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

[Oddball]

I've voted straight Republican every election until 2016. 2016 was the first time I ever voted form someone that was not a Republican, Hillary Clinton.

I call bullshit....if you were ever any kind of republican, you could have never voted for that corrupt prog tyrant.

The first world today is still a tiny fraction of the planet. Most other first world countries have tax rates higher than the United States. Rich people don't flee to third world countries. They remain in the first world and the wealthiest first world country is still the United States. The United States is still the best game in town for the rich and will continue to be even if the top federal tax rate is increased to 70%.

I couldn't give a flying **** what the rest of the world does...Our ancestors fled those hellholes and came here because it was different...Now, idiot savants like you want to make Murica more like the places they fled.

I voted for Hillary Clinton, because she was far more like George W. Bush in the policies she supported than Donald Trump.

Oh, so you're a goddamn neocon.

**** off, progressive globalist scum.

 

[U2Edge]

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 [sic] 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.

It was stupid of Mr. Obama, even for him, when he made his infamous “You didn't build that.” remark.

It is no less stupid of you now to parrot the same defective logic on which his remark was based.

Its the truth though. The market is what decides what your house is worth and much money you make at your job.

 

[U2Edge]

I've voted straight Republican every election until 2016. 2016 was the first time I ever voted form someone that was not a Republican, Hillary Clinton.

I call bullshit....if you were ever any kind of republican, you could have never voted for that corrupt prog tyrant.

The first world today is still a tiny fraction of the planet. Most other first world countries have tax rates higher than the United States. Rich people don't flee to third world countries. They remain in the first world and the wealthiest first world country is still the United States. The United States is still the best game in town for the rich and will continue to be even if the top federal tax rate is increased to 70%.

I couldn't give a flying **** what the rest of the world does...Our ancestors fled those hellholes and came here because it was different...Now, idiot savants like you want to make Murica more like the places they fled.

I voted for Hillary Clinton, because she was far more like George W. Bush in the policies she supported than Donald Trump.

Oh, so you're a goddamn neocon.

**** off, progressive globalist scum.

Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush W., as well as Hillary Clinton all have a lot in common when it comes to various policies. I did not vote for Bill Clinton, but was forced to vote for Hillary Clinton when crazy Trump won the nomination.

 

[Oddball]

Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush W., as well as Hillary Clinton all have a lot in common when it comes to various policies. I did not vote for Bill Clinton, but was forced to vote for Hillary Clinton when crazy Trump won the nomination.

Right....You're a progressive neocon....A worshiper of the warfare/welfare state.....Well suck a bag of dicks.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes. I pay interest.
The rate ranges from 0.0% up to 24%.
I pay about 6 different banks and the United States treasury at tax time.

You didn't mention the Federal Reserve.....those are Federal Reserve Notes after all.

These banks didn't have sufficient money in deposit accounts to make loans.

You're lying again.

They borrowed the excess from the Federal Government.

How much do you feel they borrow from the Federal Government?
What do you base these feelings on?

They get their interest payments through promissory note instruments

Tell me more.

and through my federal tax return.

Your tax return is based on your income, not the imaginary money you feel the government lent to your bank.

Why are you acting oblivious?

Why are you posting fiction?

I haven't said anything earth shattering or top secret.

You haven't said anything accurate either.
Who do I owe for the $20 sitting in front of me?
What rate do I owe them? Why do you feel I borrowed this $20?

The terms are on the front of the dollar 'bill'. The term bill is not a pun. It really is a bill. Do you have a dollar bill handy? I can get one in about ten minutes and see what it says exactly but the terms are on the front. They are absurdly lenient.

Lenient?
Like I never have to pay it back and the interest rate is 0%?

This note is legal tender for all debts public and private. That's the words I was looking for.

This note is legal tender for all debts public and private.

Yes. No mention of it being owed to the Federal Reserve. No mention that I owe interest on it.

I'm glad I could correct your misperception.

