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

Discussion in 'Politics' started by U2Edge, Jan 4, 2019.

?

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

  1. Yes

  2. No

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. U2Edge
    Offline

    U2Edge Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    2,505
    Thanks Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +1,091
    Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, IKE, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter were NOT socialist. Having a higher top federal tax rate on the rich is NOT socialism.
     
  2. U2Edge
    Offline

    U2Edge Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    2,505
    Thanks Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +1,091
    Well, we know that a top federal tax rate of 40% works just fine. You can increases taxes on the rich without it hurting economic growth that is a fact. But its also true than can't tax them at 100%. At some point, too high of a top federal tax rate will have a negative impact. You want the top federal tax rate to go right up to that red line. Is 70% too high? Maybe. But I would suggest that 60% would be just fine and you would see no negative impact to the economy or the productivity and investments of the rich.
     
  3. Thinker101
    Offline

    Thinker101 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2017
    Messages:
    11,453
    Thanks Received:
    1,496
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +10,260
    Sounds good, which country are you moving to?
     
  4. MarcATL
    Offline

    MarcATL Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    21,952
    Thanks Received:
    3,505
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +10,790
    You give Hillary power over your life.

    Keep thinking about her.

    #LOLGOP#TooFunny #CLASSIC
     
  5. deanrd
    Offline

    deanrd Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2017
    Messages:
    24,011
    Thanks Received:
    2,988
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +21,612
    It’s more like corporations. Remember the Trump campaign saying the corporations at 20% paid way too much money?
    They should pay nothing at all? Remember that?
    They never actually paid 20%. After tax deductions for appreciation and buying new equipment and everything most probably played paid close to zero.
    When the tax rate was at 70%, nobody paid 70%.
    My feeling is give them a choice. Make the tax rate 70% and then put out deductions like education and Road building, infrastructure and let them donate to that.
     
  6. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    47,368
    Thanks Received:
    5,956
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +25,465
    He means 70% of real GDP growth comes from consumer spending.

    I mean it's an idiotic claim and that he's an idiot.

    A tax cut on lower class, and middle class income increases consumer spending.

    Ok.

    A tax cut on the rich has no impact on consumer spending.

    Because rich people don't buy stuff? LOL!
    What do they do with their money?

    That's why Bush's cut of the top federal tax rate from 40% to 35% did not produce any economic growth.

    The final Bush tax cut was signed in May 2003.

    upload_2019-1-11_10-29-54.png

    Real Gross Domestic Product

    I guess there was no real GDP growth after it passed.
     
  7. abu afak
    Offline

    abu afak ALLAH SNACKBAR!

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2006
    Messages:
    2,512
    Thanks Received:
    566
    Trophy Points:
    250
    Ratings:
    +1,829
    We had Our BEST HALF CENTURY WITH HIGH RATES.

    Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)
    Historical rates (married couples, filing jointly)

    Year/ Top Rate%/ Over

    1913 --- 7% 500,000
    1914 --- 7% 500,000
    1915 --- 7% 500,000
    1916 --- 15% 2,000,000
    1917 --- 67% 2,000,000
    1918 --- 77% 1,000,000
    1919 --- 73% 1,000,000
    1920 --- 73% 1,000,000
    1921 --- 73% 1,000,000
    1922 --- 58% 200,000
    1923 --- 43.5% 200,000
    1924 --- 46% 500,000

    1925 --- 25% 100,000
    1926 --- 25% 100,000
    1927 --- 25% 100,000
    1928 --- 25% 100,000
    1929 --- 24% 100,000
    1930 --- 25% 100,000
    1931 --- 25% 100,000
    1932 --- 63% 1,000,000
    1933 --- 63% 1,000,000
    1934 --- 63% 1,000,000
    1935 --- 63% 1,000,000
    1936 --- 79% 5,000,000
    1937 --- 79% 5,000,000
    1938 --- 79% 5,000,000
    1939 --- 79% 5,000,000
    1940 --- 81% 5,000,000
    1941 --- 81% 5,000,000
    1942 --- 88% 200,000
    1943 --- 88% 200,000
    1944--- 94 200,000
    1945 --- 94% 200,000
    1946 --- 86% 200,000
    1947 --- 86% 200,000
    1948 --- 82.% 400,000
    1949 --- 82% 400,000
    1950 --- 84.36% 400,000
    1951 --- 91% 400,000
    1952 --- 92% 400,000
    1953 --- 92% 400,000
    1954 --- 91% 400,000
    1955 --- 91% 400,000
    1956 --- 91% 400,000
    1957 --- 91% 400,000
    1958 --- 91% 400,000
    1959 --- 91% 400,000
    1960 --- 91% 400,000
    1961 --- 91% 400,000
    1962 --- 91% 400,000
    1963 --- 91% 400,000
    1964 --- 77% 400,000
    1965 --- 70% 200,000
    1966 --- 70% 200,000
    1967 --- 70% 200,000
    1968 --- 75.25% 200,000
    1969 --- 77% 200,000
    1970 --- 71.75% 200,000
    1971 --- 70% 60% 200,000
    1972 --- 70% 50 200,000
    1973 --- 70% 50 200,000
    1974 --- 70% 50 200,000
    1975 ----70% 50 200,000
    1976 --- 70% 50 200,000
    1977 --- 70% 50 203,200
    1978 --- 70% 50 203,200
    1979 --- 70% 50 215,400
    1980 --- 70% 50 215,400
    1981 --- 69% 50 215,400
    1982 --- 50% 85,600
    1983 --- 50% 109,400
    1984 --- 50% 162,400
    1985 --- 50 % 169,020
    1986 --- 50 % 175,250
    1987 --- 38.5% 90,000

    1988 --- 28% <8> 29,750 <8>
    1989 --- 28% <8> 30,950 <8>
    1990 --- 28% <8> 32,450 <8>
    1991 --- 31% 82,150
    1992 --- 31% 86,500
    1993 --- 39.6% 89,150
    1994 --- 39.6% 250,000
    1995 --- 39.6% 256,500
    1996 --- 39.6% 263,750
    1997 --- 39.6% 271,050
    1998 --- 39.6% 278,450
    1999 --- 39.6% 283,150
    2000 --- 39.6% 288,350
    2001 --- 39.1% 297,350
    2002 --- 38.6% 307,050
    2003 --- 35% 311,950​

    `
     
  8. deanrd
    Offline

    deanrd Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2017
    Messages:
    24,011
    Thanks Received:
    2,988
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +21,612
    The bottom line is it’s really sad. Most Republicans will let their own family suffer just so they can give tax breaks to billionaires.
    Because they believe in their heart of hearts that one day their ship will come in and one day they’ll be billionaires too so they’re just protecting their future money.
     
  9. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    47,368
    Thanks Received:
    5,956
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +25,465
    Remember the Trump campaign saying the corporations at 20% paid way too much money?

    Ummmm….the corporate rate was 35%, not 20%.

    After tax deductions for appreciation and buying new equipment and everything most probably played paid close to zero.

    Well, if DEPRECIATION and other business expenses drop your net profit to zero, why would you pay more than zero taxes?
     
  10. deanrd
    Offline

    deanrd Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2017
    Messages:
    24,011
    Thanks Received:
    2,988
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +21,612
    Wow look at that. All the times of steep economic growth and that’s when the tax rates for the rich were highest.

    Does that mean Republicans have been lying to us?

    Again?
     

Share This Page