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

[Winston]

Please explain the difference between what you feel they should be paying and what they're actually paying.

Be as specific as you can.

I've already asked that question and got no reply. The top 20% of taxpayers in this country pay over 70% of all collected income taxes. If that's not a fair share, what should their fair share be?

You must not be paying attention. Early on in this thread I admitted that the rich carry too much of the total tax burden. I have never understood why anyone would believe quoting those kind of numbers is any argument against raising taxes. Yes, they pay more than their share of taxes, BECAUSE THEY GARNISH MORE THAN THEIR SHARE OF INCOME.
It is like "du huh".

And that is just it. Back when the marginal tax rate was higher, like that seventy percent number, the wealthy carried less of the total tax burden. Why is that? Because those higher taxes encouraged them to invest in PEOPLE, not paper. It encouraged them to INVEST not speculate. And another thing, when those marginal tax rates on the wealthy were in that seventy percent range GDP growth was at or above double digits. Again, why is that? Same answer. Read the link I left about why corporate taxes should be raised. The same thing applies to personal income taxes. And most certainly, capital gains should be taxed the same as earned income.

Raise the corporate tax rate, increase the tax rate on the wealthy, and tax capital gains the same as earned income and I promise you, the wealthy will actually pay less of the total taxes. I know that. They know that. But they will also make less of the total income and that is why they are opposed to such actions.

Yes, they pay more than their share of taxes, BECAUSE THEY GARNISH MORE THAN THEIR SHARE OF INCOME.

And the share of taxes they pay is larger than the share of income they collect.

Raise the corporate tax rate, increase the tax rate on the wealthy, and tax capital gains the same as earned income and I promise you, the wealthy will actually pay less of the total taxes.

The Obama argument, "we need to raise tax rates, to be fair, even if it drops revenues collected".

Of course their share of taxes is larger than the share of income they collect. I mean we do have a progressive tax system don't we, at least at the national level. But you miss the point. I would support higher tax rates on the wealthy in order to lower the percentage of taxes they pay. And you should too if spouting those percentages is any part of an argument you make. But the wealthy don't want that any more than they want a hole in the head. They are perfectly content with paying that share of the taxes because, one, they enjoy taking an absurd amount of the total income and two, they are paying less of their income in taxes than they were when they paid less of the total taxes.

I would support higher tax rates on the wealthy in order to lower the percentage of taxes they pay.

Why? Sheltering income is bad for the economy.

I would take sheltering income over rent seeking any day.

 

[Winston]

Please explain the difference between what you feel they should be paying and what they're actually paying.

Be as specific as you can.

I've already asked that question and got no reply. The top 20% of taxpayers in this country pay over 70% of all collected income taxes. If that's not a fair share, what should their fair share be?

You must not be paying attention. Early on in this thread I admitted that the rich carry too much of the total tax burden. I have never understood why anyone would believe quoting those kind of numbers is any argument against raising taxes. Yes, they pay more than their share of taxes, BECAUSE THEY GARNISH MORE THAN THEIR SHARE OF INCOME.
It is like "du huh".

And that is just it. Back when the marginal tax rate was higher, like that seventy percent number, the wealthy carried less of the total tax burden. Why is that? Because those higher taxes encouraged them to invest in PEOPLE, not paper. It encouraged them to INVEST not speculate. And another thing, when those marginal tax rates on the wealthy were in that seventy percent range GDP growth was at or above double digits. Again, why is that? Same answer. Read the link I left about why corporate taxes should be raised. The same thing applies to personal income taxes. And most certainly, capital gains should be taxed the same as earned income.

Raise the corporate tax rate, increase the tax rate on the wealthy, and tax capital gains the same as earned income and I promise you, the wealthy will actually pay less of the total taxes. I know that. They know that. But they will also make less of the total income and that is why they are opposed to such actions.

That doesn't even make any sense. How could increasing taxes make them pay less?

Years ago (when the tax rates were that high) it was very difficult for a business to relocate. We didn't have doppler radar, we didn't have any satellites which made transportation overseas more difficult. People had to be with their company in order to run it, and meetings were needed for the operation. Too pricy to fly all the executives overseas once or twice a month.

Today a business owner can run his company and investments from his toilet thanks to technology. Our wages are much further from overseas labor so moving means a huge savings. Meetings can be done through the internet or simply e-mail.

So increasing taxes on the wealthy only makes them consider moving out of the country and taking jobs with them. Increase capital gains? You could do that if you want to slow down activity in the stock market. And let's face it, many of us have our retirement money there.

Employers used to "invest" their money in employees because unlike today, they couldn't be replaced by machines. Increasing their taxes is not going to make them pay their employees anymore than they are now. They still have competition here and overseas to deal with, they still have stock holders they need to keep happy, and they still have to create a low priced product or service to get business.

Well you might want to look at Sears if you want to see what happens when someone attempts to run a company "from their toilet".

But not only does my proposal make perfect sense, it is borne out when we look at history. Neither you nor Todd have read the link I left concerning why higher taxes can stimulate economic investment. But the truth of the matter is a low tax economy like ours encourages rent seeking not capital investment. While a high tax economy encourages capital investment. Rent seeking increases wealth inequality, results in ineffective resource allocation, and stifles innovation. While capital investment actually increases the income of the middle class and low paid workers, improves resource allocation, and encourages innovation.

And the fact that your retirement is in the stock market should actually encourage you to support those capital gains tax increases. First, if your equity investment are in qualified accounts you are going to be paying income tax rates on any distribution, not capital gains. But second, the high volatility of the stock market is a direct result of those low capital gains rates that encourage speculation. And the last thing you want is to be in retirement depending upon income from a wildly fluctuating stock market. Your returns will not be based on any investment strategy and instead will be completely dependent upon the timing of the distribution.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I've already asked that question and got no reply. The top 20% of taxpayers in this country pay over 70% of all collected income taxes. If that's not a fair share, what should their fair share be?

You must not be paying attention. Early on in this thread I admitted that the rich carry too much of the total tax burden. I have never understood why anyone would believe quoting those kind of numbers is any argument against raising taxes. Yes, they pay more than their share of taxes, BECAUSE THEY GARNISH MORE THAN THEIR SHARE OF INCOME.
It is like "du huh".

And that is just it. Back when the marginal tax rate was higher, like that seventy percent number, the wealthy carried less of the total tax burden. Why is that? Because those higher taxes encouraged them to invest in PEOPLE, not paper. It encouraged them to INVEST not speculate. And another thing, when those marginal tax rates on the wealthy were in that seventy percent range GDP growth was at or above double digits. Again, why is that? Same answer. Read the link I left about why corporate taxes should be raised. The same thing applies to personal income taxes. And most certainly, capital gains should be taxed the same as earned income.

