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

[Pilot1]

Yea right, like more taxation is going to somehow magically make this country more prosperous. At least that is what the Moon Bats think.

Back when we had a 70% tax rate the deductions were such that very few people ever paid at that rate.

Back then the total combined (federal, state and local) cost of government was less than 20% of GDP. Nowadays it is pushing 40%. Everybody paid fewer taxes, even the very rich that had an incremental rate of 70%.

The reason the economy grew so much was not because of the higher taxes at a 70% incremental rate for the very rich but because of the much lower burden on the economy for the cost of government at less than 20% of the GDP.

The LEFT conveniently forgets that the Trump tax cuts also included the removal of many tax DEDUCTIONS to simplify the tax code. So, those higher income earners effective tax rate may be near the same as it was before without the deductions.

 

[Flash]

Yea right, like more taxation is going to somehow magically make this country more prosperous. At least that is what the Moon Bats think.

Back when we had a 70% tax rate the deductions were such that very few people ever paid at that rate.

Back then the total combined (federal, state and local) cost of government was less than 20% of GDP. Nowadays it is pushing 40%. Everybody paid fewer taxes, even the very rich that had an incremental rate of 70%.

The reason the economy grew so much was not because of the higher taxes at a 70% incremental rate for the very rich but because of the much lower burden on the economy for the cost of government at less than 20% of the GDP.

The LEFT conveniently forgets that the Trump tax cuts also included the removal of many tax DEDUCTIONS to simplify the tax code. So, those higher income earners effective tax rate may be near the same as it was before without the deductions.

Only stupid commie Moon Bats would oppose lower tax rates for everybody and a higher standard deduction for the 75% of Americans that don't itemize.

Of course these are the same socialist nitwits that bitch about lower corporate tax rates and don't realize that all corporate taxes are paid by the people that buy the corporate goods and services.

 

[skews13]

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

I think the United States should increase the top federal tax rate from where it is now at 39% back to 70% where it was in 1980. The top tax rate in the United States from 1945 to 1980 was NEVER lower than 70%. The time period of 1945 to 1980 saw the strongest average annual GDP growth in United States history. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was at 121% in 1945. But by 1980, the national debt was only 33% of GDP. During this time period, the United States fought the cold war which involved fighting in Korea and Vietnam as well as deterring the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

How was the United States able to fight these wars, have large annual defense spending, pay for new social programs like Social Security, Medicare etc, while reducing the national debt relative to the country's wealth? It was able to do this by having a top tax rate on the richest Americans that was between 70% and 94% during the time period of 1945-1980. These tax rates on wealthy Americans DID NOT hurt the economy, ruin business etc. The country thrived with these tax rates.

Consumer spending is 80% of economic growth. Most consumers are not wealthy. They are lower class or middle class. Making sure their taxes are lower or balanced is important because they spend money when they get a raise, new job, tax break, etc. The rich though do not change their level of consumer spending when they get a tax cut or obtain more wealth. Their wealth is such that their level of consumer spending is not impacted by tax cuts or tax increases.

So going back to a 70% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans will provide more important revenue for the government without hurting the economy. This extra revenue can be used to balance the budget, pay down debt, increase defense spending, provide more money for education and health care.

The national debt has sky rocketed since 1980 and it has been difficult finding enough money for defense and domestic programs. The solution is a higher tax rate, 70% or more on the wealthiest Americans. It won't hurt the economy as shown by the superior economic growth from 1945 to 1980.

We have plenty of money for defense.

The amount of money we spend on the military is obscene, and immoral.

We were warned this would happen by the General that won WW2, and then President about the danger of the military industrial complex that would usurp our Democracy. The Founders were against a standing Army for the same reasons. Jefferson actually cut it to a third of his strength during his tenure as President. There is absolutely no historical precedent for the current size of our military, and not one of the Founders would agree with it's current size, or spending on it, given the domestic condition of the country.

As far as the current tax rate, a very simple google search of the years with the most vibrant middle class, and when America was the manufacturing giant and the strongest economies existed, was the years between 1945-1980.

The Reagan years of supply side economics put into place from scribble literally drawn on a napkin in a restaraunt, has created the enormous debt, and the widest gap in wealth, the destruction of the middle class, and 85% of the population that now lives paycheck to paycheck, with no savings, or pensions.

There is no argument that the need for pre Reagan era economics, and tax policy is a must, and military spending to be cut, and then frozen.

 

[U2Edge]

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

I think the United States should increase the top federal tax rate from where it is now at 39% back to 70% where it was in 1980. The top tax rate in the United States from 1945 to 1980 was NEVER lower than 70%. The time period of 1945 to 1980 saw the strongest average annual GDP growth in United States history. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was at 121% in 1945. But by 1980, the national debt was only 33% of GDP. During this time period, the United States fought the cold war which involved fighting in Korea and Vietnam as well as deterring the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

How was the United States able to fight these wars, have large annual defense spending, pay for new social programs like Social Security, Medicare etc, while reducing the national debt relative to the country's wealth? It was able to do this by having a top tax rate on the richest Americans that was between 70% and 94% during the time period of 1945-1980. These tax rates on wealthy Americans DID NOT hurt the economy, ruin business etc. The country thrived with these tax rates.

