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

[EverCurious]

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?

Most expensive place to live in the United States is Manhattan Island. In 2015, median household in come on Manhattan Island was $72,000 dollars a year. That means half of the households living in Manhattan were actually making less than $72,000 dollars a year, the other half above that. This is from the bureau of labor statistics. So $100,000 dollars were more the enough money to live in the most expensive place in the country, which means is way more than enough throughout most of the United States. If your struggling on $100,000 dollars, then its because you don't know how to manage money. Some people don't which means its unwise for them to have children or engage in other types of spending.

AKA I want to steal their money because I know better than they do how much they "deserve" to keep.

Piss off communist!

 

[U2Edge]

[


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.

Were a country of $330 million people and unless you want to stop funding social security, medicare, and most of the national defense budget, your never going to get down to spending levels you so desire. The solution is the raise the top federal tax rate on the rich back to 70% where it always was from 1945 to 1980. Then you have the money to balance the budget and pay for the needs of government and national defense. Plus the rich will still be rich just as Elvis Presley was in the 1970s and the Trump family was in the 1970s.

 

[G.T.]

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.

When a person is paying more than 50% in taxes they are no longer working for themselves.
They have become a government slave.

With NO tax deductions and loopholes...

do you think someone who would reach the 50% tax bracket...

pays half of all their income?

or...do you know how tax brackets actually work..

If you gross $10mil about $7mil would go to fed taxes if the top bracket started at $250K? Assuming no other huge secret write offs. There lies the catch.

The math is easy if you know the real numbers.

Using what rate for the top bracket?

70% for example. 0.7*$9.75m + what paid on first $250K. I am not on a PC to easily cut paste math equations. I am not working that hard on Sat. Again, if no other big deductions.

I stand by my comment 75000 pages of tax law is too complicated. Trump took step 1 to simplify but not enough it seems?

Its wayyyyy too complicated, I agree.

Theres a lot of dynamics broken in our market as it relates to quality of life other than taxes, too...

women entering the work force, which was an eventuality in a liberty-respecting Country....made wages even out to then needing two incomes to support the average family as opposed to the traditional 1.

inflation outpaced raises for the average worker....but raises for the already wealthy outpaced all.....exponentially, not just in nominal dollars but also exponentially as a %...

this is great for the wealthy, and good for them, but its had quite an effect and the only justification for it was....because nobody could do shit about it.

then healthcare costs...are a SCAM.

We are talking $40 for a q-tip, type scam.

Gross.

 

[rightwinger]

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

They have yet to provide a tax rate that does not result in the rich paying much less and the poor and working class paying more

 

[G.T.]

I just realized that a lot of readers and poster don't understand how a progressive tax system works.

EVERYONE pays the same per centage on the income they make (not accounting deductions etc.)

The first $40K that a person making millions is taxed at exactly the same rate as someone who ONLY makes $40K

The dollars earned between $40K and $100K are taxed at the same per centage ass someone who ONLY earns $100K and on up

Thats what I already pointed out, and my simply pointing it out had you jump down my throat for no apparent reason.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

Well, if few people paid the 70% or 94% tax rates, there would be no reason to raise rates to that level. The top federal tax rate during World War II was 94%. Roosevelt and Truman felt such rates were effective in helping pay for defense, fund the government and work on reducing debt. The results showed they were right. Someone was paying that revenue because it did come into the government. We paid for multiple wars and reduced the national debt as a percentage of GDP during the years from 1945 to 1980. Regardless of what you believe about people paying these rates, the revenue with these tax policies was obtained for the government and country benefited greatly.

Finally, if no one was paying a 70% tax rate in 1978, there would have been no reason or incentive to cut the top federal tax rate from 70% to 28% during the years 1980 to 1990.

The total cost of government was a lot less then. Not as money needed to be colleted.

WWI was mostly paid for by a tax on telephones and the new income tax. WWII was mostly paid for by debt. The Cold War was funded mainly by the post WWII economic boom.