Raise the corporate tax rate, increase the tax rate on the wealthy, and tax capital gains the same as earned income and I promise you, the wealthy will actually pay less of the total taxes. I know that. They know that. But they will also make less of the total income and that is why they are opposed to such actions.

Yes, they pay more than their share of taxes, BECAUSE THEY GARNISH MORE THAN THEIR SHARE OF INCOME.

And the share of taxes they pay is larger than the share of income they collect.

Raise the corporate tax rate, increase the tax rate on the wealthy, and tax capital gains the same as earned income and I promise you, the wealthy will actually pay less of the total taxes.

The Obama argument, "we need to raise tax rates, to be fair, even if it drops revenues collected".

Of course their share of taxes is larger than the share of income they collect. I mean we do have a progressive tax system don't we, at least at the national level. But you miss the point. I would support higher tax rates on the wealthy in order to lower the percentage of taxes they pay. And you should too if spouting those percentages is any part of an argument you make. But the wealthy don't want that any more than they want a hole in the head. They are perfectly content with paying that share of the taxes because, one, they enjoy taking an absurd amount of the total income and two, they are paying less of their income in taxes than they were when they paid less of the total taxes.

I would support higher tax rates on the wealthy in order to lower the percentage of taxes they pay.

Why? Sheltering income is bad for the economy.

I would take sheltering income over rent seeking any day.

If you reduce the rate for everyone, you reduce the incentive for rent seeking.

 

[danielpalos]

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

How about we go to federal tax rate of 0%?

abolish your alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

 

[Winston]

You must not be paying attention. Early on in this thread I admitted that the rich carry too much of the total tax burden. I have never understood why anyone would believe quoting those kind of numbers is any argument against raising taxes. Yes, they pay more than their share of taxes, BECAUSE THEY GARNISH MORE THAN THEIR SHARE OF INCOME.
It is like "du huh".

And that is just it. Back when the marginal tax rate was higher, like that seventy percent number, the wealthy carried less of the total tax burden. Why is that? Because those higher taxes encouraged them to invest in PEOPLE, not paper. It encouraged them to INVEST not speculate. And another thing, when those marginal tax rates on the wealthy were in that seventy percent range GDP growth was at or above double digits. Again, why is that? Same answer. Read the link I left about why corporate taxes should be raised. The same thing applies to personal income taxes. And most certainly, capital gains should be taxed the same as earned income.

Raise the corporate tax rate, increase the tax rate on the wealthy, and tax capital gains the same as earned income and I promise you, the wealthy will actually pay less of the total taxes. I know that. They know that. But they will also make less of the total income and that is why they are opposed to such actions.

Yes, they pay more than their share of taxes, BECAUSE THEY GARNISH MORE THAN THEIR SHARE OF INCOME.

And the share of taxes they pay is larger than the share of income they collect.

Raise the corporate tax rate, increase the tax rate on the wealthy, and tax capital gains the same as earned income and I promise you, the wealthy will actually pay less of the total taxes.

The Obama argument, "we need to raise tax rates, to be fair, even if it drops revenues collected".

Of course their share of taxes is larger than the share of income they collect. I mean we do have a progressive tax system don't we, at least at the national level. But you miss the point. I would support higher tax rates on the wealthy in order to lower the percentage of taxes they pay. And you should too if spouting those percentages is any part of an argument you make. But the wealthy don't want that any more than they want a hole in the head. They are perfectly content with paying that share of the taxes because, one, they enjoy taking an absurd amount of the total income and two, they are paying less of their income in taxes than they were when they paid less of the total taxes.

I would support higher tax rates on the wealthy in order to lower the percentage of taxes they pay.

Why? Sheltering income is bad for the economy.

I would take sheltering income over rent seeking any day.

If you reduce the rate for everyone, you reduce the incentive for rent seeking.

NO, lower tax rates at the top of the income scale ENCOURAGE rent seeking. Every economist knows this.

the incentives for such "rent-seeking" are much stronger when top tax rates are low. In this scenario, cuts in top tax rates can still increase top income shares, but the increases in top 1% incomes now come at the expense of the remaining 99%. In other words, top rate cuts stimulate rent-seeking at the top but not overall economic growth

Why the 1% should pay tax at 80% | Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Please explain the difference between what you feel they should be paying and what they're actually paying.

Be as specific as you can.

I've already asked that question and got no reply. The top 20% of taxpayers in this country pay over 70% of all collected income taxes. If that's not a fair share, what should their fair share be?

You must not be paying attention. Early on in this thread I admitted that the rich carry too much of the total tax burden. I have never understood why anyone would believe quoting those kind of numbers is any argument against raising taxes. Yes, they pay more than their share of taxes, BECAUSE THEY GARNISH MORE THAN THEIR SHARE OF INCOME.
It is like "du huh".

And that is just it. Back when the marginal tax rate was higher, like that seventy percent number, the wealthy carried less of the total tax burden. Why is that? Because those higher taxes encouraged them to invest in PEOPLE, not paper. It encouraged them to INVEST not speculate. And another thing, when those marginal tax rates on the wealthy were in that seventy percent range GDP growth was at or above double digits. Again, why is that? Same answer. Read the link I left about why corporate taxes should be raised. The same thing applies to personal income taxes. And most certainly, capital gains should be taxed the same as earned income.

Raise the corporate tax rate, increase the tax rate on the wealthy, and tax capital gains the same as earned income and I promise you, the wealthy will actually pay less of the total taxes. I know that. They know that. But they will also make less of the total income and that is why they are opposed to such actions.

That doesn't even make any sense. How could increasing taxes make them pay less?

Years ago (when the tax rates were that high) it was very difficult for a business to relocate. We didn't have doppler radar, we didn't have any satellites which made transportation overseas more difficult. People had to be with their company in order to run it, and meetings were needed for the operation. Too pricy to fly all the executives overseas once or twice a month.

Today a business owner can run his company and investments from his toilet thanks to technology. Our wages are much further from overseas labor so moving means a huge savings. Meetings can be done through the internet or simply e-mail.

So increasing taxes on the wealthy only makes them consider moving out of the country and taking jobs with them. Increase capital gains? You could do that if you want to slow down activity in the stock market. And let's face it, many of us have our retirement money there.

Employers used to "invest" their money in employees because unlike today, they couldn't be replaced by machines. Increasing their taxes is not going to make them pay their employees anymore than they are now. They still have competition here and overseas to deal with, they still have stock holders they need to keep happy, and they still have to create a low priced product or service to get business.

Well you might want to look at Sears if you want to see what happens when someone attempts to run a company "from their toilet".

But not only does my proposal make perfect sense, it is borne out when we look at history. Neither you nor Todd have read the link I left concerning why higher taxes can stimulate economic investment. But the truth of the matter is a low tax economy like ours encourages rent seeking not capital investment. While a high tax economy encourages capital investment. Rent seeking increases wealth inequality, results in ineffective resource allocation, and stifles innovation. While capital investment actually increases the income of the middle class and low paid workers, improves resource allocation, and encourages innovation.