Consumer spending is 80% of economic growth. Most consumers are not wealthy. They are lower class or middle class. Making sure their taxes are lower or balanced is important because they spend money when they get a raise, new job, tax break, etc. The rich though do not change their level of consumer spending when they get a tax cut or obtain more wealth. Their wealth is such that their level of consumer spending is not impacted by tax cuts or tax increases.

So going back to a 70% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans will provide more important revenue for the government without hurting the economy. This extra revenue can be used to balance the budget, pay down debt, increase defense spending, provide more money for education and health care.

The national debt has sky rocketed since 1980 and it has been difficult finding enough money for defense and domestic programs. The solution is a higher tax rate, 70% or more on the wealthiest Americans. It won't hurt the economy as shown by the superior economic growth from 1945 to 1980.

The only way it was possible to maintain that level of slavery? Tax loopholes so that no one actually paid 70%, and the fact that World War 2 had destroyed the industrial base of every other industrialized country in Europe and Asia....leaving us the only country with any industry.......so if you want to do that, 70% would barely be possible......but now? No way....70% is how you get Venezuela, but with even less food and toilet paper...

Europe was largely rebuilt by the late 1950s/early 1960s. Asia was still largely undeveloped. Tax loopholes became much more common AFTER 1980, but were not common before 1980. Go back to 1978, the height of the disco era, plenty of wealth, but the richest were paying 70% of their income in federal tax. The country was a strong global super power, but the national debt was under control. It was only 33% of annual GDP back in 1978. The period from 1945 to 1980 shows that heavy taxes on the rich will not hurt the economy and will benefit the country as a whole in a variety of ways.

You are delusional.....

I'm just stating the fact that the top federal tax rate from 1945 to 1980 was between 70% and 94% depending on the year. That level of taxation did not hurt the economy since the average annual GDP growth in the time period of 1945 to 1980 in the United States was the highest in the country's history. The benefits were that you had strong economic growth combined with more revenue to pay for defense, domestic programs, balance the budget better, and reduce debt levels relative to GDP over time.

Since 1980, the huge reduction in the top federal tax rate has led huge increases in the national debt and difficulty in paying for defense and other government programs. Essentially, the country is being drowned in debt and starving when it comes to funding its vital foreign, domestic and defense programs simply to insure the rich keep a obscene level of wealth.

 

[Aldo Raine]

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

I think the United States should increase the top federal tax rate from where it is now at 39% back to 70% where it was in 1980. The top tax rate in the United States from 1945 to 1980 was NEVER lower than 70%. The time period of 1945 to 1980 saw the strongest average annual GDP growth in United States history. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was at 121% in 1945. But by 1980, the national debt was only 33% of GDP. During this time period, the United States fought the cold war which involved fighting in Korea and Vietnam as well as deterring the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

How was the United States able to fight these wars, have large annual defense spending, pay for new social programs like Social Security, Medicare etc, while reducing the national debt relative to the country's wealth? It was able to do this by having a top tax rate on the richest Americans that was between 70% and 94% during the time period of 1945-1980. These tax rates on wealthy Americans DID NOT hurt the economy, ruin business etc. The country thrived with these tax rates.

Consumer spending is 80% of economic growth. Most consumers are not wealthy. They are lower class or middle class. Making sure their taxes are lower or balanced is important because they spend money when they get a raise, new job, tax break, etc. The rich though do not change their level of consumer spending when they get a tax cut or obtain more wealth. Their wealth is such that their level of consumer spending is not impacted by tax cuts or tax increases.

So going back to a 70% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans will provide more important revenue for the government without hurting the economy. This extra revenue can be used to balance the budget, pay down debt, increase defense spending, provide more money for education and health care.

The national debt has sky rocketed since 1980 and it has been difficult finding enough money for defense and domestic programs. The solution is a higher tax rate, 70% or more on the wealthiest Americans. It won't hurt the economy as shown by the superior economic growth from 1945 to 1980.

I believe in getting rid of all tax expenditures for all people and corporations AND actually lowering the tax rate for all. Expenditures alone are a $1.4 trillion whole in the debt yearly.

 

[rightwinger]

I’m good with a 50% rate on income above $1 million

I would also like to see a 1% tax on every stock transaction

 

[U2Edge]

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

I think the United States should increase the top federal tax rate from where it is now at 39% back to 70% where it was in 1980. The top tax rate in the United States from 1945 to 1980 was NEVER lower than 70%. The time period of 1945 to 1980 saw the strongest average annual GDP growth in United States history. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was at 121% in 1945. But by 1980, the national debt was only 33% of GDP. During this time period, the United States fought the cold war which involved fighting in Korea and Vietnam as well as deterring the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

How was the United States able to fight these wars, have large annual defense spending, pay for new social programs like Social Security, Medicare etc, while reducing the national debt relative to the country's wealth? It was able to do this by having a top tax rate on the richest Americans that was between 70% and 94% during the time period of 1945-1980. These tax rates on wealthy Americans DID NOT hurt the economy, ruin business etc. The country thrived with these tax rates.

