Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
All the evidence shows that he indeed was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Even if his inheritance was less back then, he should be wealthier today than he claims.
What would Donald Trumps life have been like if he had been born in Somalia or Afghanistan?
I can give you the precise number of each quarter of GDP while Bush was in office, all 32 of them.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?
Because all the evidence shows that cutting the top federal rate in taxes does not increase GDP growth, especially the Bush years.
Real GDP growth while Bush was in office averaged 1.87% per quarter. Under Obama it averaged 1.90% per quarter. Bush got worse economic growth rates despite cutting the top federal rate. Obama got slightly better growth, certainly no worse, after he raised the top federal rate.
THE LESSON: Cutting the top federal rate does NOT help economic growth and raising the top federal rate does NOT hurt economic growth . That's what the GDP stats vs tax rates show. More than enough evidence, but because of ideology or other reasons, you'll continue to blindly deny it.
Plenty of evidence to support my point. There is no evidence in the GDP numbers vs top federal tax rates supporting your point of view.
You'll have to come up with something better than saying my evidence is "not evidence".
Because all the evidence shows that cutting the top federal rate in taxes does not increase GDP growth,
View attachment 241513
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=mKdl
No evidence? The above is the 2 years after Bush's final tax cut.
Below is 2 years after Obama's tax hike.
View attachment 241518
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=mKdk
THE LESSON: Cutting the top federal rate does NOT help economic growth and raising the top federal rate does NOT hurt economic growth .
Lesson: Refuted.
Sorry, but the below average real quarterly GDP growth rates for each President are the FACTS:
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%
Dropping the top federal tax rate from 40% to 35% under Bush saw the economy grow at the slowest rate of the past 70 years. 1.87% is the AVERAGE of all 32 quarters of measured GDP growth while Bush was in office. It is an indisputable FACT! Brief short term decreases and increases don't accurately show the impact of a tax cut or tax hike. I've looked at all the data for Bush. His average GDP growth numbers would be even worse if you just started with 2003!
I can give you the precise number of each quarter of GDP while Bush was in office, all 32 of them.
All the evidence shows that he indeed was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Even if his inheritance was less back then, he should be wealthier today than he claims.
What would Donald Trumps life have been like if he had been born in Somalia or Afghanistan?
"He should be wealthier than he claims"? Really? Where do you get that other from the utter desperation fed to you by your beloved sources, The Nation, MediaMatters, DailyKOS, whatever?
What would U2Edge's life have been like if he had been born in Somalia or Afghanistan?
I can give you the precise number of each quarter of GDP while Bush was in office, all 32 of them.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?
Because all the evidence shows that cutting the top federal rate in taxes does not increase GDP growth, especially the Bush years.
Real GDP growth while Bush was in office averaged 1.87% per quarter. Under Obama it averaged 1.90% per quarter. Bush got worse economic growth rates despite cutting the top federal rate. Obama got slightly better growth, certainly no worse, after he raised the top federal rate.
THE LESSON: Cutting the top federal rate does NOT help economic growth and raising the top federal rate does NOT hurt economic growth . That's what the GDP stats vs tax rates show. More than enough evidence, but because of ideology or other reasons, you'll continue to blindly deny it.
Plenty of evidence to support my point. There is no evidence in the GDP numbers vs top federal tax rates supporting your point of view.
You'll have to come up with something better than saying my evidence is "not evidence".
Because all the evidence shows that cutting the top federal rate in taxes does not increase GDP growth,
View attachment 241513
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=mKdl
No evidence? The above is the 2 years after Bush's final tax cut.
Below is 2 years after Obama's tax hike.
View attachment 241518
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=mKdk
THE LESSON: Cutting the top federal rate does NOT help economic growth and raising the top federal rate does NOT hurt economic growth .
Lesson: Refuted.
Sorry, but the below average real quarterly GDP growth rates for each President are the FACTS:
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%
Dropping the top federal tax rate from 40% to 35% under Bush saw the economy grow at the slowest rate of the past 70 years. 1.87% is the AVERAGE of all 32 quarters of measured GDP growth while Bush was in office. It is an indisputable FACT! Brief short term decreases and increases don't accurately show the impact of a tax cut or tax hike. I've looked at all the data for Bush. His average GDP growth numbers would be even worse if you just started with 2003!
I can give you the precise number of each quarter of GDP while Bush was in office, all 32 of them.
Cool. Give me the 8 quarters after the 2003 tax cut.
And for Obama, give me the 8 quarters after his tax hike.