And the fact that your retirement is in the stock market should actually encourage you to support those capital gains tax increases. First, if your equity investment are in qualified accounts you are going to be paying income tax rates on any distribution, not capital gains. But second, the high volatility of the stock market is a direct result of those low capital gains rates that encourage speculation. And the last thing you want is to be in retirement depending upon income from a wildly fluctuating stock market. Your returns will not be based on any investment strategy and instead will be completely dependent upon the timing of the distribution.

Neither you nor Todd have read the link I left concerning why higher taxes can stimulate economic investment

Still looking for the cash-flow diagram I asked you for in post #1889?

And yes, it is true concerning the IRR and the marginal tax rate. The reason is something that you seem to totally ignore, RISK. The reason that there are few acceptable capital investments with low marginal tax rates is that those corporations are actually more risk averse as the corporate tax rate declines. That is because the "cost of loss" is higher the lower the marginal tax rate.

Tell you what, why don't you find and post an example of a cash-flow diagram for a new investment.
You know, the money spent on new equipment, working capital, annual after-tax cash receipts, annual depreciation tax savings, cash in, cash out, required rate of return and we'll calculate NPV at different tax rates. That way we can actually see on paper if an investment is more likely at a 35% than at a 21% corporate tax rate.

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

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, they pay more than their share of taxes, BECAUSE THEY GARNISH MORE THAN THEIR SHARE OF INCOME.

And the share of taxes they pay is larger than the share of income they collect.

Raise the corporate tax rate, increase the tax rate on the wealthy, and tax capital gains the same as earned income and I promise you, the wealthy will actually pay less of the total taxes.

The Obama argument, "we need to raise tax rates, to be fair, even if it drops revenues collected".

Of course their share of taxes is larger than the share of income they collect. I mean we do have a progressive tax system don't we, at least at the national level. But you miss the point. I would support higher tax rates on the wealthy in order to lower the percentage of taxes they pay. And you should too if spouting those percentages is any part of an argument you make. But the wealthy don't want that any more than they want a hole in the head. They are perfectly content with paying that share of the taxes because, one, they enjoy taking an absurd amount of the total income and two, they are paying less of their income in taxes than they were when they paid less of the total taxes.

I would support higher tax rates on the wealthy in order to lower the percentage of taxes they pay.

Why? Sheltering income is bad for the economy.

I would take sheltering income over rent seeking any day.

If you reduce the rate for everyone, you reduce the incentive for rent seeking.

NO, lower tax rates at the top of the income scale ENCOURAGE rent seeking. Every economist knows this.

the incentives for such "rent-seeking" are much stronger when top tax rates are low. In this scenario, cuts in top tax rates can still increase top income shares, but the increases in top 1% incomes now come at the expense of the remaining 99%. In other words, top rate cuts stimulate rent-seeking at the top but not overall economic growth

Why the 1% should pay tax at 80% | Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty

the incentives for such "rent-seeking" are much stronger when top tax rates are low.

I strongly disagree.
My incentive for lobbying the government for favors is much stronger when I'm only keeping
30% of my earnings than when I'm keeping 79%.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Please explain the difference between what you feel they should be paying and what they're actually paying.

Be as specific as you can.

I've already asked that question and got no reply. The top 20% of taxpayers in this country pay over 70% of all collected income taxes. If that's not a fair share, what should their fair share be?

You must not be paying attention. Early on in this thread I admitted that the rich carry too much of the total tax burden. I have never understood why anyone would believe quoting those kind of numbers is any argument against raising taxes. Yes, they pay more than their share of taxes, BECAUSE THEY GARNISH MORE THAN THEIR SHARE OF INCOME.
It is like "du huh".

And that is just it. Back when the marginal tax rate was higher, like that seventy percent number, the wealthy carried less of the total tax burden. Why is that? Because those higher taxes encouraged them to invest in PEOPLE, not paper. It encouraged them to INVEST not speculate. And another thing, when those marginal tax rates on the wealthy were in that seventy percent range GDP growth was at or above double digits. Again, why is that? Same answer. Read the link I left about why corporate taxes should be raised. The same thing applies to personal income taxes. And most certainly, capital gains should be taxed the same as earned income.

Raise the corporate tax rate, increase the tax rate on the wealthy, and tax capital gains the same as earned income and I promise you, the wealthy will actually pay less of the total taxes. I know that. They know that. But they will also make less of the total income and that is why they are opposed to such actions.

That doesn't even make any sense. How could increasing taxes make them pay less?

Years ago (when the tax rates were that high) it was very difficult for a business to relocate. We didn't have doppler radar, we didn't have any satellites which made transportation overseas more difficult. People had to be with their company in order to run it, and meetings were needed for the operation. Too pricy to fly all the executives overseas once or twice a month.

Today a business owner can run his company and investments from his toilet thanks to technology. Our wages are much further from overseas labor so moving means a huge savings. Meetings can be done through the internet or simply e-mail.

So increasing taxes on the wealthy only makes them consider moving out of the country and taking jobs with them. Increase capital gains? You could do that if you want to slow down activity in the stock market. And let's face it, many of us have our retirement money there.

Employers used to "invest" their money in employees because unlike today, they couldn't be replaced by machines. Increasing their taxes is not going to make them pay their employees anymore than they are now. They still have competition here and overseas to deal with, they still have stock holders they need to keep happy, and they still have to create a low priced product or service to get business.

Well you might want to look at Sears if you want to see what happens when someone attempts to run a company "from their toilet".

But not only does my proposal make perfect sense, it is borne out when we look at history. Neither you nor Todd have read the link I left concerning why higher taxes can stimulate economic investment. But the truth of the matter is a low tax economy like ours encourages rent seeking not capital investment. While a high tax economy encourages capital investment. Rent seeking increases wealth inequality, results in ineffective resource allocation, and stifles innovation. While capital investment actually increases the income of the middle class and low paid workers, improves resource allocation, and encourages innovation.

And the fact that your retirement is in the stock market should actually encourage you to support those capital gains tax increases. First, if your equity investment are in qualified accounts you are going to be paying income tax rates on any distribution, not capital gains. But second, the high volatility of the stock market is a direct result of those low capital gains rates that encourage speculation. And the last thing you want is to be in retirement depending upon income from a wildly fluctuating stock market. Your returns will not be based on any investment strategy and instead will be completely dependent upon the timing of the distribution.

Sorry, but I'm not familiar with the term Rent Seeking. No, I didn't go to your link because everybody has a link of some sort here, and it would take quite some time to go through all of them; especially since most of them are blah-blah that I've heard before.