Consumer spending is 80% of economic growth. Most consumers are not wealthy. They are lower class or middle class. Making sure their taxes are lower or balanced is important because they spend money when they get a raise, new job, tax break, etc. The rich though do not change their level of consumer spending when they get a tax cut or obtain more wealth. Their wealth is such that their level of consumer spending is not impacted by tax cuts or tax increases.

So going back to a 70% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans will provide more important revenue for the government without hurting the economy. This extra revenue can be used to balance the budget, pay down debt, increase defense spending, provide more money for education and health care.

The national debt has sky rocketed since 1980 and it has been difficult finding enough money for defense and domestic programs. The solution is a higher tax rate, 70% or more on the wealthiest Americans. It won't hurt the economy as shown by the superior economic growth from 1945 to 1980.

We have plenty of money for defense.

The amount of money we spend on the military is obscene, and immoral.

We were warned this would happen by the General that won WW2, and then President about the danger of the military industrial complex that would usurp our Democracy. The Founders were against a standing Army for the same reasons. Jefferson actually cut it to a third of his strength during his tenure as President. There is absolutely no historical precedent for the current size of our military, and not one of the Founders would agree with it's current size, or spending on it, given the domestic condition of the country.

As far as the current tax rate, a very simple google search of the years with the most vibrant middle class, and when America was the manufacturing giant and the strongest economies existed, was the years between 1945-1980.

The Reagan years of supply side economics put into place from scribble literally drawn on a napkin in a restaraunt, has created the enormous debt, and the widest gap in wealth, the destruction of the middle class, and 85% of the population that now lives paycheck to paycheck, with no savings, or pensions.

There is no argument that the need for pre Reagan era economics, and tax policy is a must, and military spending to be cut, and then frozen.

You can't compare U.S. dollar expenditures on defense with other countries. Simply put, x number of dollars spent on defense is NEVER an accurate way to estimate how well the country is being defended.

For example. The Russians may only be spending 1/6 or 1/7 of what the United States spends on defense, if you believe the dollar to dollar comparison is accurate, but is the Russian military only 1/6 or 1/7 the the capability of the United States military? Not at all. The Russian military fields just as many ground combat brigades as the United States. The Russian military has the same size nuclear force as the United States. The Russian Navy and Air Force are smaller, but only by margins no smaller than 50%.

More than 2/3s of the U.S. defense budget goes to paying military personal and training them. We have an all volunteer military living in an economy where the cost of living is much greater than it is in a place like Russia. That's another reason why these dollar to dollar comparisons between defense budgets are inaccurate.

When you are defending the country and its interest, what is needed in terms of troop levels and equipment is determined by the threat and what must be protected, NOT by some random dollar amount that you magically think is enough to be spending on defense.

 

[Norman]

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

I think the United States should increase the top federal tax rate from where it is now at 39% back to 70% where it was in 1980. The top tax rate in the United States from 1945 to 1980 was NEVER lower than 70%. The time period of 1945 to 1980 saw the strongest average annual GDP growth in United States history. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was at 121% in 1945. But by 1980, the national debt was only 33% of GDP. During this time period, the United States fought the cold war which involved fighting in Korea and Vietnam as well as deterring the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

How was the United States able to fight these wars, have large annual defense spending, pay for new social programs like Social Security, Medicare etc, while reducing the national debt relative to the country's wealth? It was able to do this by having a top tax rate on the richest Americans that was between 70% and 94% during the time period of 1945-1980. These tax rates on wealthy Americans DID NOT hurt the economy, ruin business etc. The country thrived with these tax rates.

Consumer spending is 80% of economic growth. Most consumers are not wealthy. They are lower class or middle class. Making sure their taxes are lower or balanced is important because they spend money when they get a raise, new job, tax break, etc. The rich though do not change their level of consumer spending when they get a tax cut or obtain more wealth. Their wealth is such that their level of consumer spending is not impacted by tax cuts or tax increases.

So going back to a 70% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans will provide more important revenue for the government without hurting the economy. This extra revenue can be used to balance the budget, pay down debt, increase defense spending, provide more money for education and health care.

The national debt has sky rocketed since 1980 and it has been difficult finding enough money for defense and domestic programs. The solution is a higher tax rate, 70% or more on the wealthiest Americans. It won't hurt the economy as shown by the superior economic growth from 1945 to 1980.

US should go back to the effective tax rate of 5% that it was in 1900. I don't care what the top bracket is if it means having so many deductions that you still end up with less than 10%.

 

[U2Edge]

how is it moral for any government to confiscate 70% of your INCOME? Remember, income is not even "profit."

Well, where does your income come from? If you are a U.S. citizen living in the United States, it comes from the U.S. MARKET. Your income is based essentially on your market value. How much your house is worth is based on the MARKET. You were lucky to be born into the United States and its market. You are lucky to be able to take advantage of that market. The U.S. market was built long before you were born. It was protected, built, and grown by generations that came before you. In order for that market to continue, it needs a stable government that is able to protect it and maintain order. The government needs revenue to do that and the only way it can get that revenue is through taxes.

Much of what you say I agree with. But I'm not sure what problem you are solving by raising the top Federal tax rate to 70%. And you are missing an important consequence of doing that. The rich will leave because they have the means to do so. So all those people you were counting on paying 70% will be paying 0%. We don't have a revenue problem, we have a government spending problem and a government bloat problem.

