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

[U2Edge]

Of course you're willing to "vote".
You have no balls.

I think he's got balls. Or she, whatever. But he/she definitely has no brains, to say that a 70% top marginal tax rate would not hurt economic growth is crazy. The French tried it a few years back under Hollande and it was an abject failure that had to be rolled back.

FACT: top federal tax rate was over 70% in the 1960s. Average GDP growth in the 1960s was over 5%.

FACT" top federal tax rate since the year 2000 as been less than 40%. Average GDP growth since the year 2000 has been LESS THAN 2%.

So, does increasing the top federal tax rate on the rich hurt economic growth? NO Does cutting the top federal tax rate on the rich increase economic growth? NO

Come try and take what you want from me....

I don't want anything from you, I want the government to enact a tax policy where the top federal tax rate goes back to 70%.

LOL, good luck.You'll NEED weapons to get a 70% rate.....you would suck AOC's toes. You are sick.

Truman got a 92% rate during the Korean War. Did not use any weapons to do it. Again the top federal rate for taxes was above 70% from 1940 to 1980. No weapons needed to get that rate either.

 

[Ambivalent1]

I think he's got balls. Or she, whatever. But he/she definitely has no brains, to say that a 70% top marginal tax rate would not hurt economic growth is crazy. The French tried it a few years back under Hollande and it was an abject failure that had to be rolled back.

FACT: top federal tax rate was over 70% in the 1960s. Average GDP growth in the 1960s was over 5%.

FACT" top federal tax rate since the year 2000 as been less than 40%. Average GDP growth since the year 2000 has been LESS THAN 2%.

So, does increasing the top federal tax rate on the rich hurt economic growth? NO Does cutting the top federal tax rate on the rich increase economic growth? NO

Come try and take what you want from me....

I don't want anything from you, I want the government to enact a tax policy where the top federal tax rate goes back to 70%.

LOL, good luck.You'll NEED weapons to get a 70% rate.....you would suck AOC's toes. You are sick.

Truman got a 92% rate during the Korean War. Did not use any weapons to do it. Again the top federal rate for taxes was above 70% from 1940 to 1980. No weapons needed to get that rate either.

I'm inviting YOU to try and take what you want from me.
No?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm willing to vote to have the government increase the top federal tax rate back to 70% because I think it will put the country on more sound financial footing and help to pay for a lot of the country's spending priorities while also not hurting economic growth.

Of course you're willing to "vote".
You have no balls.

I think he's got balls. Or she, whatever. But he/she definitely has no brains, to say that a 70% top marginal tax rate would not hurt economic growth is crazy. The French tried it a few years back under Hollande and it was an abject failure that had to be rolled back.

FACT: top federal tax rate was over 70% in the 1960s. Average GDP growth in the 1960s was over 5%.

FACT" top federal tax rate since the year 2000 as been less than 40%. Average GDP growth since the year 2000 has been LESS THAN 2%.

So, does increasing the top federal tax rate on the rich hurt economic growth? NO Does cutting the top federal tax rate on the rich increase economic growth? NO

So, does increasing the top federal tax rate on the rich hurt economic growth?

Yes, raising the top rate would hurt growth and wouldn't raise nearly the revenue you feel it would.

Well, that's false given the top federal tax rates from 1940 to 1980 were above 70% and the economy grew faster during that time period than it has since 1980.

You think tax rates are the only factor that is different today compared to 1980? Compared to 1940?

 

[U2Edge]

Of course you're willing to "vote".
You have no balls.

I think he's got balls. Or she, whatever. But he/she definitely has no brains, to say that a 70% top marginal tax rate would not hurt economic growth is crazy. The French tried it a few years back under Hollande and it was an abject failure that had to be rolled back.

FACT: top federal tax rate was over 70% in the 1960s. Average GDP growth in the 1960s was over 5%.

FACT" top federal tax rate since the year 2000 as been less than 40%. Average GDP growth since the year 2000 has been LESS THAN 2%.

So, does increasing the top federal tax rate on the rich hurt economic growth? NO Does cutting the top federal tax rate on the rich increase economic growth? NO

You blithering babbling moron. NOBODY paid that rate on their incomes. They had more tax deductions and exemptions.

Well, then no one should mind going back to those rates.

You are a babbling fool. We don't have the deductions and exemptions they had back when those rates were in effect. And your advocacy for the increase does not include restoring them.


