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

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know exactly what all the systems are based on, and there are not just two of them, but an infinite set of principles that can be orthogonal in some ways, and coincident in others. It is not nearly as simple as you claim, and it is likely all you know about is Stalinism, which any knowledgeable person knows is a form of capitalism called "State Capitalism".
From what little you have written, likely you know nothing about economics or politics at all.
Socialism is from our genetic code in our DNA, and is what allows any social animal to survive, like Meerkats.

Socialism may be in our genetic code, Meerkats too, but they don't pay taxes. So they would have that in common with illegals.

Not sure I understand, because the whole point of socialism is an inherent responsibility to the group. Before currency, that meant mutual defense, bringing food to those temporarily unable to fend for themselves, etc. These days of currency, that means taxes. Taxes are EXACTLY what is socialist about modern government. And illegals likely do not only pay taxes, but increase production, which also increases tax revenue.

Actually, 94% of illegal adult males work, 65% pay taxes, and 35% own homes.They have basically been invited in by the GOP refusal of a national ID card like other modern countries have to end this problem. And no they don't vote or get welfare.

65% pay taxes,

How do they pay taxes? They don't have a Social Security number.

You can even make one up. You can also borrow one from someone else, use one from someone who has died, or buy a fake one for $20.
The reality is they not only pay income taxes, but also FICA, and they are too afraid to file for a refund.

You can even make one up. You can also borrow one from someone else, use one from someone who has died, or buy a fake one for $20.

And we all know that criminals always pay their taxes. DURR!

The reality is they not only pay income taxes, but also FICA, and they are too afraid to file for a refund.

Afraid? You should look up the stats on illegals claiming the EITC. You'd laugh.
Laugh at how stupid you've been.

 

[U2Edge]

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

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

View attachment 239759

Federal Net Outlays as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

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

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

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

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

The answer is to increase the top federal tax rate.

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

Federal spending during World War II was massively inflated due to the national emergency of the war. It was far in excess of what was needed to run the country and defend in peace time. So that cut in spending can't be compared to a similar cut in spending today.

You will be unable to defend the country, send people their social security checks, pay for medicare as well as keep up with interest payments on the debt if you were to cut federal spending by 50% or 75%. That is CRAZY. It would definitely hurt economic growth in variety of ways. Being unable to defend U.S. interest abroad could result in hostile aggression that would harm U.S. or global trade which would hurt the U.S. economy. Without social security checks, many citizens would no longer be able to buy the consumer products they do every day having a negative impact on the economy. Without medicare insurance, people would have to spend money they normally spend on consumer products to fund their doctor or hospital visits, which would also hurt the economy.

Since we have never been attacked since 1812 and we have no threats now, we could easily cut military spending by half, and still have no threat at all. In fact, what we should be doing instead is like Switzerland, and do universal military training.

1812 is world that no longer exist. The United States has interest all over the world that is vital to its economy and its survival. As time goes by, the world becomes ever more interdependent. Isolationism has been dead since the 19th century. A country like Switzerland is dependent upon NATO for its true security.

 

[U2Edge]

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

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

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

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

A. from 1945 to 1980, the top federal tax rate was between 70% and 94%. Today its around 40%.

B. U.S. tax collection as a percentage of GDP is one of the lowest in the world.

C. The best top federal tax rate is one that maximizes revenue collection without hurting economic growth. 40% is well below the rate that would be best for maximizing revenue collection without hurting the economy.

B. U.S. tax collection as a percentage of GDP is one of the lowest in the world.

And yet, right around the level collected when rates were 90%.

Well, if that's truly the case, it only shows that there is room for improvement when it comes to revenue collection.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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

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

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

A. from 1945 to 1980, the top federal tax rate was between 70% and 94%. Today its around 40%.

B. U.S. tax collection as a percentage of GDP is one of the lowest in the world.

C. The best top federal tax rate is one that maximizes revenue collection without hurting economic growth. 40% is well below the rate that would be best for maximizing revenue collection without hurting the economy.

B. U.S. tax collection as a percentage of GDP is one of the lowest in the world.

And yet, right around the level collected when rates were 90%.

Well, if that's truly the case, it only shows that there is room for improvement when it comes to revenue collection.

You feel rates of misreporting income were that much higher back then?

 

[U2Edge]

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.

The money spent on the military and social security finds its way back into the economy. 2/3s of military spending is paying the troops and paying for their training. Boosting Federal spending in the 1940s did not hurt the economy, it supercharged it.

No, training is only 9 weeks, and paying the troops are a tiny portion of the cost. The big costs are foreign deployments and massive weapons costs, from carriers to cruise missiles.
Boosting federal spending in the 1940s was all borrowing, and while that has short term expansion, if continued for any long period of time, caused total collapse of the economy.