Did the rich leave in the period of 1945 to 1980? Nope. In fact the country attracted the wealthy from around the world. Why would the rich leave and go to a western European country where the tax rate is the same or higher? How many rich people are willing to live in a third world country? The rich will stay as they did in 1945 to 1980. Rich people are probably the least likely of any U.S. citizens to want to risk life in a third world country.

 

[skews13]

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

I think the United States should increase the top federal tax rate from where it is now at 39% back to 70% where it was in 1980. The top tax rate in the United States from 1945 to 1980 was NEVER lower than 70%. The time period of 1945 to 1980 saw the strongest average annual GDP growth in United States history. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was at 121% in 1945. But by 1980, the national debt was only 33% of GDP. During this time period, the United States fought the cold war which involved fighting in Korea and Vietnam as well as deterring the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

How was the United States able to fight these wars, have large annual defense spending, pay for new social programs like Social Security, Medicare etc, while reducing the national debt relative to the country's wealth? It was able to do this by having a top tax rate on the richest Americans that was between 70% and 94% during the time period of 1945-1980. These tax rates on wealthy Americans DID NOT hurt the economy, ruin business etc. The country thrived with these tax rates.

Consumer spending is 80% of economic growth. Most consumers are not wealthy. They are lower class or middle class. Making sure their taxes are lower or balanced is important because they spend money when they get a raise, new job, tax break, etc. The rich though do not change their level of consumer spending when they get a tax cut or obtain more wealth. Their wealth is such that their level of consumer spending is not impacted by tax cuts or tax increases.

So going back to a 70% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans will provide more important revenue for the government without hurting the economy. This extra revenue can be used to balance the budget, pay down debt, increase defense spending, provide more money for education and health care.

The national debt has sky rocketed since 1980 and it has been difficult finding enough money for defense and domestic programs. The solution is a higher tax rate, 70% or more on the wealthiest Americans. It won't hurt the economy as shown by the superior economic growth from 1945 to 1980.

The only way it was possible to maintain that level of slavery? Tax loopholes so that no one actually paid 70%, and the fact that World War 2 had destroyed the industrial base of every other industrialized country in Europe and Asia....leaving us the only country with any industry.......so if you want to do that, 70% would barely be possible......but now? No way....70% is how you get Venezuela, but with even less food and toilet paper...

Europe was largely rebuilt by the late 1950s/early 1960s. Asia was still largely undeveloped. Tax loopholes became much more common AFTER 1980, but were not common before 1980. Go back to 1978, the height of the disco era, plenty of wealth, but the richest were paying 70% of their income in federal tax. The country was a strong global super power, but the national debt was under control. It was only 33% of annual GDP back in 1978. The period from 1945 to 1980 shows that heavy taxes on the rich will not hurt the economy and will benefit the country as a whole in a variety of ways.

You are delusional.....

I'm just stating the fact that the top federal tax rate from 1945 to 1980 was between 70% and 94% depending on the year. That level of taxation did not hurt the economy since the average annual GDP growth in the time period of 1945 to 1980 in the United States was the highest in the country's history. The benefits were that you had strong economic growth combined with more revenue to pay for defense, domestic programs, balance the budget better, and reduce debt levels relative to GDP over time.

Since 1980, the huge reduction in the top federal tax rate has led huge increases in the national debt and difficulty in paying for defense and other government programs. Essentially, the country is being drowned in debt and starving when it comes to funding its vital foreign, domestic and defense programs simply to insure the rich keep a obscene level of wealth.

Agreed. Taxation and military spending have devolved into ideological pissing contests. Until the conversation becomes one in which people on both sides, who are in that 85% of those who live paycheck to paycheck, and can't afford to see a doctor, discuss it factually, and see they are on the same side, this will not change.

What would help is an 80's type of initiative like

We Are the World - Wikipedia

What would the impact be if enough artists and celebrities, that put that together, got back together to create a similar initiative based on the information on economics and prosperity as it existed between 1945-1980 in America?

How would that effect world prosperity as well?

The effect celebrity, in all venues, has on the collective consciousness of young people speaks for itself, and when causes are as righteous as USA FOR Africa was in the 80's, it even sways older generations to soften on stances they hold.

Right now, there is no venue that can change the status quo, and while the internet has brought the world closer together, and given the left a voice it has not had to counter the loud narrative of the right through it's corporate controlled media complex. It has also solidified the stances held firmly by the right, making the divide that already existed, now out in the open for all to see, so no productive discussion can be had.

Know anybody influential enough to start just such an initiative?

 

[U2Edge]

You were lucky to be born into the United States and its market.

Wow, so US citizens are commodities to you psychos?

It was protected, built, and grown by generations that came before you. In order for that market to continue, it needs a stable government that is able to protect it and maintain order.

Not really, it was basically Europeans relocating to America. But yes a government's only function is to protect the rights of citizens.

The government needs revenue to do that and the only way it can get that revenue is through taxes.

Not taxes on individuals though. That scheme came about when the USA began to get hijacked.