View attachment 238630

So what. The government can get more money out of rich without hurting the economy. It will benefit the rest of the country. Its good policy and should be implemented. It will help pay down the national debt and provide for vital government programs including national defense. The rich are living high off the hog. A higher top federal tax rate is coming whether you like it or not. There is simply no other solution.

 

[boedicca]

I think he's got balls. Or she, whatever. But he/she definitely has no brains, to say that a 70% top marginal tax rate would not hurt economic growth is crazy. The French tried it a few years back under Hollande and it was an abject failure that had to be rolled back.

FACT: top federal tax rate was over 70% in the 1960s. Average GDP growth in the 1960s was over 5%.

FACT" top federal tax rate since the year 2000 as been less than 40%. Average GDP growth since the year 2000 has been LESS THAN 2%.

So, does increasing the top federal tax rate on the rich hurt economic growth? NO Does cutting the top federal tax rate on the rich increase economic growth? NO

Come try and take what you want from me....

I don't want anything from you, I want the government to enact a tax policy where the top federal tax rate goes back to 70%.

LOL, good luck.You'll NEED weapons to get a 70% rate.....you would suck AOC's toes. You are sick.

Truman got a 92% rate during the Korean War. Did not use any weapons to do it. Again the top federal rate for taxes was above 70% from 1940 to 1980. No weapons needed to get that rate either.

Could you possibly by more ignorant?

That top 92% rate applied to income over $1.9M in today's dollars. Very few people in 1952 made that type of income.

What high taxes have done is to cause the very wealthy to set up tax shelters and trusts which are exempt from tax.

 

[boedicca]

I think he's got balls. Or she, whatever. But he/she definitely has no brains, to say that a 70% top marginal tax rate would not hurt economic growth is crazy. The French tried it a few years back under Hollande and it was an abject failure that had to be rolled back.

FACT: top federal tax rate was over 70% in the 1960s. Average GDP growth in the 1960s was over 5%.

FACT" top federal tax rate since the year 2000 as been less than 40%. Average GDP growth since the year 2000 has been LESS THAN 2%.

So, does increasing the top federal tax rate on the rich hurt economic growth? NO Does cutting the top federal tax rate on the rich increase economic growth? NO

You blithering babbling moron. NOBODY paid that rate on their incomes. They had more tax deductions and exemptions.

Well, then no one should mind going back to those rates.

You are a babbling fool. We don't have the deductions and exemptions they had back when those rates were in effect. And your advocacy for the increase does not include restoring them.


View attachment 238630

So what. The government can get more money out of rich without hurting the economy. It will benefit the rest of the country. Its good policy and should be implemented. It will help pay down the national debt and provide for vital government programs including national defense. The rich are living high off the hog. A higher top federal tax rate is coming whether you like it or not. There is simply no other solution.

You clearly have never had job, owned a home or business, or paid taxes.

But thanks for playing!

 

[U2Edge]

Of course you're willing to "vote".
You have no balls.

I think he's got balls. Or she, whatever. But he/she definitely has no brains, to say that a 70% top marginal tax rate would not hurt economic growth is crazy. The French tried it a few years back under Hollande and it was an abject failure that had to be rolled back.

FACT: top federal tax rate was over 70% in the 1960s. Average GDP growth in the 1960s was over 5%.

FACT" top federal tax rate since the year 2000 as been less than 40%. Average GDP growth since the year 2000 has been LESS THAN 2%.

So, does increasing the top federal tax rate on the rich hurt economic growth? NO Does cutting the top federal tax rate on the rich increase economic growth? NO

So, does increasing the top federal tax rate on the rich hurt economic growth?

Yes, raising the top rate would hurt growth and wouldn't raise nearly the revenue you feel it would.

Well, that's false given the top federal tax rates from 1940 to 1980 were above 70% and the economy grew faster during that time period than it has since 1980.

You think tax rates are the only factor that is different today compared to 1980? Compared to 1940?

No, but I think a return to such tax policies will definitely help the country. A big increase in the top federal tax rate is bound to happen at some point in the future. Its just a matter of time and gaining enough political support. The country is facing mounting financial burdens. The country club has lived high of the hogg since the 1980s. Those days are coming to an end whether they like it or not. Too few of them, to many of everyone else. The political support will be there eventually.

 

[U2Edge]

FACT: top federal tax rate was over 70% in the 1960s. Average GDP growth in the 1960s was over 5%.

FACT" top federal tax rate since the year 2000 as been less than 40%. Average GDP growth since the year 2000 has been LESS THAN 2%.

