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

[danielpalos]

[


Most European countries have higher tax rates and are very successful at collecting a lot more revenue for the government as a percentage of GDP. There are several countries in Europe that have revenue collection rates that are 55% of annual GDP. In the United States, revenue collection is only 22% of annual GDP because of the much lower tax rates. So there is a lot of room to raise the top federal rate and the United States would benefit as a result.

Two things that you are missing.

The way the tax code was structured very few people ever paid at that rate. The loopholes were such that the rich were able to shield their income from being taxed at that rate.

The second thing is that the combined cost of government was lower at that time meaning less tax burden for everybody, including the rich. People paid less Federal, State and Local taxes. About 50% less for a good portion of that time frame.

It is immoral to use the government steal money from somebody else so that I can benefit. Nothing more than thievery. Progressive taxation is immoral as hell.

There are certain legitimate functions of government. Defense, police, roads, courts etc. We should all be taxed equally to pay our share the needed things. Progressive taxation is just another filthy ass way of the greedy welfare queens to raise revenue to get their free stuff and it is wrong. After all Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for supper.

The welfare queens demand to use the government to steal from the rich so they don't have to pay their own bills. Disgusting, isn't it?

Not true. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP was the same in 2017 as it was in 1976. The record for Federal spending as a percentage of GDP were the World War II years.

Its alleged that few people ever paid the highest rates from 1945 to 1980, but I have seen no proof of that except that the Budget was usually not balanced and or in surplus despite the higher top federal tax rates. Either way its debatable. What is not debatable is that the current top federal rate is too low. Most first world countries have a much higher top federal tax rate than the United States and then you have the historically higher top federal tax rates in the United States from 1945 to 1980, regardless of the debate about what people may or may not have been paying in reality.

1. Taxation is NOT THEFT
2. THE MARKET decides how much someone makes in their salary, the value of their home etc., not the worker.
3. The Worker did not create THE MARKET, he was born into it. Being lucky enough to be born into the U.S. market provides that worker unparalleled opportunity to exploit it and make large sums of money. But make no mistake, that MARKET was created by others who built it and risked their lives to defend it in multiple wars, long before the worker was even born.
4. The workers who BENEFIT THE MOST FROM THE MARKET are morally obligated to pay a much higher tax rate.


Again, these 6 items are 86% of the federal budget:

1. Defense
2. Social Security
3. Medicare
4. Medicaid
5. interest on the debt
6. Veterans Benefits.

Only a national emergency could ever justify seriously cutting any of these areas. Without Social Security and Medicare, you would create extreme poverty among older people which will have a serious negative impact on the rest of the country. The Standard Of Living in the rest of the country would drop, essentially turning the United States into a third world country when it comes to average standard of living.

All countries in the first world provide similar programs like Social Security and Medicare to its citizens. Its only in the THIRD WORLD that they don't. We don't want are society to become more structured and like that of the average country in Sub Saharan Africa. It would in the long run weaken the country in many ways. Social Security and Medicare came about after the experience of the GREAT DEPRESSION in the 1930s. The vast majority of the population wants the programs continued and there is NO serious candidate for President that plans to do away with these programs. Even Donald Trump supports these programs.

You are confused.

Taxation can be thievery just like an alley mugging. In a welfare state like this country has now it is a state sponsored mugging.

Democracy can be just as oppressive as any other kind of government. It can rob you of liberty just like any other kind of government. It can steal your money just like any other kind of government.

When the majority uses the filthy ass government to require that I give them my money that is thievery just like any other kind of thievery.

When the ******* government takes the money that I make and gives to some filthy ass welfare queen or Illegal that is thievery as sure as hell.

blame the Poor; it really is all the right wing prefers to do.

Create the poor, that's what the left wing prefers....dumbass.

through health care reform and raising the minimum wage?

 

[danielpalos]

Two things that you are missing.

The way the tax code was structured very few people ever paid at that rate. The loopholes were such that the rich were able to shield their income from being taxed at that rate.

The second thing is that the combined cost of government was lower at that time meaning less tax burden for everybody, including the rich. People paid less Federal, State and Local taxes. About 50% less for a good portion of that time frame.

It is immoral to use the government steal money from somebody else so that I can benefit. Nothing more than thievery. Progressive taxation is immoral as hell.

There are certain legitimate functions of government. Defense, police, roads, courts etc. We should all be taxed equally to pay our share the needed things. Progressive taxation is just another filthy ass way of the greedy welfare queens to raise revenue to get their free stuff and it is wrong. After all Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for supper.

The welfare queens demand to use the government to steal from the rich so they don't have to pay their own bills. Disgusting, isn't it?