Ah, I'm talking about the training that active brigades and divisions do on an annual basis, as well as naval fleets and air wings, not someone who just joined the military and is going through basic training and has yet to join a military unit. Military units spend most of the year training and preparing for war and other types of deployments. The learning and education process which is apart of the training never stops.

Pay for the 1.4 million troops on active duty and the nearly 1 million in reserve takes up nearly 1/3 of the military budget. The other 1/3 is for annual training. As of today, the United States only has 23,000 troops deployed in war zones, a tiny fraction of the entire active duty strength. The cost of those deployments is tiny compared to the rest of the defense budget. Spending on weapons procurement and weapons research and development is large, but not as large as the training budget or pay for the troops. Most people don't understand this, likely do to media reports which simply focus on the cost of new weapons.

 

[U2Edge]

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

.

Well, of course.


…...if we want to enter a depression that makes the 2008 recession look like child's play in comparison.

The 2008 recession was caused by the combination of war borrowing and tax cuts by Bush.
When you increase the national debt that fast, it soaks up all available credit, and makes the whole world too short of credit to be able to do business.

If not for the Bush tax cuts, likely the 2008 recession would not have happened.
The proof is that the 2008 recession was global, not just the US.

The 2008 recession was caused by the combination of war borrowing and tax cuts by Bush.
When you increase the national debt that fast, it soaks up all available credit, and makes the whole world too short of credit to be able to do business.

What a load of BS. In FY 2007, the deficit was $161 billion, but the recession started in Dec 2007.
In FY 2009, the deficit was $1.4 trillion, but the recession ended in June 2009.

The 5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT in the budget.
The deficit was irrelevant.
Military war spending is never part of the budget.

Its rather easy to add in the spending that is off budget whether its for the military or other things. The office of management and budget has the Historical tables which consider all spending, on budget or off budget since at least 1940. Table 3.1 has excellent list for spending on all items as well as listing that spending as a percentage of total outlays or as a percentage of GDP. On Budget and Off Budget all considered.

Here is the link:

Historical Tables | The White House

The only military spending that is considered off budget is emergency spending for foreign deployments. This habit of not including such spending in the budget was ended under Obama.

 

[U2Edge]

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

Nope. In fact we should eliminate all tax expenditures and LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.

That would be a disaster for the country. Budget Deficits would balloon and the country would no longer be able to defend its interest around the world.

Nope. Eliminating tax expenditures would not only balance the budget, it would provide a surplus which could be used to LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.

What you don't realize is all the functions of government that are necessary for the country to survive. Those things have to be properly funded. If you cut spending by 50%, that won't happen.

 

[Cecilie1200]

400 plus posts and not a one showing any indication of an understanding of macroeconomics, public policy, and tax strategy. When you increase the tax on cigarettes, alcohol, or even soft drinks everyone seems to understand that it discourages consumption. An income tax rate of seventy percent on income over ten million dollars a year does the same thing. When are you taxed on income, when you take it out of the business. A seventy percent tax on income discourages business owners from taking money out of the business and instead, motivates them to PUT THE MONEY BACK IN.

Why do companies not invest in training their employees like they used to back in the day. Why do companies not provide benefit packages equivalent to those back in the day. Why do companies buy back their own stock instead of making even moderately risky capital investments like they did back in the day. Why do companies offer 401K's instead of pensions like they used to. Because their taxes, and the marginal tax rate, no longer provides them with the incentive to invest in that training, provide those benefits, make those riskier investments, or take on the risk of market loss that a pension entails. The "opportunity cost" of not taking profits is too steep. The tax code actually encourages those businesses to CASH OUT. Changing that dynamic is the rationale behind Cortez's proposal. It is not about "socialism", it is not about punishment, hell, it is not even about increasing revenue. It is about providing the incentive and subsidizing the risk, of investment back in to the company. It is about expanding the frontier curve.

That is why the high tax rate's of the 50's resulted in a massive increase in production. That is why, back then, we often had double digit GDP growth not this puny ass two and three percent shit. That is why, back then, the wealthy actually paid less of the total tax burden than they do now, because they had the incentive to invest in their businesses and increase the revenue of their employees, not their investors.

But who am I kidding. You morons can go on ranting about the evils of socialism, or communism, or how about how damn lazy poor people are. In reality, you guys don't even understand the fundamentals of the capitalism you are so enamored with.

400+ posts, and not a one has addressed the point of "It's immoral and evil for you to think you can take 70% of someone else's money". Just endless pie-in-the-sky rhapsodies to the wonders of what you could spend other people's money on.

The point remains that IT'S NOT YOURS. YOU DIDN'T EARN IT, YOU DIDN'T EVEN WORK FOR IT. I don't care how glorious you imagine life will be when everyone accepts being a slave to the federal government and having an allowance doled out to them from their labor; it's still wrong and you're still evil for trying to justify it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, because doing so would hurt the economy. Raising the top marginal rate to 70% would suck a huge amount of capital out of the economy, capital that would otherwise be available for investment and savings, and would hand that money over to the government, which typically wastes at least 30 cents of every dollar it spends.