You are free to use it for any kind of debt. You can lend it or borrow it. The terms are extremely liberal and generous. It is intended to be currency used by the government. Did you expect it to be demanded within 90 days or something? Then they would have to reprint new bills. It is more efficient if the debt is open ended with generous terms. It seems that you understand all of this. You just dont like it very much. I don't like it that delicious food makes me fat. I don't like it that some people commit crimes. I don't like it that my tires wear out after while. This isn't really an argument. This is just a description of our currency. If you can explain how our federal government can constitutionally demand us to pay an income tax then let me know.

This is just what I was taught in Macroeconomics and it sounded extremely logical to me. Most students (if not all) had the same initial reaction as you. If you know something I don't then make the world a better place and teach us.

You are free to use it for any kind of debt. You can lend it or borrow it.

Yes. And the one in front of me was neither borrowed nor lent.

Did you expect it to be demanded within 90 days or something?

I didn't expect anything of your fictional claim.

It seems that you understand all of this.

I do. You made silly claims, I refuted them.

This is just what I was taught in Macroeconomics and it sounded extremely logical to me.

If you were taught that your FRNs require you to pay interest to someone, you should ask for a refund of your tuition.

If you know something I don't then make the world a better place and teach us.

I know your claims in post #313 were incorrect.

If you have proof they were correct, post it already.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nope. Didn't borrow the $20.

If that $20 bill didn't come from a bank then it was counterfeit. Banks borrow money and lend money.

How did you get a $20 if it didn't originate from a bank? I feel like you got this and you totally understand. You seem like a smart guy.

If that $20 bill didn't come from a bank then it was counterfeit.

It came from a bank. I didn't borrow it from a bank. Clear yet?

Banks borrow money and lend money.

So what? I didn't borrow it. I own it. I owe no interest on it.

 

[U2Edge]

Elvis Presley and the Trump family stayed in the United States from 1945 to 1980. Despite what you say, those wealthy families were paying more of a share of their wealth in taxes THEN, than they are today by every measure! No one fled the United States when federal income taxes first started in 1913. No one fled when they were raised to 63% in the 1930s or 94% during World War II. They did not flee the 90% tax rates of the 1950s, or the 70%+ tax rates of the 1960s and 1970s. Regardless of what you say, the revenue was raised. It paid for wars, defense, and the country was on better sound financial footing then than today.

Only a very few paid the income tax in 1913, and those who were concerned that the rate could go as high a 10% were derided as alarmists....Now we have fake "republicans" like you, arguing for a top marginal rate of 70%.

I will never cease to be amazed at the historical and economic ignorance, which drives the sheer lunacy of the statists of toady.

The country did just fine with a top federal tax rate of between 70% and 94% from 1940 to 1980. The rich paid more during that time than they do today and it benefited the country. The country was on more sound financial footing from 1940 to 1980 than it is today. Those are the facts. Also, average annual GDP growth was higher from 1940 to 1980 than it has been since 1980. Cutting the top federal tax rate down to the 39% has NOT IMPROVED ANNUAL GDP GROWTH!

The country did just fine with a top federal tax rate of between 70% and 94% from 1940 to 1980.

You're confusing "did fine with high marginal rates" with "did fine because of high marginal rates".

The top federal tax rate of 70% to 94% between 1940 and 1980 did not stunt economic growth as so many claim that level of taxation on the rich would. We had great economic growth despite those top federal tax rates and were able to pay for many things and reduce the national debt as a percentage of GDP from 121% in 1945 to 33% in 1980. I'm not saying that high taxes produced strong economic growth, I'm saying that high taxes on the rich did not prevent strong economic growth from happening.

 

[presonorek]

Why do liberals look at Venezuela and see success?

I'm a Republican by the way. I look at the United States from 1945 to 1980 when the top federal tax rate was never below 70% and I see success!

You obviously ignore the fact that Murica had basically the only functioning industrial economy on the planet until the late 1960s...So if you want to return to those halcyon days of "success", I guess you also want to bomb the rest of the world back to the mid-1800s.

And if you're a republican, I'm Lysander Spooner.