How many Billionaire CEO's live in Somalia? NONE! Why? The market there is too weak and unstable and there is no government. Is it because there is no one talented enough out of a population of several million people to do that work? Nope.
In order to succeed in becoming a Billionaire CEO, you do have to have some talent, but you also need to be born into the right circumstances, born into the right country, and yes, be lucky with being in the right place at the right time and meeting the right people.
If it was just about hard work, dedication, and some talent, then anyone could be a CEO. Few people when the multi-million dollar lottery's. Same with becoming a Billionaire CEO. Donald Trump is a perfect example of a person with relatively average talent, but enormous luck. Born into a rich family, and received a massive inheritance. Trumps biggest talent is not business, but shocking people with his mouth. He is more of an entertainer.
According to Politifact, Trump didn't even get 100 million from his father. He does have several siblings, and his father was no billionaire although he did very well for himself.
Being a successful CEO has nothing to do with family, race or luck. It has to do with hard work going to college, graduating at the top of your class, climbing up the corporate ladder for most of you life. It has to do with experience and proving yourself to be somebody that can make things happen. Very few if anybody becomes a CEO before the age of 40 unless you developed a product like Facebook or Twitter. On a personal note, you have to find a mate that doesn't mind being alone all the time and moving from city to city. While CEO's don't go down to the shop and operate a drill press, it doesn't mean they don't make sacrifices and do little work. That's only in the movies.
Trump didn't even get 100 million from poppy. That really sux even though a hundred million back then is probably close to a half billion today. That's some consolation.
The point being is that Donald was not some Silver Spoon kid that sat back and took the money. After all, even 100 million is still a life of luxury and more than enough to support a lavish lifestyle for the rest of your life.
The other point is that he made that money grow. He didn't tuck it away in bonds or something, he owned or operated over 500 companies in his career. Did you ever try to make any large sum of money grow 10 or 20 times? It's not that easy or we'd all be doing it.
All the evidence shows that he indeed was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Even if his inheritance was less back then, he should be wealthier today than he claims.
What would Donald Trumps life have been like if he had been born in Somalia or Afghanistan?
Let's say that Trump inherited and earned 100 million after his father died. And let's say he grew that to just 2 billion dollars. That means he multiplied that amount by 20 times. Can you do that? Because if you can, that means you could turn 50K into a million dollars. It's not that easy.
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
How many Billionaire CEO's live in Somalia? NONE! Why? The market there is too weak and unstable and there is no government. Is it because there is no one talented enough out of a population of several million people to do that work? Nope.
In order to succeed in becoming a Billionaire CEO, you do have to have some talent, but you also need to be born into the right circumstances, born into the right country, and yes, be lucky with being in the right place at the right time and meeting the right people.
If it was just about hard work, dedication, and some talent, then anyone could be a CEO. Few people when the multi-million dollar lottery's. Same with becoming a Billionaire CEO. Donald Trump is a perfect example of a person with relatively average talent, but enormous luck. Born into a rich family, and received a massive inheritance. Trumps biggest talent is not business, but shocking people with his mouth. He is more of an entertainer.
According to Politifact, Trump didn't even get 100 million from his father. He does have several siblings, and his father was no billionaire although he did very well for himself.
Being a successful CEO has nothing to do with family, race or luck. It has to do with hard work going to college, graduating at the top of your class, climbing up the corporate ladder for most of you life. It has to do with experience and proving yourself to be somebody that can make things happen. Very few if anybody becomes a CEO before the age of 40 unless you developed a product like Facebook or Twitter. On a personal note, you have to find a mate that doesn't mind being alone all the time and moving from city to city. While CEO's don't go down to the shop and operate a drill press, it doesn't mean they don't make sacrifices and do little work. That's only in the movies.
If you think its just up to the individual, then why are there not any Billionaires in Somalia?
Because the United States offers an opportunity like no other country in the world. We want to keep it that way. People come here from all over the world to study medicine, and in many cases, stay here after they graduate because there is little money for their talent where they came from.
I'm a patient at the world famous Cleveland Clinic, and I can tell you first hand how many of those doctors and surgeons are from other countries. Because they can make a good living here, we draw the best talent from around the globe and benefit from that. If those people were taxed at such a high rate as you suggest, then there is no point of staying in the US. They might as well return back to their country.
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
How many Billionaire CEO's live in Somalia? NONE! Why? The market there is too weak and unstable and there is no government. Is it because there is no one talented enough out of a population of several million people to do that work? Nope.