Proving how little AOC knows about economics is her suggestion of a 70% tax on incomes above $10 million. Apparently, she doesn't know that there are only about 2,000 people who have incomes at and above that level.

How much revenue will that raise?

Not to mention that those people aren't just going to sit still and let her fleece them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, because doing so would hurt the economy. Raising the top marginal rate to 70% would suck a huge amount of capital out of the economy, capital that would otherwise be available for investment and savings, and would hand that money over to the government, which typically wastes at least 30 cents of every dollar it spends.

Proving how little AOC knows about economics is her suggestion of a 70% tax on incomes above $10 million. Apparently, she doesn't know that there are only about 2,000 people who have incomes at and above that level.

How much revenue will that raise?

Perfect demonstration of the inability to grasp the purpose behind AOC's proposal and proof positive that she knows more about Economics than you do.

I just heard, "The smart person is the one saying things I agree with."

 

[g5000]

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

Nope. In fact we should eliminate all tax expenditures and LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.

That would be a disaster for the country. Budget Deficits would balloon and the country would no longer be able to defend its interest around the world.

Nope. Eliminating tax expenditures would not only balance the budget, it would provide a surplus which could be used to LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.

What you don't realize is all the functions of government that are necessary for the country to survive. Those things have to be properly funded. If you cut spending by 50%, that won't happen.

You clearly do not know what tax expenditures are.

 

[Winston]

400 plus posts and not a one showing any indication of an understanding of macroeconomics, public policy, and tax strategy. When you increase the tax on cigarettes, alcohol, or even soft drinks everyone seems to understand that it discourages consumption. An income tax rate of seventy percent on income over ten million dollars a year does the same thing. When are you taxed on income, when you take it out of the business. A seventy percent tax on income discourages business owners from taking money out of the business and instead, motivates them to PUT THE MONEY BACK IN.

Why do companies not invest in training their employees like they used to back in the day. Why do companies not provide benefit packages equivalent to those back in the day. Why do companies buy back their own stock instead of making even moderately risky capital investments like they did back in the day. Why do companies offer 401K's instead of pensions like they used to. Because their taxes, and the marginal tax rate, no longer provides them with the incentive to invest in that training, provide those benefits, make those riskier investments, or take on the risk of market loss that a pension entails. The "opportunity cost" of not taking profits is too steep. The tax code actually encourages those businesses to CASH OUT. Changing that dynamic is the rationale behind Cortez's proposal. It is not about "socialism", it is not about punishment, hell, it is not even about increasing revenue. It is about providing the incentive and subsidizing the risk, of investment back in to the company. It is about expanding the frontier curve.

That is why the high tax rate's of the 50's resulted in a massive increase in production. That is why, back then, we often had double digit GDP growth not this puny ass two and three percent shit. That is why, back then, the wealthy actually paid less of the total tax burden than they do now, because they had the incentive to invest in their businesses and increase the revenue of their employees, not their investors.

But who am I kidding. You morons can go on ranting about the evils of socialism, or communism, or how about how damn lazy poor people are. In reality, you guys don't even understand the fundamentals of the capitalism you are so enamored with.

A seventy percent tax on income discourages business owners from taking money out of the business and instead, motivates them to PUT THE MONEY BACK IN.

Business owners? Who wants to ever start a business when the government is going to take 70 cents out of every dollar of profit?

The tax code actually encourages those businesses to CASH OUT.

What will more likely encourage a businessman to risk his money to start up a new company?

Country A, where his profit, if any, is 70% taken away by government, or Country B where his profit, if any, is only 21% taken away by government?

Changing that dynamic is the rationale behind Cortez's proposal. It is not about "socialism", it is not about punishment, hell, it is not even about increasing revenue. It is about providing the incentive and subsidizing the risk, of investment back in to the company.

Only morons think more taxes provides an incentive.

This from the dude who was explaining how taxes are progressive. Remember, the seventy percent tax rate would only apply to the income over ten million dollars. So lots of people would start a business and bust their ass so that they could reach ten million dollars of income and the seventy percent rate. What, did nobody start any businesses back in 1950? What about Dunkin Donusts, Denny's, Sonic, and HR Block? You are just spouting off nonsense. Did anyone ever refuse to turn in their winning lottery ticket because the taxes were so high? Besides, taxes come out on the back end, not the front end, which all you conservatives fail to understand. What is it Warren Buffet said, he never knew anyone who ran away from a successful endeavor because of the tax rate.

But yes, higher taxes actually encourage greater risk. The weighted average cost of capital is INVERSELY related to the tax-rate. Higher tax rates increase a companies risk appetite. I mean companies are like investors, it is not the return on their money that they are mostly concerned with. It is the return OF their money. Investors who worry more about the return on their money than the return of their money usually end up with no money.