I've voted straight Republican every election until 2016. 2016 was the first time I ever voted form someone that was not a Republican, Hillary Clinton.

The first world today is still a tiny fraction of the planet. Most other first world countries have tax rates higher than the United States. Rich people don't flee to third world countries. They remain in the first world and the wealthiest first world country is still the United States. The United States is still the best game in town for the rich and will continue to be even if the top federal tax rate is increased to 70%.

When did you go retarded?
View attachment 238615

Actually, Bill and Hillary Clinton are very similar to many Republicans when it comes to policies they support. As a Republican, Hillary was far more like George W. Bush than Donald Trump.

I feel like Hillary would have got a lot accomplished. She would have been wheeling and dealing like crazy with the Republicans. Republicans could have gotten a lot of bipartisan bills passed under Hillary. She's a sleazy politicians. She knows how to make things happen. It is bizarre that Republican voters didn't see that potential but relied on a fairy tale style depiction of Hillary as the big bad wolf that wants to cook your children and eat them for dinner. I give the Donald Trump campaign an A+ on branding Hillary to be repulsive to voters. He is a business man. He knows the importance of marketing.

He is doing a great job though. Lots of good things are happening. Usually people complain and say there are no good options for president and they jokingly say, "Why can't I vote none of the above?".

We didn't have that problem in 2016. I think the two most highly qualified people on the planet to be president were running for president. I doubt we'll see a presidential election like that in 50 years or more. We are fortunate we were alive for that one.

 

[U2Edge]

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

I think the United States should increase the top federal tax rate from where it is now at 39% back to 70% where it was in 1980. The top tax rate in the United States from 1945 to 1980 was NEVER lower than 70%. The time period of 1945 to 1980 saw the strongest average annual GDP growth in United States history. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was at 121% in 1945. But by 1980, the national debt was only 33% of GDP. During this time period, the United States fought the cold war which involved fighting in Korea and Vietnam as well as deterring the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

How was the United States able to fight these wars, have large annual defense spending, pay for new social programs like Social Security, Medicare etc, while reducing the national debt relative to the country's wealth? It was able to do this by having a top tax rate on the richest Americans that was between 70% and 94% during the time period of 1945-1980. These tax rates on wealthy Americans DID NOT hurt the economy, ruin business etc. The country thrived with these tax rates.

Consumer spending is 80% of economic growth. Most consumers are not wealthy. They are lower class or middle class. Making sure their taxes are lower or balanced is important because they spend money when they get a raise, new job, tax break, etc. The rich though do not change their level of consumer spending when they get a tax cut or obtain more wealth. Their wealth is such that their level of consumer spending is not impacted by tax cuts or tax increases.

So going back to a 70% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans will provide more important revenue for the government without hurting the economy. This extra revenue can be used to balance the budget, pay down debt, increase defense spending, provide more money for education and health care.

The national debt has sky rocketed since 1980 and it has been difficult finding enough money for defense and domestic programs. The solution is a higher tax rate, 70% or more on the wealthiest Americans. It won't hurt the economy as shown by the superior economic growth from 1945 to 1980.

In that period, practically everything was tax deductible and one could create endless exemptions. So using that model, one's 70 percent tax rate would essentially be 5-10 percent. Im down if we're going back to that because Id be paying less.

Well, if that were the case, how did the United States pay for World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam War, sending a man to the moon new social programs while at the same time reduce the national debt as a percentage of GDP from 121% in 1945 to 33% in 1980?

Sorry, but the rich paid far more in taxes back then as opposed to today. There also would have been nor reason to increase taxes to 70% or 94% like it was in World War II, if the increased tax rates did not generate more revenue. There also would not be any reason to reduce those top federal tax rates if rich people were only paying 5 to 10% effectively. Again, the facts show that the rich paid more back then than they do today and the country prospered as a result and was on more sound financial ground.

The trends are the opposite of what you claim. Fewer people are paying a larger share of income taxes.

