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

[Redfish]

When the tax code had those high rates, it also had many exemptions and deductions that are no longer in it. No one ever paid 70% or 90% or anything close to that. Those exemptions and deductions were put in the code by rich congressbeings in order to help themselves and their contributors. Its good that they are gone and that we now have reasonable rates and a less discriminatory tax code. Returning to those high rates would force congress to reinstate the deductions and exemptions in order to protect themselves and their cronies. It would accomplish nothing.

 

[Flash]

Only a stupid Moon Bat would think that it is better to have the money they made be given to some stupid corrupt bureaucrat to be spent for them. How moronic is that?

Of course they don't want their money taxed at a higher rate. The greedy little bastards only want other people's money taxed at a higher rate.

 

[Lesh]

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. Too much too fast

Interesting note though. The top tax rate in 1960 was 90%. Sounds crazy but that incorporated many deductions which made the effective tax rate about ....70%

The deductions were largely eliminated during the Kennedy Administration and the top rate brought down to...yes...70% (effective rate somewhat lower) and there it stayed until Reagan.

Reagan cut it in HALF in the early 80s and just recently it was lowered even further.

So yea...this is not that crazy and a discussion we need to have if deficits matter to you.

 

[Redfish]

A flat tax that applied to all income is the fairest kind of tax, all income, no deductions, applies to everyone. Make it 5% or 20%, but apply it equally to everyone and every penny of income. You could even have a floor below which no tax would be due in order to help low income people. But the floor should be quite low, maybe 10K/year.

 

[Flash]

When the tax code had those high rates, it also had many exemptions and deductions that are no longer in it. No one ever paid 70% or 90% or anything close to that. Those exemptions and deductions were put in the code by rich congressbeings in order to help themselves and their contributors. Its good that they are gone and that we now have reasonable rates and a less discriminatory tax code. Returning to those high rates would force congress to reinstate the deductions and exemptions in order to protect themselves and their cronies. It would accomplish nothing.

At the time when we had those higher tax rates (that hardly anybody ever paid) the US had some of the lowest combined taxes in the world. Less that 20% of GDP combined federal, state and local.

Now with the combined rate being near 40% any increased taxes would be disastrous.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

I believe in reducing the tax burdens on the lower and middle classes because doing so translates into increase consumer spending which helps the economy. The problems is with income and wealth above 100,000 dollars. Rates for them should stay the same and then gradually increase as you go up the economic later with the top rate needing to be increased from 39% to 70%.

 

[Redfish]

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. Too much too fast

Interesting note though. The top tax rate in 1960 was 90%. Sounds crazy but that incorporated many deductions which made the effective tax rate about ....70%

The deductions were largely eliminated during the Kennedy Administration and the top rate brought down to...yes...70% (effective rate somewhat lower) and there it stayed until Reagan.

Reagan cut it in HALF in the early 80s and just recently it was lowered even further.

So yea...this is not that crazy and a discussion we need to have if deficits matter to you.

How about reducing the deficits by cutting government spending? Why is the answer always to take more from working citizens?

 

[Ambivalent1]

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.

God forbid we curb spending.

 

[Redfish]

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.

I believe in reducing the tax burdens on the lower and middle classes because doing so translates into increase consumer spending which helps the economy. The problems is with income and wealth above 100,000 dollars. Rates for them should stay the same and then gradually increase as you go up the economic later with the top rate needing to be increased from 39% to 70%.

if we did that, rich people and their companies would leave this country and the net result would be less govt revenue and millions of lost jobs. You need to think this all the way through to its logical end.

 

[rightwinger]

When the tax code had those high rates, it also had many exemptions and deductions that are no longer in it. No one ever paid 70% or 90% or anything close to that. Those exemptions and deductions were put in the code by rich congressbeings in order to help themselves and their contributors. Its good that they are gone and that we now have reasonable rates and a less discriminatory tax code. Returning to those high rates would force congress to reinstate the deductions and exemptions in order to protect themselves and their cronies. It would accomplish nothing.

They did not pay the 14 percent either that the wealthy pay with current deductions

 

[G.T.]

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.

Im sure Id be shocked, but Id like to actually see the data before I jump to conclusions.

For example, gas taxes.

Say theyre x-percent.

You dont add that percent to your income tax burden as a whole, like Sean Hannity does and says voila (ive heard him do this), its only x-percent of the actual dollars you spent on gas....and so more like 0.005% added to your income tax burden... (random numbers used).

Id like to see the actual math though...would be interesting.

taxes and fees on my cable bill is like $150 a year or thereabouts.

