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

[ilia25]

The point is that we have a demonstrable event showing that high taxes effects outcomes.

Taxing working hours affect the outcome. Taxing incomes doesn't.

Your claim is news to me. Admittedly, I deal primarily with big businesses, but I've never heard of taking income and reinvesting in expansion decreases your tax liability outside of normal depreciation. Can you show me?

A businesses owner hires an additional employee. That is a business expansion. I am not a tax expert, but I'm pretty sure that the new employee salary will NOT be taxed as the business owner's income.

Am I wrong?

What happens is that companies "sell" their intellectual property to a controlled offshore entity in a low tax or no-tax jurisdiction

Good for them. Now how that would help a poor guy hitting the 70% bracket? You think he could offshore his intellectual property too?

There is very little you can do to reduce the company taxes. As for the personal incomes, it is pretty much hopeless.

 

[gwennie]

Instead of giving them money....why not provide a better education?

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, but teach a man to fish, he teaches his nation to fish forever. This is what I'm talking about

The liberals don't want to understand that concept......they just want us to feed people all day long, every day, for the rest of their lives. Teaching people how to fish would take away the liberal's rhetoric argument that working and/or wealthy people just want poor people to starve, go without health insurance, live in the streets, etc.... I have an idea......if all of the liberals will write a check to the IRS in taxes for at least 70% of their income (from all types of income) for at least the next 5 years, then not only myself, but other hard-working people, would consider raising tax rates for everyone.

 

[Avorysuds]

The point is that we have a demonstrable event showing that high taxes effects outcomes.

Taxing working hours affect the outcome. Taxing incomes doesn't.

Your claim is news to me. Admittedly, I deal primarily with big businesses, but I've never heard of taking income and reinvesting in expansion decreases your tax liability outside of normal depreciation. Can you show me?

A businesses owner hires an additional employee. That is a business expansion. I am not a tax expert, but I'm pretty sure that the new employee salary will NOT be taxed as the business owner's income.

Am I wrong?

What happens is that companies "sell" their intellectual property to a controlled offshore entity in a low tax or no-tax jurisdiction

Good for them. Now how that would help a poor guy hitting the 70% bracket? You think he could offshore his intellectual property too?

There is very little you can do to reduce the company taxes. As for the personal incomes, it is pretty much hopeless.

There are only a few on these boards that could possibly be more ignorant than you. So your claim is to run overhead up for a business, for no reason other than "it counts as expanding"?

There is no way you could have ever in your lifetime had anything to do with business and how they are run outside of sitting there with your mouth shut because you got tired of no one listening to you.

 

[gwennie]

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.

Individual Income Tax Parameters
Married Filing Jointly
1971-1976
Rate
$0 - $1,000 14%
$1,000 - $2,000 15%
$2,000 - $3,000 16%
$3,000 - $4,000 17%
$4,000 - $8,000 19%
$8,000 - $12,000 22%
$12,000 - $16,000 25%
$16,000 - $20,000 28%
$20,000 - $24,000 32%
$24,000 - $28,000 36%
$28,000 - $32,000 39%
$32,000 - $36,000 42%
$36,000 - $40,000 45%
$40,000 - $44,000 48%
$44,000 - $52,000 50%
$52,000 - $64,000 53%
$64,000 - $76,000 55%
$76,000 - $88,000 58%
$88,000 - $100,000 60%
$100,000 - $120,000 62%
$120,000 - $140,000 64%
$140,000 - $160,000 66%
$160,000 - $180,000 68%
$180,000 - $200,000 69%
$200,000 - and over 70%

It would be insane to go back to those tax rates.......unless, of course, you are not contributing in any way at all to the federal govt's severely bloated budget.

 

[Avorysuds]

I'll bet the OP is just one of TM's sock puppets seeing as she talks about this same crap about ever 2 weeks.

 

[Toro]

I'll bet the OP is just one of TM's sock puppets seeing as she talks about this same crap about ever 2 weeks.

Nah, I don't think so. He/she hasn't spelled simple words like "the" wrong.

 

[GoneBezerk]

The OP is an asswipe.

How many inventions didn't get funded because of lack of funding back when Gates and Jobs came up with their ideas? You don't know because those people fade into the shadows when there isn't capital for them to start up their business when taxes are too high.

High tax rates here drive money to the Europe and Asia and keep their money from coming here. Nobody wants to pay more in taxes when they can pay less somewhere else. Only a fucking idiot like the OP believes a 70% tax rate inspires the Chinese to create a business in the USA....me just want to only makey 30% of my profits...ancient Chinese secret.