Sears was a fine company for decades in our country. However like many brick and mortar stores, they became the casualty of internet sales. Plus the fact Sears treated their customers like crap when they were the king of the hill. They sold products and didn't provide satisfactory service once they needed repair, at least that was my problem with the company and still is. In fact I scheduled a repair for my snowblower online today. The earliest date they could give me was February 8th. Next snowblower (if I get another one) will not be a Sears.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, they pay more than their share of taxes, BECAUSE THEY GARNISH MORE THAN THEIR SHARE OF INCOME.

And the share of taxes they pay is larger than the share of income they collect.

Raise the corporate tax rate, increase the tax rate on the wealthy, and tax capital gains the same as earned income and I promise you, the wealthy will actually pay less of the total taxes.

The Obama argument, "we need to raise tax rates, to be fair, even if it drops revenues collected".

Of course their share of taxes is larger than the share of income they collect. I mean we do have a progressive tax system don't we, at least at the national level. But you miss the point. I would support higher tax rates on the wealthy in order to lower the percentage of taxes they pay. And you should too if spouting those percentages is any part of an argument you make. But the wealthy don't want that any more than they want a hole in the head. They are perfectly content with paying that share of the taxes because, one, they enjoy taking an absurd amount of the total income and two, they are paying less of their income in taxes than they were when they paid less of the total taxes.

I would support higher tax rates on the wealthy in order to lower the percentage of taxes they pay.

Why? Sheltering income is bad for the economy.

I would take sheltering income over rent seeking any day.

If you reduce the rate for everyone, you reduce the incentive for rent seeking.

NO, lower tax rates at the top of the income scale ENCOURAGE rent seeking. Every economist knows this.

the incentives for such "rent-seeking" are much stronger when top tax rates are low. In this scenario, cuts in top tax rates can still increase top income shares, but the increases in top 1% incomes now come at the expense of the remaining 99%. In other words, top rate cuts stimulate rent-seeking at the top but not overall economic growth

Why the 1% should pay tax at 80% | Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty

We should harness the law of large numbers and merely increase the minimum wage to raise more tax revenue. Modern economies cost, and Labor must be able to afford it.

 

[U2Edge]

I don't care what the majority of Americans want in this particular case (though usually, I do).

Most Americans are not in the tax bracket in question - naturally they will be for raising the tax rate in a tax bracket they have nothing to do with.


The ONLY, truly fair tax is where every American (who is not poor - it is pointless to tax poor people) pays EXACTLY the same tax rate...including capital gains.

Raising taxes on anybody has an indirect effect on everybody.

If it's one thing I learned, it's that the rich guy never takes the hit. Come up with some tax scheme for companies, they simply increase the price of their products, freeze pay increases and benefits for their workers, move some or all operations overseas, and it's the little guy who always ends up paying or getting hurt.

Let's say you came across a small fortune: a small lottery winning, winning a huge lawsuit, being an heir of a wealthy relative. Now you have 200K to do with what you want. Would you risk that money in investments if government is going to take almost 3/4 of it if you make out? It's simply not worth the risk.

People investing money is what makes our world go round., Bring that to a halt and you do the same for our economy.

Tax policy is about what is best for the country as a whole, not the rich, or individuals in the middle class etc. In order for the nation and government to survive and thrive, tax revenue must be raised in the quantities that are needed for national defense and other government functions regardless of whether you think a certain rate is "fair" or penalizes success.

Which is why everybody should be paying income tax. However that's simply not the case. Almost half of our country doesn't pay one dime into income tax. And I don't care about payroll deductions since you get most of that back in social programs and it goes to operate local governments.

I understand that we need taxes to operate the federal government, but I also understand the waste of money by our federal government. I'll vote for the representative the gives me the most goodies as long as they send the bill to you. That's how we got 20 trillion in the hole.

If we raised the marginal rate to 70%, who would want to create wealth? It's simply not worth your time or money. Given the fact the top 10% of wage earners in this country pay over 70% of all collected income taxes and you think it's not fair, then what percentage should they be paying?

The top federal tax rate should be set at the rate that maximizes tax revenue collect without hurting economic growth. The United States has one of the lowest tax rates in the world based on the tax revenue it collects as a percentage of annual GDP. Top federal tax rates were also between 70% and 92% from 1945 to 1980.

So based on that evidence, the top federal tax rate can be increased without hurting economic growth and bring in much needed tax revenue to the government to balance the budget and defend the country.

Its not about what is "fair" for the individual, its about what is best for the country in terms of defending it and growing its economy. There is plenty of evidence from past history and other countries that the rich continue to work just as hard while being taxed at 70%. Plus much of their wealth at that level is based more on market conditions rather than their daily grind or ingenuity.

Top federal tax rates were also between 70% and 92% from 1945 to 1980.

So based on that evidence, the top federal tax rate can be increased without hurting economic growth and bring in much needed tax revenue to the government to balance the budget and defend the country.

You didn't provide any evidence.

The two pieces of evidence were

1. A. Top Federal tax rates in the years 1945 to 1980 - between 70% and 92% each year

B. Top Federal tax rates in the years 1981 to 2019 - between 28% and 50% each year

2. Average quarterly real GDP growth from 1945 to 1980

A. Presidents from 1945 to 1980:

01. John F. Kennedy: 5.31%
02. Lyndon Johnson: 5.18%
03. Harry Truman: 4.87%
06. Jimmy Carter: 3.32%
07. Richard Nixon: 3.06%
09. Dwight D. Eisenhower 2.65%
10. Gerald Ford: 2.28%

B. Presidents from 1981 to 2019


04. Bill Clinton: 3.82%
05. Ronald Reagan: 3.62%
08. Donald Trump: 2.83%
11. George H.W. Bush: 2.24%
12. Barack Obama: 1.90%
13. George W. Bush: 1.87%


Group A has the higher top federal tax rates but superior GDP growth on average. Group B has the lower top federal tax rates but much weaker GDP growth on average.

 

[U2Edge]

Typical libstain wants your money so she can spend it. Fuck all that.

It's not tax revenue they're after. It's power. Very few wealthy people will pay 70%. They'll leave the country first, and politicians know that. So, such insane tax rates always come with a wheel barrow full of "incentives" and loopholes. Congress uses these as carrots and sticks to manipulate society, to control private wealth. As long as rich people do as they're told, and don't piss off Congress, they'll be left alone, with most of their wealth intact.

There are 134 countries around the world with higher tax rates than the United States. Given that a rich person is unlikely to move to a 3rd world country, where will they go to after they leave the United States? If its a first world country, the tax rate will likely be the same or higher.

That's not the point. The point is they won't willingly work for the government as slaves. No one would.

Working and paying taxes is not the definition of slavery.

 

[U2Edge]

Your premise seems to be everything belongs to the collective. You are advocating slavery. Ones earnings belong to no one but the earner. The great experiment in collectivism (the Soviet Union) failed. You are one of those who refuses to learn from history.

