socialist", do you have a different list?
Top 10 Most Socialist Countries in the World - Business Habit

"One of" means "top ten"?

It is very subjective what is a socialist country.
The list put China in there because they have a lot of social programs directed by the government, like food cafeterias instead of private restaurants. But since China does not have a lot of popular input into control, it could easily become very draconian and unsocialist very quickly, like Venezuela, so I would not put China down as socialist at all. A benevolent dictatorship can appear socialist, but if it is not enforced by popular representation, it is too unstable to be called socialist. It could instantly become uber capitalist like Stalin.

 

[Rigby5]

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?

That is easy.
The US is one of the most socialist countries in the world, with things like Social Security, subsidized college tuition, Hoover Dam, St. Lawrence Seaway, etc. and all socialist programs make the whole country far more economically successful.
Capitalist countries like the Soviet Union under Stalin, failed totally because they were too greedy and centralized decision making to one individual instead of a socialist democracy.
If that confuses you, just remember that socialist means communal, which means democracy.
While capitalist means individual greed, which means dictatorship.

When you say "one of the most socialist", do you have a different list?
Top 10 Most Socialist Countries in the World - Business Habit

"One of" means "top ten"?

"One of the most" and not in the "top ten", don't quite line up too well. Dang, you aren't one of them intelligent liberals are you?

"Top 10" could mean the 10 who claim to be the most, or the 10 who really are.
Huge difference.
Completely different lists.

 

[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.

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.

How is Social Security different from any pension plan where some of your income is withheld and matched by your employer?

You're not legally entitled to your Social Security benefit.

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?

If your union negotiated some pension contract, and then 40 years later your union drove the company out of business, you'd be fucked, right?

Look at Trump's budget and you see that over half of federal spending is for the military.

I look at Trump's budget and I see you're really bad at even simple math.

 

[Thinker101]

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

That is easy.
The US is one of the most socialist countries in the world, with things like Social Security, subsidized college tuition, Hoover Dam, St. Lawrence Seaway, etc. and all socialist programs make the whole country far more economically successful.
Capitalist countries like the Soviet Union under Stalin, failed totally because they were too greedy and centralized decision making to one individual instead of a socialist democracy.
If that confuses you, just remember that socialist means communal, which means democracy.
While capitalist means individual greed, which means dictatorship.

When you say "one of the most socialist", do you have a different list?
Top 10 Most Socialist Countries in the World - Business Habit

"One of" means "top ten"?

"One of the most" and not in the "top ten", don't quite line up too well. Dang, you aren't one of them intelligent liberals are you?

"Top 10" could mean the 10 who claim to be the most, or the 10 who really are.
Huge difference.
Completely different lists.

Yea, don't really want to get into semantics. Claim was that the US is one of the most socialist countries in the world, no reference as to claimed or really are.

 

[Rigby5]

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

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

View attachment 239759

Federal Net Outlays as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely. I keep telling left-wingers this, and they live in a delusion where because they said the rich would pay for everything, then they magically will.

Every time anyone says "we'll tax the rich to pay for x", what they are saying is, we're going to tax you.

Every tax ends up hitting the lower and middle class.

The yacht tax in the 90s. All the yachting companies started laying off people, because the rich were buying yachts from France and Asia. Shocking thing about yachts, you can float them back to where you live. Who was hurt? The Rich? No, they got their yachts cheaper elsewhere, and didn't pay the tax.

It was the lower and middle class who worked at those companies, who ended up laid off. They paid the price for those taxes.

Same is true of the luxury phone tax, that the lower and middle class ended up paying the bulk of.

Same is true of social security. Social Security was originally a 1% tax. Now people lose 15% of their income to the social security tax. And it is STILL not enough money! Social Security will go into deficit in the next 10 years last I read.

And the same is true of the income tax. Yeah, you put a 70% on income over $1 Million. Then you start spending money based on this revenue you assume you will get.

Then the rich change how they live, to reduce their tax burden, but the spending continues. Faced with deficits and national debt, the government has no choice but to widen the tax base. Soon it's 70% on people earning $500K, then $200K, and then you have the AMT hitting retired workers.