View attachment 238612

What I'm saying is that the top federal tax rate should go back to 70%. So yes, the rich need to be paying a lot more in taxes although they already do pay a substantial amount. Why? Because that is where the money is, it does not hurt economic growth, and the country is better off when its not drowning in debt and struggling to find money to spend on defense.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Elvis Presley and the Trump family stayed in the United States from 1945 to 1980. Despite what you say, those wealthy families were paying more of a share of their wealth in taxes THEN, than they are today by every measure! No one fled the United States when federal income taxes first started in 1913. No one fled when they were raised to 63% in the 1930s or 94% during World War II. They did not flee the 90% tax rates of the 1950s, or the 70%+ tax rates of the 1960s and 1970s. Regardless of what you say, the revenue was raised. It paid for wars, defense, and the country was on better sound financial footing then than today.

Only a very few paid the income tax in 1913, and those who were concerned that the rate could go as high a 10% were derided as alarmists....Now we have fake "republicans" like you, arguing for a top marginal rate of 70%.

I will never cease to be amazed at the historical and economic ignorance, which drives the sheer lunacy of the statists of toady.

The country did just fine with a top federal tax rate of between 70% and 94% from 1940 to 1980. The rich paid more during that time than they do today and it benefited the country. The country was on more sound financial footing from 1940 to 1980 than it is today. Those are the facts. Also, average annual GDP growth was higher from 1940 to 1980 than it has been since 1980. Cutting the top federal tax rate down to the 39% has NOT IMPROVED ANNUAL GDP GROWTH!

The country did just fine with a top federal tax rate of between 70% and 94% from 1940 to 1980.

You're confusing "did fine with high marginal rates" with "did fine because of high marginal rates".

The top federal tax rate of 70% to 94% between 1940 and 1980 did not stunt economic growth as so many claim that level of taxation on the rich would. We had great economic growth despite those top federal tax rates and were able to pay for many things and reduce the national debt as a percentage of GDP from 121% in 1945 to 33% in 1980. I'm not saying that high taxes produced strong economic growth, I'm saying that high taxes on the rich did not prevent strong economic growth from happening.

The top federal tax rate of 70% to 94% between 1940 and 1980

And practically no one paid anything close to that rate. No cheating needed.

I'm saying that high taxes on the rich did not prevent strong economic growth from happening.

I'm saying that high taxes on the rich did not cause strong economic growth to happen.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It was stupid of Mr. Obama, even for him, when he made his infamous “You didn't build that.” remark.

It is no less stupid of you now to parrot the same defective logic on which his remark was based.

Its [sic] the truth though. The market is what decides what your house is worth and much money you make at your job.

No, it is not truth. It was stupid when Mr. Obama said it, and it is just as stupid now, with you trying to say it. Saying “market” when everyone can clearly see that you mean “government”, and are trying to use it as an excuse for government to take a bigger share of the wealth that we work for and create, changes nothing, other than to demonstrate your deceitfulness.

 

[U2Edge]

Can you believe some of the fucktards on here voted yes on 70 % tax, guess because they do not work.

Most working people are no where near having to pay the top federal tax rate of 37% which should go back to 70%. This is about taxing the rich at a proper rate that will help the country, improve the debt situation, provide for a stronger defense and not hurt economic growth.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

In that period, practically everything was tax deductible and one could create endless exemptions. So using that model, one's 70 percent tax rate would essentially be 5-10 percent. Im down if we're going back to that because Id be paying less.

Well, if that were the case, how did the United States pay for World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam War, sending a man to the moon new social programs while at the same time reduce the national debt as a percentage of GDP from 121% in 1945 to 33% in 1980?

Sorry, but the rich paid far more in taxes back then as opposed to today. There also would have been nor reason to increase taxes to 70% or 94% like it was in World War II, if the increased tax rates did not generate more revenue. There also would not be any reason to reduce those top federal tax rates if rich people were only paying 5 to 10% effectively. Again, the facts show that the rich paid more back then than they do today and the country prospered as a result and was on more sound financial ground.

The trends are the opposite of what you claim. Fewer people are paying a larger share of income taxes.