Not true. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP was the same in 2017 as it was in 1976. The record for Federal spending as a percentage of GDP were the World War II years.

Its alleged that few people ever paid the highest rates from 1945 to 1980, but I have seen no proof of that except that the Budget was usually not balanced and or in surplus despite the higher top federal tax rates. Either way its debatable. What is not debatable is that the current top federal rate is too low. Most first world countries have a much higher top federal tax rate than the United States and then you have the historically higher top federal tax rates in the United States from 1945 to 1980, regardless of the debate about what people may or may not have been paying in reality.

1. Taxation is NOT THEFT
2. THE MARKET decides how much someone makes in their salary, the value of their home etc., not the worker.
3. The Worker did not create THE MARKET, he was born into it. Being lucky enough to be born into the U.S. market provides that worker unparalleled opportunity to exploit it and make large sums of money. But make no mistake, that MARKET was created by others who built it and risked their lives to defend it in multiple wars, long before the worker was even born.
4. The workers who BENEFIT THE MOST FROM THE MARKET are morally obligated to pay a much higher tax rate.


Again, these 6 items are 86% of the federal budget:

1. Defense
2. Social Security
3. Medicare
4. Medicaid
5. interest on the debt
6. Veterans Benefits.

Only a national emergency could ever justify seriously cutting any of these areas. Without Social Security and Medicare, you would create extreme poverty among older people which will have a serious negative impact on the rest of the country. The Standard Of Living in the rest of the country would drop, essentially turning the United States into a third world country when it comes to average standard of living.

All countries in the first world provide similar programs like Social Security and Medicare to its citizens. Its only in the THIRD WORLD that they don't. We don't want are society to become more structured and like that of the average country in Sub Saharan Africa. It would in the long run weaken the country in many ways. Social Security and Medicare came about after the experience of the GREAT DEPRESSION in the 1930s. The vast majority of the population wants the programs continued and there is NO serious candidate for President that plans to do away with these programs. Even Donald Trump supports these programs.

You are confused.

Taxation can be thievery just like an alley mugging. In a welfare state like this country has now it is a state sponsored mugging.

Democracy can be just as oppressive as any other kind of government. It can rob you of liberty just like any other kind of government. It can steal your money just like any other kind of government.

When the majority uses the filthy ass government to require that I give them my money that is thievery just like any other kind of thievery.

When the ******* government takes the money that I make and gives to some filthy ass welfare queen or Illegal that is thievery as sure as hell.

blame the Poor; it really is all the right wing prefers to do.

Create the poor, that's what the left wing prefers....dumbass.

Without welfare queens and Illegals the Democrat Party would be reduced to only the bat shit crazy Moon Bats.

in right wing fantasy, right wingers are Always right.

 

[Circe]

Most Vietnam protest ended long before the draft ended.

No, it didn't. It is very clear you weren't there then.

Most military personal in the Civil War were volunteers, same with Korea and Vietnam. Draftees made up a minority of those that served in the Vietnam war. In fact, had Lyndon Johnson used the National Guard and Reserves during the Vietnam war, the draft would not have been needed. Many people drafted during the Vietnam war were never sent to Vietnam. Many went to Germany, South Korea, Italy, or were based in the states during their service.

It was only in World War II, where the number of draftees outnumbered the number of volunteers.

I don't believe any of that. Every young man I knew, including my husband, had his life wrenched out of whack by that draft. They were claiming conscientious objector status, getting odd physical deferments, going to Canada, volunteering in hopes of not getting sent to the jungle (and getting sent there anyway), joining lots of subversive groups, protesting, marching, dropping out --- our whole lives were twisted out of shape because there was a draft for a stupid war nobody believed in. No more of that. That has to stop.

As the Afghan army becomes more capable, the number U.S. troops in country will continue to drop.

Well, the number of U.S. troops hopefully will continue to drop to zero. Afghanistan is already having major attacks right in the capital and other cities, if you can call them cities. The Afghan army is unlikely to become more capable if it hasn't managed that in 17 years. It will simply be conquered by the Taliban, and I so very don't care. As long as no more Bin Ladens get in there, that's all I care about.

In Iraq, the United States once had 180,000 troops in country, today that number is down to only 5,000. The murder rate in Iraq in 2018 was less than the murder rate in California during the 1980s. A huge improvement. Again, the process here is working and the United States benefits enormously from the enhanced security environment in the Persian Gulf region. No U.S. troops have been killed inside Iraq by hostile fire since 2017.

Sheeeeeesh. ISIS took over Iraq!! Did you forget that bit?? Darn. All the cities of northern Iraq are heaps of rubble. ISIS are still hiding out there. Presumably they'll pop up like a jack in the box as soon as we go. And I don't care, as long as they don't attack us here and we aren't there to be attacked.