By the way JFK knew that the post WWII economic boom needed to be sustain by lower taxes so he initiated a lower income tax rate.

We need to collect taxes for the few necessary government functions like defense, courts, police etc. I don't think anybody would disagree with that.

The problem comes from having a massive government that heavily taxes the people for unnecessary government expenditures like welfare, subsidies, bailouts and grants. I mean who in their right mind would want to be taxed so that some scumbag illegal can get food stamps or that GM can get subsidies to pay off the the filthy ass UAW pensions?

Well, though so called illegals do a lot of work in this country and are actually vital to the business community, especially with the labor shortage that exist in the country now. The top federal tax rate never dropped below 70% from 1945 to 1980. Economic growth through all those years was good and the average GDP growth rate from 1945 to 1980 was better than it has been since 1980. Better economic growth, more revenue for government programs, and more money to balance the budget and pay down debt. Plus the Rich were still Rich like Elvis and the Trump family in the 70s.

Reducing the top federal tax rate from 70% down to the current 39% has not helped the economy. Average annual GDP growth since the year 2000 is LESS than 2%, the worst since World War II. Reducing taxes on the RICH has NOT made the country more productive. The only result is the Rich have accumulated obscene amounts of wealth while the rest of the country is drowning in debt and and is struggling to fund vital government programs.

 

[leftwinger]

Say 20% below $101K, $70% above. How many would quit work at $100K till next calendar year (if the could easily do that, like GrandmaforkeU construction business perhaps).

If he made another $100K but only kept $30K is it worth it? This before state taxes too.

 

[G.T.]

Say 20% below $101K, $70% above. How many would quit work at $100K till next calendar year (if the could easily do that, like GrandmaforkeU construction business perhaps).

If he made another $100K but only kept $30K is it worth it? This before state taxes too.

Its always worth it to make more income, that's a bad argument. A 99% tax on one dollar is more net income than zero dollars and zero cents.

 

[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.

When a person is paying more than 50% in taxes they are no longer working for themselves.
They have become a government slave.

So from 1940 to 1980, the rich were government slaves and suffering? Do you really think Elvis Presley lived the life of a SLAVE?

They're ignoring all their write offs they had back then.

Whatever you believe about who paid what back then, someone was paying and the tax rate worked, because the country paid for World War II Korean War, Vietnam War, Cold War, went to the moon, all the while reducing the national debt from 121% of GDP in 1945 down to 33% of GDP in 1980. The country was on more sound financial footing when the top federal tax rate was 70% back in 1978.

 

[kyzr]

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

They have yet to provide a tax rate that does not result in the rich paying much less and the poor and working class paying more

If the top tax rate was raised to about 45% and then they added a 3% Fed sales tax, that would cover spending and start to pay down the Debt. Until they can actually cut spending we need pay-go to stop borrowing and adding to the $22T Debt, or the interest on the Debt will crowd out all discretionary spending.

 

[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.

When a person is paying more than 50% in taxes they are no longer working for themselves.
They have become a government slave.

With NO tax deductions and loopholes...

do you think someone who would reach the 50% tax bracket...

pays half of all their income?

or...do you know how tax brackets actually work..

If you gross $10mil about $7mil would go to fed taxes if the top bracket started at $250K? Assuming no other huge secret write offs. There lies the catch.

The math is easy if you know the real numbers.

Using what rate for the top bracket?

70% for example. 0.7*$9.75m + what paid on first $250K. I am not on a PC to easily cut paste math equations. I am not working that hard on Sat. Again, if no other big deductions.

I stand by my comment 75000 pages of tax law is too complicated. Trump took step 1 to simplify but not enough it seems?

I pay my tax guy $120 to "wade thru" that and it works just fine

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Why do liberals look at Venezuela and see success?