View attachment 238612

What I'm saying is that the top federal tax rate should go back to 70%. So yes, the rich need to be paying a lot more in taxes although they already do pay a substantial amount. Why? Because that is where the money is, it does not hurt economic growth, and the country is better off when its not drowning in debt and struggling to find money to spend on defense.

What I'm saying is that the top federal tax rate should go back to 70%. So yes, the rich need to be paying a lot more in taxes although they already do pay a substantial amount.

How much did the rich pay when the rate was 70%?
More or less of total taxes paid?

How much did the government collect in all taxes, as a percent of GDP?
Are you under the impression they collected twice as much at 70% as they do at 35%?

 

[U2Edge]

It was stupid of Mr. Obama, even for him, when he made his infamous “You didn't build that.” remark.

It is no less stupid of you now to parrot the same defective logic on which his remark was based.

Its [sic] the truth though. The market is what decides what your house is worth and much money you make at your job.

No, it is not truth. It was stupid when Mr. Obama said it, and it is just as stupid now, with you trying to say it. Saying “market” when everyone can clearly see that you mean “government”, and are trying to use it as an excuse for government to take a bigger share of the wealth that we work for and create, changes nothing, other than to demonstrate your deceitfulness.

The government protects and regulates the market, but no the government is not the market. Without the U.S. military and U.S. government, the U.S. market in which you make your money would not exist.

Again, go to Somalia where there is no government and see if you can make a good living in the market there.

 

[presonorek]

No mention of it being owed to the Federal Reserve.

They didn't forget. Look on the back.

"Federal Reserve Note"

 

[boedicca]

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.

In that period, practically everything was tax deductible and one could create endless exemptions. So using that model, one's 70 percent tax rate would essentially be 5-10 percent. Im down if we're going back to that because Id be paying less.

Well, if that were the case, how did the United States pay for World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam War, sending a man to the moon new social programs while at the same time reduce the national debt as a percentage of GDP from 121% in 1945 to 33% in 1980?

Sorry, but the rich paid far more in taxes back then as opposed to today. There also would have been nor reason to increase taxes to 70% or 94% like it was in World War II, if the increased tax rates did not generate more revenue. There also would not be any reason to reduce those top federal tax rates if rich people were only paying 5 to 10% effectively. Again, the facts show that the rich paid more back then than they do today and the country prospered as a result and was on more sound financial ground.

The trends are the opposite of what you claim. Fewer people are paying a larger share of income taxes.

View attachment 238612

What I'm saying is that the top federal tax rate should go back to 70%. So yes, the rich need to be paying a lot more in taxes although they already do pay a substantial amount. Why? Because that is where the money is, it does not hurt economic growth, and the country is better off when its not drowning in debt and struggling to find money to spend on defense.

You are quite naive and misguided regarding both economics and human nature. Nobody ever paid 70% federal income taxes. The income levels for those high rates were astronomical, there were plenty of deductions are write offs to mitigate the liability.

I suggest you actually review the tax brackets by year and adjust the top rates for inflation:

Historical Income Tax Rates and Brackets, 1862-2013 - Tax Foundation

 

[Oddball]

It was stupid of Mr. Obama, even for him, when he made his infamous “You didn't build that.” remark.

It is no less stupid of you now to parrot the same defective logic on which his remark was based.

Its [sic] the truth though. The market is what decides what your house is worth and much money you make at your job.

No, it is not truth. It was stupid when Mr. Obama said it, and it is just as stupid now, with you trying to say it. Saying “market” when everyone can clearly see that you mean “government”, and are trying to use it as an excuse for government to take a bigger share of the wealth that we work for and create, changes nothing, other than to demonstrate your deceitfulness.

He's a scummy progressive neocon...They begin and end with deceitfulness.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No mention of it being owed to the Federal Reserve.

They didn't forget. Look on the back.

"Federal Reserve Note"

It doesn't say I owe it to the Federal Reserve on the front or the back.

