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

[MarcATL]

You Progressives ALWAYS leave out this part: And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's

Jesus never chided the Romans for not paying their fair share. You twist and pervert his teachings, reminder, to fit your One World Jackboot desires

How is that a perversion?

Explain what the "and to God the things that are God's" part means and/or changes the context, in your mind.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why do you care?

Does looting suddenly become a moral act because you limit your plunder to the really, really, really rich part of town?

By Christian ethics the answer is yes.

Well that's interesting, at what point does stealing become an immoral act? I'm pretty sure that by Christian ethics, stealing is immoral no matter who the victim is.

How sure are you?

Very sure. I know of no passage in the Bible or anything in the teachings of Jesus that absolves stealing from anybody, and nothing that says it's okay if the victim is a rich person. So, my question to you is, what makes you think that Christian ethics consider stealing to be a moral act if the victim is rich? Certainly, charity and sacrifice to benefit others is considered to be a good thing in the eyes of God, and Jesus said it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven, but that is not the same thing as saying it's okay to steal from the wealthy.

Christ acknowledges Ceaser's authority to collect taxes. In another reference Christ even submits to this authority. There are also references in Romans legitimizing worldly authorities. When you say steal you mean to take something that does not belong to you. The Roman Emperor owned everything. In other parts of history, Kings owned everything. In the United States, the people own everything. This type of stealing is justifiable in both the Old and New Testament. The richness or the poorness of the citizen is not relevant. The authority of the government to tax is respected by God in the New Testament and commanded by God in the Old Testament.

I understand your frustration. The Bible is contrary to thousands of years of Anglo Saxon traditions. It is hard to reconcile the two. Well. It is actually impossible.

"Blessed is the lion which the man eats, and the lion will become man; and cursed is the man whom the lion eats, and the lion will become man." - Gospel of Thomas 7. The Lion is Rome

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You Progressives ALWAYS leave out this part: And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's

Jesus never chided the Romans for not paying their fair share. You twist and pervert his teachings, reminder, to fit your One World Jackboot desires

How is that a perversion?

Explain what the "and to God the things that are God's" part means and/or changes the context, in your mind.

Are you serious? I'm stunned

 

[Andylusion]

Not directly.

But since most of my customers are rich people, if you take 70% of their income, it's a pretty obvious conclusion that they will purchase less stuff.

So I might be out of a job, thanks to this idiotic tax scheme. And last I checked, $0 income, is less than a full pay check. So yes, AOC's dumb tax policy could very much affect my income.

 

[Oddball]

 

[MarcATL]

You Progressives ALWAYS leave out this part: And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's

Jesus never chided the Romans for not paying their fair share. You twist and pervert his teachings, reminder, to fit your One World Jackboot desires

Are you serious? I'm stunned

Save the melodrama for your mama.

If it's so simple that you're stunned, just explain it.

Please and thanks.

 

[dannyboys]

I retired at age 45. Sold off my business and made sure the ******* Fed gov would NEVER get their dirty paws on my money.............more then once.
Anyone interesting in a low hours Cessna 140?
Perfect condition with floats.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Pretty soon she'll be as powerful as Hillary!

The way Republicans talk about and bring up Hillary, you'd think she was the 45th President of the United States.

She lives rent-free in your heads.

#LOLGOP #TooFunny #CLASSIC

you'd think she was the 45th President of the United States.​

She was the most qualified candidate in the history of the world.....how can she not be president?

It's not like she could lose to two amateurs, right?

 

[dannyboys]

Pretty soon she'll be as powerful as Hillary!

The way Republicans talk about and bring up Hillary, you'd think she was the 45th President of the United States.

She lives rent-free in your heads.

#LOLGOP #TooFunny #CLASSIC

The drunken old ***** is living rent free thanks to all the millions the Clintons grifted from the KSA etc etc.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I would like to know which members of the USMB here warm over $10 million a year.

The income above 10 million will be taxed at 70%.

Please vote in my poll.

A. I would like to know why you think only people making over $10 million a year would see their taxes rise.

B. I would like to know why you think because someone makes over $10 million a year it's somehow okay for the government to forcibly confiscate 70% of it.

C. This plan has absolutely no chance of becoming reality, so who cares anyway?

 

[The Purge]

You guys are making Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez more and more powerful.

#LOLGOP #TooFunny #CLASSIC

We wants her to be your candidate for Messiah!....we"s cants wait!!!!

Next she will tell us the AGE LIMIT to run is Unconditional!

 

[toomuchtime_]

I would like to know which members of the USMB here warm over $10 million a year.

The income above 10 million will be taxed at 70%.

Please vote in my poll.

It's a stupid question. Potentially everyone's income would effected by this tax increase. All the wealth in America is created by the private sector, not by the government, and nearly all funds that finance the private sector are from private investors, and the more money individuals have, the more they can afford to invest, so when we take investment capital out of the hands of private investors and give it to politicians and bureaucrats we are reducing investment in the private sector economy and that will reduce economic growth and the number of jobs created by the economy. Therefore, question is not if this tax increase will effect your income but by how much it will effect your income.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Dumbass, the guy you BOUGHT the Maserati from may be rich, but unless he built that bad boy with his own two hands, there were a whole lot of other people getting paid throughout the creation of it, and most of them were probably poorer than he is.

