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

[G.T.]

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.

Theres lots of folks in this thread that dont know what our progressive tax system actually means...I wasnt counting you as one of them.

 

[Redfish]

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

post a similar chart showing who is paying taxes to the federal government, if you dare.

 

[SmokeALib]

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

Even a simpleton as yourself should understand the difference between 20% of 50k and 20% of 50mil.

 

[Redfish]

Average U.S. income tax rate 2015, by income percentile | Statistic

 

[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

Even a simpleton as yourself should understand the difference between 20% of 50k and 20% of 50mil.

I don't think he can. Libs get hung up on the 20% and ignore the math of the actual dollars paid.

 

[Redfish]

Lets face it, the libs are determined to find ways to punish success and reward failure because they think that's how they get votes.

 

[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

Even a simpleton as yourself should understand the difference between 20% of 50k and 20% of 50mil.

Even a moron knows that someone making 50K isn't currently paying an effective tax rate of 20%.. Not even close

But 20% is a MASSIVE tax cut for the wealthy

 

[Pilot1]

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%.

$100,000 isn't that much income depending on where you live, and if you have a family, or not. Higher tax RATES will only translate into a slower economy. It acts as anchor on people, and higher rates do NOT translate into higher REVENUE as the Economy SLOWS. We need economic expansion to increase Tax Revenue. That is why we are currently seeing RECORD FEDERAL INCOME TAX REVENUE.

Have you any experience, or education in business, finance, or economics?

 

[U2Edge]

Taxation on every level is just WAY TOO HIGH. Government SPENDS TOO MUCH. We have record revenue coming into the Federal Government right now due to economic expansion, and a vibrant, growing economy. People are working, but we are dragging them down with high TAXES. It's not just Income Tax, it is the plethora of other taxes everyone pays that are very regressive.

The United States has some of the lowest tax rates in the world. Average annual GDP growth since the year 2000 after adjusting for inflation has been less than 2% which is considered by many to be anemic growth. The tax revenue coming into the government is less than 22% of annual GDP which is lower than 134 other countries in the world. Were talking about tax rates for the rich, people making well over 100,000 dollars per year. No one who is making over 100,000 dollars a year is struggling because of taxes. If they are, its because they are poor at managing their money. The top federal tax rate is not a tax rate someone in the middle class would be paying. This is a tax rate on the rich.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

maybe 30k a year.

 

[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

Even a simpleton as yourself should understand the difference between 20% of 50k and 20% of 50mil.

Even a moron knows that someone making 50K isn't currently paying an effective tax rate of 20%.. Not even close

But 20% is a MASSIVE tax cut for the wealthy

neither is true. when the total tax burden is added up your 50K guy is probably paying 20% or more and your 50 Mill guy is also paying more than 20%. You cannot get enough money from all the rich people in the country to fix the problem, even if you tax all of them at 100%. Look at this chart


Average U.S. income tax rate 2015, by income percentile | Statistic

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.....

Instead of name calling, can you provide some data to dispute his position?

 

[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.

maybe 30k a year.

ok, but that's up to congress, the plan would work, but congress will never do it because it would hurt some of their financial backers.

 

[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

Even a simpleton as yourself should understand the difference between 20% of 50k and 20% of 50mil.

Even a moron knows that someone making 50K isn't currently paying an effective tax rate of 20%.. Not even close

But 20% is a MASSIVE tax cut for the wealthy

neither is true. when the total tax burden is added up your 50K guy is probably paying 20% or more and your 50 Mill guy is also paying more than 20%. You cannot get enough money from all the rich people in the country to fix the problem, even if you tax all of them at 100%. Look at this chart


Average U.S. income tax rate 2015, by income percentile | Statistic

But then we aren't talking about "total tax burden". We are talking about Federal taxes.

Are you stupid or simply dishonest?

 

[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.

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.....

Instead of name calling, can you provide some data to dispute his position?

I know that wasn't addressed to me, but here ya go.

Average U.S. income tax rate 2015, by income percentile | Statistic

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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

Even a simpleton as yourself should understand the difference between 20% of 50k and 20% of 50mil.

Even a moron knows that someone making 50K isn't currently paying an effective tax rate of 20%.. Not even close

But 20% is a MASSIVE tax cut for the wealthy

neither is true. when the total tax burden is added up your 50K guy is probably paying 20% or more and your 50 Mill guy is also paying more than 20%. You cannot get enough money from all the rich people in the country to fix the problem, even if you tax all of them at 100%. Look at this chart


Average U.S. income tax rate 2015, by income percentile | Statistic

Thank you for the chart. I agree we cannot tax our way out of the spending problem, but there is not a politician alive that will vote for real spending cuts.

 

[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

Even a simpleton as yourself should understand the difference between 20% of 50k and 20% of 50mil.

Even a moron knows that someone making 50K isn't currently paying an effective tax rate of 20%.. Not even close

But 20% is a MASSIVE tax cut for the wealthy

neither is true. when the total tax burden is added up your 50K guy is probably paying 20% or more and your 50 Mill guy is also paying more than 20%. You cannot get enough money from all the rich people in the country to fix the problem, even if you tax all of them at 100%. Look at this chart


Average U.S. income tax rate 2015, by income percentile | Statistic

But then we aren't talking about "total tax burden". We are talking about Federal taxes.

Are you stupid or simply dishonest?

Ok, limit it to federal taxes, the answer is the same.

 

[BluesLegend]

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.

That's retarded. Get a job and earn your own money you mooching deadbeat losers.

 

[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

Even a simpleton as yourself should understand the difference between 20% of 50k and 20% of 50mil.

Even a moron knows that someone making 50K isn't currently paying an effective tax rate of 20%.. Not even close

But 20% is a MASSIVE tax cut for the wealthy

neither is true. when the total tax burden is added up your 50K guy is probably paying 20% or more and your 50 Mill guy is also paying more than 20%. You cannot get enough money from all the rich people in the country to fix the problem, even if you tax all of them at 100%. Look at this chart


Average U.S. income tax rate 2015, by income percentile | Statistic

Thank you for the chart. I agree we cannot tax our way out of the spending problem, but there is not a politician alive that will vote for real spending cuts.

yes, you have nailed the problem in one sentence. Term limits would help. So would age limits for congress. Senile people like Pelosi, McCain, etc should not be making decisions that affect the lives of the rest of us.

 

[Flash]

[


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.

There are a few legitimate needs for government. Defense, courts, police etc.

On the Federal level we could have a great government for about $1.5 trillion a year that would take care of all the things we really need at the federal level.

The things we absolutely don't need are all these social programs where money is taken from the people that earn it and given away to people that didn't earn it. Not only is that immortal thievery but it has a disastrous effect on economic growth.

The $4 trillion a year we spend on the cost of this filthy ass Federal government is greater than the total GDP for all but four other countries in the world. If you add in state and local expenditures then the cost of government in the US is greater than the GDP of all but three other countries.

We spend too damn much money on government.