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

[Oddball]

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

How do you propose paying for the $4T Federal Budget?

By cutting spending.

Beside that, the income tax was never enacted to run the gubmint...It was set up as a way to deliver interest on the Fed funny money.

What part of they never cut spending don't you understand? With China threatening war, and the entitlements being the "3rd rail" of politics, defense and entitlements need to be funded. The only way to fund the government is via taxes, that is the simple reality. So please put up a realistic solution, not garbage.

Couldn't care less....The answer is always to cut spending....If you want to be an appeaser of and capitulator to Big Brother, that's your problem.

 

[Dana7360]

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.

I've been advocating this since the reagan years.

Besides the benefits you listed, that higher rate also closed income gaps, kept inflation in check and discouraged greed.

Greedy people don't like to pay taxes. A lot. So they don't take wages or income above the level that puts them in that higher tax rate. Which results in the company having more revenues. The company has the money for good wages and benefits, a real pension, not a 401k that's very risky due to market crashes. The company has the money for other benefits like health care, vacations, sick pay and can actually fund their pension funds properly. They also have the money to get through bad economies so we taxpayers don't have to bail them out in a market crash.

The company can also keep prices for their goods of services low.

When the CEOs, executives and stockholders demand such high wages the company has to generate higher revenues. Which causes the price of their goods and services to be higher. I don't know if anyone else remembers but when reagan lowered the rates in 1981, inflation and recession hit badly. Everything went up in price because the owners, CEOs, executives and stockholders of the company could make more money and keep it because they didn't have to pay much of any taxes on it.

Companies also won't leave America for other nations for higher profits. If they don't have to generate those higher revenues they won't be looking around the world for lower wages to move their business to thus America losing jobs. They also won't be looking for cheap undocumented workers here in America. If anyone remembers, we saw our jobs leave America for Japan in huge numbers in the Reagan years. He started the practice to move our jobs to other nations for cheap labor, back then it was Japan. It started because taxes were extremely lower so the owners, CEOs, executives and stockholders didn't have to pay high taxes on that money so there was a huge benefit to moving out of America and they have been ever since. if there was no financial benefit they wouldn't move our jobs out of America.

We wouldn't see such drastic swings in the stock market nor would we see economic bubbles that burst and send our nation into a recession or depression.

When you take the high level of greed out of the equation, the whole nation benefits. It causes more money to be circulated in more hands and the economy thus making capitalism work properly for everyone.

 

[my2¢]

I voted "Yes". I'd go for it as long as we have troops that per the IRS qualify for combat-related tax benefits. I'd implement a tax structure that causes the sacrifices of war to be more fairly distributed and promotes careful thought before entering into conflicts.

Combat Zones | Internal Revenue Service

 

[Oddball]

I don't think you understand the term communist. Do you consider the United States of the 1950s to have been a communist country? Nope, that was the Soviet Union, our enemy. The average top federal tax rate during the 1950s was 90% in the United States. But we were still a Capitalist democracy locked in confrontation with the Communist Soviet Bloc. Elvis Presley was still rich when he was paying 90% of his income in taxes.

It's you who dosen't understand the term communist....The base premise of any income tax is that ALL of your earnings belong to The State first, and what you take home is what they've allowed you to keep.

Communism is an economic system where there is no private ownership of anything. That's not what the United States was from 1945 to 1980 when the top federal tax rate was never below 70%.

You're not really that quick on the uptake, are ya?

With the income tax, who is it that is telling you how much they will take and how much you will get to keep?...Hint: it's not you, tovarich.

 

[U2Edge]

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

View attachment 238551

Well, there is only one country in the world where that is possible. Somalia. There is no government there. If you don't want to pay taxes, move to Somalia. I'm sure you'll love it there.

There was no federal income tax in Murica until 1913, ignoramus....So take your stale reducto ad-Somalia and stuff it where the sun don't shine.

So where did revenue for the government come from before 1913 and would it be possible to fund the government in such a way today and meet the vital spending priorities and reduce the debt?

 

[Lesh]

With the income tax, who is it that is telling you how much they will take and how much you will get to keep?...Hint: it's not you, tovarich.