 

[gwennie]

Damned right I do. The money I make working my but off on a dangerous job that demands both physical strength and strong analytical skills is taxed at a far higher rate that the money made on an investment. All income should be taxed at the same rates. Period. Capital gains, inheritance, ect.

Cool so you're for a flat tax?

I like 10% off the top for all income regardless of the source no deductions no exemptions period.

Won't pay the bills. 30% to 35% is a realistic amount, and that includes SS and Medicare taxes.

No way.....30-35% is WAY too high, especially for those making $12k or less. Why in the world would you want to take that much away from someone's paycheck? I agree that 10%, maybe 15% at best, should be taken off the top from everyone's paycheck. That should cover all the govt's NECESSARY expenses, and then some. The reason the govt says they need so much money is because they are spending money on shit that they don't really need to spend money on! Do we really need to spend money on research about how fish lay their eggs or what plants photosynthesize at what rate or how often people have sex......it's ridiculous that we spend money on this kind of "research". Cut all that idiotic crap out of the budget, quit sending aid to countries that hate us, make people pay the Medicare tax on ALL of their income no matter where it comes from....and I can guarantee you that you'll see a much better bang for your buck than what you have now. The liberals constantly complained that Romney was in bed with all the rich people, but obama is FAR worse when it comes to that shit...all he cares about are his donors and who will pay to keep him in office and make him look good.

 

[Avorysuds]

I'll bet the OP is just one of TM's sock puppets seeing as she talks about this same crap about ever 2 weeks.

Nah, I don't think so. He/she hasn't spelled simple words like "the" wrong.

Good point. But why do so many people feel the need to cover the same old ground? High tax rates of 70-90%, I mean, how stupid do some people have to be to even "debate" about the topic when no one, not one person in the history of our country ever even came close to paying that much.

 

[ilia25]

Why don't we stop the bullshit here and tell the truth for once.
You guys want to get as much money as you can in the hands of government as possible.

BS is that claim of yours. What we want the rich to pay their fair share. And not "to the government", but to seniors and disabled, to support children in poor families, to support our military, etc.

Oh really? Then it's not necessary to tax everyone to death.....tax rates should be at 8%, 12%, 18%, 22% and 40%, with the lowest bracket starting at $10k and the highest bracket starting at $1M. Even if people's income comes from capital gains, it gets taxed at the same amount as their regular income would be taxed. Also, taxes for Medicare should NOT be capped at income levels of approx $102k.....the Medicare tax should be paid no matter what amount of money you make. If you do that, then Medicare would be well-funded. So, dude, it's not the rich who always avoid paying taxes......it's the "poor" (single people making at least $10K) who do as well. They should be REQUIRED to pay something into the system, even if it's $500.

There is a matter of rising inequality. We have a progressive tax system that reduces it, but it was not progressive enough to offset the rising income inequality in the past 30 years. Rising the top tax rates would address that.

Here is a research paper, which states 70% as an optimal top tax rate (one of the authors is a Nobel Prize winner):
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/diamond-saezJEP11opttax.pdf

Here is an article in WSJ by the same authors:
Diamond and Saez: High Tax Rates Won't Slow Growth - WSJ.com

 

[Londoner]

The Patent System puts a functional monopoly around the "profit-cows" of the private sector so they can bilk consumers without fear of competition and market discipline. Maintaining the patent system is hugely expensive and paid for by the taxpayer. The private sector craves the Patents provided by Big Government. The private sector is sustained by the protection of the nanny state.

[You can tell that most of the posters here have never seen the Lobbying apparatus up close. The big market winners invest more in Washington than R&D. The private sector craves the help of the nanny state. They have turned government into a subsidy and bailout machine. Ol John Gault loves when his bank is protected with FDIC insurance. He loves the nanny state. He loves the modern transportation that bring his goods to market, and his consumers to his store. He loves the regulatory favors that push out foreign and generic drug makers; or prevent the government from negotiating volume discounts for medicare drugs on the open market. Jesus, the fucking Drug Companies like the entitlement system more than anyone else because they supply it through no bid contracts. The point of business is to use government to open the tax payer's wallet]

Protecting global supply chains - guess who pays for that?
The capitalist wants access to cheap raw material and labor markets overseas - in dangerous places. Who do you think stabilizes the dangerous parts of the developing world? The nanny state. Who do you think makes sure that places like Honduras, Jordan, and Nicaragua are stable? The nanny state. The tax payer pays for the defense and stabilization of global supply chains.