So, does increasing the top federal tax rate on the rich hurt economic growth? NO Does cutting the top federal tax rate on the rich increase economic growth? NO

You blithering babbling moron. NOBODY paid that rate on their incomes. They had more tax deductions and exemptions.

Well, then no one should mind going back to those rates.

You are a babbling fool. We don't have the deductions and exemptions they had back when those rates were in effect. And your advocacy for the increase does not include restoring them.


View attachment 238630

So what. The government can get more money out of rich without hurting the economy. It will benefit the rest of the country. Its good policy and should be implemented. It will help pay down the national debt and provide for vital government programs including national defense. The rich are living high off the hog. A higher top federal tax rate is coming whether you like it or not. There is simply no other solution.

You clearly have never had job, owned a home or business, or paid taxes.

But thanks for playing!

Yep, I guess that guy Warren Buffet has not either since he supports the same tax policy.

 

[Ambivalent1]

I think he's got balls. Or she, whatever. But he/she definitely has no brains, to say that a 70% top marginal tax rate would not hurt economic growth is crazy. The French tried it a few years back under Hollande and it was an abject failure that had to be rolled back.

FACT: top federal tax rate was over 70% in the 1960s. Average GDP growth in the 1960s was over 5%.

FACT" top federal tax rate since the year 2000 as been less than 40%. Average GDP growth since the year 2000 has been LESS THAN 2%.

So, does increasing the top federal tax rate on the rich hurt economic growth? NO Does cutting the top federal tax rate on the rich increase economic growth? NO

So, does increasing the top federal tax rate on the rich hurt economic growth?

Yes, raising the top rate would hurt growth and wouldn't raise nearly the revenue you feel it would.

Well, that's false given the top federal tax rates from 1940 to 1980 were above 70% and the economy grew faster during that time period than it has since 1980.

You think tax rates are the only factor that is different today compared to 1980? Compared to 1940?

No, but I think a return to such tax policies will definitely help the country. A big increase in the top federal tax rate is bound to happen at some point in the future. Its just a matter of time and gaining enough political support. The country is facing mounting financial burdens. The country club has lived high of the hogg since the 1980s. Those days are coming to an end whether they like it or not. Too few of them, to many of everyone else. The political support will be there eventually.

I'm guessing you NEED Gov coercion to get what you want.....

 

[boedicca]

You blithering babbling moron. NOBODY paid that rate on their incomes. They had more tax deductions and exemptions.

Well, then no one should mind going back to those rates.

You are a babbling fool. We don't have the deductions and exemptions they had back when those rates were in effect. And your advocacy for the increase does not include restoring them.


View attachment 238630

So what. The government can get more money out of rich without hurting the economy. It will benefit the rest of the country. Its good policy and should be implemented. It will help pay down the national debt and provide for vital government programs including national defense. The rich are living high off the hog. A higher top federal tax rate is coming whether you like it or not. There is simply no other solution.

You clearly have never had job, owned a home or business, or paid taxes.

But thanks for playing!

Yep, I guess that guy Warren Buffet has not either since he supports the same tax policy.

Of course he does! Buffet makes his money from CAPITAL GAINS (maximum rate of 20%) not regular income. It's very easy for him to promote increased income taxes because he doesn't intend to be subject to them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think he's got balls. Or she, whatever. But he/she definitely has no brains, to say that a 70% top marginal tax rate would not hurt economic growth is crazy. The French tried it a few years back under Hollande and it was an abject failure that had to be rolled back.

FACT: top federal tax rate was over 70% in the 1960s. Average GDP growth in the 1960s was over 5%.

FACT" top federal tax rate since the year 2000 as been less than 40%. Average GDP growth since the year 2000 has been LESS THAN 2%.

So, does increasing the top federal tax rate on the rich hurt economic growth? NO Does cutting the top federal tax rate on the rich increase economic growth? NO

So, does increasing the top federal tax rate on the rich hurt economic growth?

Yes, raising the top rate would hurt growth and wouldn't raise nearly the revenue you feel it would.

Well, that's false given the top federal tax rates from 1940 to 1980 were above 70% and the economy grew faster during that time period than it has since 1980.

You think tax rates are the only factor that is different today compared to 1980? Compared to 1940?