In order to succeed in becoming a Billionaire CEO, you do have to have some talent, but you also need to be born into the right circumstances, born into the right country, and yes, be lucky with being in the right place at the right time and meeting the right people.
If it was just about hard work, dedication, and some talent, then anyone could be a CEO. Few people when the multi-million dollar lottery's. Same with becoming a Billionaire CEO. Donald Trump is a perfect example of a person with relatively average talent, but enormous luck. Born into a rich family, and received a massive inheritance. Trumps biggest talent is not business, but shocking people with his mouth. He is more of an entertainer.
According to Politifact, Trump didn't even get 100 million from his father. He does have several siblings, and his father was no billionaire although he did very well for himself.
Being a successful CEO has nothing to do with family, race or luck. It has to do with hard work going to college, graduating at the top of your class, climbing up the corporate ladder for most of you life. It has to do with experience and proving yourself to be somebody that can make things happen. Very few if anybody becomes a CEO before the age of 40 unless you developed a product like Facebook or Twitter. On a personal note, you have to find a mate that doesn't mind being alone all the time and moving from city to city. While CEO's don't go down to the shop and operate a drill press, it doesn't mean they don't make sacrifices and do little work. That's only in the movies.
If you think its just up to the individual, then why are there not any Billionaires in Somalia?
Because the United States offers an opportunity like no other country in the world. We want to keep it that way. People come here from all over the world to study medicine, and in many cases, stay here after they graduate because there is little money for their talent where they came from.
I'm a patient at the world famous Cleveland Clinic, and I can tell you first hand how many of those doctors and surgeons are from other countries. Because they can make a good living here, we draw the best talent from around the globe and benefit from that. If those people were taxed at such a high rate as you suggest, then there is no point of staying in the US. They might as well return back to their country.
Not true because nearly every first world country has higher tax rates than the United States given that the United States taxes as a percentage of its annual GDP is one of the lowest in the world. Would a doctor from Iran, Afghanistan or Somalia return to those countries because of a 50% or 70% tax rate, I seriously doubt it. Although most doctors probably would not be paying the top federal tax rate in the first place.
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
Most consumer spending is done by the lower class and middle class. The Rich do their share, but its not impacted by tax increases or decreases on them typically. That's why you can raise the top federal rate on the rich, because it does not cause them to cut back on their consumer spending at the higher rates suggested.
The best macroeconomic policy when it comes to taxes is to maximize tax revenue coming into the treasury with the highest top federal tax rate possible without hurting the economy. Many Economist believe that rate is 70% for the top federal rate. Some think it may be 80%.
Tax rates in most other countries are higher than the United States. The United States ranks only 134th in the world in terms of taxes collected as a percentage of annual GDP.
This shows that the top federal tax rate can and should be raised on the rich. Doing so will help balance the budget, pay for a stronger defense, without damaging economic growth!
Its not about the individual or your definition of stealing etc. Its about what is best for the United States and the United States market. Its about what is best for the United States Standard of living and United States Security. I'll pick the United States every time over some rich individual who will still be absurdly rich and far better off than 99% of Americans when paying a 70% tax rate.
The Rich benefit to from a 70% tax rate, because their nations military will be better funded, the government will be better able to balance the budget and pay down debt, there will be more money for investments in technology, plus the poverty rate will be reduced, which in turn will reduce the crime rate.
Let's discuss this in more of reality here.
You are a wealthy man. You are now forced to give up almost 3/4 of your income to the federal government. Then you are forced to give up another 5% to your state government. Another 10% to your county and city governments. Can you tell me one reason you would want to create wealth? Because if you still want to create wealth, you are creating it for your governments and not for yourself. And who does that?
I mean....what you are talking about here (with all taxes combined) is giving governments 85% of your money. That means if you make 10 million dollars in a year, you only get to keep $150,000 of that money. In other words, it makes no sense to invest your money, provide jobs, and taxation to various governments. You'd be better off taking a job as a car salesman.
If the federal tax rate were 0%, the federal government would collect exactly 0 dollars. If the federal tax rate were 100%, the federal government would still collect 0 dollars because who would be stupid enough to work?
No one is suggesting a top federal rate of 100%. The top federal rate should be the rate which maximizes tax revenue to the government without hurting economic growth. The vast majority of economist believe that sweet rate is well above the current 37% top federal rate. Some believe it is as high as 85%. Its a rate where the rich don't flee the country or stop working and maximizes the revenue that goes into the government.
