Top tax rates were at 70% when Microsoft and Apple were founded

[Toro]

And that is what we should have -- high marginal rates, which should kick in at a quite high income levels (at least 500,000). They actually encourage the small business owners to invest the business revenue, as opposed to pocket it as personal income.

No it won't. It won't cause an increase in investment. Partnerships are often taxed at the personal rate. If it is a corporation, all they have to do is keep it in cash accounts and defer it.

I said small business owners. As for corporations, they will keep it in cash accounts till when exactly?



There isn't much that you can do w/o risking a jail time. Or you can live the country.



No, it will not. Bill Gates started MS just as well with 70% rate. And the US economy was growing very fast in 50s/60s, when the top rate was at 91%.

I can tell you a secret about human behavior. For a businessman, or a highly skilled professional it does not matter whether he takes home 10 million, or 4 millions after paying the rest in taxes, as long -- and this is important -- his peers are in the same situation.

It is never about the absolute numbers, it is about how you stand relative to the others. Not to mention that many are highly motivated by things other than money. People like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs I'm pretty sure are among them.

People figured it out.

It took people 30 years to figure out the tax shelters? Yeah, right.

In Ontario, to cap costs in Canadian Medicare, the government effectively claws back ~90% of doctors' billings above a certain amount of hours worked.

I'm not suggesting a cap on hours worked. That is a stupid idea.

Yes, it is a stupid idea. But there is no cap on hours worked. Doctors can work 100 hours a week if they want. However, they will be taxed at 90% if they earn over a certain amount because the more a doctor works, the more she earns. So doctors don't work beyond a certain amount. That's what happens when you have a high tax rate. The outcome is a shortage of doctors in certain areas and fields.

I'll tell you something about human behavior. If a tax lawyer comes to a businessperson and says "I can save you $5 million a year on taxes," every single businessperson is going to listen. There are lawyers already charging clients $1000 an hour crafting ways of avoiding - "avoiding," not "evading" - taxes. It's already occurring. Jack the rate to 70% and watch that activity explode. You just have to look at what has happened to corporate taxes to see what will happen to income taxes if the marginal rate rises to 70%. The nominal corporate tax rate is 35% but the effective rate is somewhere between 6% and 18%, with a third of large companies paying no taxes over a decade, as companies have gotten smarter. That will happen to the income tax as well. Raise the highest marginal rate to 40% or 42%. That isn't going to hurt the economy much. Raise it to 70% and watch it flood out of the country.

As to your other points, small business partnerships are taxed at the personal rate. A rise in the rate of income tax will not increase investment. It will do the opposite because it will kill incentive to invest.

As for the 50s and 60s analogy, the amount of income tax dollars relative to GDP was about the same as it was in the 90s when rates were less than half that. It was also a very different economy that benefited from tailwinds, such as the baby boom and the massive deferred consumption arising from the Depression and the War. We have headwinds today, particularly debt and demographic issues, and increased competition for labour abroad. We need to raise taxes to pay for the programs Americans want, but we can't raise them so much that it drives money out of the economy.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Try a 70% tax rate in today's multi-polar hyper-competitive world, and see what happens

Yeah...they planned it that way. They won't be satisfied till what used to be the middle class works 80 hours a week with no benefits.....about like a Maylasian day laborer:

Total U S Debt


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

.........................ANNUAL INTEREST ON THE NATIONAL DEBT......................

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_(economics)
Misery Index Carter 16.26 Obama 10.75 Bush 8.11

2) Carter Misery Index that consisted of:
Prime
Inflation Interest rate Unemployment
1977 6.5% 7.75% 7.1%
1978 7.6% 11.50% 6.1%
1979 11.2% 15.75% 5.8%
1980 13.5% 21.50% 7.1%

Each Republican run all the way back to Hoover has left a higher unemployment rate than what they assumed...without exception:

Each Republican run all the way back to Hoover has ended in recession. That's a documented fact. While you're looking check the rate their predecessor left for them:



HOOVER......................1928 4.2%.......................1932 23.6%

EISENHOWER..............1952 4.1%.......................1960 5.5%

NIXON/FORD...............1968 3.6%.......................1976 7.7%

REAGAN/BUSH41.........1980 7.1%.......................1992 7.5%

GEORGE BUSH.............2000 4.0%.......................2008 5.8%

Based upon the 2012 election results I'd say folks are beginning to notice that no matter what the Republicans inheirit...they make it worse.