In the real world, rich people engage in commerce with poor people all the time.

Yes. In Italy, fool.

And? What does location have to do with the current discussion? You said "The wealthy spread cash among themselves. Working folks never get a taste." You never specified rich or working in a specific country.

Besides, I'm guessing that the guy you bought your Maserati from ALSO employs quite a few less-rich people in his dealership, as well, unless he's filing his own paperwork and moonlighting as a mechanic.

Read the thread before jumping in, dope.
We're talking about the US economy which should be obvious in a thread about US tax rates.

Read the thread, dolt. Doesn't change a ******* thing I said, nor does it make a convincing backpedal for you.

Let me break it down for you, since you want us to believe you became "rich" without ever having clue one how the most basic things work.

Presuming that your Maserati dealer friend didn't build the car in his backyard and, in fact, got it the normal way a dealer acquires cars (and leaving aside the fact that YOU, not me, digressed from discussions of US taxes to rant about rich elitism):

While Maserati is, indeed, an Italian-based car manufacturer, they do employ Americans. Like most corporations in this global age, they have divisions in more than one country, complete with employees.

Furthermore, dimwit, the act of bringing the car to the US for you to buy it provides employment for all manner of not-rich Americans. Or did you think Maserati employed wizards to just wave their wands and POOF the car to the dealership?

And finally, as I mentioned and you conveniently "missed", your friend's dealership employs any number of not-rich Americans, unless he's working 40-hour days to do it all himself.

Read the thread, dolt. Doesn't change a ******* thing I said, nor does it make a convincing backpedal for you.

It absolutely does.
A car manufactured in Italy does nothing for workers in America, dope

Yikes.

Quote and respond to one line, and pretend the entire rest of the thread doesn't exist because you know you can't answer and you're too big a dishonest ***** to admit it Dope.

Thank you for your surrender. You may run along and drive your imaginary Internet Maserati.

 

[U2Edge]

28% is the lowest it has ever been over the past 85 years. That was the rate in 1988,1989, and 1990. That rate proved to be too low. The budget deficits during those years really worsened. Bush Sr. raised the rate in 1991. The economy actually improved in 1992 every quarter above 4% growth, the last time in the country's history that there were four consecutive quarters of real GDP growth ABOVE 4% in the same calendar year. Then when Clinton took office, he raised the top margin rate all the way up to 39%-40%. Over the mid to late 1990s the economy expanded at one of the fastest rates since World War II. The Budget Deficits grew smaller, and finally you had four years of Budget surpluses, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.

Bush Jr. then cut the top marginal rate down to 35%, but it did not lead to better economic growth. In fact, economic growth overall through the 8 years of the Bush administration averaged just 1.87% compared to Clinton's 3.62%. Revenue collection suffered as a result of both lower economic growth and lower top federal tax rates. Had the top federal tax rate remained at 40% or increased a little, many of the budget deficit problems of the early to mid 2000s would have been solved or reduced in size.

So the bottom line is 28% is way to low for the top federal rate. The evidence shows this. You can increase the top federal rate well beyond 40% without doing any damage to the economy. The question is what is the upper limit beyond 40%. Paul Krugman sited several economist who think that upper limit might be some where between 75% to 85%. I think that is a little high. I think that upper limit is probably between 60% and 65%.

So, for the country to be putting its best foot forward on tax policy, revenue collection for the government combined with economic growth, the top federal tax rate should probably be 62%. Even at 62%, the richest Americans will continue to work hard and not flee the country. The country would greatly improve its ability to solve the budget problems it is facing while continuing to provide the strongest national/global defense to protect the country's interest.

28% is the lowest it has ever been over the past 85 years.

Yup.

That rate proved to be too low. The budget deficits during those years really worsened.

Nah. If Bush had kept his backbone, and controlled spending, we'd have been fine.

The economy actually improved in 1992 every quarter above 4% growth,

I agree, after the tax-hike induced recession, the economy improved.
Don't you wish we'd have had some decent growth under Obama, instead of the weakest recovery since WWII?

Over the mid to late 1990s the economy expanded at one of the fastest rates since World War II.

I know, the Internet Bubble was cool!

The Budget Deficits grew smaller, and finally you had four years of Budget surpluses, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.

Newt Gingrich rocked!!

Paul Krugman sited several economist who think that upper limit might be some where between 75% to 85%. I think that is a little high.

A little? You think? DURR!

The George H.W. Bush tax hike occurred AFTER the United States had already been in a recession for a month. The 1990/1991 recession started on October 1, 1990 and ended by April 1, 1991. Congress and the President did not agree to a tax hike until October 27, 1990, nearly a month after the recession had started. The recession was caused by SADDAM HUSSIENS invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990 which caused disruption in global oil supplies and markets.