Your OP is about 70% taxation. It's more than just about the wealthy that we have now, we need to encourage others to open up new businesses for the future.
It's not that much different than those of us who have blue collar jobs. The less you make, the less you are going to take an interest in working. If you have enough resources where you don't have to work, but do so because you enjoy making money, a great reduction of pay would eliminate that enjoyment.
So if not 70%, then what new number are you suggesting?
According to Politifact, Trump didn't even get 100 million from his father. He does have several siblings, and his father was no billionaire although he did very well for himself.
Being a successful CEO has nothing to do with family, race or luck. It has to do with hard work going to college, graduating at the top of your class, climbing up the corporate ladder for most of you life. It has to do with experience and proving yourself to be somebody that can make things happen. Very few if anybody becomes a CEO before the age of 40 unless you developed a product like Facebook or Twitter. On a personal note, you have to find a mate that doesn't mind being alone all the time and moving from city to city. While CEO's don't go down to the shop and operate a drill press, it doesn't mean they don't make sacrifices and do little work. That's only in the movies.
Trump didn't even get 100 million from poppy. That really sux even though a hundred million back then is probably close to a half billion today. That's some consolation.
The point being is that Donald was not some Silver Spoon kid that sat back and took the money. After all, even 100 million is still a life of luxury and more than enough to support a lavish lifestyle for the rest of your life.
The other point is that he made that money grow. He didn't tuck it away in bonds or something, he owned or operated over 500 companies in his career. Did you ever try to make any large sum of money grow 10 or 20 times? It's not that easy or we'd all be doing it.
All the evidence shows that he indeed was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Even if his inheritance was less back then, he should be wealthier today than he claims.
What would Donald Trumps life have been like if he had been born in Somalia or Afghanistan?
Let's say that Trump inherited and earned 100 million after his father died. And let's say he grew that to just 2 billion dollars. That means he multiplied that amount by 20 times. Can you do that? Because if you can, that means you could turn 50K into a million dollars. It's not that easy.
That's not actually equivalent, going from 50K to a million vs going from 100 million to 2 billion. It is in simple math, but not in the world of investment where having a higher starting point always makes it easier to see higher returns. Financial analyst and accountants have already shown that most people at Trump's alleged starting point in the 70s would on average be richer today than Trump.
How many Billionaire CEO's live in Somalia? NONE! Why? The market there is too weak and unstable and there is no government. Is it because there is no one talented enough out of a population of several million people to do that work? Nope.
In order to succeed in becoming a Billionaire CEO, you do have to have some talent, but you also need to be born into the right circumstances, born into the right country, and yes, be lucky with being in the right place at the right time and meeting the right people.
If it was just about hard work, dedication, and some talent, then anyone could be a CEO. Few people when the multi-million dollar lottery's. Same with becoming a Billionaire CEO. Donald Trump is a perfect example of a person with relatively average talent, but enormous luck. Born into a rich family, and received a massive inheritance. Trumps biggest talent is not business, but shocking people with his mouth. He is more of an entertainer.
According to Politifact, Trump didn't even get 100 million from his father. He does have several siblings, and his father was no billionaire although he did very well for himself.
Being a successful CEO has nothing to do with family, race or luck. It has to do with hard work going to college, graduating at the top of your class, climbing up the corporate ladder for most of you life. It has to do with experience and proving yourself to be somebody that can make things happen. Very few if anybody becomes a CEO before the age of 40 unless you developed a product like Facebook or Twitter. On a personal note, you have to find a mate that doesn't mind being alone all the time and moving from city to city. While CEO's don't go down to the shop and operate a drill press, it doesn't mean they don't make sacrifices and do little work. That's only in the movies.
If you think its just up to the individual, then why are there not any Billionaires in Somalia?
Because the United States offers an opportunity like no other country in the world. We want to keep it that way. People come here from all over the world to study medicine, and in many cases, stay here after they graduate because there is little money for their talent where they came from.
I'm a patient at the world famous Cleveland Clinic, and I can tell you first hand how many of those doctors and surgeons are from other countries. Because they can make a good living here, we draw the best talent from around the globe and benefit from that. If those people were taxed at such a high rate as you suggest, then there is no point of staying in the US. They might as well return back to their country.
Not true because nearly every first world country has higher tax rates than the United States given that the United States taxes as a percentage of its annual GDP is one of the lowest in the world. Would a doctor from Iran, Afghanistan or Somalia return to those countries because of a 50% or 70% tax rate, I seriously doubt it. Although most doctors probably would not be paying the top federal tax rate in the first place.