And your company a, company b choice is just stupid. There are many decisions when it comes to locating a business and the tax rate is not high among them. The United Arab Emirates has the highest corporate tax rate in the world and they sure as hell have no shortage of foreign investment, nor of business Matter of fact, the United States has more new businesses than any country in the world and that was when we had one of the highest corporate tax rates. Now, with the lower corporate tax rate, a dumbshit president, and a dysfunctional government, I fully expect that position to be lost. Number two was Great Britain. Watch them fall in the ratings as well for many of the same reasons.

Remember, the seventy percent tax rate would only apply to the income over ten million dollars.

Oh, so the corporate rate will remain 21% on the profit up to $10 million and then the rate will spike to 70%.

Well, that's much better. No disruptions possible there. DURR!

But yes, higher taxes actually encourage greater risk.

Of course, I'm more likely to invest in equipment to increase my profit from $10 million this year to $20 million next year when the payoff is an additional $3 million after-tax, than when the payoff is an additional $7.9 million.

That's hilarious!

And your company a, company b choice is just stupid. There are many decisions when it comes to locating a business and the tax rate is not high among them.

Right. Ireland had just as many companies before they cut their tax rate to 12.5% as after.

I mean companies are like investors, it is not the return on their money that they are mostly concerned with. It is the return OF their money.

It's both, except for idiots like you.

Matter of fact, the United States has more new businesses than any country in the world and that was when we had one of the highest corporate tax rates.

I'm pretty sure new business formation suffered with our highest in the 1st world corporate tax rates under the previous dumbshit President.

It is not about "socialism", it is not about punishment, hell, it is not even about increasing revenue.

Lie, lie, lie.

It is about providing the incentive and subsidizing the risk, of investment back in to the company.

Raise the tax rate to 100%, subsidize the shit out of risk, eh comrade?

Not very impressive. First, the AOC proposal never said anything about the corporate tax rate albeit that rate should most certainly be adjusted upwards. The results of the cut have not been as promised and much of it was directed towards corporate buybacks instead of capital investment proving my point quite eloquently, to bad you don't have the knowledge to understand.

Ireland, the favorite example of tax cutting fools, is not just about the low tax rate. An educated workforce is also a variable, free college education and all. Plus they have a minimum wage that equates to over $1800 a month. You sure Bernie Sanders didn't get his ideas from Ireland?

And you also proved my point about taxes coming on the back end not the front end. You guys all seem to think capital investment is made in a world of certainty. Like your more likely to invest fantasy. Guess there are advantages to working for someone rather than running your own business though.

When it comes to new business formation why don't you check the Kaufman Index. It took a dive because of the recession but jumped rather significantly in 2010. Do you know why? I will give you a hint, it had something to do with Obama.

And finally the stupid one hundred percent argument, which is just as stupid as the zero percent argument. The Laffer curve is a curve, afterall. Sometimes you can raise revenue when cutting taxes and sometimes you can't. Anyone who thinks we are on the left side of the Laffer curve at these absurdly low rates is absolutely delusional.

 

[Oddball]

1812 is world that no longer exist. The United States has interest all over the world that is vital to its economy and its survival. As time goes by, the world becomes ever more interdependent. Isolationism has been dead since the 19th century. A country like Switzerland is dependent upon NATO for its true security.

Thank you, Woodrow Wilson.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

400 plus posts and not a one showing any indication of an understanding of macroeconomics, public policy, and tax strategy. When you increase the tax on cigarettes, alcohol, or even soft drinks everyone seems to understand that it discourages consumption. An income tax rate of seventy percent on income over ten million dollars a year does the same thing. When are you taxed on income, when you take it out of the business. A seventy percent tax on income discourages business owners from taking money out of the business and instead, motivates them to PUT THE MONEY BACK IN.

Why do companies not invest in training their employees like they used to back in the day. Why do companies not provide benefit packages equivalent to those back in the day. Why do companies buy back their own stock instead of making even moderately risky capital investments like they did back in the day. Why do companies offer 401K's instead of pensions like they used to. Because their taxes, and the marginal tax rate, no longer provides them with the incentive to invest in that training, provide those benefits, make those riskier investments, or take on the risk of market loss that a pension entails. The "opportunity cost" of not taking profits is too steep. The tax code actually encourages those businesses to CASH OUT. Changing that dynamic is the rationale behind Cortez's proposal. It is not about "socialism", it is not about punishment, hell, it is not even about increasing revenue. It is about providing the incentive and subsidizing the risk, of investment back in to the company. It is about expanding the frontier curve.

That is why the high tax rate's of the 50's resulted in a massive increase in production. That is why, back then, we often had double digit GDP growth not this puny ass two and three percent shit. That is why, back then, the wealthy actually paid less of the total tax burden than they do now, because they had the incentive to invest in their businesses and increase the revenue of their employees, not their investors.