I'm just establishing the moral reason of why you need to pay taxes. Your benefit from being born here and the money you make would not be possible without he U.S. market or the U.S. military defending you. Because your benefiting from all these things, you should be willing to pay taxes.

Again, the United States did great things in the period from 1940 to 1980 and it did those things with a top federal tax rate of between 70% and 94%. Go back to those tax rates on the rich today and you will solve many of the funding and debt problems the country currently faces. The current tax rates on the richest Americans are essentially a welfare program for the rich.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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

I think the United States should increase the top federal tax rate from where it is now at 39% back to 70% where it was in 1980. The top tax rate in the United States from 1945 to 1980 was NEVER lower than 70%. The time period of 1945 to 1980 saw the strongest average annual GDP growth in United States history. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was at 121% in 1945. But by 1980, the national debt was only 33% of GDP. During this time period, the United States fought the cold war which involved fighting in Korea and Vietnam as well as deterring the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

How was the United States able to fight these wars, have large annual defense spending, pay for new social programs like Social Security, Medicare etc, while reducing the national debt relative to the country's wealth? It was able to do this by having a top tax rate on the richest Americans that was between 70% and 94% during the time period of 1945-1980. These tax rates on wealthy Americans DID NOT hurt the economy, ruin business etc. The country thrived with these tax rates.

Consumer spending is 80% of economic growth. Most consumers are not wealthy. They are lower class or middle class. Making sure their taxes are lower or balanced is important because they spend money when they get a raise, new job, tax break, etc. The rich though do not change their level of consumer spending when they get a tax cut or obtain more wealth. Their wealth is such that their level of consumer spending is not impacted by tax cuts or tax increases.

So going back to a 70% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans will provide more important revenue for the government without hurting the economy. This extra revenue can be used to balance the budget, pay down debt, increase defense spending, provide more money for education and health care.

The national debt has sky rocketed since 1980 and it has been difficult finding enough money for defense and domestic programs. The solution is a higher tax rate, 70% or more on the wealthiest Americans. It won't hurt the economy as shown by the superior economic growth from 1945 to 1980.

/----/ Yes, but only for democRATs who seem to like high regressive taxes.

 

[G.T.]

Everybody is taxed at around 35%, and that's too much. The government keeps unnecessarily spending up all the tax revenue every year so they can demand more next year. That needs to stop. The government is bloated at least 1/3 more than where it should be.

If you doubt that 35%..Add in state income tax, fuel tax, communications tax, power bill tax..

They tax every damn thing.

It's more like 50% of your income when you add everything up. Include your Real Estate, and Property Taxes, Sales Taxes, Gasoline Taxes, Utility Taxes, Fed, State, and Local Income Taxes, Tolls, Fees, and Surcharges governments charge for things your taxes should pay for, etc.

As a thought experiment, Id like to see someone flesh this out using an average income and living an average life with averages used for all taxes and fees, and then if they havent done this math, I'd like to see them stop imagining arbitrary numbers to fit into the pessimistic view regarding life, in general.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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

I think the United States should increase the top federal tax rate from where it is now at 39% back to 70% where it was in 1980. The top tax rate in the United States from 1945 to 1980 was NEVER lower than 70%. The time period of 1945 to 1980 saw the strongest average annual GDP growth in United States history. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was at 121% in 1945. But by 1980, the national debt was only 33% of GDP. During this time period, the United States fought the cold war which involved fighting in Korea and Vietnam as well as deterring the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

How was the United States able to fight these wars, have large annual defense spending, pay for new social programs like Social Security, Medicare etc, while reducing the national debt relative to the country's wealth? It was able to do this by having a top tax rate on the richest Americans that was between 70% and 94% during the time period of 1945-1980. These tax rates on wealthy Americans DID NOT hurt the economy, ruin business etc. The country thrived with these tax rates.

Consumer spending is 80% of economic growth. Most consumers are not wealthy. They are lower class or middle class. Making sure their taxes are lower or balanced is important because they spend money when they get a raise, new job, tax break, etc. The rich though do not change their level of consumer spending when they get a tax cut or obtain more wealth. Their wealth is such that their level of consumer spending is not impacted by tax cuts or tax increases.

So going back to a 70% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans will provide more important revenue for the government without hurting the economy. This extra revenue can be used to balance the budget, pay down debt, increase defense spending, provide more money for education and health care.

The national debt has sky rocketed since 1980 and it has been difficult finding enough money for defense and domestic programs. The solution is a higher tax rate, 70% or more on the wealthiest Americans. It won't hurt the economy as shown by the superior economic growth from 1945 to 1980.

Why do you want in my pocket?

So we will tax ourselves to prosperity?

And the government won't waste the money this time? It will be different this time?

Not like: Social Security or the Debt or Medicare

If you are United States citizen living in the United States, whatever is in your pocket is thanks to the MARKET, a MARKET which you were born into and had the opportunity to take advantage of. The U.S. market was created long before you were born and was defended in multiple wars, and was built and grown by generations of people that came before you. To keep it going though requires a stable government that can defend itself and its interest worldwide. That stable government needs revenue that it only can get from taxes. Most of the wealth that can be taxed is in the hands of the rich.