Sure they would. As I stated, when you add in all the other taxes to pay, you don't end up with very much. You would probably make out the same or better in your own country. Plus I'm sure a lot of those people would rather be in their own country with family, friends and people they are used to being with.
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
Most consumer spending is done by the lower class and middle class. The Rich do their share, but its not impacted by tax increases or decreases on them typically. That's why you can raise the top federal rate on the rich, because it does not cause them to cut back on their consumer spending at the higher rates suggested.
The best macroeconomic policy when it comes to taxes is to maximize tax revenue coming into the treasury with the highest top federal tax rate possible without hurting the economy. Many Economist believe that rate is 70% for the top federal rate. Some think it may be 80%.
Tax rates in most other countries are higher than the United States. The United States ranks only 134th in the world in terms of taxes collected as a percentage of annual GDP.
This shows that the top federal tax rate can and should be raised on the rich. Doing so will help balance the budget, pay for a stronger defense, without damaging economic growth!
Its not about the individual or your definition of stealing etc. Its about what is best for the United States and the United States market. Its about what is best for the United States Standard of living and United States Security. I'll pick the United States every time over some rich individual who will still be absurdly rich and far better off than 99% of Americans when paying a 70% tax rate.
The Rich benefit to from a 70% tax rate, because their nations military will be better funded, the government will be better able to balance the budget and pay down debt, there will be more money for investments in technology, plus the poverty rate will be reduced, which in turn will reduce the crime rate.
Let's discuss this in more of reality here.
You are a wealthy man. You are now forced to give up almost 3/4 of your income to the federal government. Then you are forced to give up another 5% to your state government. Another 10% to your county and city governments. Can you tell me one reason you would want to create wealth? Because if you still want to create wealth, you are creating it for your governments and not for yourself. And who does that?
I mean....what you are talking about here (with all taxes combined) is giving governments 85% of your money. That means if you make 10 million dollars in a year, you only get to keep $150,000 of that money. In other words, it makes no sense to invest your money, provide jobs, and taxation to various governments. You'd be better off taking a job as a car salesman.
If the federal tax rate were 0%, the federal government would collect exactly 0 dollars. If the federal tax rate were 100%, the federal government would still collect 0 dollars because who would be stupid enough to work?
No one is suggesting a top federal rate of 100%. The top federal rate should be the rate which maximizes tax revenue to the government without hurting economic growth. The vast majority of economist believe that sweet rate is well above the current 37% top federal rate. Some believe it is as high as 85%. Its a rate where the rich don't flee the country or stop working and maximizes the revenue that goes into the government.
Your OP is about 70% taxation. It's more than just about the wealthy that we have now, we need to encourage others to open up new businesses for the future.
It's not that much different than those of us who have blue collar jobs. The less you make, the less you are going to take an interest in working. If you have enough resources where you don't have to work, but do so because you enjoy making money, a great reduction of pay would eliminate that enjoyment.
So if not 70%, then what new number are you suggesting?
Again, the best top federal tax rate is that number which does not hurt economic growth and maximizes tax revenue collection for the government. Many economist think that special sweet rate is as high as 85%. The Rich are still motivated to work despite the higher rate, the economy still grows, and you get far better revenue collection for the government to balance the budget and pay for important things like the military.
Some think that number is 70% or 60%. I tend to favor the 60% number, but realize it may be higher. Its certainly higher than the 35% to 42% rates of the last quarter century.
Trump didn't even get 100 million from poppy. That really sux even though a hundred million back then is probably close to a half billion today. That's some consolation.
The point being is that Donald was not some Silver Spoon kid that sat back and took the money. After all, even 100 million is still a life of luxury and more than enough to support a lavish lifestyle for the rest of your life.
The other point is that he made that money grow. He didn't tuck it away in bonds or something, he owned or operated over 500 companies in his career. Did you ever try to make any large sum of money grow 10 or 20 times? It's not that easy or we'd all be doing it.
All the evidence shows that he indeed was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Even if his inheritance was less back then, he should be wealthier today than he claims.
What would Donald Trumps life have been like if he had been born in Somalia or Afghanistan?
Let's say that Trump inherited and earned 100 million after his father died. And let's say he grew that to just 2 billion dollars. That means he multiplied that amount by 20 times. Can you do that? Because if you can, that means you could turn 50K into a million dollars. It's not that easy.