But who am I kidding. You morons can go on ranting about the evils of socialism, or communism, or how about how damn lazy poor people are. In reality, you guys don't even understand the fundamentals of the capitalism you are so enamored with.

A seventy percent tax on income discourages business owners from taking money out of the business and instead, motivates them to PUT THE MONEY BACK IN.

Business owners? Who wants to ever start a business when the government is going to take 70 cents out of every dollar of profit?

The tax code actually encourages those businesses to CASH OUT.

What will more likely encourage a businessman to risk his money to start up a new company?

Country A, where his profit, if any, is 70% taken away by government, or Country B where his profit, if any, is only 21% taken away by government?

Changing that dynamic is the rationale behind Cortez's proposal. It is not about "socialism", it is not about punishment, hell, it is not even about increasing revenue. It is about providing the incentive and subsidizing the risk, of investment back in to the company.

Only morons think more taxes provides an incentive.

This from the dude who was explaining how taxes are progressive. Remember, the seventy percent tax rate would only apply to the income over ten million dollars. So lots of people would start a business and bust their ass so that they could reach ten million dollars of income and the seventy percent rate. What, did nobody start any businesses back in 1950? What about Dunkin Donusts, Denny's, Sonic, and HR Block? You are just spouting off nonsense. Did anyone ever refuse to turn in their winning lottery ticket because the taxes were so high? Besides, taxes come out on the back end, not the front end, which all you conservatives fail to understand. What is it Warren Buffet said, he never knew anyone who ran away from a successful endeavor because of the tax rate.

But yes, higher taxes actually encourage greater risk. The weighted average cost of capital is INVERSELY related to the tax-rate. Higher tax rates increase a companies risk appetite. I mean companies are like investors, it is not the return on their money that they are mostly concerned with. It is the return OF their money. Investors who worry more about the return on their money than the return of their money usually end up with no money.

And your company a, company b choice is just stupid. There are many decisions when it comes to locating a business and the tax rate is not high among them. The United Arab Emirates has the highest corporate tax rate in the world and they sure as hell have no shortage of foreign investment, nor of business Matter of fact, the United States has more new businesses than any country in the world and that was when we had one of the highest corporate tax rates. Now, with the lower corporate tax rate, a dumbshit president, and a dysfunctional government, I fully expect that position to be lost. Number two was Great Britain. Watch them fall in the ratings as well for many of the same reasons.

Remember, the seventy percent tax rate would only apply to the income over ten million dollars.

Oh, so the corporate rate will remain 21% on the profit up to $10 million and then the rate will spike to 70%.

Well, that's much better. No disruptions possible there. DURR!

But yes, higher taxes actually encourage greater risk.

Of course, I'm more likely to invest in equipment to increase my profit from $10 million this year to $20 million next year when the payoff is an additional $3 million after-tax, than when the payoff is an additional $7.9 million.

That's hilarious!

And your company a, company b choice is just stupid. There are many decisions when it comes to locating a business and the tax rate is not high among them.

Right. Ireland had just as many companies before they cut their tax rate to 12.5% as after.

I mean companies are like investors, it is not the return on their money that they are mostly concerned with. It is the return OF their money.

It's both, except for idiots like you.

Matter of fact, the United States has more new businesses than any country in the world and that was when we had one of the highest corporate tax rates.

I'm pretty sure new business formation suffered with our highest in the 1st world corporate tax rates under the previous dumbshit President.

It is not about "socialism", it is not about punishment, hell, it is not even about increasing revenue.

Lie, lie, lie.

It is about providing the incentive and subsidizing the risk, of investment back in to the company.

Raise the tax rate to 100%, subsidize the shit out of risk, eh comrade?

Not very impressive. First, the AOC proposal never said anything about the corporate tax rate albeit that rate should most certainly be adjusted upwards. The results of the cut have not been as promised and much of it was directed towards corporate buybacks instead of capital investment proving my point quite eloquently, to bad you don't have the knowledge to understand.

Ireland, the favorite example of tax cutting fools, is not just about the low tax rate. An educated workforce is also a variable, free college education and all. Plus they have a minimum wage that equates to over $1800 a month. You sure Bernie Sanders didn't get his ideas from Ireland?

Ireland, the favorite example of tax cutting fools, is not just about the low tax rate. An educated workforce is also a variable, free college education and all. Like your more likely to invest fantasy. Guess there are advantages to working for someone rather than running your own business though.

When it comes to new business formation why don't you check the Kaufman Index. It took a dive because of the recession but jumped rather significantly in 2010. Do you know why? I will give you a hint, it had something to do with Obama.

And finally the stupid one hundred percent argument, which is just as stupid as the zero percent argument. The Laffer curve is a curve, afterall. Sometimes you can raise revenue when cutting taxes and sometimes you can't. Anyone who thinks we are on the left side of the Laffer curve at these absurdly low rates is absolutely delusional.