 

[Trajan]

No it won't. It won't cause an increase in investment. Partnerships are often taxed at the personal rate. If it is a corporation, all they have to do is keep it in cash accounts and defer it.

I said small business owners. As for corporations, they will keep it in cash accounts till when exactly?



There isn't much that you can do w/o risking a jail time. Or you can live the country.



No, it will not. Bill Gates started MS just as well with 70% rate. And the US economy was growing very fast in 50s/60s, when the top rate was at 91%.

I can tell you a secret about human behavior. For a businessman, or a highly skilled professional it does not matter whether he takes home 10 million, or 4 millions after paying the rest in taxes, as long -- and this is important -- his peers are in the same situation.

It is never about the absolute numbers, it is about how you stand relative to the others. Not to mention that many are highly motivated by things other than money. People like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs I'm pretty sure are among them.



It took people 30 years to figure out the tax shelters? Yeah, right.

In Ontario, to cap costs in Canadian Medicare, the government effectively claws back ~90% of doctors' billings above a certain amount of hours worked.

I'm not suggesting a cap on hours worked. That is a stupid idea.

Yes, it is a stupid idea. But there is no cap on hours worked. Doctors can work 100 hours a week if they want. However, they will be taxed at 90% if they earn over a certain amount because the more a doctor works, the more she earns. So doctors don't work beyond a certain amount. That's what happens when you have a high tax rate. The outcome is a shortage of doctors in certain areas and fields.

I'll tell you something about human behavior. If a tax lawyer comes to a businessperson and says "I can save you $5 million a year on taxes," every single businessperson is going to listen. There are lawyers already charging clients $1000 an hour crafting ways of avoiding - "avoiding," not "evading" - taxes. It's already occurring. Jack the rate to 70% and watch that activity explode. You just have to look at what has happened to corporate taxes to see what will happen to income taxes if the marginal rate rises to 70%. The nominal corporate tax rate is 35% but the effective rate is somewhere between 6% and 18%, with a third of large companies paying no taxes over a decade, as companies have gotten smarter. That will happen to the income tax as well. Raise the highest marginal rate to 40% or 42%. That isn't going to hurt the economy much. Raise it to 70% and watch it flood out of the country.

As to your other points, small business partnerships are taxed at the personal rate. A rise in the rate of income tax will not increase investment. It will do the opposite because it will kill incentive to invest.

As for the 50s and 60s analogy, the amount of income tax dollars relative to GDP was about the same as it was in the 90s when rates were less than half that. It was also a very different economy that benefited from tailwinds, such as the baby boom and the massive deferred consumption arising from the Depression and the War. We have headwinds today, particularly debt and demographic issues, and increased competition for labour abroad. We need to raise taxes to pay for the programs Americans want, but we can't raise them so much that it drives money out of the economy.

agreed and we are back to the gold bigger slice ( not necessarily %) of the GDP pie analogy .


a slice of fed rev. pie equaling 18% of $120, is better than a slice of 19% at $100 etc. ..

and history a shows the ceiling ala your tax behavior analogy is best at approx. 18.5% I believe or 19%...

 

[jwoodie]

Yeah...they planned it that way. They won't be satisfied till what used to be the middle class works 80 hours a week with no benefits.....about like a Maylasian day laborer:

Total U S Debt


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

.........................ANNUAL INTEREST ON THE NATIONAL DEBT......................

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_(economics)
Misery Index Carter 16.26 Obama 10.75 Bush 8.11

2) Carter Misery Index that consisted of:
Prime
Inflation Interest rate Unemployment
1977 6.5% 7.75% 7.1%
1978 7.6% 11.50% 6.1%
1979 11.2% 15.75% 5.8%
1980 13.5% 21.50% 7.1%

Each Republican run all the way back to Hoover has left a higher unemployment rate than what they assumed...without exception:

Each Republican run all the way back to Hoover has ended in recession. That's a documented fact. While you're looking check the rate their predecessor left for them:



HOOVER......................1928 4.2%.......................1932 23.6%

EISENHOWER..............1952 4.1%.......................1960 5.5%

NIXON/FORD...............1968 3.6%.......................1976 7.7%

REAGAN/BUSH.............1980 7.1%.......................1992 7.5%

GEORGE BUSH.............2000 4.0%.......................2008 5.8%

Based upon the 2012 election results I'd say folks are beginning to notice that no matter what the Republicans inheirit...they make it worse.