What you earn, is based on the MARKET. The MARKET decides your salary. The MARKET decides what your house is worth. You did not create the MARKET, you were born into it. In order to keep the MARKET going and to protect it, you need to be taxed at a proper rate based on your income level. This is so the country's government receives the required revenue to pay to defend itself, to insure its survival, and to insure the survival of the MARKET that you depend on for your salary and other earnings.

The best MARKETS in the world are in countries where the governments are able to defend themselves and provide a stable environment where the MARKET can thrive.

If you don't like that you can try your luck in Somalia. In Somalia there is no government to tax you. Move there and see if you like it. If your lucky enough to make a profit in some form of business, you'll have to find a way to defend yourself because there is no government that will send the police or military to defend you are save you. There is no government to collect your trash or put any fires out on or near your property. You'll be responsible for your own plumbing and electricity. You'll be responsible for your own health care as well. Good Luck.

What a baseless conglomeration of senesless gooblegook. The "market" is a creature of the power structure. Chariman Mao was brutally honest when he said "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.". Political power is the basis for taxation. That has been the truth of the matter from the beginning. The "market" is what the power structure wants it to be. The police and military exist to do the bidding of the power structure. Even the Supreme Court codified that when it found the police have no constitutional duty to protect a person from harm. Government protects itself and its' creations.

There is a market in every country regardless of whether there is a government or tax collection. The United States has a government and tax collection. Somalia has no government and no federal income tax. Where would you prefer to live?:

United States - government and taxes

Or

Somalia - no government and no taxes

Which country do you think your business would be the most successful?

United States - government and taxes

Or

Somalia - no government and no taxes

 

[U2Edge]

I don't care what the majority of Americans want in this particular case (though usually, I do).

Most Americans are not in the tax bracket in question - naturally they will be for raising the tax rate in a tax bracket they have nothing to do with.


The ONLY, truly fair tax is where every American (who is not poor - it is pointless to tax poor people) pays EXACTLY the same tax rate...including capital gains.

Raising taxes on anybody has an indirect effect on everybody.

If it's one thing I learned, it's that the rich guy never takes the hit. Come up with some tax scheme for companies, they simply increase the price of their products, freeze pay increases and benefits for their workers, move some or all operations overseas, and it's the little guy who always ends up paying or getting hurt.

Let's say you came across a small fortune: a small lottery winning, winning a huge lawsuit, being an heir of a wealthy relative. Now you have 200K to do with what you want. Would you risk that money in investments if government is going to take almost 3/4 of it if you make out? It's simply not worth the risk.

People investing money is what makes our world go round., Bring that to a halt and you do the same for our economy.

What are you talking about?

Where did I say anything about a 70% capital gains tax?

I am against the 70% tax...STRONGLY.


To be clear, I am talking about 0% tax up to the poverty line and a 20-30% tax on everyone else (including capital gains). With only two deductions - capital losses and charitable contributions.
That makes taxation 100% fair and makes doing one's taxes a 5 minute task.

And I am 100% against corporate taxation. All corporate taxes are passed on through either higher prices, lower wages/benefits and/or lower dividends to shareholders. The corporate tax rate should be 0%.
Corporations do not 'eat' corporate taxes.

And will the above reduce government income?

God...I hope so.

Government is far, FAR too big as it is - both in the military and social spending.
Some of both is necessary.
But the levels both are at are absolutely ridiculous.

Well the title of the thread is 70% taxation, that's why I brought it up.

Your suggestion is that we continue to have everybody else support those with lower income or no income at all. Why not everybody pay? I suggest a consumption tax. We have it here in my county. It's 8 cents on every dollar spent on anything outside of food.

The next question is how as a landlord am I supposed to continue renting my apartments if I'm not allowed any deductions? The only way to keep that business would be to double everybody's rent. Could you afford to pay twice as much for rent? Neither can my tenants.

After all, I deduct what I pay for utilities for those apartments, what I pay for insurance, what I pay for property taxes, what I pay for all the repairs or improvements, mortgage interest rates. By the time taxes are due, I have over a hundred deductions not including medical. Over 200 including medical.

Then after that, you want me to pay 20 to 30% on anything over $12,140 which is the poverty line for a single person.

I couldn't afford to keep the business, and I plan on using it to supplement my Social Security when I retire.

80% of economic growth comes from consumer spending. So you definitely don't want a tax on consumption because that would directly hurt economic growth.

You want to protect and increase the lower and middle classes spending in the economy. That's why you keep their federal taxes low or non-existent depending on their income level.

The rich have most of the money and their consumer spending is not tied closely to their tax rate, high or low. There for you want the maximize tax rate on the rich right up to the point BEFORE it starts to be a drag on the economy.

A tax rate like this for the lower, middle and upper class maximizes economic growth and revenue collection for the government. Its the best tax policy to help achieve the highest standard of living for the country as a whole.

 

[U2Edge]

Workers work just as hard today as they did 20 years ago or 40 years ago, yet the CEO's are making 50 times what they did back in 1980. Why is that?

Because CEO's are more valuable to a company than workers. If companies could find the best CEO's to work for 100K a year, they would do it. But like actors and actresses, sports figures, musicians, they have an extreme talent very few other people have.

You and I both own widget companies. We both need a new CEO. One is willing to work for you for 5 mil a year. You don't want to pay that because your workers are earning very well. So I offer the CEO the 5 mil. Within a few years, I am able to sell widgets for much less than you, I take most of your customers, and you close up shop.

That's why they pay CEO's what they pay them, because if you don't want to pay them that money, your competitor just might.

Yet, overall economic growth has slowed over the last 20 years, yet these people at the top of these companies are still making absurd amounts of money, while the average worker has not seen any increase at all. Its one thing to make more money as a CEO when business is thriving, but that's not the case here. GDP growth is an anemic 1.9% on average since the year 2000. Back in the 1960s when you did not have these massive disparities between what the average worker made and what the CEO made, GDP growth was over 5% EVERY YEAR!

The system now is essentially a welfare program for the rich.

No. Welfare is when you give something to somebody that they didn't have before. Welfare is not taking less of something that somebody earned.

The point you missed is this: CEO's are paid because of their rare talent and record. Workers can be found virtually anywhere. What are you worth as an employee? The answer is simple. You are only worth as much as your employer can pay somebody else to do your job on the same quality level. That's what you are worth.

So if employers can find an equal CEO willing to work for less money than the current CEO they have, they will do exactly that. The problem however is that these people are not like floor sweepers which is a job anybody can do. CEO's do a job very few of us can do. From there, it's a supply and demand industry just like it is for any other worker in America.

That's why workers pay increased much less than CEO pay.

Your not really earning money when without lifting a finger, your salary and stock double. Not an uncommon occurrence when your rich. It also makes it easier to manipulate and dominate certain parts of the MARKET which is anti-competitive. The rich often crush their competition through Monopolies and find loopholes so their "effective tax rate" is lower than most people in the middle class. That's welfare for the rich. When they manipulate the environment to unfairly benefit them at the expense of the country's survival, prosperity and other individual citizens.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Raising taxes on anybody has an indirect effect on everybody.