$150 on a $100k income is an added taxes AND FEES burden of 0.15% -...thats zero...point 15, percent added to your income tax because of one of the big player household expenses such as the cable bill.

Interest on your mortgage is tax deductible.

Property taxes and the mortgage interest deduction balance one another out in many cases.




The math, Id just like to see someone's actual diagram.

 

[U2Edge]

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

No, taxation is theft.

Without taxation, the United States and its powerful market would not exist. I suggest you move to Somalia where there is no government to tax you. See how you like it there after a few years, that is if your still alive after those few years.

 

[Crepitus]

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

You aren't gonna have a 70% tax rate.

 

[Lesh]

A flat tax that applied to all income is the fairest kind of tax, all income, no deductions, applies to everyone. Make it 5% or 20%, but apply it equally to everyone and every penny of income. You could even have a floor below which no tax would be due in order to help low income people. But the floor should be quite low, maybe 10K/year.

A revenue neutral flat tax would be a MASSIVE tax cut for the rich and a hefty tax INCREASE for everyone else.

No thanks

 

[Flash]

A flat tax that applied to all income is the fairest kind of tax, all income, no deductions, applies to everyone. Make it 5% or 20%, but apply it equally to everyone and every penny of income. You could even have a floor below which no tax would be due in order to help low income people. But the floor should be quite low, maybe 10K/year.

I don't think our problem is how we are taxed. Any method of taxation with have its share of winners and loser. There is no such thing as "fair taxation". All taxation is unfair in some form or another.

The problem is that we spend too much money on the cost of government and therefore have to raise a ton of money, which winds up fucking everybody. Either directly or indirectly we all pay for this big bloated out of control government.

The real way to have tax reform is to stop spending so much damn money for the cost of government and to stop taxing the people so much.

Of course the welfare queens that suck off the teat of big government would hate that, wouldn't they?

 

[Redfish]

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

that would be a drop in the bucket, but I understand that your goal is to find ways to punish financial success.

you could tax 100% on the very rich and it would not fix the deficit for one month. the problem is spending, not taxing.

 

[U2Edge]

70% is hysterically too high. lol its ridiculous, really.

Its still always good for a laugh to see the amount of kooky message boarders that don't know how tax brackets work, and think that the 70% rate starts at dollar zero and is the rate for the entire wage.

I wont go fish for today's brackets/rates, but it goes like this ya goofs....

Bracket 1 = dollars zero through 10k(guessing), and is taxed @10%

Bracket 2 = dollars 10, 001 through 20k, and is taxed at 12%

etc. etc....

all the way up the brackets.


Making the top rate 70% doesnt mean that all of their dollars earned are taxed at 70%, it means dollars (x-million and one) through the rest of the income....is taxed at 70%, and all the way down the brackets, each segment of their income is taxed at that bracket's (lower) tax rate.


How many more idiots can step forward and declare that theyre idiots, itll be fun to see!

That's not what anyone is saying. Were looking at the benefits of the top federal tax rate being at between 70% and 94% between 1945 and 1980. It did not hurt the economy, and the United States was able to pay for defense and domestic programs while reducing its level of debt relative to GDP. Slashing these tax rates on the rich since 1980 has led to increased debt, budget problems, and a huge difficult struggle to provide money for defense and other spending priorities the country has. Reduced taxes on the wealthy has not led to increased or better economic growth either. All it has done has led to the country struggling with more debt and funding problems.

 

[G.T.]

Avg car = 14 gallons.
a high example of gas tax is New york...18 cents a gallon.
avg human fills roughly 2.5x a month.

Thats around 75 bucks a year in gas taxes, in a high state.

What percent does 75 dollars add to your annual income tax burden? 0.075%?

 

[rightwinger]

This is where the money is

None of the 34.6 percent of our nation’s wealth is taxable. The wealthy are too smart to report more than token income. They hide their increases in personal wealth

We need to place a 1% tax on all stock transactions. That way, when the wealthy move their money around, they must report it and be taxed

 

[Redfish]

A flat tax that applied to all income is the fairest kind of tax, all income, no deductions, applies to everyone. Make it 5% or 20%, but apply it equally to everyone and every penny of income. You could even have a floor below which no tax would be due in order to help low income people. But the floor should be quite low, maybe 10K/year.

A revenue neutral flat tax would be a MASSIVE tax cut for the rich and a hefty tax INCREASE for everyone else.

No thanks

why should everyone not have equal skin in the game? Warren Buffet is very rich and he pays 14% using the current tax code. You cant fix the problem by fleecing the rich.

Under 10K you pay zero tax, above that you pay 15% on all income, no exemptions, deductions etc. Net revenues would increase and we could eliminate the IRS.