But hey, if you don't like this system, your free to move to a country like Somalia where there is no government. Somalia has a rather chaotic environment though. Its much harder to make money there and there is a high probability of you being killed or robbed of whatever money you do make. No Billionaires in Somalia. Its a rough place, but at least there is no government reaching into your pocket. Would you prefer to live there rather than the United States?

Its a waste of money to have the country's government drowning in debt, and to be struggling to pay for defense, and other social programs while the rich live high off the hog. The rich were still rich in the 1950s even when they were paying 90% of their income in taxes. Raise the tax rates on the rich and you can solve the debt and budget deficit problems that have come about since 1980, while still paying for the defense of the country and important domestic programs.

/---/ Don't like debt? Me either. So cut spending.

 

[U2Edge]

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

I think the United States should increase the top federal tax rate from where it is now at 39% back to 70% where it was in 1980. The top tax rate in the United States from 1945 to 1980 was NEVER lower than 70%. The time period of 1945 to 1980 saw the strongest average annual GDP growth in United States history. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was at 121% in 1945. But by 1980, the national debt was only 33% of GDP. During this time period, the United States fought the cold war which involved fighting in Korea and Vietnam as well as deterring the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

How was the United States able to fight these wars, have large annual defense spending, pay for new social programs like Social Security, Medicare etc, while reducing the national debt relative to the country's wealth? It was able to do this by having a top tax rate on the richest Americans that was between 70% and 94% during the time period of 1945-1980. These tax rates on wealthy Americans DID NOT hurt the economy, ruin business etc. The country thrived with these tax rates.

Consumer spending is 80% of economic growth. Most consumers are not wealthy. They are lower class or middle class. Making sure their taxes are lower or balanced is important because they spend money when they get a raise, new job, tax break, etc. The rich though do not change their level of consumer spending when they get a tax cut or obtain more wealth. Their wealth is such that their level of consumer spending is not impacted by tax cuts or tax increases.

So going back to a 70% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans will provide more important revenue for the government without hurting the economy. This extra revenue can be used to balance the budget, pay down debt, increase defense spending, provide more money for education and health care.

The national debt has sky rocketed since 1980 and it has been difficult finding enough money for defense and domestic programs. The solution is a higher tax rate, 70% or more on the wealthiest Americans. It won't hurt the economy as shown by the superior economic growth from 1945 to 1980.

The tax rate you are speaking of was on income above a particular amount. I see it was even higher in 1944, but that was against income above $200k, which I read would be 2.9M todays dollars.

I don't think taxation is the answer, this is a spending problem, not a revenue problem. All of the West is like this because capitalism has become too Crony.

I like breaks for R&D, equipment depreciation, reward businesses and investors who roll the dice and try and help build the economy. Instead, we have big tax grants and benefits given to even the most wealthy companies, like NY gave to Amazon. That helps nobody, it's the opposite of trickle down. The Middle Class or little guy has to carry far too much of the load.

I also believe companies should have a Goodwill Score, based on some metric for all to see. For those who give back to their employees, or maybe even companies who willingly donate to the U.S Treasury. These can be private companies of course and it would encourage philanthropy. I'm not sure how this might be incorporated, but like I believe one should have a large standardized "Made in Canada" or "Made in the USA" which can only be given if something is made, say, 90% in one country, I think a corporate Goodwill Score or something might encourage good business leadership. Again, just a general idea.

The global economy has relied on the U.S for too long, to subsidize them. Also, FAR too many big corporations have become lazy, looking for the taxpayer to bail them out or give them handouts. It doesn't make a nation more innovative or competitive. This is why Obamas bailouts, which can be argued might have been necessary (though I would have liked to have seen some be charged with crimes if they abused shareholders and their fiduciary duty)l but really should not have been so broad and freely thrown around.

He didn't understand economics or business, and thus was swayed and rewarded failing businesses. That's not capitalism.

Its not capitalism, but there are problems with capitalism that require government regulation. Capitalism is the best economic system when it is properly regulated by the government. Unregulated capitalism in the long run would ruin the country.

 

[rightwinger]

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

I think the United States should increase the top federal tax rate from where it is now at 39% back to 70% where it was in 1980. The top tax rate in the United States from 1945 to 1980 was NEVER lower than 70%. The time period of 1945 to 1980 saw the strongest average annual GDP growth in United States history. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was at 121% in 1945. But by 1980, the national debt was only 33% of GDP. During this time period, the United States fought the cold war which involved fighting in Korea and Vietnam as well as deterring the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

How was the United States able to fight these wars, have large annual defense spending, pay for new social programs like Social Security, Medicare etc, while reducing the national debt relative to the country's wealth? It was able to do this by having a top tax rate on the richest Americans that was between 70% and 94% during the time period of 1945-1980. These tax rates on wealthy Americans DID NOT hurt the economy, ruin business etc. The country thrived with these tax rates.

Consumer spending is 80% of economic growth. Most consumers are not wealthy. They are lower class or middle class. Making sure their taxes are lower or balanced is important because they spend money when they get a raise, new job, tax break, etc. The rich though do not change their level of consumer spending when they get a tax cut or obtain more wealth. Their wealth is such that their level of consumer spending is not impacted by tax cuts or tax increases.