 

[leftwinger]

You know what's really funny? The Dems want to raise taxes on the rich, except for those who live in high-tax mostly blue states who don't get to deduct their high mortgage interest payments from their federal taxes. Doesn't that strike anybody as being hypocritical?

If you are paying mortage on your primary residence you are not that rich.

But thats not even the point - screwing blue states like that was just WRONG.

You can still deduct up to $10K property & income tax total. Mortgage Interest up to $750K is deductible correct? This is median CA level.

The rich are being squeezed. Big houses, big incomes. That’s what Dems wanted? Correct?

Cat got your tounge tennis boy? I point out where rich were hit with increased taxes (DemWitted dream) and you got nothing.

 

[task0778]

From U2Edge:

Its your unverified claim that certain people did not pay the top federal tax rate of 70% or more when they were required to. Even if some of the rich were able to get around, most were not, because the government got the revenue it was looking for to pay for World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, sending a man to the moon, new social programs like Social Security and Medicare, all the while, reducing the national debt as a percentage of GDP from 121% in 1945 down to 33% in 1980.

Its a fact, that the government got all this revenue to pay for these things in the period of 1940 to 1980. If some rich people cheated, fine, but far more than enough of them paid those rates because the government received the money it NEEDED! That's the whole point.

Europe and Japan were rebuilt by the late 1950s and early 1960s. Today the true first world countries only number around 30. Most of them have tax rates far greater than the United States. The rich will not flee to third world countries. Its too risky and unsafe for them. The United States will still be the best game in town for the rich if and when the top federal tax rate returns to 70% or more.

------

What we have here is pure poppycock, from beginning to end. It is we-documented in every source I've ever read that even though the marginal tax rate was high, most people didn't pay it. From the Tax Foundation:

There is a common misconception that high-income Americans are not paying much in taxes compared to what they used to. Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade. However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes. As a result, the tax burden on high-income households today is only slightly lower than what these households faced in the 1950s.

The data shows that, between 1950 and 1959, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average of 42.0 percent of their income in federal, state, and local taxes. Since then, the average effective tax rate of the top 1 percent has declined slightly overall. In 2014, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average tax rate of 36.4 percent.

All things considered, this is not a very large change. To put it another way, the average effective tax rate on the 1 percent highest-income households is about 5.6 percentage points lower today than it was in the 1950s. That’s a noticeable change, but not a radical shift.

How could it be that the tax code of the 1950s had a top marginal tax rate of 91 percent, but resulted in an effective tax rate of only 42 percent on the wealthiest taxpayers? In fact, the situation is even stranger. The 42.0 percent tax rate on the top 1 percent takes into account all taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments, including: income, payroll, corporate, excise, property, and estate taxes. When we look at income taxes specifically, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective rate of only 16.9 percent in income taxes during the 1950s.

There are a few reasons for the discrepancy between the 91 percent top marginal income tax rate and the 16.9 percent effective income tax rate of the 1950s.

• The 91 percent bracket of 1950 only applied to households with income over $200,000 (or about $2 million in today’s dollars). Only a small number of taxpayers would have had enough income to fall into the top bracket – fewer than 10,000 households, according to an article in The Wall Street Journal. Many households in the top 1 percent in the 1950s probably did not fall into the 91 percent bracket to begin with.
• Even among households that did fall into the 91 percent bracket, the majority of their income was not necessarily subject to that top bracket. After all, the 91 percent bracket only applied to income above $200,000, not to every single dollar earned by households.
• Finally, it is very likely that the existence of a 91 percent bracket led to significant tax avoidance and lower reported income.

Taxes on the Rich Were Not Much Higher in the 1950s - Tax Foundation


The REAL reason why the government got the revenue it was looking for to pay for World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, sending a man to the moon, new social programs like Social Security and Medicare, all the while reducing the national debt as a percentage of GDP from 121% in 1945 down to 33% in 1980, was because EVERYBODY paid more in taxes, our tax rates were far less progressive than they are now. AND, gov't spending was under control, we weren't spending gobs of money on all these social welfare programs, and gov't was a heckuva lot smaller then.