That's not actually equivalent, going from 50K to a million vs going from 100 million to 2 billion. It is in simple math, but not in the world of investment where having a higher starting point always makes it easier to see higher returns. Financial analyst and accountants have already shown that most people at Trump's alleged starting point in the 70s would on average be richer today than Trump.
Maybe, if they just let their money lay somewhere and gather interest. But that's part of the point. Trump worked his entire life for the money he made. He's far from a slouch.
Trump didn't even get 100 million from poppy. That really sux even though a hundred million back then is probably close to a half billion today. That's some consolation.
The point being is that Donald was not some Silver Spoon kid that sat back and took the money. After all, even 100 million is still a life of luxury and more than enough to support a lavish lifestyle for the rest of your life.
The other point is that he made that money grow. He didn't tuck it away in bonds or something, he owned or operated over 500 companies in his career. Did you ever try to make any large sum of money grow 10 or 20 times? It's not that easy or we'd all be doing it.
All the evidence shows that he indeed was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Even if his inheritance was less back then, he should be wealthier today than he claims.
What would Donald Trumps life have been like if he had been born in Somalia or Afghanistan?
Let's say that Trump inherited and earned 100 million after his father died. And let's say he grew that to just 2 billion dollars. That means he multiplied that amount by 20 times. Can you do that? Because if you can, that means you could turn 50K into a million dollars. It's not that easy.
That's not actually equivalent, going from 50K to a million vs going from 100 million to 2 billion. It is in simple math, but not in the world of investment where having a higher starting point always makes it easier to see higher returns. Financial analyst and accountants have already shown that most people at Trump's alleged starting point in the 70s would on average be richer today than Trump.
Maybe, if they just let their money lay somewhere and gather interest. But that's part of the point. Trump worked his entire life for the money he made. He's far from a slouch.
According to Politifact, Trump didn't even get 100 million from his father. He does have several siblings, and his father was no billionaire although he did very well for himself.
Being a successful CEO has nothing to do with family, race or luck. It has to do with hard work going to college, graduating at the top of your class, climbing up the corporate ladder for most of you life. It has to do with experience and proving yourself to be somebody that can make things happen. Very few if anybody becomes a CEO before the age of 40 unless you developed a product like Facebook or Twitter. On a personal note, you have to find a mate that doesn't mind being alone all the time and moving from city to city. While CEO's don't go down to the shop and operate a drill press, it doesn't mean they don't make sacrifices and do little work. That's only in the movies.
If you think its just up to the individual, then why are there not any Billionaires in Somalia?
Because the United States offers an opportunity like no other country in the world. We want to keep it that way. People come here from all over the world to study medicine, and in many cases, stay here after they graduate because there is little money for their talent where they came from.
I'm a patient at the world famous Cleveland Clinic, and I can tell you first hand how many of those doctors and surgeons are from other countries. Because they can make a good living here, we draw the best talent from around the globe and benefit from that. If those people were taxed at such a high rate as you suggest, then there is no point of staying in the US. They might as well return back to their country.
Not true because nearly every first world country has higher tax rates than the United States given that the United States taxes as a percentage of its annual GDP is one of the lowest in the world. Would a doctor from Iran, Afghanistan or Somalia return to those countries because of a 50% or 70% tax rate, I seriously doubt it. Although most doctors probably would not be paying the top federal tax rate in the first place.
Sure they would. As I stated, when you add in all the other taxes to pay, you don't end up with very much. You would probably make out the same or better in your own country. Plus I'm sure a lot of those people would rather be in their own country with family, friends and people they are used to being with.
They wouldn't because as I have already shown, total taxes collected in the United States as a percentage of GDP is one of the lowest rates in the world. As long as their going back to a first world country, they would be taxed the same rate or even higher. As for countries like Iran, Somalia and Afghanistan, there are many reasons not to move back to those countries despite a much lower tax rate.
You could move to Somalia right now and not have to pay ANY taxes of any kind. Why are you not jumping at the opportunity to move to Somalia and pay no taxes?
I can give you the precise number of each quarter of GDP while Bush was in office, all 32 of them.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?
Because all the evidence shows that cutting the top federal rate in taxes does not increase GDP growth, especially the Bush years.
Real GDP growth while Bush was in office averaged 1.87% per quarter. Under Obama it averaged 1.90% per quarter. Bush got worse economic growth rates despite cutting the top federal rate. Obama got slightly better growth, certainly no worse, after he raised the top federal rate.