So going back to a 70% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans will provide more important revenue for the government without hurting the economy. This extra revenue can be used to balance the budget, pay down debt, increase defense spending, provide more money for education and health care.

The national debt has sky rocketed since 1980 and it has been difficult finding enough money for defense and domestic programs. The solution is a higher tax rate, 70% or more on the wealthiest Americans. It won't hurt the economy as shown by the superior economic growth from 1945 to 1980.

Why do you want in my pocket?

So we will tax ourselves to prosperity?

And the government won't waste the money this time? It will be different this time?

Not like: Social Security or the Debt or Medicare

If you are United States citizen living in the United States, whatever is in your pocket is thanks to the MARKET, a MARKET which you were born into and had the opportunity to take advantage of. The U.S. market was created long before you were born and was defended in multiple wars, and was built and grown by generations of people that came before you. To keep it going though requires a stable government that can defend itself and its interest worldwide. That stable government needs revenue that it only can get from taxes. Most of the wealth that can be taxed is in the hands of the rich.

But hey, if you don't like this system, your free to move to a country like Somalia where there is no government. Somalia has a rather chaotic environment though. Its much harder to make money there and there is a high probability of you being killed or robbed of whatever money you do make. No Billionaires in Somalia. Its a rough place, but at least there is no government reaching into your pocket. Would you prefer to live there rather than the United States?

Its a waste of money to have the country's government drowning in debt, and to be struggling to pay for defense, and other social programs while the rich live high off the hog. The rich were still rich in the 1950s even when they were paying 90% of their income in taxes. Raise the tax rates on the rich and you can solve the debt and budget deficit problems that have come about since 1980, while still paying for the defense of the country and important domestic programs.

/---/ Don't like debt? Me either. So cut spending.

We can do both
Cut spending and increase taxes until the debt is paid off

The wealthy among us have benefitted the most from our $22 trillion debt. Let’s raise their taxes until the debt is paid off

 

[U2Edge]

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

I think the United States should increase the top federal tax rate from where it is now at 39% back to 70% where it was in 1980. The top tax rate in the United States from 1945 to 1980 was NEVER lower than 70%. The time period of 1945 to 1980 saw the strongest average annual GDP growth in United States history. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was at 121% in 1945. But by 1980, the national debt was only 33% of GDP. During this time period, the United States fought the cold war which involved fighting in Korea and Vietnam as well as deterring the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

How was the United States able to fight these wars, have large annual defense spending, pay for new social programs like Social Security, Medicare etc, while reducing the national debt relative to the country's wealth? It was able to do this by having a top tax rate on the richest Americans that was between 70% and 94% during the time period of 1945-1980. These tax rates on wealthy Americans DID NOT hurt the economy, ruin business etc. The country thrived with these tax rates.

Consumer spending is 80% of economic growth. Most consumers are not wealthy. They are lower class or middle class. Making sure their taxes are lower or balanced is important because they spend money when they get a raise, new job, tax break, etc. The rich though do not change their level of consumer spending when they get a tax cut or obtain more wealth. Their wealth is such that their level of consumer spending is not impacted by tax cuts or tax increases.

So going back to a 70% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans will provide more important revenue for the government without hurting the economy. This extra revenue can be used to balance the budget, pay down debt, increase defense spending, provide more money for education and health care.

The national debt has sky rocketed since 1980 and it has been difficult finding enough money for defense and domestic programs. The solution is a higher tax rate, 70% or more on the wealthiest Americans. It won't hurt the economy as shown by the superior economic growth from 1945 to 1980.

Why do you want in my pocket?

So we will tax ourselves to prosperity?

And the government won't waste the money this time? It will be different this time?

Not like: Social Security or the Debt or Medicare

If you are United States citizen living in the United States, whatever is in your pocket is thanks to the MARKET, a MARKET which you were born into and had the opportunity to take advantage of. The U.S. market was created long before you were born and was defended in multiple wars, and was built and grown by generations of people that came before you. To keep it going though requires a stable government that can defend itself and its interest worldwide. That stable government needs revenue that it only can get from taxes. Most of the wealth that can be taxed is in the hands of the rich.

But hey, if you don't like this system, your free to move to a country like Somalia where there is no government. Somalia has a rather chaotic environment though. Its much harder to make money there and there is a high probability of you being killed or robbed of whatever money you do make. No Billionaires in Somalia. Its a rough place, but at least there is no government reaching into your pocket. Would you prefer to live there rather than the United States?

Its a waste of money to have the country's government drowning in debt, and to be struggling to pay for defense, and other social programs while the rich live high off the hog. The rich were still rich in the 1950s even when they were paying 90% of their income in taxes. Raise the tax rates on the rich and you can solve the debt and budget deficit problems that have come about since 1980, while still paying for the defense of the country and important domestic programs.

Uh.... you don't tax wealth darling, only earnings. You don't get to tax wealth.....


No.

Thank goodness for cash deals and creative tax accounting.

The government will manage to squander any money they get like they always do. Spending with no recourse is always the problem not revenue.

Feel free to send them extra money if you want.