In Vietnam the war had been largely won by 1972. The proof of that was in the defeat of North Vietnam's Easter Offensive in 1972 with only 60,000 American troops on the ground compared to the 540,000 that had been there in 1969. South Vietnam was winning, and then the United States abandoned the country in 1973. Most shameful act ever in U.S. history consigning millions of people to slavery under Soviet style communism.

You know how you can tell victory from defeat? It's when people aren't leaping desperately for the helicopter struts from the U.S. Embassy in Saigon. Most Americans are well aware that we lost in Vietnam, in Korea (if the 20th century with WWI and Korea taught us ANYthing, I hope we learned not to negotiate any "Armistice." That's just another word for we lost, they won.) in Iran with the hostages, in New York with 9/11, in Afghanistan now, in Iraq, in Yemen where the Saudis are now trying their luck, in Syria as anyone can see. Losing, losing.

I think it's the amazingly stupid "hearts and minds" approach to making war. War is not supposed to be making besties with part of the enemy: if we haven't learned that by now, we never will. War is about destroying the enemy. I suppose the best-friends-forever approach in all these implacable Muslim countries that hate us is because of the Vietnam protests. That is, it was more to placate angry U.S. citizens who could see the war was cruel and illegitimate than to placate the enemy. Most people didn't see any point to being there, much less all those American body bags. But that we did not really fight in Vietnam I suppose you would agree about. IMO, we need to get back to serious war-making, assuming a serious need. No more of this world policeman business! Afghanistan should have been pretty much leveled, not that there was much to level. Enemies need killing, and that is something we understood better in WWII. Enemies still need killing, but we've totally forgotten how to do that for 40--50 years. There is no "we," anyway -- our next war will be another civil war, I assume. I suppose the bad, ineffective pretense at fighting now is about trying to hold this country together. I woke up about 15 years after Vietnam and realized this country almost split apart then. I guess a whole lot of politicians and military men have figured that out, and so they try to win wars by pretending they're "humanitarian" wars, as if. America can never win any war while we're so divided. So probably the best thing is never to go abroad and fight and lose, lose, lose. We need isolationism because we lose every war.

United States has been winning in Afghanistan for over 17 years now. All the metrics show it. Again, where is the evidence of defeat or that the war was lost? It does not exist.

All the explosions in Kabul and other towns and cities and military sites are evidence of our defeat. It's the same as ever: we pay a few people to pretend they like us and will fight on our side, but that doesn't wear well. We tried it in Vietnam and Syria and Libya --- but it never works. It wouldn't work here, if the enemy invaded where I live and said, hey, we're your new best friends! Naaaaaah, we're losing in Afghanistan and Syria and Iraq and Trump is pulling out. The sooner the better. I bet if they attack New York again, he'd make war a whole lot better than Bush or Obama. I hope so.

You need to re-examine your definitions of what victory, defeat, winning or loss mean when it comes to war.

No, that would be you who needs to figure out why we fight for a decade and a half and never win anywhere. It's an important issue. Hint: it's because we don't ever destroy the enemy. Instead, we go in there and try to buy them and change them with talkie-talkie. This never works. Killing them does work. It's what war is for, and those who don't do it lose. It's okay if you don't like that, but if not, you just don't understand much about war.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They are free to pay 100% of their own paychecks to the Federal Govt.

Ane why not? That's what our President is doing.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

As I pointed out earlier, federal taxes are not the only taxes the rich pay. If you take 70% of their income just for federal, think of the total after they pay state, county, and city taxes. They'd be paying somewhere between 85% and 90%. Who would work for only ten or fifteen percent of the money you make?

The top federal rate kicks in on earnings made after a certain point, like $10 million dollars. Money made in the first $10 million is taxed at a lower rate. Worked just fine from 1945 to 1980 when the top federal rate was above 70% every year. In the 1950s it was above 80% every year. In 1951 the top federal rate was 92%.

And when Ronald Reagan realized those rich people were leaving the country and taking their jobs with them, he had to do something. So he lowered taxes to make it more inviting for them to stay in this country. Travel was becoming safer, technology was becoming more advanced, and rich people had less reason to stay here.

What you want to do is reverse everything he did that put this country back on track. What you’ll end up with is the same problem he had when he first became President only worse. I don’t care how bad people claim the last recession was, it was nothing compared to what took place in the early 80’s. I lived through both of them. At least in our last recession you could get a Burger King job. You couldn’t get one in the Reagan recession.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

The top federal tax rate was not lower in Europe, Japan and Australia when Reagan became President. The rich did not flee then at all. Again, the 50s, 60s, 70s saw some of the highest top federal tax rates in this countries history, but that is when many business's were built that continue to thrive today.