 

[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

They have yet to provide a tax rate that does not result in the rich paying much less and the poor and working class paying more

If the top tax rate was raised to about 45% and then they added a 3% Fed sales tax, that would cover spending and start to pay down the Debt. Until they can actually cut spending we need pay-go to stop borrowing and adding to the $22T Debt, or the interest on the Debt will crowd out all discretionary spending.

Pay go?

So you're a Dem?

 

[G.T.]

Say 20% below $101K, $70% above. How many would quit work at $100K till next calendar year (if the could easily do that, like GrandmaforkeU construction business perhaps).

If he made another $100K but only kept $30K is it worth it? This before state taxes too.

..

 

[U2Edge]

I will abandon you nitwits to your socialist graves before I give 70% because you fucks can't get your shit straight and earn money for yourselves or stop fucking blowing money out your asses on dumb unprofitable shit. Me and mine are already paying fucking 70% of the damned bill for the nation, piss off.

If your that rich and don't like it, I suggest learning how to manage your money better. You could also move to Somalia where there is no government to tax you.

Go ahead and try to fleece my fucking kids to pay for your socialist/globalist pet projects and I will have no problem ditching the shit hole America would quickly become.

Was America a shit hole from 1945 to 1980 when the top federal tax rate on the rich was between 70% and 94% depending on the year? If Elvis did not leave the country when he was paying over 70% in taxes, why would you. I seriously doubt your as rich as Elvis or would be anywhere near the top income tax level.

 

[Oddball]

No...The 16th Amendment, income tax, and IRS should be abolished outright.

 

[leftwinger]

Say 20% below $101K, $70% above. How many would quit work at $100K till next calendar year (if the could easily do that, like GrandmaforkeU construction business perhaps).

If he made another $100K but only kept $30K is it worth it? This before state taxes too.

Its always worth it to make more income, that's a bad argument. A 99% tax on one dollar is more net income than zero dollars and zero cents.

It is complicated. If Grandma expends the same labor and materials for 2nd $100K? Is it worth it to him? Each case would be different. He could save on daycare or help family 1/2 a year vs. making $30K extra?

Do high tax rates kill incentive? Dropping GDP. I am not paid $175K + golden pension to fix tax mess. I am just a working stiff below the top.

 

[kyzr]

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

They have yet to provide a tax rate that does not result in the rich paying much less and the poor and working class paying more

If the top tax rate was raised to about 45% and then they added a 3% Fed sales tax, that would cover spending and start to pay down the Debt. Until they can actually cut spending we need pay-go to stop borrowing and adding to the $22T Debt, or the interest on the Debt will crowd out all discretionary spending.

Pay go?

So you're a Dem?

Nope. I'm a fiscal conservative. Look at the 2019 Budget below, especially interest on the Debt, and as interest rates rise, so will it

2019 Federal Budget
Mandatory spending $2.74T
Social Security $878b
Medicare $625b
Medicaid $412b
Welfare $462b
Interest on the Debt $363b

Discretionary spending $1.3T
Defense $893.0
HHS $70.0
Education $59.9
VA $83.1
Homeland $52.7
Energy Dept $29.2
NNSA $15.1
HUD $29.2
State Dept $40.3
NASA $19.0
All Other Agencies $133.1

 

[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.

Two things:

1. No
2. Mind your own fucking business

What your paying in taxes is EVERYONE's(Americans) business if your a citizen of the United States living in the United States. Whatever your wealth and income may be, it is dependent on the country being able to defend itself as well as your access to the U.S. market. Its the market which decides what your house is worth as well as how much you make at your job. If you think otherwise, try living in Somalia.

 

[leftwinger]

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

They have yet to provide a tax rate that does not result in the rich paying much less and the poor and working class paying more

If the top tax rate was raised to about 45% and then they added a 3% Fed sales tax, that would cover spending and start to pay down the Debt. Until they can actually cut spending we need pay-go to stop borrowing and adding to the $22T Debt, or the interest on the Debt will crowd out all discretionary spending.

But the experts knew this 30 years ago and have done nothing about it. Frustrating.