There are taxes for property, land, estates, stocks, investments as well as earned income. Its why someone as rich as Mitt Romney only pays an effective tax rate of 15%. But the government has the power to change that and it will bring in much needed revenue to help balance the budget, pay down debt, and fund national defense.

 

[U2Edge]

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

I think the United States should increase the top federal tax rate from where it is now at 39% back to 70% where it was in 1980. The top tax rate in the United States from 1945 to 1980 was NEVER lower than 70%. The time period of 1945 to 1980 saw the strongest average annual GDP growth in United States history. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was at 121% in 1945. But by 1980, the national debt was only 33% of GDP. During this time period, the United States fought the cold war which involved fighting in Korea and Vietnam as well as deterring the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

How was the United States able to fight these wars, have large annual defense spending, pay for new social programs like Social Security, Medicare etc, while reducing the national debt relative to the country's wealth? It was able to do this by having a top tax rate on the richest Americans that was between 70% and 94% during the time period of 1945-1980. These tax rates on wealthy Americans DID NOT hurt the economy, ruin business etc. The country thrived with these tax rates.

Consumer spending is 80% of economic growth. Most consumers are not wealthy. They are lower class or middle class. Making sure their taxes are lower or balanced is important because they spend money when they get a raise, new job, tax break, etc. The rich though do not change their level of consumer spending when they get a tax cut or obtain more wealth. Their wealth is such that their level of consumer spending is not impacted by tax cuts or tax increases.

So going back to a 70% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans will provide more important revenue for the government without hurting the economy. This extra revenue can be used to balance the budget, pay down debt, increase defense spending, provide more money for education and health care.

The national debt has sky rocketed since 1980 and it has been difficult finding enough money for defense and domestic programs. The solution is a higher tax rate, 70% or more on the wealthiest Americans. It won't hurt the economy as shown by the superior economic growth from 1945 to 1980.

No. The GDP of the US has gone from $2.8 trillion in 1980 to $20 trillion today.

What we need to do is bring back tariffs, which our country used all the time until after WWII when all of our competition was destroyed. Those other countries(Japan, China, Germany, etc) have not only rebuilt, but are now economic powerhouses, yet we are still pretending it’s 1950 and not imposing tariffs to protect our industries in America.

Tarrifs hurt economic growth and are the reason the 1929 recession turned into the great depression. We live in a global economy and tarrifs and trade wars in the long run would hurt the United States.

Adjusting for inflation, your GDP numbers are not as high. GDP growth was faster from 1945 to 1980 than it has been since 1980.

Under George W. Bush, average GDP growth was 1.87% after adjusting for inflation. Under Obama it was 1.90%. Compare that to Kennedy and Johnson during the 1960s when average annual GDP growth was over 5% EVERY YEAR and the top federal tax rate was over 70%. Mike drop!

 

[Pilot1]

As a thought experiment, Id like to see someone flesh this out using an average income and living an average life with averages used for all taxes and fees, and then if they havent done this math, I'd like to see them stop imagining arbitrary numbers to fit into the pessimistic view regarding life, in general.

I've done the math with my personal situation factoring in my income then adding up all the taxes I pay annually. Many taxes are hidden, or hidden as "fees", but they are still taxes if they come from government, or quasi government. I think you'd be shocked at the total tax burden many pay that are even just middle income earners.

 

[U2Edge]

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

I think the United States should increase the top federal tax rate from where it is now at 39% back to 70% where it was in 1980. The top tax rate in the United States from 1945 to 1980 was NEVER lower than 70%. The time period of 1945 to 1980 saw the strongest average annual GDP growth in United States history. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was at 121% in 1945. But by 1980, the national debt was only 33% of GDP. During this time period, the United States fought the cold war which involved fighting in Korea and Vietnam as well as deterring the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

How was the United States able to fight these wars, have large annual defense spending, pay for new social programs like Social Security, Medicare etc, while reducing the national debt relative to the country's wealth? It was able to do this by having a top tax rate on the richest Americans that was between 70% and 94% during the time period of 1945-1980. These tax rates on wealthy Americans DID NOT hurt the economy, ruin business etc. The country thrived with these tax rates.

Consumer spending is 80% of economic growth. Most consumers are not wealthy. They are lower class or middle class. Making sure their taxes are lower or balanced is important because they spend money when they get a raise, new job, tax break, etc. The rich though do not change their level of consumer spending when they get a tax cut or obtain more wealth. Their wealth is such that their level of consumer spending is not impacted by tax cuts or tax increases.

So going back to a 70% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans will provide more important revenue for the government without hurting the economy. This extra revenue can be used to balance the budget, pay down debt, increase defense spending, provide more money for education and health care.

The national debt has sky rocketed since 1980 and it has been difficult finding enough money for defense and domestic programs. The solution is a higher tax rate, 70% or more on the wealthiest Americans. It won't hurt the economy as shown by the superior economic growth from 1945 to 1980.

US should go back to the effective tax rate of 5% that it was in 1900. I don't care what the top bracket is if it means having so many deductions that you still end up with less than 10%.

You would destroy the country with that tax rate. The United States Government would not be able to do its job and the U.S. military would disappear. Without money to defend the country and its interest, the United States would effectively cease to exist.