In the end, taxes aimed at the rich, always harm the lower and middle class. It is unavoidable.

If it wasn't unavoidable, then why hasn't any country in Europe done it? Every single European country, with free health care and education and pensions..... every single one of them has a massive tax burden on the poorest and middle class people of their country.

Why is France burning right now? Why are they protesting across the entire country? I thought everyone was happy in their socialist utopia! They have free health care! They have free education! They have massive pensions! Why is everyone not happy like the left-wing idiots in the US claim they all are?

Because they are living poor, while working hard, to fund their socialist system. That's the reality.

Whether or not one taxes high or low has nothing at all to do with it.
It depends entirely what you do with that tax money.
If you invest tax money into things that pay back even more, like an interstate highway system, then it is worth it.
If you invest in something with no return, that just wastes money, like an invasion of Iraq or the War on Drugs, then you just destroy the economy.

For example, investing in health care does improve the economy.
First of all there is no fraud because no one gets any advantage out of pretending to be sick.
It helps industry and the economy because it not only brings down health care costs, but lowers the cost of production, so that we can more easily compete globally with other countries that have public health care.

We could also improve the economy with high speed rail or hyperdrive tunnels.

 

[boedicca]

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

View attachment 239759

Federal Net Outlays as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely. I keep telling left-wingers this, and they live in a delusion where because they said the rich would pay for everything, then they magically will.

Every time anyone says "we'll tax the rich to pay for x", what they are saying is, we're going to tax you.

Every tax ends up hitting the lower and middle class.

The yacht tax in the 90s. All the yachting companies started laying off people, because the rich were buying yachts from France and Asia. Shocking thing about yachts, you can float them back to where you live. Who was hurt? The Rich? No, they got their yachts cheaper elsewhere, and didn't pay the tax.

It was the lower and middle class who worked at those companies, who ended up laid off. They paid the price for those taxes.

Same is true of the luxury phone tax, that the lower and middle class ended up paying the bulk of.

Same is true of social security. Social Security was originally a 1% tax. Now people lose 15% of their income to the social security tax. And it is STILL not enough money! Social Security will go into deficit in the next 10 years last I read.

And the same is true of the income tax. Yeah, you put a 70% on income over $1 Million. Then you start spending money based on this revenue you assume you will get.

Then the rich change how they live, to reduce their tax burden, but the spending continues. Faced with deficits and national debt, the government has no choice but to widen the tax base. Soon it's 70% on people earning $500K, then $200K, and then you have the AMT hitting retired workers.

In the end, taxes aimed at the rich, always harm the lower and middle class. It is unavoidable.

If it wasn't unavoidable, then why hasn't any country in Europe done it? Every single European country, with free health care and education and pensions..... every single one of them has a massive tax burden on the poorest and middle class people of their country.

Why is France burning right now? Why are they protesting across the entire country? I thought everyone was happy in their socialist utopia! They have free health care! They have free education! They have massive pensions! Why is everyone not happy like the left-wing idiots in the US claim they all are?

Because they are living poor, while working hard, to fund their socialist system. That's the reality.

Whether or not one taxes high or low has nothing at all to do with it.
It depends entirely what you do with that tax money.
If you invest tax money into things that pay back even more, like an interstate highway system, then it is worth it.
If you invest in something with no return, that just wastes money, like an invasion of Iraq or the War on Drugs, then you just destroy the economy.

For example, investing in health care does improve the economy.
First of all there is no fraud because no one gets any advantage out of pretending to be sick.
It helps industry and the economy because it not only brings down health care costs, but lowers the cost of production, so that we can more easily compete globally with other countries that have public health care.

We could also improve the economy with high speed rail or hyperdrive tunnels.

Absolute nonsense. You are completely ignoring the roles of the individual and human nature. Normal, mentally healthy individuals are not going to continue to be productive when a bunch of totalitarian thugs tax away most of their income for the benefit of The Collective.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

How is Social Security different from any pension plan where some of your income is withheld and matched by your employer?

You're not legally entitled to your Social Security benefit.

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?