No, but I think a return to such tax policies will definitely help the country. A big increase in the top federal tax rate is bound to happen at some point in the future. Its just a matter of time and gaining enough political support. The country is facing mounting financial burdens. The country club has lived high of the hogg since the 1980s. Those days are coming to an end whether they like it or not. Too few of them, to many of everyone else. The political support will be there eventually.

No, but I think a return to such tax policies will definitely help the country.

Great. If we left everything else the same and raised the tax rate on income over $500,000 to 70%,
how much extra GDP growth would we get? Show all your work.

 

[Ambivalent1]

FACT: top federal tax rate was over 70% in the 1960s. Average GDP growth in the 1960s was over 5%.

FACT" top federal tax rate since the year 2000 as been less than 40%. Average GDP growth since the year 2000 has been LESS THAN 2%.

So, does increasing the top federal tax rate on the rich hurt economic growth? NO Does cutting the top federal tax rate on the rich increase economic growth? NO

Come try and take what you want from me....

I don't want anything from you, I want the government to enact a tax policy where the top federal tax rate goes back to 70%.

LOL, good luck.You'll NEED weapons to get a 70% rate.....you would suck AOC's toes. You are sick.

Truman got a 92% rate during the Korean War. Did not use any weapons to do it. Again the top federal rate for taxes was above 70% from 1940 to 1980. No weapons needed to get that rate either.

I'm inviting YOU to try and take what you want from me.
No?

Old Yeller yeller

You a coward also kid?

 

[U2Edge]

FACT: top federal tax rate was over 70% in the 1960s. Average GDP growth in the 1960s was over 5%.

FACT" top federal tax rate since the year 2000 as been less than 40%. Average GDP growth since the year 2000 has been LESS THAN 2%.

So, does increasing the top federal tax rate on the rich hurt economic growth? NO Does cutting the top federal tax rate on the rich increase economic growth? NO

Come try and take what you want from me....

I don't want anything from you, I want the government to enact a tax policy where the top federal tax rate goes back to 70%.

LOL, good luck.You'll NEED weapons to get a 70% rate.....you would suck AOC's toes. You are sick.

Truman got a 92% rate during the Korean War. Did not use any weapons to do it. Again the top federal rate for taxes was above 70% from 1940 to 1980. No weapons needed to get that rate either.

Could you possibly by more ignorant?

That top 92% rate applied to income over $1.9M in today's dollars. Very few people in 1952 made that type of income.

What high taxes have done is to cause the very wealthy to set up tax shelters and trusts which are exempt from tax.

Enough made that type of income that Truman raised the tax rate and paid directly for the Korean War instead of borrowing! Guess what. It worked. The Korean war is the only war in U.S. history besides the Gulf War where the United States did not borrow money to pay for it. It was paid directly by taxes that were raised by Truman! The money was there, it was taxed and was enough to pay for the war and it did not hurt the economy.

 

[boedicca]

Come try and take what you want from me....

I don't want anything from you, I want the government to enact a tax policy where the top federal tax rate goes back to 70%.

LOL, good luck.You'll NEED weapons to get a 70% rate.....you would suck AOC's toes. You are sick.

Truman got a 92% rate during the Korean War. Did not use any weapons to do it. Again the top federal rate for taxes was above 70% from 1940 to 1980. No weapons needed to get that rate either.

Could you possibly by more ignorant?

That top 92% rate applied to income over $1.9M in today's dollars. Very few people in 1952 made that type of income.

What high taxes have done is to cause the very wealthy to set up tax shelters and trusts which are exempt from tax.

Enough made that type of income that Truman raised the tax rate and paid directly for the Korean War instead of borrowing! Guess what. It worked. The Korean war is the only war in U.S. history besides the Gulf War where the United States did not borrow money to pay for it. It was paid directly by taxes that were raised by Truman! The money was there, it was taxed and was enough to pay for the war and it did not hurt the economy.

The Dems cut taxes after WWII and economic growth paid for the Korean War.

But thanks for playing!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You blithering babbling moron. NOBODY paid that rate on their incomes. They had more tax deductions and exemptions.

Well, then no one should mind going back to those rates.

You are a babbling fool. We don't have the deductions and exemptions they had back when those rates were in effect. And your advocacy for the increase does not include restoring them.


View attachment 238630

So what. The government can get more money out of rich without hurting the economy. It will benefit the rest of the country. Its good policy and should be implemented. It will help pay down the national debt and provide for vital government programs including national defense. The rich are living high off the hog. A higher top federal tax rate is coming whether you like it or not. There is simply no other solution.

You clearly have never had job, owned a home or business, or paid taxes.