THE LESSON: Cutting the top federal rate does NOT help economic growth and raising the top federal rate does NOT hurt economic growth . That's what the GDP stats vs tax rates show. More than enough evidence, but because of ideology or other reasons, you'll continue to blindly deny it.
Plenty of evidence to support my point. There is no evidence in the GDP numbers vs top federal tax rates supporting your point of view.
You'll have to come up with something better than saying my evidence is "not evidence".
Because all the evidence shows that cutting the top federal rate in taxes does not increase GDP growth,
View attachment 241513
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=mKdl
No evidence? The above is the 2 years after Bush's final tax cut.
Below is 2 years after Obama's tax hike.
View attachment 241518
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=mKdk
THE LESSON: Cutting the top federal rate does NOT help economic growth and raising the top federal rate does NOT hurt economic growth .
Lesson: Refuted.
Sorry, but the below average real quarterly GDP growth rates for each President are the FACTS:
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%
Dropping the top federal tax rate from 40% to 35% under Bush saw the economy grow at the slowest rate of the past 70 years. 1.87% is the AVERAGE of all 32 quarters of measured GDP growth while Bush was in office. It is an indisputable FACT! Brief short term decreases and increases don't accurately show the impact of a tax cut or tax hike. I've looked at all the data for Bush. His average GDP growth numbers would be even worse if you just started with 2003!
I can give you the precise number of each quarter of GDP while Bush was in office, all 32 of them.
Cool. Give me the 8 quarters after the 2003 tax cut.
And for Obama, give me the 8 quarters after his tax hike.
Why just 8 quarters? The Bush tax cuts lasted for the rest of his time in office. That's 24 quarters, not 8.
Ok, I was wrong about Bush's last 24 economic quarters saying that it would be lower than the overall average of 1.87% for the total 32 quarters. Its actually a little better for the last 24 at 2.11% average real quarterly GDP growth. Not much better though and still well below Clinton's average of 3.62%.
Here is all of Bush's 32 quarters:
Year / Quarter / GDP
2001 01 -1·1358
2001 02 2·3588
2001 03 -1·6498
2001 04 1.0939
2002 01 3.5442
2002 02 2.4450
2002 03 1·7902
2002 04 0.6207
2003 01 2.2376
2003 02 3·4857
2003 03 6.9678
2003 04 4.6724
2004 01 2.1521
2004 02 3.0833
2004 03 3·8353
2004 04 4·0673
2005 01 4·5019
2005 02 1·8591
2005 03 3.6133
2005 04 2.5499
2006 01 5·4283
2006 02 0·9381
2006 03 0·6200
2006 04 3·4512
2007 01 0·9453
2007 02 2·3113
2007 03 2·1909
2007 04 2.4536
2008 01 -2.2791
2008 02 2.0816
2008 03 -2·1479
2008 04 -8·3784
Obama's last 16 quarters in office after the raising the top federal tax rate saw increase averaged quarterly GDP growth of 2.31%. That beats the GDP average growth rate after Bush's cut in the top federal tax rate. Obama increased the top federal tax rate after which average GDP growth actually improved!
So once again, the LESSON, cutting the top federal tax rate does not increase economic growth and raising the top federal tax rate does not hurt economic growth, at least at these levels.
Most consumer spending is done by the lower class and middle class. The Rich do their share, but its not impacted by tax increases or decreases on them typically. That's why you can raise the top federal rate on the rich, because it does not cause them to cut back on their consumer spending at the higher rates suggested.
The best macroeconomic policy when it comes to taxes is to maximize tax revenue coming into the treasury with the highest top federal tax rate possible without hurting the economy. Many Economist believe that rate is 70% for the top federal rate. Some think it may be 80%.
Tax rates in most other countries are higher than the United States. The United States ranks only 134th in the world in terms of taxes collected as a percentage of annual GDP.
This shows that the top federal tax rate can and should be raised on the rich. Doing so will help balance the budget, pay for a stronger defense, without damaging economic growth!
Its not about the individual or your definition of stealing etc. Its about what is best for the United States and the United States market. Its about what is best for the United States Standard of living and United States Security. I'll pick the United States every time over some rich individual who will still be absurdly rich and far better off than 99% of Americans when paying a 70% tax rate.
The Rich benefit to from a 70% tax rate, because their nations military will be better funded, the government will be better able to balance the budget and pay down debt, there will be more money for investments in technology, plus the poverty rate will be reduced, which in turn will reduce the crime rate.
Let's discuss this in more of reality here.