I won't bother to explain the delayed effect of government taxing and spending policies, but what is your point? That higher individual tax rates lower unemployment? If so, pleased explain the economic theory behind that assertion and why, if true, top tax rates should not be raised to 100%. If not, please have the intellectual honesty to spell out your position instead of relying on unproven statistical inferences.

 

[Trajan]

Yeah...they planned it that way. They won't be satisfied till what used to be the middle class works 80 hours a week with no benefits.....about like a Maylasian day laborer:

Total U S Debt


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

.........................ANNUAL INTEREST ON THE NATIONAL DEBT......................

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_(economics)
Misery Index Carter 16.26 Obama 10.75 Bush 8.11

2) Carter Misery Index that consisted of:
Prime
Inflation Interest rate Unemployment
1977 6.5% 7.75% 7.1%
1978 7.6% 11.50% 6.1%
1979 11.2% 15.75% 5.8%
1980 13.5% 21.50% 7.1%

Each Republican run all the way back to Hoover has left a higher unemployment rate than what they assumed...without exception:

Each Republican run all the way back to Hoover has ended in recession. That's a documented fact. While you're looking check the rate their predecessor left for them:



HOOVER......................1928 4.2%.......................1932 23.6%

EISENHOWER..............1952 4.1%.......................1960 5.5%

NIXON/FORD...............1968 3.6%.......................1976 7.7%

REAGAN/BUSH41.........1980 7.1%.......................1992 7.5%

GEORGE BUSH.............2000 4.0%.......................2008 5.8%

Based upon the 2012 election results I'd say folks are beginning to notice that no matter what the Republicans inheirit...they make it worse.

recessions are cyclical but nice try and they pretty much all had one in in, begin, or start near the end of their terms dem and rep both....Hello.

List of recessions in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Cammmpbell]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_(economics)
Misery Index Carter 16.26 Obama 10.75 Bush 8.11

2) Carter Misery Index that consisted of:
Prime
Inflation Interest rate Unemployment
1977 6.5% 7.75% 7.1%
1978 7.6% 11.50% 6.1%
1979 11.2% 15.75% 5.8%
1980 13.5% 21.50% 7.1%

Each Republican run all the way back to Hoover has left a higher unemployment rate than what they assumed...without exception:

Each Republican run all the way back to Hoover has ended in recession. That's a documented fact. While you're looking check the rate their predecessor left for them:



HOOVER......................1928 4.2%.......................1932 23.6%

EISENHOWER..............1952 4.1%.......................1960 5.5%

NIXON/FORD...............1968 3.6%.......................1976 7.7%

REAGAN/BUSH41.........1980 7.1%.......................1992 7.5%

GEORGE BUSH.............2000 4.0%.......................2008 5.8%

Based upon the 2012 election results I'd say folks are beginning to notice that no matter what the Republicans inheirit...they make it worse.

recessions are cyclical but nice try and they pretty much all had one in in, begin, or start near the end of their terms dem and rep both....Hello.

List of recessions in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Helluva coincidence that several Democratic administrations left rates of 3%or 4% and never a Republican in that range. If the Republican party doesn't get the message it was just handed and then do something to correct it......GoodBye Red Stuff!!

 

[Trajan]

Each Republican run all the way back to Hoover has left a higher unemployment rate than what they assumed...without exception:

Each Republican run all the way back to Hoover has ended in recession. That's a documented fact. While you're looking check the rate their predecessor left for them:



HOOVER......................1928 4.2%.......................1932 23.6%

EISENHOWER..............1952 4.1%.......................1960 5.5%

NIXON/FORD...............1968 3.6%.......................1976 7.7%

REAGAN/BUSH41.........1980 7.1%.......................1992 7.5%

GEORGE BUSH.............2000 4.0%.......................2008 5.8%

Based upon the 2012 election results I'd say folks are beginning to notice that no matter what the Republicans inheirit...they make it worse.

recessions are cyclical but nice try and they pretty much all had one in in, begin, or start near the end of their terms dem and rep both....Hello.