If it's one thing I learned, it's that the rich guy never takes the hit. Come up with some tax scheme for companies, they simply increase the price of their products, freeze pay increases and benefits for their workers, move some or all operations overseas, and it's the little guy who always ends up paying or getting hurt.

Let's say you came across a small fortune: a small lottery winning, winning a huge lawsuit, being an heir of a wealthy relative. Now you have 200K to do with what you want. Would you risk that money in investments if government is going to take almost 3/4 of it if you make out? It's simply not worth the risk.

People investing money is what makes our world go round., Bring that to a halt and you do the same for our economy.

Tax policy is about what is best for the country as a whole, not the rich, or individuals in the middle class etc. In order for the nation and government to survive and thrive, tax revenue must be raised in the quantities that are needed for national defense and other government functions regardless of whether you think a certain rate is "fair" or penalizes success.

Which is why everybody should be paying income tax. However that's simply not the case. Almost half of our country doesn't pay one dime into income tax. And I don't care about payroll deductions since you get most of that back in social programs and it goes to operate local governments.

I understand that we need taxes to operate the federal government, but I also understand the waste of money by our federal government. I'll vote for the representative the gives me the most goodies as long as they send the bill to you. That's how we got 20 trillion in the hole.

If we raised the marginal rate to 70%, who would want to create wealth? It's simply not worth your time or money. Given the fact the top 10% of wage earners in this country pay over 70% of all collected income taxes and you think it's not fair, then what percentage should they be paying?

The top federal tax rate should be set at the rate that maximizes tax revenue collect without hurting economic growth. The United States has one of the lowest tax rates in the world based on the tax revenue it collects as a percentage of annual GDP. Top federal tax rates were also between 70% and 92% from 1945 to 1980.

So based on that evidence, the top federal tax rate can be increased without hurting economic growth and bring in much needed tax revenue to the government to balance the budget and defend the country.

Its not about what is "fair" for the individual, its about what is best for the country in terms of defending it and growing its economy. There is plenty of evidence from past history and other countries that the rich continue to work just as hard while being taxed at 70%. Plus much of their wealth at that level is based more on market conditions rather than their daily grind or ingenuity.

Top federal tax rates were also between 70% and 92% from 1945 to 1980.

So based on that evidence, the top federal tax rate can be increased without hurting economic growth and bring in much needed tax revenue to the government to balance the budget and defend the country.

You didn't provide any evidence.

The two pieces of evidence were

1. A. Top Federal tax rates in the years 1945 to 1980 - between 70% and 92% each year

B. Top Federal tax rates in the years 1981 to 2019 - between 28% and 50% each year

2. Average quarterly real GDP growth from 1945 to 1980

A. Presidents from 1945 to 1980:

01. John F. Kennedy: 5.31%
02. Lyndon Johnson: 5.18%
03. Harry Truman: 4.87%
06. Jimmy Carter: 3.32%
07. Richard Nixon: 3.06%
09. Dwight D. Eisenhower 2.65%
10. Gerald Ford: 2.28%

B. Presidents from 1981 to 2019


04. Bill Clinton: 3.82%
05. Ronald Reagan: 3.62%
08. Donald Trump: 2.83%
11. George H.W. Bush: 2.24%
12. Barack Obama: 1.90%
13. George W. Bush: 1.87%


Group A has the higher top federal tax rates but superior GDP growth on average. Group B has the lower top federal tax rates but much weaker GDP growth on average.

Your evidence isn't evidence.
You say a top rate of 92% didn't hurt GDP.
You have no proof.

 

[U2Edge]

Workers work just as hard today as they did 20 years ago or 40 years ago, yet the CEO's are making 50 times what they did back in 1980. Why is that?

Because CEO's are more valuable to a company than workers. If companies could find the best CEO's to work for 100K a year, they would do it. But like actors and actresses, sports figures, musicians, they have an extreme talent very few other people have.

You and I both own widget companies. We both need a new CEO. One is willing to work for you for 5 mil a year. You don't want to pay that because your workers are earning very well. So I offer the CEO the 5 mil. Within a few years, I am able to sell widgets for much less than you, I take most of your customers, and you close up shop.

That's why they pay CEO's what they pay them, because if you don't want to pay them that money, your competitor just might.

Yet, overall economic growth has slowed over the last 20 years, yet these people at the top of these companies are still making absurd amounts of money, while the average worker has not seen any increase at all. Its one thing to make more money as a CEO when business is thriving, but that's not the case here. GDP growth is an anemic 1.9% on average since the year 2000. Back in the 1960s when you did not have these massive disparities between what the average worker made and what the CEO made, GDP growth was over 5% EVERY YEAR!

The system now is essentially a welfare program for the rich.

No. Welfare is when you give something to somebody that they didn't have before. Welfare is not taking less of something that somebody earned.

The point you missed is this: CEO's are paid because of their rare talent and record. Workers can be found virtually anywhere. What are you worth as an employee? The answer is simple. You are only worth as much as your employer can pay somebody else to do your job on the same quality level. That's what you are worth.

So if employers can find an equal CEO willing to work for less money than the current CEO they have, they will do exactly that. The problem however is that these people are not like floor sweepers which is a job anybody can do. CEO's do a job very few of us can do. From there, it's a supply and demand industry just like it is for any other worker in America.

That's why workers pay increased much less than CEO pay.

Oh there are many CEO's that are not physically able to do many of the jobs that their minimum wage workers do every day. If how HARD you work can be measured by stress level, heart rate, and perspiration, many CEO's would rank near the bottom compared to most of their workers.

Being a CEO, business leader, business manager does not make you brilliant. Being successful in any business is sometimes down to LUCK, being at the right place at the right time, with the right product or service. I'm not saying there is not talent there, but its not this ladder or pyramid structure you might think that it is.

Donald Trump is a perfect example that you don't have to be extremely smart and talented to be successful in business.

 

[U2Edge]

Tax policy is about what is best for the country as a whole, not the rich, or individuals in the middle class etc. In order for the nation and government to survive and thrive, tax revenue must be raised in the quantities that are needed for national defense and other government functions regardless of whether you think a certain rate is "fair" or penalizes success.

Which is why everybody should be paying income tax. However that's simply not the case. Almost half of our country doesn't pay one dime into income tax. And I don't care about payroll deductions since you get most of that back in social programs and it goes to operate local governments.

I understand that we need taxes to operate the federal government, but I also understand the waste of money by our federal government. I'll vote for the representative the gives me the most goodies as long as they send the bill to you. That's how we got 20 trillion in the hole.