Maybe you were not around in the 80’s but I was. Companies and jobs have been leaving this country since the 70’s. Yes, unions had a lot to do with that but taxes were right along with them. When you can’t make money you simply move somewhere else.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Money flows to where it makes the best ROI, that's just the way it is. You move to another state with lower tax rates or maybe to another country if you can afford it and it makes sense. Running a business in this country these days ain't easy, it's gotta be worth it to invest the time, effort, and money into a venture, and if you raise taxes then that's one way you make it less attractive. We can piss and moan about it, but that is reality.

Exactly. Most small businesses close within the first five years. So it's a great monetary risk when you invest into a business. If people were given money for no reason, then of course you can get away with 70% taxation, however it's simply not worth the risk to only bring home 30% of what you created. It would discourage others from wanting to become wealthy. I mean.......what would be the point?

 

[Thinker101]

Two things that you are missing.

The way the tax code was structured very few people ever paid at that rate. The loopholes were such that the rich were able to shield their income from being taxed at that rate.

The second thing is that the combined cost of government was lower at that time meaning less tax burden for everybody, including the rich. People paid less Federal, State and Local taxes. About 50% less for a good portion of that time frame.

It is immoral to use the government steal money from somebody else so that I can benefit. Nothing more than thievery. Progressive taxation is immoral as hell.

There are certain legitimate functions of government. Defense, police, roads, courts etc. We should all be taxed equally to pay our share the needed things. Progressive taxation is just another filthy ass way of the greedy welfare queens to raise revenue to get their free stuff and it is wrong. After all Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for supper.

The welfare queens demand to use the government to steal from the rich so they don't have to pay their own bills. Disgusting, isn't it?

Not true. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP was the same in 2017 as it was in 1976. The record for Federal spending as a percentage of GDP were the World War II years.

Its alleged that few people ever paid the highest rates from 1945 to 1980, but I have seen no proof of that except that the Budget was usually not balanced and or in surplus despite the higher top federal tax rates. Either way its debatable. What is not debatable is that the current top federal rate is too low. Most first world countries have a much higher top federal tax rate than the United States and then you have the historically higher top federal tax rates in the United States from 1945 to 1980, regardless of the debate about what people may or may not have been paying in reality.

1. Taxation is NOT THEFT
2. THE MARKET decides how much someone makes in their salary, the value of their home etc., not the worker.
3. The Worker did not create THE MARKET, he was born into it. Being lucky enough to be born into the U.S. market provides that worker unparalleled opportunity to exploit it and make large sums of money. But make no mistake, that MARKET was created by others who built it and risked their lives to defend it in multiple wars, long before the worker was even born.
4. The workers who BENEFIT THE MOST FROM THE MARKET are morally obligated to pay a much higher tax rate.


Again, these 6 items are 86% of the federal budget:

1. Defense
2. Social Security
3. Medicare
4. Medicaid
5. interest on the debt
6. Veterans Benefits.

Only a national emergency could ever justify seriously cutting any of these areas. Without Social Security and Medicare, you would create extreme poverty among older people which will have a serious negative impact on the rest of the country. The Standard Of Living in the rest of the country would drop, essentially turning the United States into a third world country when it comes to average standard of living.

All countries in the first world provide similar programs like Social Security and Medicare to its citizens. Its only in the THIRD WORLD that they don't. We don't want are society to become more structured and like that of the average country in Sub Saharan Africa. It would in the long run weaken the country in many ways. Social Security and Medicare came about after the experience of the GREAT DEPRESSION in the 1930s. The vast majority of the population wants the programs continued and there is NO serious candidate for President that plans to do away with these programs. Even Donald Trump supports these programs.

You are confused.

Taxation can be thievery just like an alley mugging. In a welfare state like this country has now it is a state sponsored mugging.

Democracy can be just as oppressive as any other kind of government. It can rob you of liberty just like any other kind of government. It can steal your money just like any other kind of government.

When the majority uses the filthy ass government to require that I give them my money that is thievery just like any other kind of thievery.

When the ******* government takes the money that I make and gives to some filthy ass welfare queen or Illegal that is thievery as sure as hell.

blame the Poor; it really is all the right wing prefers to do.

Create the poor, that's what the left wing prefers....dumbass.

through health care reform and raising the minimum wage?

Dood, I don't even know where or how to start with you. It's clear you have difficulty with, just to name a couple, common sense or math, or both.

 

[dblack]

Dood, I don't even know where or how to start with you. It's clear you have difficulty with, just to name a couple, common sense or math, or both.

It's a chemical imbalance.