List of recessions in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Helluva coincidence that several Democratic administrations left rates of 3%or 4% and never a Republican in that range. If the Republican party doesn't get the message it was just handed and then do something to correct it......GoodBye Red Stuff!!

thx for not reading what I write and gave you......

 

[Skull Pilot]

I guess they forgot to tell Steve Jobs and Bill Gates that high tax rates kill incentives to innovate.

What you forget to mention is that someone making 24000 a year in 1975 was in the 36% bracket.

So if you want to go back to 1975 be prepared to pay more in taxes yourself.

I'm not suggesting going back to 1975. I'm suggesting 70% for the money people earn on top of, say, $500,000.

So just some more arbitrary punishment via the tax code.

OK gotcha.

 

[Cammmpbell]

recessions are cyclical but nice try and they pretty much all had one in in, begin, or start near the end of their terms dem and rep both....Hello.

List of recessions in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Helluva coincidence that several Democratic administrations left rates of 3%or 4% and never a Republican in that range. If the Republican party doesn't get the message it was just handed and then do something to correct it......GoodBye Red Stuff!!

thx for not reading what I write and gave you......

You know something...in Feb. 1961 I was laid off from the first good job I had and was required to take a 20% pay cut in order to stay with the Union Carbide Corp. During the last three months of 1960 and the first six months of 1961 over 2,000 of the 8,500 employees where I worked were laid off. It's not like I've read these figures in a book and feel nothing.

The irony of this is that other than Anderson(I) in 1980 I continued to vote a straight Republican ticket all the way to Reagan's second term before I made basic changes to what I believed the party was doing for ordinary working folks. I've voted Democratic three times in my life...Kerry once and Obama twice. I didn't vote for Democrats.....I voted against Republicans.

 

[ilia25]

No it won't. It won't cause an increase in investment. Partnerships are often taxed at the personal rate. If it is a corporation, all they have to do is keep it in cash accounts and defer it.

I said small business owners. As for corporations, they will keep it in cash accounts till when exactly?



There isn't much that you can do w/o risking a jail time. Or you can live the country.



No, it will not. Bill Gates started MS just as well with 70% rate. And the US economy was growing very fast in 50s/60s, when the top rate was at 91%.

I can tell you a secret about human behavior. For a businessman, or a highly skilled professional it does not matter whether he takes home 10 million, or 4 millions after paying the rest in taxes, as long -- and this is important -- his peers are in the same situation.

It is never about the absolute numbers, it is about how you stand relative to the others. Not to mention that many are highly motivated by things other than money. People like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs I'm pretty sure are among them.



It took people 30 years to figure out the tax shelters? Yeah, right.

In Ontario, to cap costs in Canadian Medicare, the government effectively claws back ~90% of doctors' billings above a certain amount of hours worked.

I'm not suggesting a cap on hours worked. That is a stupid idea.

Yes, it is a stupid idea. But there is no cap on hours worked. Doctors can work 100 hours a week if they want. However, they will be taxed at 90% if they earn over a certain amount because the more a doctor works, the more she earns. So doctors don't work beyond a certain amount. That's what happens when you have a high tax rate.

Nope -- as you just explained in details, doctors in Ontario are taxed when they work too many hours, not when they are making too much money. Those are very, very different scenarios.

There are lawyers already charging clients $1000 an hour crafting ways of avoiding - "avoiding," not "evading" - taxes. It's already occurring.

Look, there is simply no magical way of avoiding taxes beyond some modest saving. You have more deductions in corporate taxes, but they only help you so much. Deductions for personal incomes are even more limited.

And no, paying $1000 an hour will not help it either. So if there is 70% tom marginal rates, people will have to pay it.

As to your other points, small business partnerships are taxed at the personal rate. A rise in the rate of income tax will not increase investment. It will do the opposite because it will kill incentive to invest.

Only small business income is taxed at personal rate -- not the whole business revenue. Whatever business revenue the owner invests back in the business is not subjected to any tax. Thus, hi personal income rates would encourage the owner to hire more workers, rather than to buy himself a bigger boat.