Not one dollar of profit could be made in the Southwest without the Hoover Dam.

The Great Depression and Military Keynesianism
What do you think ended the great depression? Answer: Government spending on war manufacturing (which put the country back to work. . . which resulted in massive consumption because people with jobs can buy things . . . which gave capital an incentive to create even more jobs to capture the flood of consumer dollars)

Thanks for the technology NASA
The 1980's consumer electronics boom came from technology that was developed in the Cold War Pentagon and NASA. And what about the aerospace industry. Study the history of Boeing, specifically who funded it. Study (oh I don't know) say ... containerization or agribusiness or the fucking internet. Study who paid to develop it. Whenever there is a disaster, ol' John Galt calls on Washington to restore the energy and fix the roads because these things are essential to commerce.

Or what about the legal system required to enforce contracts and protect ol Johnny Galt's private property? Do you fucking morons know how much it costs to regulate one futures market? Do you know the expense of safeguarding over a million transactions a day? The entire system servers profit makers.

Read "The Cold War University". It's about how the tax payer payed so that universities like Stanford could develop vital technologies. It's a great story about how much business relies on Government for R&D.

Before you repeat talk radio slogans about the evil of government and taxes, do some research so you don't sound like a fucking idiot.

 

[gwennie]

And how many people were in the "top tax rate" at that time compared to today?

Personally, I would rather the country have lots of rich people paying the taxes rather than a few rich people paying 70%. But that's just me, I believe the more rich people the better, I know that goes against the progressive wet dream, but there it is.

I would much rather have a nation with a very strong middle class paying the 35% or so we pay, than a nation with 1% paying 13%. Not only is the nation stronger, the government has more money to make the repairs that our infrastructure so direly needs. Why should a person with an income like that of Romney pay only 13%, or less, while someone making 100k off the sweat of their brow pays 35% total SS, Medicare, and Federal Income Tax? Time for all income to be taxed at the same rate as that of the middle class.

Agreed....Romney should have been paying at least 40% income tax rate, no matter where his income came from, but he was able to manipulate the system just like the rest of the rich people in this country do. If they can get away with paying only 12% in income taxes, they will do it no matter what. Anybody would. So the answer is obvious......close the loopholes and you'll be able to balance the system. Tax income no matter where it comes from, except for death taxes...if people and and leave money to someone, that should NOT be taxed. But expecting everyone to pay 35% in taxes just so the govt can provide free goodies to people who really don't need it is just forcing working people to pay the bills of those who are taking advantage of the system. Stop feeling sorry for them and put them to work! Also, forcing people to pay 35% in taxes just so they can continue to pay off their rich donors and pay for their pet projects, well, that is just another form of corporate welfare.....and a piss poor way to spend OUR money. As much as the liberals would like to portray that the govt spends our money on the military, children, legitimate poor, disabled, etc....that's only a small slice of the pie, though a much needed one. I'd gladly pay taxes to suppor these people. But paying for corporate welfare and unnecessary benefits to those who could work but refuse to (or make money through other illegal means).....they don't deserve it....and that is where most of our tax money goes to.

 

[Too Tall]

What's the point of raising tax rates?

The point of rising top marginal rates:
1. Cut the budget deficit while providing enough funding to the social programs.
2. Rise the after tax income of 99% by reducing their taxes.

I got these quotes from the Cato link YOU provided.

1. High Tax Rates Will Shrink the Federal Income Tax Base
This does not mean that tax cuts pay for themselves. Rather, tax rate changes can have a profound effect on the size of the tax base, with lower tax rates increasing the size of the tax base and higher tax rates, such as those proposed by President Obama, shrinking the tax base. A shrinking tax base is not only suggestive of the economic costs of high tax rates, but also means that the government will take in less revenue than the casual observer might assume.

2. Economic Effects of High Tax Rates
High tax rates discourage work, saving and entrepreneurship. They also encourage taxpayers to rearrange their tax affairs to receive more of their compensation in less heavily taxed forms and to take greater advantage of the myriad tax preferences in today’s tax code. For example, taxpayers can reduce their tax bill by financing more of a home purchase, receiving more of their compensation as tax-free fringe benefits, or rebalancing their investment portfolios towards tax-exempt state and local government bonds.

 

[Londoner]

America's greatest growth was during the postwar years when deficits were over 100% of the GDP (war spending) and taxes were as high as 90% (under Eisenhower). **** You gotta explain to Republican that it wasn't 90% of the total.

The domestic economy boomed because all the workers in the wartime-converted-to-peacetime factories had huge money for consumption.