But thanks for playing!

Yep, I guess that guy Warren Buffet has not either since he supports the same tax policy.

Why does he need to support a new policy?
If he thinks he should pay more to the government, he can simply cut a check.

It's weird though, that by giving billions to charity, he's actually paying zero to the government.
I guess we should look at his actions more than his words.

 

[U2Edge]

FACT: top federal tax rate was over 70% in the 1960s. Average GDP growth in the 1960s was over 5%.

FACT" top federal tax rate since the year 2000 as been less than 40%. Average GDP growth since the year 2000 has been LESS THAN 2%.

So, does increasing the top federal tax rate on the rich hurt economic growth? NO Does cutting the top federal tax rate on the rich increase economic growth? NO

So, does increasing the top federal tax rate on the rich hurt economic growth?

Yes, raising the top rate would hurt growth and wouldn't raise nearly the revenue you feel it would.

Well, that's false given the top federal tax rates from 1940 to 1980 were above 70% and the economy grew faster during that time period than it has since 1980.

You think tax rates are the only factor that is different today compared to 1980? Compared to 1940?

No, but I think a return to such tax policies will definitely help the country. A big increase in the top federal tax rate is bound to happen at some point in the future. Its just a matter of time and gaining enough political support. The country is facing mounting financial burdens. The country club has lived high of the hogg since the 1980s. Those days are coming to an end whether they like it or not. Too few of them, to many of everyone else. The political support will be there eventually.

No, but I think a return to such tax policies will definitely help the country.

Great. If we left everything else the same and raised the tax rate on income over $500,000 to 70%,
how much extra GDP growth would we get? Show all your work.

I NEVER said it would increase GDP growth, just that it would not hurt it. Having the top federal rate at 37% has certainly NOT helped GDP growth as seen by the anemic annual GDP growth rates of 1.87% under George W. Bush and 1.90% under Barack Obama.

 

[U2Edge]

Well, then no one should mind going back to those rates.

You are a babbling fool. We don't have the deductions and exemptions they had back when those rates were in effect. And your advocacy for the increase does not include restoring them.


View attachment 238630

So what. The government can get more money out of rich without hurting the economy. It will benefit the rest of the country. Its good policy and should be implemented. It will help pay down the national debt and provide for vital government programs including national defense. The rich are living high off the hog. A higher top federal tax rate is coming whether you like it or not. There is simply no other solution.

You clearly have never had job, owned a home or business, or paid taxes.

But thanks for playing!

Yep, I guess that guy Warren Buffet has not either since he supports the same tax policy.

Why does he need to support a new policy?
If he thinks he should pay more to the government, he can simply cut a check.

It's weird though, that by giving billions to charity, he's actually paying zero to the government.
I guess we should look at his actions more than his words.

Sure, but Warren Buffet is not the only wealthy person out there. You need a policy in place to make it work.

 

[task0778]

The United States spent far more on national defense as a percentage of GDP from 1940 to 1980 than it does today. Today defense spending has dropped to 3% of annual GDP. During the 1980s it averaged 6% of GDP. During the Vietnam War it averaged 10% of GDP. In the 1950s it was even higher. During World War II it was 37% of GDP. Tax revenue was obtained to pay for these things whether you think the rich paid more or not. The top federal tax rate was 70% to 94% from 1940 to 1980. Its much lower now.

The United States can increase revenue coming into the government by raising the top federal tax rate. Doing so will make balancing the budget easier, and provide more money for many government programs especially defense. The tax increase on the rich won't hurt the economy because the rich don't change their consumer spending regardless of their tax rate.

We make 200k....how much do you want and are you willing to come get it yourself?

I'm willing to vote to have the government increase the top federal tax rate back to 70% because I think it will put the country on more sound financial footing and help to pay for a lot of the country's spending priorities while also not hurting economic growth.

Of course you're willing to "vote".
You have no balls.

I think he's got balls. Or she, whatever. But he/she definitely has no brains, to say that a 70% top marginal tax rate would not hurt economic growth is crazy. The French tried it a few years back under Hollande and it was an abject failure that had to be rolled back.

FACT: top federal tax rate was over 70% in the 1960s. Average GDP growth in the 1960s was over 5%.

FACT" top federal tax rate since the year 2000 as been less than 40%. Average GDP growth since the year 2000 has been LESS THAN 2%.