The results of the cut have not been as promised and much of it was directed towards corporate buybacks

Yeah, I hate it when my stocks go up too.

Ireland, the favorite example of tax cutting fools, is not just about the low tax rate. An educated workforce is also a variable, free college education and all.

Obviously. Because their workforce wasn't educated before they cut the tax rate.

Like your more likely to invest fantasy.

You should ask a businessman if a 70% tax rate would make him want to invest more than a 21% rate.

It took a dive because of the recession but jumped rather significantly in 2010. Do you know why?

A Republican House?

Anyone who thinks we are on the left side of the Laffer curve at these absurdly low rates is absolutely delusional.

Anyone who thinks 70% is the revenue maximizing rate is even more delusional.

 

[Rigby5]

WRONG! The phrase "supplemental budget" means it definitely was NOT at all part of the annual budget as planned for the year, but something unexpected that came up LATER, and had to be called supplemental. Anything later, after the annual budget predicted expenses has been approved by congress, is NOT part of the budget and is called supplemental.

It is foolish for you to even try to say what obviously can't be true because clearly all the Bush budgets put together do not include even a tiny portion of the $5 trillion Bush is documented as having added to the national debt. And I already linked and quoted how Bush tried to hide his massive debt. As well as the fact Obama was very critical of the process of hiding debt in supplemental allocations, and was embarrassed to have to do it even once.

You clearly did not read any of the links, because they flatly state the opposite of what you now are claiming.

The phrase "supplemental budget" means it definitely was NOT at all part of the annual budget as planned for the year, but something unexpected that came up LATER, and had to be called supplemental.

It was still part of a budget. Still counts toward the deficit. Still counts toward the debt.

And I already linked and quoted how Bush tried to hide his massive debt.

How does a supplemental spending bill hide debt?

No, all the links were quite clear that supplemental requests for money are handled as emergencies that then the president is not liable for. It is like when Katrina hit and funds had to be allocated for that. These funds are NOT part of the budget, are not detailed, and do NOT count towards the annual deficit. All they count towards is the national debt. But LOTS of thing not in the budget count towards the national debt, such as previous interest on past national debt. The annual budget only includes a little more than half the actual federal spending in any given year. The budget is intentionally leaving major expenses out. For example, Social Security is never part of the annual budget. Supplementals hide spending because they don't list details. They are are almost like a blank check, to deliberately bypass the congressional oversight of federal spending.

I don't mind explaining this, but if you had actually read the links, you would have not needed any more explanation.

No, all the links were quite clear that supplemental requests for money are handled as emergencies that then the president is not liable for. It is like when Katrina hit and funds had to be allocated for that. These funds are NOT part of the budget, are not detailed, and do NOT count towards the annual deficit.
You're wrong. All spending counts toward the deficit. Obama's stimulus wasn't part of the annual budget,
but the wasteful spending still counted toward the deficit.

For example, Social Security is never part of the annual budget.

It's an entitlement. They did that so they would never have to vote on it.
The spending still counts toward the deficit though.

if you had actually read the links, you would have not needed any more explanation.

I don't need to read your links to point out your errors.

Wrong.
Unlike a Bush's war, Obama has to work according to budget rules, and the stimulus was a preplanned part of the budget.
{...
President Barack Obama outlined the economic stimulus package during his 2008 campaign. Congress approved the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in February 2009. The Congressional Budget Office estimated it would add $787 billion in budget deficits by 2019.
..}
Did Obama's Stimulus Plan Work?

Unlike a Bush's war, Obama has to work according to budget rules, and the stimulus was a preplanned part of the budget.

The fiscal year started in October 2008. How can you say a bill passed in Feb 2009 was a preplanned part of the budget from October 2008?

And how were any of the budgets passed by Congress and signed by Bush, not "according to budget rules"?

Be specific.

If you read the link, it said that the bail outs were in the budget proposed the year before they were actually given out.

The appropriations Bush demanded by Congress were not in the budget at all, and were not even remotely documented, but essentially a blank check, under the threat that if not approved, Bush would make it look like Congress was endangering the troops.

 

[Rigby5]

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

Nope. In fact we should eliminate all tax expenditures and LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.

That would be a disaster for the country. Budget Deficits would balloon and the country would no longer be able to defend its interest around the world.

Nope. Eliminating tax expenditures would not only balance the budget, it would provide a surplus which could be used to LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.

What you don't realize is all the functions of government that are necessary for the country to survive. Those things have to be properly funded. If you cut spending by 50%, that won't happen.

You clearly do not know what tax expenditures are.

Likely you are correct, but you have to admit it is deceptive terminology and you could explain it better or use a different term. I had to look it up myself in order to know what you were talking about.