And what happens when consumers have lots of spending money?

Capital has an incentive to invest.

Which results in more jobs.

Which results in more consumers.

Which results in more consumer spending.

Which results in more jobs to soak up all the excess demand.

Imagine Ronald Reagan standing in front of the Hoover Dam or the Moon Landing or the Interstate System or the fucking modern industrial infrastructure that undergirds commerce. I imagine him saying "nothing to see here" because he can't admit that Government has played a massive role in economic growth. The soldiers who died defeating the Nazis worked for the government. And those soldiers were educated at public schools. And they were proud of their education (until the Republicans waged war on it, and choked funding for it in order to give more tax cuts to the top 1%)

People have been terribly fooled. The economy is based on an intricate partnership between business and government. They are interdependent. Capitalism requies an insanely expensive legal system, along with a massive military to protect supply chains in dangerous regions.

Fucking morons.


(If you put a thousand dollars in billionaire's pocket, he will leave it to his kids. It's not like his spending level will go up. He already buys whatever he wants. However, if you put a a thousand dollars in poor person's pocket, the capitalist will innovate and add jobs in order to get that money. Of course, he won't have to innovate if his Washington employees have given him a monopoly. But this is besides the point. The economy dies without middle class demand. You can hand out all the tax cuts you want. If consumers don't have the money to buy things, than the capitalist has no incentive to invest a dime)

 

[freedombecki]

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

They want to start early to dumb down America to paying more for getting less with lies, CM.

Then they can entitle themselves to more spending of other people's money.

Right now, 1 in 3 living Americans is a taxpayer with a full time job. Everybody else gets a stipend, food stamps, cell phones, rent/house loan. I don't know how long 1 person can be required to pay taxes so 3 can live off him, not to mention government employees at county, city, state, and federal levels, and soon, if Obama gets his way, the United Nations level.

It seems unsustainable and a little nutty. Ok, a lot nutty.

 

[ilia25]

What's the point of raising tax rates?

The point of rising top marginal rates:
1. Cut the budget deficit while providing enough funding to the social programs.
2. Rise the after tax income of 99% by reducing their taxes.

I got these quotes from the Cato link YOU provided.

I provided that link (at a request of one particularly fuck-faced moron) as a typical example of right-wing lies

High taxes do not shrink the tax base, unless you believe that billionaires are ready to risk a jail time to save money.

And high taxes do not kill incentives and innovation, which is the point of the OP.

 

[ilia25]

I'll bet the OP is just one of TM's sock puppets seeing as she talks about this same crap about ever 2 weeks.

Nah, I don't think so. He/she hasn't spelled simple words like "the" wrong.

Good point. But why do so many people feel the need to cover the same old ground? High tax rates of 70-90%, I mean, how stupid do some people have to be to even "debate" about the topic when no one, not one person in the history of our country ever even came close to paying that much.

And nobody was suggesting that anyone should pay 70% effective rate!

The point is that we rise the top marginal rate to 70% -- the level we had it before 80s, and, incidentally, the level some prominent economists see as optimal.

 

[Trajan]

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?

Most people can work 24/7 and would still not reach the 70% bracket. Ontario system makes doctors paying 90% tax on every hour beyond the limit -- no matter what is his income. Still don't see a difference?



There are lots of ways of avoiding taxes. You just don't know how to do it.

You are basically dying that everyone can punch trough a brick wall, as long as he has enough will. Or enough money in the pocket.

I'm sorry, but it just does not work that way.

Even if there is a loophole allowing people to drastically cut on the tax payment, it will be closed as soon as IRS learns about it.



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?[/quote]

Right were it says that the salary the business owner pays to his employee is not taxed as owner's income. Same goes true to any other expenses the owner incurs while operating or expanding his business.

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.[/quote]

I only heard of money that were earned offshore in the first place -- Apple chooses to keep those funds offshore, yes. But only because Apple has no use for those money yet.

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.

They transfer what to where? And who exactly is buying "from offshore"?

Can you now see the irony in this thread?

Nope. All I see is you making statements that either highly implausible, or demonstrably false -- no offence.[/QUOTE]

I only heard of money that were earned offshore in the first place -- Apple chooses to keep those funds offshore, yes. But only because Apple has no use for those money yet.

 

[ScienceRocks]

You really expect the man on the street to pay a 70% tax and pay $7 dollars for gas???? Yet, you say you care about the little guy?

wow

 

[ilia25]

You really expect the man on the street to pay a 70% tax

No, I don't. Read the link below:
What is a marginal tax rate?