Wait...having a tax system is the definition of communism?

Oh...

 

[Oddball]

So where did revenue for the government come from before 1913 and would it be possible to fund the government in such a way today and meet the vital spending priorities and reduce the debt?

It came from duties, imposts, and excises, per article 1, Section 8....Read the Constitution some time....

I couldn't care less about funding the current out-of-control leviathan...It desperately needs to be pared back to the levels it was, before exploding out of control beginning With Woodrow Wilson.

 

[Oddball]

With the income tax, who is it that is telling you how much they will take and how much you will get to keep?...Hint: it's not you, tovarich.

Wait...having a tax system is the definition of communism?

Oh...

The whole concept is obviously way over your head...Just STFU.

 

[U2Edge]

I don't think you understand the term communist. Do you consider the United States of the 1950s to have been a communist country? Nope, that was the Soviet Union, our enemy. The average top federal tax rate during the 1950s was 90% in the United States. But we were still a Capitalist democracy locked in confrontation with the Communist Soviet Bloc. Elvis Presley was still rich when he was paying 90% of his income in taxes.

It's you who dosen't understand the term communist....The base premise of any income tax is that ALL of your earnings belong to The State first, and what you take home is what they've allowed you to keep.

Communism is an economic system where there is no private ownership of anything. That's not what the United States was from 1945 to 1980 when the top federal tax rate was never below 70%.

You're not really that quick on the uptake, are ya?

With the income tax, who is it that is telling you how much they will take and how much you will get to keep?...Hint: it's not you, tovarich.

In a democracy, the citizen votes for elected representatives whom they want to implement the policies they desire. So in a sense it is YOU who decides. We elect are leaders in this democracy who decide on the tax rates. We can also vote them out of office if they don't do what we want. The United States has always been and still is, a democracy.

 

[Dana7360]

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.....

No he's not. America became a super power and the richest nation in the world with those high tax rates.

 

[Oddball]

Voters control the tax rates via their Vote, if the electorate was responsible and studied.

They're not, but thats their fault, not "because we are communists, economically."

In the US, "The State," i.e. your "scary" word.....IS the People.

Thats why we're not Communist, dopey.

Not sure why you feel some sense of entitlement to the Country the qay it was over 100years ago, and the Hundreds of millions of Voters over that Century's time dont matter....but whine about it.

 

[BrokeLoser]

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.

How weird...a filthy anchor baby whom grew up a human pet spoon fed by taxpayers wants to force good, hard working real Americans to fund lowlifes, bottom feeders and wetbacks. Who would have thought.

 

[Rustic]

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.

If you have career politicians/deep state people controlling people’s wealth and success… There is no such thing as either one of those

 

[U2Edge]

So where did revenue for the government come from before 1913 and would it be possible to fund the government in such a way today and meet the vital spending priorities and reduce the debt?

It came from duties, imposts, and excises, per article 1, Section 8....Read the Constitution some time....

I couldn't care less about funding the current out-of-control leviathan...It desperately needs to be pared back to the levels it was, before exploding out of control beginning With Woodrow Wilson.

Your living in a fantasy land if you think the United States would be able to survive with the spending levels pre-1913 or that those pre-1913 revenue generating methods would be enough to fund much of anything.

How much money do you think the federal government needs per year right now?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

let's raise tax revenue by raising the minimum wage.

 

[EverCurious]

I don't think you understand the term communist. Do you consider the United States of the 1950s to have been a communist country? Nope, that was the Soviet Union, our enemy. The average top federal tax rate during the 1950s was 90% in the United States. But we were still a Capitalist democracy locked in confrontation with the Communist Soviet Bloc. Elvis Presley was still rich when he was paying 90% of his income in taxes.

It's you who dosen't understand the term communist....The base premise of any income tax is that ALL of your earnings belong to The State first, and what you take home is what they've allowed you to keep.

Communism is an economic system where there is no private ownership of anything. That's not what the United States was from 1945 to 1980 when the top federal tax rate was never below 70%.

You're not really that quick on the uptake, are ya?

With the income tax, who is it that is telling you how much they will take and how much you will get to keep?...Hint: it's not you, tovarich.