So the tax increase did not hurt the economy, and generally excellent economic growth occurred following the tax hikes. President Clinton raised taxes again after he became President, again not impacting economic growth. THE LESSON: Going from a 28% top federal rate in taxes up to 40% top federal rate in taxes did not hurt the economy at all. The economy had some of its best growth rates during the 1990s since the end Of World War II. So its obviously ok to have a top Federal Tax rate of 40%. That 1990s proved that. Lots of revenue was generated thanks to the tax increase and stronger economy growth which produced 4 consecutive years of Budget Surpluses.

So the question is then how much above 40% should the top federal tax rate go. We know 40% is ok and does not hurt the economy. I think the top federal rate can be increased to at least 60% without hurting the economy in any way.

Congress and the President did not agree to a tax hike until October 27, 1990, nearly a month after the recession had started.

How long did the debate go on before he finally caved?

So the tax increase did not hurt the economy,

I don't think you've proven that claim.

President Clinton raised taxes again after he became President, again not impacting economic growth.

I don't think you've proven that claim either.

THE LESSON: Going from a 28% top federal rate in taxes up to 40% top federal rate in taxes did not hurt the economy at all.

I think the economy would have been stronger if rates had remained at 28%, disprove my claim.

Well, Bush becomes President in 2001 and slashes the top federal tax rate from 40% to 35%. Average real GDP growth while George W. Bush is President for 8 years comes in at 1.87%! That's down from the average of 3.62% during the Clinton years. So cutting the top federal tax rate did not help the economy at all.

The rich who pay the top federal tax rate do NOT change their consumer spending when they get a tax cut, especially at those levels. That's why the Bush tax cuts for the rich had no impact on economic growth and ended up just making the Budget deficit worse than it had to be.

Tax cuts targeted at those in the lower middle class are the type of cuts that boost economic growth. Most of the Bush tax cuts were directed at the very wealthy. The middle class spends the extra money they get, the rich do not.

Was Clinton's top tax rate responsible for the Internet Bubble?

No, but by increasing the top federal tax rate + the strong economic growth during the Clinton years, allowed for four consecutive years of surpluses. The point is that having the top federal tax rate at 40% does not hurt economic growth. Regardless of what GDP growth is, you'll bring in more revenue with a top federal tax rate of 40% and it won't have a negative impact on the economy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Give me your homeless...."

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You Progressives ALWAYS leave out this part: And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's

Jesus never chided the Romans for not paying their fair share. You twist and pervert his teachings, reminder, to fit your One World Jackboot desires

Are you serious? I'm stunned

Save the melodrama for your mama.

If it's so simple that you're stunned, just explain it.

Please and thanks.

I have to explain that Jesus was directing his fellow Jews back to the Lord? What's next, why is the sky blue or water wet?

 

[U2Edge]

Where does it go, fool?

How does it leave circulation, fool?

Tied up in a $120m yacht registered and moored in Monaco?

Answer the question. Where does it go?

Tied up in a $120m yacht registered and moored in Monaco?​

Lot of those boats built over the last 40 years?

Answer the question. Where does it go?

Where does the wealth of the 3 richest people in the US go?
Bezos......16% of Amazon.
Bill Gates......24% of Microsoft (1996)
Warren Buffett......18% of Berkshire (2016)

I asked you that question, dope.

It certainly doesn't into the pockets of everyday Americans who spend it in the economy where it is further circulated.

70% of GDP is related to consumer spending. Not investment. Use your brain.

I asked you that question
​

Yes, you asked the stupid question.

It certainly doesn't into the pockets of everyday Americans who spend it in the economy

It used to, until a bunch of liberal twats decided a luxury tax on boats was a great idea.
******* morons.

70% of GDP is related to consumer spending

100% of GDP is related to domestic production.

Not investment.

Domestic production isn't related to investment?
You must be a liberal.

Use your brain.

You first.

He means 70% of real GDP growth comes from consumer spending. Some put it even higher at 80%. A tax cut on lower class, and middle class income increases consumer spending. A tax cut on the rich has no impact on consumer spending.

That's why Bush's cut of the top federal tax rate from 40% to 35% did not produce any economic growth.

 

[danielpalos]

View attachment 239421

He should have said, Raise the minimum wage to raise more tax revenue and solve for unemployment with simple compensation.

 

[Oddball]

View attachment 239421

He should have said, Raise the minimum wage to raise more tax revenue and solve for unemployment with simple compensation.

Liar.

 

[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.

I think everyone who voted yes should pay 70%.

Most of them or all of them are likely lower class and middle class. Their incomes are in the $30,000 to $80,000 range. You want their tax rates to stay the same or be cut, because they typically spend their extra money which increases real GDP growth. So increasing their taxes to 70% would destroy the economy.

The rich though do not change their consumer spending regardless of their tax rate. That is why it is safe for the economy to tax them at a much higher rate than the middle class. The country then benefits from all the extra revenue that is generated from the much higher tax rate on the rich.

The tax rate is not about what is "FAIR" to a particular individual. Its about what is best for economic growth and raising revenue to support the country. The fact is, every American benefits when the country is strong. You have a stronger country when economic growth and revenue collection are both maximized.