 

[Rigby5]

1812 is world that no longer exist. The United States has interest all over the world that is vital to its economy and its survival. As time goes by, the world becomes ever more interdependent. Isolationism has been dead since the 19th century. A country like Switzerland is dependent upon NATO for its true security.

Thank you, Woodrow Wilson.

I agree, the US had absolutely no business in WWI and it totally screwed up Europe for a long time, because it was an evil war.

 

[g5000]

Nope. In fact we should eliminate all tax expenditures and LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.

That would be a disaster for the country. Budget Deficits would balloon and the country would no longer be able to defend its interest around the world.

Nope. Eliminating tax expenditures would not only balance the budget, it would provide a surplus which could be used to LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.

What you don't realize is all the functions of government that are necessary for the country to survive. Those things have to be properly funded. If you cut spending by 50%, that won't happen.

You clearly do not know what tax expenditures are.

Likely you are correct, but you have to admit it is deceptive terminology and you could explain it better or use a different term. I had to look it up myself in order to know what you were talking about.

It's not deceptive terminology. In fact, it is an accurate economic term which reflects the fact they are an expenditure which has to be paid for. And they are paid for by higher tax rates and borrowing.

That's why I use the term very deliberately. It is the denial that they are an expenditure which is deceptive. I am undoing that deception by using the accurate and correct term.

If we eliminated tax expenditures, we would realize several benefits.

First, the budget would be balanced and we could lower tax rates for everyone.

Second, we would no longer have the existing insane system where entities earning identical incomes pay radically different taxes.

Third, we would no longer be hostage to a government behavioral control program which rewards and punishes certain behaviors.

Fourth, the incentive for special interests to bribe our politicians to put tax expenditures in the tax code for them would be removed. Instant campaign finance reform the RIGHT way.

 

[Winston]

400 plus posts and not a one showing any indication of an understanding of macroeconomics, public policy, and tax strategy. When you increase the tax on cigarettes, alcohol, or even soft drinks everyone seems to understand that it discourages consumption. An income tax rate of seventy percent on income over ten million dollars a year does the same thing. When are you taxed on income, when you take it out of the business. A seventy percent tax on income discourages business owners from taking money out of the business and instead, motivates them to PUT THE MONEY BACK IN.

Why do companies not invest in training their employees like they used to back in the day. Why do companies not provide benefit packages equivalent to those back in the day. Why do companies buy back their own stock instead of making even moderately risky capital investments like they did back in the day. Why do companies offer 401K's instead of pensions like they used to. Because their taxes, and the marginal tax rate, no longer provides them with the incentive to invest in that training, provide those benefits, make those riskier investments, or take on the risk of market loss that a pension entails. The "opportunity cost" of not taking profits is too steep. The tax code actually encourages those businesses to CASH OUT. Changing that dynamic is the rationale behind Cortez's proposal. It is not about "socialism", it is not about punishment, hell, it is not even about increasing revenue. It is about providing the incentive and subsidizing the risk, of investment back in to the company. It is about expanding the frontier curve.

That is why the high tax rate's of the 50's resulted in a massive increase in production. That is why, back then, we often had double digit GDP growth not this puny ass two and three percent shit. That is why, back then, the wealthy actually paid less of the total tax burden than they do now, because they had the incentive to invest in their businesses and increase the revenue of their employees, not their investors.

But who am I kidding. You morons can go on ranting about the evils of socialism, or communism, or how about how damn lazy poor people are. In reality, you guys don't even understand the fundamentals of the capitalism you are so enamored with.

A seventy percent tax on income discourages business owners from taking money out of the business and instead, motivates them to PUT THE MONEY BACK IN.

Business owners? Who wants to ever start a business when the government is going to take 70 cents out of every dollar of profit?

The tax code actually encourages those businesses to CASH OUT.

What will more likely encourage a businessman to risk his money to start up a new company?

Country A, where his profit, if any, is 70% taken away by government, or Country B where his profit, if any, is only 21% taken away by government?

Changing that dynamic is the rationale behind Cortez's proposal. It is not about "socialism", it is not about punishment, hell, it is not even about increasing revenue. It is about providing the incentive and subsidizing the risk, of investment back in to the company.

Only morons think more taxes provides an incentive.

This from the dude who was explaining how taxes are progressive. Remember, the seventy percent tax rate would only apply to the income over ten million dollars. So lots of people would start a business and bust their ass so that they could reach ten million dollars of income and the seventy percent rate. What, did nobody start any businesses back in 1950? What about Dunkin Donusts, Denny's, Sonic, and HR Block? You are just spouting off nonsense. Did anyone ever refuse to turn in their winning lottery ticket because the taxes were so high? Besides, taxes come out on the back end, not the front end, which all you conservatives fail to understand. What is it Warren Buffet said, he never knew anyone who ran away from a successful endeavor because of the tax rate.