If your union negotiated some pension contract, and then 40 years later your union drove the company out of business, you'd be fucked, right?

Look at Trump's budget and you see that over half of federal spending is for the military.

I look at Trump's budget and I see you're really bad at even simple math.

You are not legally entitled to a private pension plan either. If the company goes under, you can't sue them to get your money back.
You are a secured creditor, and you can bequeath your pension in a will, but other than a few small difference, social security is very similar to a private pension.
You are entitled to Social Security benefits, and that is why it is categorized as an entitlement program.

If the company providing a negotiated pension plan went under, you likely would get very little of it back at the bankruptcy proceedings.
Social Security would be the same, if the country went bankrupt. That is just less likely to happen because the country is bigger.

How am I wrong about the obvious fact that overt military spending is listed as being more than 50%, without even including hidden military spending like VA, GIBill, interest payments on past military borrowing, etc.?

 

[Rigby5]

That is easy.
The US is one of the most socialist countries in the world, with things like Social Security, subsidized college tuition, Hoover Dam, St. Lawrence Seaway, etc. and all socialist programs make the whole country far more economically successful.
Capitalist countries like the Soviet Union under Stalin, failed totally because they were too greedy and centralized decision making to one individual instead of a socialist democracy.
If that confuses you, just remember that socialist means communal, which means democracy.
While capitalist means individual greed, which means dictatorship.

When you say "one of the most socialist", do you have a different list?
Top 10 Most Socialist Countries in the World - Business Habit

"One of" means "top ten"?

"One of the most" and not in the "top ten", don't quite line up too well. Dang, you aren't one of them intelligent liberals are you?

"Top 10" could mean the 10 who claim to be the most, or the 10 who really are.
Huge difference.
Completely different lists.

Yea, don't really want to get into semantics. Claim was that the US is one of the most socialist countries in the world, no reference as to claimed or really are.

While the US is loudest claiming to not be socialist, clearly it is one of the most socialist.
It is not just all the federal welfare programs like social security, the interstate highway system, St. Lawrence Seaway, NASA, DARPA, etc., but the cooperation between government and business. For example, the bank and auto bailouts in 2010, the munitions profiteering, etc.

Even programs I hate and I think are undemocratic and harmful, like the War on Drugs, clearly are totally socialist.

 

[Rigby5]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely. I keep telling left-wingers this, and they live in a delusion where because they said the rich would pay for everything, then they magically will.

Every time anyone says "we'll tax the rich to pay for x", what they are saying is, we're going to tax you.

Every tax ends up hitting the lower and middle class.

The yacht tax in the 90s. All the yachting companies started laying off people, because the rich were buying yachts from France and Asia. Shocking thing about yachts, you can float them back to where you live. Who was hurt? The Rich? No, they got their yachts cheaper elsewhere, and didn't pay the tax.

It was the lower and middle class who worked at those companies, who ended up laid off. They paid the price for those taxes.

Same is true of the luxury phone tax, that the lower and middle class ended up paying the bulk of.

Same is true of social security. Social Security was originally a 1% tax. Now people lose 15% of their income to the social security tax. And it is STILL not enough money! Social Security will go into deficit in the next 10 years last I read.

And the same is true of the income tax. Yeah, you put a 70% on income over $1 Million. Then you start spending money based on this revenue you assume you will get.

Then the rich change how they live, to reduce their tax burden, but the spending continues. Faced with deficits and national debt, the government has no choice but to widen the tax base. Soon it's 70% on people earning $500K, then $200K, and then you have the AMT hitting retired workers.

In the end, taxes aimed at the rich, always harm the lower and middle class. It is unavoidable.

If it wasn't unavoidable, then why hasn't any country in Europe done it? Every single European country, with free health care and education and pensions..... every single one of them has a massive tax burden on the poorest and middle class people of their country.

Why is France burning right now? Why are they protesting across the entire country? I thought everyone was happy in their socialist utopia! They have free health care! They have free education! They have massive pensions! Why is everyone not happy like the left-wing idiots in the US claim they all are?

Because they are living poor, while working hard, to fund their socialist system. That's the reality.