You are a wealthy man. You are now forced to give up almost 3/4 of your income to the federal government. Then you are forced to give up another 5% to your state government. Another 10% to your county and city governments. Can you tell me one reason you would want to create wealth? Because if you still want to create wealth, you are creating it for your governments and not for yourself. And who does that?
I mean....what you are talking about here (with all taxes combined) is giving governments 85% of your money. That means if you make 10 million dollars in a year, you only get to keep $150,000 of that money. In other words, it makes no sense to invest your money, provide jobs, and taxation to various governments. You'd be better off taking a job as a car salesman.
If the federal tax rate were 0%, the federal government would collect exactly 0 dollars. If the federal tax rate were 100%, the federal government would still collect 0 dollars because who would be stupid enough to work?
No one is suggesting a top federal rate of 100%. The top federal rate should be the rate which maximizes tax revenue to the government without hurting economic growth. The vast majority of economist believe that sweet rate is well above the current 37% top federal rate. Some believe it is as high as 85%. Its a rate where the rich don't flee the country or stop working and maximizes the revenue that goes into the government.
Your OP is about 70% taxation. It's more than just about the wealthy that we have now, we need to encourage others to open up new businesses for the future.
It's not that much different than those of us who have blue collar jobs. The less you make, the less you are going to take an interest in working. If you have enough resources where you don't have to work, but do so because you enjoy making money, a great reduction of pay would eliminate that enjoyment.
So if not 70%, then what new number are you suggesting?
Again, the best top federal tax rate is that number which does not hurt economic growth and maximizes tax revenue collection for the government. Many economist think that special sweet rate is as high as 85%. The Rich are still motivated to work despite the higher rate, the economy still grows, and you get far better revenue collection for the government to balance the budget and pay for important things like the military.
Some think that number is 70% or 60%. I tend to favor the 60% number, but realize it may be higher. Its certainly higher than the 35% to 42% rates of the last quarter century.
Okay, let's go with 60%. Then add in other taxes, and it's more like 75%. Would you work and invest your money (which is always at high risk of being lost) for only 25% of what you made? Most people wouldn't do that.
Wealthy people didn't get that way by letting everybody else take their money. If you increase their taxes by only 5%, it's going to have some negative effect. It's going to cost somebody other than the wealthy guy because he finds ways to recoup that money. Ten fold if taxes were ever that high.
I can give you the precise number of each quarter of GDP while Bush was in office, all 32 of them.Because all the evidence shows that cutting the top federal rate in taxes does not increase GDP growth, especially the Bush years.
Real GDP growth while Bush was in office averaged 1.87% per quarter. Under Obama it averaged 1.90% per quarter. Bush got worse economic growth rates despite cutting the top federal rate. Obama got slightly better growth, certainly no worse, after he raised the top federal rate.
THE LESSON: Cutting the top federal rate does NOT help economic growth and raising the top federal rate does NOT hurt economic growth . That's what the GDP stats vs tax rates show. More than enough evidence, but because of ideology or other reasons, you'll continue to blindly deny it.
Plenty of evidence to support my point. There is no evidence in the GDP numbers vs top federal tax rates supporting your point of view.
You'll have to come up with something better than saying my evidence is "not evidence".
Because all the evidence shows that cutting the top federal rate in taxes does not increase GDP growth,
View attachment 241513
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=mKdl
No evidence? The above is the 2 years after Bush's final tax cut.
Below is 2 years after Obama's tax hike.
View attachment 241518
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=mKdk
THE LESSON: Cutting the top federal rate does NOT help economic growth and raising the top federal rate does NOT hurt economic growth .
Lesson: Refuted.
Sorry, but the below average real quarterly GDP growth rates for each President are the FACTS:
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%
Dropping the top federal tax rate from 40% to 35% under Bush saw the economy grow at the slowest rate of the past 70 years. 1.87% is the AVERAGE of all 32 quarters of measured GDP growth while Bush was in office. It is an indisputable FACT! Brief short term decreases and increases don't accurately show the impact of a tax cut or tax hike. I've looked at all the data for Bush. His average GDP growth numbers would be even worse if you just started with 2003!
I can give you the precise number of each quarter of GDP while Bush was in office, all 32 of them.
Cool. Give me the 8 quarters after the 2003 tax cut.
And for Obama, give me the 8 quarters after his tax hike.
Why just 8 quarters? The Bush tax cuts lasted for the rest of his time in office. That's 24 quarters, not 8.
8 quarters aren't enough to see if tax cuts help growth, if tax hikes hurt growth?