If we raised the marginal rate to 70%, who would want to create wealth? It's simply not worth your time or money. Given the fact the top 10% of wage earners in this country pay over 70% of all collected income taxes and you think it's not fair, then what percentage should they be paying?

The top federal tax rate should be set at the rate that maximizes tax revenue collect without hurting economic growth. The United States has one of the lowest tax rates in the world based on the tax revenue it collects as a percentage of annual GDP. Top federal tax rates were also between 70% and 92% from 1945 to 1980.

So based on that evidence, the top federal tax rate can be increased without hurting economic growth and bring in much needed tax revenue to the government to balance the budget and defend the country.

Its not about what is "fair" for the individual, its about what is best for the country in terms of defending it and growing its economy. There is plenty of evidence from past history and other countries that the rich continue to work just as hard while being taxed at 70%. Plus much of their wealth at that level is based more on market conditions rather than their daily grind or ingenuity.

Top federal tax rates were also between 70% and 92% from 1945 to 1980.

So based on that evidence, the top federal tax rate can be increased without hurting economic growth and bring in much needed tax revenue to the government to balance the budget and defend the country.

You didn't provide any evidence.

The two pieces of evidence were

1. A. Top Federal tax rates in the years 1945 to 1980 - between 70% and 92% each year

B. Top Federal tax rates in the years 1981 to 2019 - between 28% and 50% each year

2. Average quarterly real GDP growth from 1945 to 1980

A. Presidents from 1945 to 1980:

01. John F. Kennedy: 5.31%
02. Lyndon Johnson: 5.18%
03. Harry Truman: 4.87%
06. Jimmy Carter: 3.32%
07. Richard Nixon: 3.06%
09. Dwight D. Eisenhower 2.65%
10. Gerald Ford: 2.28%

B. Presidents from 1981 to 2019


04. Bill Clinton: 3.82%
05. Ronald Reagan: 3.62%
08. Donald Trump: 2.83%
11. George H.W. Bush: 2.24%
12. Barack Obama: 1.90%
13. George W. Bush: 1.87%


Group A has the higher top federal tax rates but superior GDP growth on average. Group B has the lower top federal tax rates but much weaker GDP growth on average.

Your evidence isn't evidence.
You say a top rate of 92% didn't hurt GDP.
You have no proof.

The proof is in whether GDP growth was good during such times when the top federal tax rate was that high. For a highly developed economy, 5.31% GDP growth is fantastic. The 70%+ tax rate did not prevent that rate of growth from happening while Kennedy was President.

On the other side, reducing the top federal tax rate does not increase economic growth. Its what Bush did in 2001. He cut the top federal rate from 40% to 35%. The result was economic growth that averaged 1.87% while he was in office for 8 years. Bush's cut of the top federal tax rate did not increase average GDP growth above Clinton's 3.62% as YOU CLAIM it should have. In fact, it did not even succeed in maintaining the 3.62% growth rate under Clinton. Instead we see an anemic growth rate of 1.87%. The only thing cutting the top federal tax rate did was allow the rich to line their pockets and make it harder for the federal government to balance the budget. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT BUSH'S CUT OF THE TOP FEDERAL TAX RATE HAD ANY POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE ECONOMY AT ALL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Which is why everybody should be paying income tax. However that's simply not the case. Almost half of our country doesn't pay one dime into income tax. And I don't care about payroll deductions since you get most of that back in social programs and it goes to operate local governments.

I understand that we need taxes to operate the federal government, but I also understand the waste of money by our federal government. I'll vote for the representative the gives me the most goodies as long as they send the bill to you. That's how we got 20 trillion in the hole.

If we raised the marginal rate to 70%, who would want to create wealth? It's simply not worth your time or money. Given the fact the top 10% of wage earners in this country pay over 70% of all collected income taxes and you think it's not fair, then what percentage should they be paying?

The top federal tax rate should be set at the rate that maximizes tax revenue collect without hurting economic growth. The United States has one of the lowest tax rates in the world based on the tax revenue it collects as a percentage of annual GDP. Top federal tax rates were also between 70% and 92% from 1945 to 1980.

So based on that evidence, the top federal tax rate can be increased without hurting economic growth and bring in much needed tax revenue to the government to balance the budget and defend the country.

Its not about what is "fair" for the individual, its about what is best for the country in terms of defending it and growing its economy. There is plenty of evidence from past history and other countries that the rich continue to work just as hard while being taxed at 70%. Plus much of their wealth at that level is based more on market conditions rather than their daily grind or ingenuity.

Top federal tax rates were also between 70% and 92% from 1945 to 1980.

So based on that evidence, the top federal tax rate can be increased without hurting economic growth and bring in much needed tax revenue to the government to balance the budget and defend the country.

You didn't provide any evidence.

The two pieces of evidence were

1. A. Top Federal tax rates in the years 1945 to 1980 - between 70% and 92% each year

B. Top Federal tax rates in the years 1981 to 2019 - between 28% and 50% each year

2. Average quarterly real GDP growth from 1945 to 1980

A. Presidents from 1945 to 1980:

01. John F. Kennedy: 5.31%
02. Lyndon Johnson: 5.18%
03. Harry Truman: 4.87%
06. Jimmy Carter: 3.32%
07. Richard Nixon: 3.06%
09. Dwight D. Eisenhower 2.65%
10. Gerald Ford: 2.28%

B. Presidents from 1981 to 2019


04. Bill Clinton: 3.82%
05. Ronald Reagan: 3.62%
08. Donald Trump: 2.83%
11. George H.W. Bush: 2.24%
12. Barack Obama: 1.90%
13. George W. Bush: 1.87%


Group A has the higher top federal tax rates but superior GDP growth on average. Group B has the lower top federal tax rates but much weaker GDP growth on average.

Your evidence isn't evidence.
You say a top rate of 92% didn't hurt GDP.
You have no proof.

The proof is in whether GDP growth was good during such times when the top federal tax rate was that high. For a highly developed economy, 5.31% GDP growth is fantastic. The 70%+ tax rate did not prevent that rate of growth from happening while Kennedy was President.

On the other side, reducing the top federal tax rate does not increase economic growth. Its what Bush did in 2001. He cut the top federal rate from 40% to 35%. The result was economic growth that averaged 1.87% while he was in office for 8 years. Bush's cut of the top federal tax rate did not increase average GDP growth above Clinton's 3.62% as YOU CLAIM it should have. In fact, it did not even succeed in maintaining the 3.62% growth rate under Clinton. Instead we see an anemic growth rate of 1.87%. The only thing cutting the top federal tax rate did was allow the rich to line their pockets and make it harder for the federal government to balance the budget. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT BUSH'S CUT OF THE TOP FEDERAL TAX RATE HAD ANY POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE ECONOMY AT ALL!

The proof is in whether GDP growth was good during such times when the top federal tax rate was that high.