So, does increasing the top federal tax rate on the rich hurt economic growth? NO Does cutting the top federal tax rate on the rich increase economic growth? NO

I am wasting my time here arguing with an idiot. One last time, then I'm outta here.

1. Apparently you do not realize that the top federal tax rate in the 50s and 60s was NOT a reason for the high GDP growth rate. Correlation does not mean causation, there were several reasons why economic growth was strong then, but it was IN SPITE OF those high rates rather than BECAUSE OF. Oh, and the average GDP growth rate in the 1970s wasn't really so good, was it? Cherrypick much?

2. To suggest that what worked then would work now is ridiculous. GLOBALIZATION dude, the world is a totally different place. Did you not read what I posted about France, and how they tried to raise their top marginal tax rate and how it failed?

3. To suggest that the average GDP growth rate since 2000 is due to the lower top federal tax rate is beyond ridiculous, and BTW I noticed that you didn't mention the economic growth we experienced between 1980 and 2000, why is that?

4. Then there's Trump's tax cuts, right? Best economic growth we've had in awhile, over 3% annually this year I believe. Sure as hell beats Obama's pathetic growth numbers, didn't he raise the top marginal rate via the Sequestration? So how come 2015 and 2016 sucked economically?

So - increasing the top rate DOES hurt economic growth, as the French and the Swedes among others can tell you. And cutting the top tax rate DOES help increase economic growth, as we've seen this year and in the 1980s through 2008 as a result of Reagan cutting the rates dramatically. You are SO wrong on this, but I can recognize when I'm talking to an ideologue, so I'm not wasting any more of my time here. Bye.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, does increasing the top federal tax rate on the rich hurt economic growth?

Yes, raising the top rate would hurt growth and wouldn't raise nearly the revenue you feel it would.

Well, that's false given the top federal tax rates from 1940 to 1980 were above 70% and the economy grew faster during that time period than it has since 1980.

You think tax rates are the only factor that is different today compared to 1980? Compared to 1940?

No, but I think a return to such tax policies will definitely help the country. A big increase in the top federal tax rate is bound to happen at some point in the future. Its just a matter of time and gaining enough political support. The country is facing mounting financial burdens. The country club has lived high of the hogg since the 1980s. Those days are coming to an end whether they like it or not. Too few of them, to many of everyone else. The political support will be there eventually.

No, but I think a return to such tax policies will definitely help the country.

Great. If we left everything else the same and raised the tax rate on income over $500,000 to 70%,
how much extra GDP growth would we get? Show all your work.

I NEVER said it would increase GDP growth, just that it would not hurt it. Having the top federal rate at 37% has certainly NOT helped GDP growth as seen by the anemic annual GDP growth rates of 1.87% under George W. Bush and 1.90% under Barack Obama.

I NEVER said it would increase GDP growth

Oh, so the higher growth back then wasn't BECAUSE rates were higher.
Thanks for clearing that up.

just that it would not hurt it.

Can you prove raising it to 70% wouldn't hurt GDP going forward?

Having the top federal rate at 37% has certainly NOT helped GDP growth as seen by the anemic annual GDP growth rates of 1.87% under George W. Bush and 1.90% under Barack Obama.

Can you prove growth would have been higher if the rates had been kept at the Clinton rates?

 

[boedicca]

You are a babbling fool. We don't have the deductions and exemptions they had back when those rates were in effect. And your advocacy for the increase does not include restoring them.


View attachment 238630

So what. The government can get more money out of rich without hurting the economy. It will benefit the rest of the country. Its good policy and should be implemented. It will help pay down the national debt and provide for vital government programs including national defense. The rich are living high off the hog. A higher top federal tax rate is coming whether you like it or not. There is simply no other solution.

You clearly have never had job, owned a home or business, or paid taxes.

But thanks for playing!

Yep, I guess that guy Warren Buffet has not either since he supports the same tax policy.

Why does he need to support a new policy?
If he thinks he should pay more to the government, he can simply cut a check.

It's weird though, that by giving billions to charity, he's actually paying zero to the government.
I guess we should look at his actions more than his words.

Sure, but Warren Buffet is not the only wealthy person out there. You need a policy in place to make it work.

How do you function in the world with such a poor understanding of human nature?

Buffet is typical of the Rich who live by capital gains instead of ordinary income. That's why so many LW Rich morons spew on and on about taxing the rich. It's bogus virtue signaling as they know that they won't be paying those taxes. The real targets of tax increases are people who work for a living and are not able to shelter their income...iow, middle and upper middle class people.