Whether or not one taxes high or low has nothing at all to do with it.
It depends entirely what you do with that tax money.
If you invest tax money into things that pay back even more, like an interstate highway system, then it is worth it.
If you invest in something with no return, that just wastes money, like an invasion of Iraq or the War on Drugs, then you just destroy the economy.

For example, investing in health care does improve the economy.
First of all there is no fraud because no one gets any advantage out of pretending to be sick.
It helps industry and the economy because it not only brings down health care costs, but lowers the cost of production, so that we can more easily compete globally with other countries that have public health care.

We could also improve the economy with high speed rail or hyperdrive tunnels.

Absolute nonsense. You are completely ignoring the roles of the individual and human nature. Normal, mentally healthy individuals are not going to continue to be productive when a bunch of totalitarian thugs tax away most of their income for the benefit of The Collective.

You are not making any sense.
Totalitarian means capitalists out for themselves.
If they are out for the collective good, then they benefit everyone instead, and they are not only socialist, but normal, healthy individuals applaud and appreciate them.

 

[boedicca]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely. I keep telling left-wingers this, and they live in a delusion where because they said the rich would pay for everything, then they magically will.

Every time anyone says "we'll tax the rich to pay for x", what they are saying is, we're going to tax you.

Every tax ends up hitting the lower and middle class.

The yacht tax in the 90s. All the yachting companies started laying off people, because the rich were buying yachts from France and Asia. Shocking thing about yachts, you can float them back to where you live. Who was hurt? The Rich? No, they got their yachts cheaper elsewhere, and didn't pay the tax.

It was the lower and middle class who worked at those companies, who ended up laid off. They paid the price for those taxes.

Same is true of the luxury phone tax, that the lower and middle class ended up paying the bulk of.

Same is true of social security. Social Security was originally a 1% tax. Now people lose 15% of their income to the social security tax. And it is STILL not enough money! Social Security will go into deficit in the next 10 years last I read.

And the same is true of the income tax. Yeah, you put a 70% on income over $1 Million. Then you start spending money based on this revenue you assume you will get.

Then the rich change how they live, to reduce their tax burden, but the spending continues. Faced with deficits and national debt, the government has no choice but to widen the tax base. Soon it's 70% on people earning $500K, then $200K, and then you have the AMT hitting retired workers.

In the end, taxes aimed at the rich, always harm the lower and middle class. It is unavoidable.

If it wasn't unavoidable, then why hasn't any country in Europe done it? Every single European country, with free health care and education and pensions..... every single one of them has a massive tax burden on the poorest and middle class people of their country.

Why is France burning right now? Why are they protesting across the entire country? I thought everyone was happy in their socialist utopia! They have free health care! They have free education! They have massive pensions! Why is everyone not happy like the left-wing idiots in the US claim they all are?

Because they are living poor, while working hard, to fund their socialist system. That's the reality.

Whether or not one taxes high or low has nothing at all to do with it.
It depends entirely what you do with that tax money.
If you invest tax money into things that pay back even more, like an interstate highway system, then it is worth it.
If you invest in something with no return, that just wastes money, like an invasion of Iraq or the War on Drugs, then you just destroy the economy.

For example, investing in health care does improve the economy.
First of all there is no fraud because no one gets any advantage out of pretending to be sick.
It helps industry and the economy because it not only brings down health care costs, but lowers the cost of production, so that we can more easily compete globally with other countries that have public health care.

We could also improve the economy with high speed rail or hyperdrive tunnels.

Absolute nonsense. You are completely ignoring the roles of the individual and human nature. Normal, mentally healthy individuals are not going to continue to be productive when a bunch of totalitarian thugs tax away most of their income for the benefit of The Collective.

You are not making any sense.
Totalitarian means capitalists out for themselves.
If they are out for the collective good, then they benefit everyone instead, and they are not only socialist, but normal, healthy individuals applaud and appreciate them.

You can make up your nonsensical definitions, but in RealityLand, totalitarians are those who believe in total government control of the individual. Actual capitalists engage in free markets in a competitive environment. Big government cronies are not true capitalists.