You're wrong. You claimed it didn't hurt GDP. How do you know growth wouldn't have been 1% higher if the top rate was 70%? 2% higher if the top rate was 50%?

On the other side, reducing the top federal tax rate does not increase economic growth.

You have no proof, again.

He cut the top federal rate from 40% to 35%. The result was economic growth that averaged 1.87% while he was in office for 8 years.

What was the growth in 2003, after the cut?
Was it higher than Obama's growth after his tax hike?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Workers work just as hard today as they did 20 years ago or 40 years ago, yet the CEO's are making 50 times what they did back in 1980. Why is that?

Because CEO's are more valuable to a company than workers. If companies could find the best CEO's to work for 100K a year, they would do it. But like actors and actresses, sports figures, musicians, they have an extreme talent very few other people have.

You and I both own widget companies. We both need a new CEO. One is willing to work for you for 5 mil a year. You don't want to pay that because your workers are earning very well. So I offer the CEO the 5 mil. Within a few years, I am able to sell widgets for much less than you, I take most of your customers, and you close up shop.

That's why they pay CEO's what they pay them, because if you don't want to pay them that money, your competitor just might.

Yet, overall economic growth has slowed over the last 20 years, yet these people at the top of these companies are still making absurd amounts of money, while the average worker has not seen any increase at all. Its one thing to make more money as a CEO when business is thriving, but that's not the case here. GDP growth is an anemic 1.9% on average since the year 2000. Back in the 1960s when you did not have these massive disparities between what the average worker made and what the CEO made, GDP growth was over 5% EVERY YEAR!

The system now is essentially a welfare program for the rich.

No. Welfare is when you give something to somebody that they didn't have before. Welfare is not taking less of something that somebody earned.

The point you missed is this: CEO's are paid because of their rare talent and record. Workers can be found virtually anywhere. What are you worth as an employee? The answer is simple. You are only worth as much as your employer can pay somebody else to do your job on the same quality level. That's what you are worth.

So if employers can find an equal CEO willing to work for less money than the current CEO they have, they will do exactly that. The problem however is that these people are not like floor sweepers which is a job anybody can do. CEO's do a job very few of us can do. From there, it's a supply and demand industry just like it is for any other worker in America.

That's why workers pay increased much less than CEO pay.

Oh there are many CEO's that are not physically able to do many of the jobs that their minimum wage workers do every day. If how HARD you work can be measured by stress level, heart rate, and perspiration, many CEO's would rank near the bottom compared to most of their workers.

Being a CEO, business leader, business manager does not make you brilliant. Being successful in any business is sometimes down to LUCK, being at the right place at the right time, with the right product or service. I'm not saying there is not talent there, but its not this ladder or pyramid structure you might think that it is.

Donald Trump is a perfect example that you don't have to be extremely smart and talented to be successful in business.

If CEOs only relied on luck for success, we’d have a million CEOs and they would have to work for low six figures. But if you really believe what you say, become a CEO yourself and make the big bucks.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't care what the majority of Americans want in this particular case (though usually, I do).

Most Americans are not in the tax bracket in question - naturally they will be for raising the tax rate in a tax bracket they have nothing to do with.


The ONLY, truly fair tax is where every American (who is not poor - it is pointless to tax poor people) pays EXACTLY the same tax rate...including capital gains.

Raising taxes on anybody has an indirect effect on everybody.

If it's one thing I learned, it's that the rich guy never takes the hit. Come up with some tax scheme for companies, they simply increase the price of their products, freeze pay increases and benefits for their workers, move some or all operations overseas, and it's the little guy who always ends up paying or getting hurt.

Let's say you came across a small fortune: a small lottery winning, winning a huge lawsuit, being an heir of a wealthy relative. Now you have 200K to do with what you want. Would you risk that money in investments if government is going to take almost 3/4 of it if you make out? It's simply not worth the risk.

People investing money is what makes our world go round., Bring that to a halt and you do the same for our economy.

What are you talking about?

Where did I say anything about a 70% capital gains tax?

I am against the 70% tax...STRONGLY.


To be clear, I am talking about 0% tax up to the poverty line and a 20-30% tax on everyone else (including capital gains). With only two deductions - capital losses and charitable contributions.
That makes taxation 100% fair and makes doing one's taxes a 5 minute task.

And I am 100% against corporate taxation. All corporate taxes are passed on through either higher prices, lower wages/benefits and/or lower dividends to shareholders. The corporate tax rate should be 0%.
Corporations do not 'eat' corporate taxes.

And will the above reduce government income?

God...I hope so.

Government is far, FAR too big as it is - both in the military and social spending.
Some of both is necessary.
But the levels both are at are absolutely ridiculous.

Well the title of the thread is 70% taxation, that's why I brought it up.

Your suggestion is that we continue to have everybody else support those with lower income or no income at all. Why not everybody pay? I suggest a consumption tax. We have it here in my county. It's 8 cents on every dollar spent on anything outside of food.

The next question is how as a landlord am I supposed to continue renting my apartments if I'm not allowed any deductions? The only way to keep that business would be to double everybody's rent. Could you afford to pay twice as much for rent? Neither can my tenants.

After all, I deduct what I pay for utilities for those apartments, what I pay for insurance, what I pay for property taxes, what I pay for all the repairs or improvements, mortgage interest rates. By the time taxes are due, I have over a hundred deductions not including medical. Over 200 including medical.

Then after that, you want me to pay 20 to 30% on anything over $12,140 which is the poverty line for a single person.

I couldn't afford to keep the business, and I plan on using it to supplement my Social Security when I retire.

80% of economic growth comes from consumer spending. So you definitely don't want a tax on consumption because that would directly hurt economic growth.

You want to protect and increase the lower and middle classes spending in the economy. That's why you keep their federal taxes low or non-existent depending on their income level.

The rich have most of the money and their consumer spending is not tied closely to their tax rate, high or low. There for you want the maximize tax rate on the rich right up to the point BEFORE it starts to be a drag on the economy.

A tax rate like this for the lower, middle and upper class maximizes economic growth and revenue collection for the government. Its the best tax policy to help achieve the highest standard of living for the country as a whole.

So you are one of those people that believe if you steal money from the wealthy, they just pull their pockets open with their thumbs and allow you to help yourself?

It’s we little people that ultimately pay. If you take 70% of a wealthy persons money away, do you think they will give their employees a raise, not lay some off, keep the price of their products or services the same, continue to donate to charities?

Wealthy people are consumers just like blue collar workers. In fact per capital, they consume much more because they have the resources to do so.

As for hurting the economy, many things do that. Look at how much more your grocery bill is today before we started to burn up our food supply for ethanol. As a truck driver, I can testify to how much more we are paying for products because of expensive environmental mandates we have to pass on to our customers who produce the products we buy in the store. So I don’t believe that a consumption tax being only a few cents on a dollar is going to ruin or slow down our economy.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com