In a democracy, the citizen votes for elected representatives whom they want to implement the policies they desire. So in a sense it is YOU who decides. We elect are leaders in this democracy who decide on the tax rates. We can also vote them out of office if they don't do what we want. The United States has always been and still is, a democracy.

No son, it's a Republic.

You claim to be a republican? Smells like fake news to me son. I don't know a single Republican who supports socialist/communist financial policies like this and I know a shit-ton of Republican's...

 

[Rustic]

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.

Why do you want in my pocket?

So we will tax ourselves to prosperity?

And the government won't waste the money this time? It will be different this time?

Not like: Social Security or the Debt or Medicare

If you are United States citizen living in the United States, whatever is in your pocket is thanks to the MARKET, a MARKET which you were born into and had the opportunity to take advantage of. The U.S. market was created long before you were born and was defended in multiple wars, and was built and grown by generations of people that came before you. To keep it going though requires a stable government that can defend itself and its interest worldwide. That stable government needs revenue that it only can get from taxes. Most of the wealth that can be taxed is in the hands of the rich.

But hey, if you don't like this system, your free to move to a country like Somalia where there is no government. Somalia has a rather chaotic environment though. Its much harder to make money there and there is a high probability of you being killed or robbed of whatever money you do make. No Billionaires in Somalia. Its a rough place, but at least there is no government reaching into your pocket. Would you prefer to live there rather than the United States?

Its a waste of money to have the country's government drowning in debt, and to be struggling to pay for defense, and other social programs while the rich live high off the hog. The rich were still rich in the 1950s even when they were paying 90% of their income in taxes. Raise the tax rates on the rich and you can solve the debt and budget deficit problems that have come about since 1980, while still paying for the defense of the country and important domestic programs.

You got it backwards, there would be no stable government without entrepreneurs.
There is a reason why politicians become career politicians they have failed in the real world...

 

[Oddball]

No he's not. America became a super power and the richest nation in the world with those high tax rates.

Murica became a superpower and the richest nation in the world during the industrial revolution, which occurred before 1913 and those high tax rates...Where did you get your perverted notions on economic history?

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Actually everything you said is the reverse of what you are claiming.

Yes, the top marginal tax rate was 70% in the 1980s. Specifically the very early 1980s. If you missed it, there was a pretty bad recession in the early 1980s.

It was after the tax cuts passed by Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s, that led to the tax revenue into the US government to double over the next decade.

By the way, it was the tax hike passed by Bush, that led to another recession that resulted in him losing his second term election.

If you want to raise the top marginal tax rate, you need to understand what will happen if you do this.

First, understand that the rich will simply move their money into low-tax investments. In short, they will move their money overseas. If you can make a Million dollars here, and only keep $300,000 of it, and you can make a Million dollars in Singapore for example and keep $800,000 of it.... where are you going to make that Million dollars?

Just ask yourself this questions.... if you could save 50% on your total yearly taxes, by moving across the street... would you do it? I know I would. If I could save $15,000 a year, by moving across the street... I would do it. I'd have my place up for sale today, and be searching for a place to rent, or buy, across the street.

Well for a person who has multiple millions of dollars, moving across countries, is the same as moving across the street. It is as easy to move wealth across countries for a multi-millionaire, as it is for you to move across the street.

So they are going to move their wealth towards where taxes are lower.

France, if you missed it, tried this. They imposed a massive tax on the rich in France, and the rich started leaving France in droves.

Second, you will enrich the politicians. Politicians love high taxes. High taxes allow them to go to companies and say "if you donate to my campaign and support my political career, I will give you a tax deduction.

And they sell tax deductions. And companies will jump on those deductions. Millions of dollars will flow into the government from all sides, to bid for the tax deductions they want. The ultra rich will use whatever benefits that the politicians are willing to sell.

You need to understand that if taxes are low, like 10%. A politician has a hard time selling a 2% tax reductions. No one is going to pay millions of dollars to a politicians campaign, in order to save a whooping 2% on taxes. It's not worth it.

But if taxes are high, like 70%, and you can sell a 20% tax deductions, that is worth $200,000 per million income... and all you have to do is donate several thousands to a campaign.