We need to raise taxes to pay for the programs Americans want, but we can't raise them so much that it drives money out of the economy.

Taxes don't drive money out of the economy -- whatever that means...

 

[PredFan]

So yeah, the OP is a big fail.

Next?

 

[ilia25]

It is obvious that most of the "tax the rich" crowd have never been in a tax bracket where more than half of their income is confiscated by the government. If you ever found yourself in that position, you would make rational economic decisions such as sheltering taxable income or making tax-free investments, such as municipal bonds.

Tax sheltering provides only modest savings, unless you want to risk a jail time. As for investing your income, it is bad because?...

If you want to kill private investment and municipal borrowing, go ahead and make everything taxable at the earned income rate.

Look, if money are not invested, where will they go?

The real protector of wealth

I don't even know what that means.

 

[ilia25]

So yeah, the OP is a big fail.

Next?

Your fucked-up face is a big fail.

 

[Toro]

Nope -- as you just explained in details, doctors in Ontario are taxed when they work too many hours, not when they are making too much money. Those are very, very different scenarios.

How is that any different than anyone else choosing to work longer hours or not to make more money? People work more so they can make more. If all the incremental income is going to be taxed away, they will work less. This is basic stuff.

Look, there is simply no magical way of avoiding taxes beyond some modest saving. You have more deductions in corporate taxes, but they only help you so much. Deductions for personal incomes are even more limited.

And no, paying $1000 an hour will not help it either. So if there is 70% tom marginal rates, people will have to pay it.

There are lots of ways of avoiding taxes. You just don't know how to do it. The guys making $500k aren't going to go to the trouble. The guys making $50MM will. I don't have a problem with raising some taxes, such as taxes on carried interest. But I see how taxes are avoided now. That would explode if the rate was raised to 70%.

Of course, it's theoretical because it isn't going to happen.

Only small business income is taxed at personal rate -- not the whole business revenue. Whatever business revenue the owner invests back in the business is not subjected to any tax. Thus, hi personal income rates would encourage the owner to hire more workers, rather than to buy himself a bigger boat.

Yeah, I know income is taxed. Outside of tax shields for depreciation, where in the tax code does it allow for the write-off of new investment?

Taxes don't drive money out of the economy -- whatever that means...

It will drive money offshore, just like corporations do now, corporations that include Microsoft and Apple. That's another reason why this thread fails. Microsoft and Apple both use offshore tax havens to avoid paying US corporate tax. They transfer their intellectual property through Ireland to Bermuda so that customers buying their product are doing so from offshore, tax-free entities, lowering their tax bill.

Can you now see the irony in this thread?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I guess they forgot to tell Steve Jobs and Bill Gates that high tax rates kill incentives to innovate.

Yes! The government needs to take more of our income.
That will make people work harder.

 

[Avorysuds]

Link to any person in American history that paid 70% taxes.

That's right, this thread is made for the stupid libs on these boards.

 

[Charles_Main]

I guess they forgot to tell Steve Jobs and Bill Gates that high tax rates kill incentives to innovate.

Every couple of weeks one of you left wing assholes finally does somr actually research and find out tax rates used to be that high and think you are having a light bulb Moment nobody else ever had. You think you have found the proof high taxes don't kill jobs.

You always fail to look at the details. What Deductions and Credits and loop holes existed then. How much in effective taxes did the Top Rate actually end up paying when rates were that high?

Answer about 38%.

Do you know what we the American people were promised when the 17th Amendment was being shoved down our throats? We were promised if we passed this new "income tax" that it would never ever exceed 3%.

lol

 

[Charles_Main]

I guess they forgot to tell Steve Jobs and Bill Gates that high tax rates kill incentives to innovate.

Yes! The government needs to take more of our income.
That will make people work harder.

The OP is a brainless twit. Apple didn't ever pay the 70% individual Rate, they paid as a Corporation. Jobs paid mostly Cap Gains taxes on his Personal Taxes. Which of course was never anywhere near 70%.

OP FAIL.

 

[ilia25]

Link to any person in American history that paid 70% taxes.

Link to me implying that someone had.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Seriously our educational system should be based on
Reading, writing, math, science and economics.

and maybe a logic class


Anything else is a waste of time. I say Economics and logic because the left on this board don't have any clue of those important concepts.