But yes, higher taxes actually encourage greater risk. The weighted average cost of capital is INVERSELY related to the tax-rate. Higher tax rates increase a companies risk appetite. I mean companies are like investors, it is not the return on their money that they are mostly concerned with. It is the return OF their money. Investors who worry more about the return on their money than the return of their money usually end up with no money.

And your company a, company b choice is just stupid. There are many decisions when it comes to locating a business and the tax rate is not high among them. The United Arab Emirates has the highest corporate tax rate in the world and they sure as hell have no shortage of foreign investment, nor of business Matter of fact, the United States has more new businesses than any country in the world and that was when we had one of the highest corporate tax rates. Now, with the lower corporate tax rate, a dumbshit president, and a dysfunctional government, I fully expect that position to be lost. Number two was Great Britain. Watch them fall in the ratings as well for many of the same reasons.

Remember, the seventy percent tax rate would only apply to the income over ten million dollars.

Oh, so the corporate rate will remain 21% on the profit up to $10 million and then the rate will spike to 70%.

Well, that's much better. No disruptions possible there. DURR!

But yes, higher taxes actually encourage greater risk.

Of course, I'm more likely to invest in equipment to increase my profit from $10 million this year to $20 million next year when the payoff is an additional $3 million after-tax, than when the payoff is an additional $7.9 million.

That's hilarious!

And your company a, company b choice is just stupid. There are many decisions when it comes to locating a business and the tax rate is not high among them.

Right. Ireland had just as many companies before they cut their tax rate to 12.5% as after.

I mean companies are like investors, it is not the return on their money that they are mostly concerned with. It is the return OF their money.

It's both, except for idiots like you.

Matter of fact, the United States has more new businesses than any country in the world and that was when we had one of the highest corporate tax rates.

I'm pretty sure new business formation suffered with our highest in the 1st world corporate tax rates under the previous dumbshit President.

It is not about "socialism", it is not about punishment, hell, it is not even about increasing revenue.

Lie, lie, lie.

It is about providing the incentive and subsidizing the risk, of investment back in to the company.

Raise the tax rate to 100%, subsidize the shit out of risk, eh comrade?

Not very impressive. First, the AOC proposal never said anything about the corporate tax rate albeit that rate should most certainly be adjusted upwards. The results of the cut have not been as promised and much of it was directed towards corporate buybacks instead of capital investment proving my point quite eloquently, to bad you don't have the knowledge to understand.

Ireland, the favorite example of tax cutting fools, is not just about the low tax rate. An educated workforce is also a variable, free college education and all. Plus they have a minimum wage that equates to over $1800 a month. You sure Bernie Sanders didn't get his ideas from Ireland?

Ireland, the favorite example of tax cutting fools, is not just about the low tax rate. An educated workforce is also a variable, free college education and all. Like your more likely to invest fantasy. Guess there are advantages to working for someone rather than running your own business though.

When it comes to new business formation why don't you check the Kaufman Index. It took a dive because of the recession but jumped rather significantly in 2010. Do you know why? I will give you a hint, it had something to do with Obama.

And finally the stupid one hundred percent argument, which is just as stupid as the zero percent argument. The Laffer curve is a curve, afterall. Sometimes you can raise revenue when cutting taxes and sometimes you can't. Anyone who thinks we are on the left side of the Laffer curve at these absurdly low rates is absolutely delusional.

The results of the cut have not been as promised and much of it was directed towards corporate buybacks

Yeah, I hate it when my stocks go up too.

Ireland, the favorite example of tax cutting fools, is not just about the low tax rate. An educated workforce is also a variable, free college education and all.

Obviously. Because their workforce wasn't educated before they cut the tax rate.

Like your more likely to invest fantasy.

You should ask a businessman if a 70% tax rate would make him want to invest more than a 21% rate.

It took a dive because of the recession but jumped rather significantly in 2010. Do you know why?

A Republican House?

Anyone who thinks we are on the left side of the Laffer curve at these absurdly low rates is absolutely delusional.

Anyone who thinks 70% is the revenue maximizing rate is even more delusional.

Who cares about your damn stock. Stock prices increasing were not part of the "deal" when it came to the corporate tax cut. Hell, them going up was a given considering after tax income for every corporation immediately went up. But the deal was investment would increase, incomes would increase, and the economy would blow past four percent GDP growth. Didn't happen.

And you are right about Ireland. Obviously first we need to provide free college education to all Americans and raise the minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour. Then, after a decade or so, we can cut the corporate tax rate to 12.5%. Who knew you were a Bernie supporter.

And if a businessman only cares about the tax rate, well he ain't really a businessman because nobody successful would base their decisions solely on the marginal tax rate.

The Kaufman index took a big jump in 2010 because of Obamacare. See if you can figure out why that happened. And a 70% marginal tax rate is closer to the revenue maximizing rate than 20% based on every empirical study ever done.

 

[Pilot1]