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

[danielpalos]

The $40 trillion question Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez couldn't answer..

Funny how $Trillions for the MIC, tax cuts for the rich or bailing out too big to jail fail banks never seem to be a problem but when it's about programs for 'ordinary' people it's suddenly unaffordable..

Because people keeping their own money doesn't cost anyone anything.

in right wing fantasy; everything is possible.

Under Capitalism and in the real economic world, fundamentals matter.

 

[Oddball]

in right wing fantasy; everything is possible.

Under Capitalism and in the real economic world, fundamentals matter.

Piss off, ignoramus.

 

[Rigby5]

The right wing doesn't believe our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are really really serious and therefore can indulge Tax Cut economics instead of really really serious Wartime Tax Rates and should be abolished as the lousy right wing management it is.

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

Agreed. War is bad enough when necessary, but horrendous when deliberate and unnecessary.

 

[Rigby5]

This is scary foolish. Yeah, the top rate used to be 70%, but that was before we had Medicaid and Medicare and a fraction of the regulations that we have now, and we had hundreds of billions of dollars parked overseas precisely because of that absurd top marginal rate.

In case you haven't noticed, the economy has begun to boom under Trump and his historic tax cuts. We haven't seen this kind of growth in manufacturing jobs in decades. Just last month the economy added over 300,000 new jobs.

Thats a pipe dream.
Americans are failing financially.

Over the past few decades, tax burden has been shifted from the upper class to the lower and middle. Whether you know it or not, class warfare began some time ago and the 99% are losing.

That is all true, but the solution is not to tax and spend more, but to tax and spend less.
We need to balance the budget and start paying down the national debt.
Clearly the problem is not the tax rate but excess military spending.

We just wasted over $3 trillion invading Iraq and Afghanistan on fraudulent lies.
We should make the liars pay it all back.

We have wasted trillions of dollars and thousands of lives in unnecessary wars, but to claim that only republicans started them is totally off base, Kennedy and Johnson's Viet Nam cost us 58,000 American lives for absolutely nothing. At least Nixon declared defeat and ended it.

Afghanistan was retaliation for 9/11 and as such, was probably necessary. But we should have gone hard and gotten out fast. Iraq was Bush getting even with Saddam for trying to assassinate Bush 41, a stupid waste when we could have taken him out covertly much easier.

We don't seem to be able to learn from our mistakes. But having said that, military spending does create American blue collar jobs building ships, planes, tanks, guns, ammo, et. al. I prefer that kind of spending over shipping our money to foreign countries, don't you?

I agree totally that democrats are no better at all on record for starting unnecessary wars. Hillary pushed the Iraq invasion, as well as regime change in Libya, Egypt, Syrian, Palestine, Iran, etc. And Johnson gets the major blame for Vietnam.

I disagree about Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden was totally Saudi, and had nothing to do with the Taliban at all. They had arrested him before we even attacked, so in effect the attack of Afghanistan was to free Osama bin Laden. It was not in retaliation for anything, but instead gave Afghanistan over to the al Qaeda militants. The Taliban were the only good guys in Afghanistan.

I also disagree about Iraq in that there was no assassination attempt against senior Bush. Saddam was our ally and always did only what we told him to. US Ambassador Glasspie is recorded giving the ok for the invasion of Kuwait.

Military spending is mostly sending it overseas. Our electronics are coming from Israel, our armored vehicles, cannon, missiles, etc. are imported. Etc. What we need to spend money on is transportation and light rail, which then would have to be spend inside this country. In fact, we need hundreds of low cost clinics the eng. corpse could build. We don't need ships now that weapons range is so great. It is not that we do not learn from mistakes, but that the mistakes have to be deliberate.

 

[Aldo Raine]

With every bullet so far!

Libs can't shoot any better than a skinny.....

Wish ewe would try me sweetums.

Sorry I'm straight.....I knew you would fall for me.....

Why do ewe blow tRump so much then?

Because in ended the Clinton crime family and exposed the Hildabeast....and because he has reversed Obama's presidency in less than two years.....and because he has the rotten skunks in the entrenched GOP elected class running away.....like Ryan...and Corker....and Flake.....
All wins Beavis......all wins for my side and a big zero for zero's like you....

Nice to know ewe are a tRump cock gobbler! Remember what ewe said here when the tRump crime family is fully exposed! The dominos began tofall awhile ago with tRump U and tRump foundation. Stay stupid, ewe are perfect at it!

 

[francoHFW]

Think about this.... You win the lottery for 10 million dollars
The government then takes 7 million of that. You still feel they are justified to take it?
Or do you feel like you were just robbed

Of course you do not understand how our tax system works. 70% tax on over 10 million dollars means your hypothetical person pays nothing at 70%, brainwashed functional moron only income over the 10 million duh.

 

[francoHFW]

With every bullet so far!

Libs can't shoot any better than a skinny.....

Wish ewe would try me sweetums.

Sorry I'm straight.....I knew you would fall for me.....

Why do ewe blow tRump so much then?

Because in ended the Clinton crime family and exposed the Hildabeast....and because he has reversed Obama's presidency in less than two years.....and because he has the rotten skunks in the entrenched GOP elected class running away.....like Ryan...and Corker....and Flake.....
All wins Beavis......all wins for my side and a big zero for zero's like you....

You mean he parroted total garbage character assassination and hate propaganda about Hillary, no basis in fact at all according to journalists and law enforcement. Idiot dupe.

 

[Desperado]

Think about this.... You win the lottery for 10 million dollars
The government then takes 7 million of that. You still feel they are justified to take it?
Or do you feel like you were just robbed

Of course you do not understand how our tax system works. 70% tax on over 10 million dollars means your hypothetical person pays nothing at 70%, brainwashed functional moron only income over the 10 million duh.

**** off you socialist anti American pig

 

[Desperado]

Think about this.... You win the lottery for 10 million dollars
The government then takes 7 million of that. You still feel they are justified to take it?
Or do you feel like you were just robbed

That's not how taxes work. They would take 70% of what you earn over 10 million.

OK lets say you won a hundred million now the government takes 70 million you still believe the government is entitled to that money? I guess you like being raped by the government

 

[basquebromance]

we need a 70 percent immigration tax that all immigrants pay, wealthy or poor, my friends!

 

[francoHFW]

brainwashed functional moron

And only a brainwashed functional moron believes the government is entitled to 70% of anyones income no matter how much they make,

Income over 10 million dollars only. Are you lying or just stupid? The last 35 years the GOP has been a giveaway to the rich disgrace. Only silly dupes like you don't know it. So now we have the greatest inequality and worst upward mobility in our history and in the modern world. Idiot. If you count all taxes we have a flat tax system basically, and a screw the middle class and our infrastructure mess. Snap out of it for crying out loud.

 

[danielpalos]

in right wing fantasy; everything is possible.

Under Capitalism and in the real economic world, fundamentals matter.

Piss off, ignoramus.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

 

[danielpalos]

we need a 70 percent immigration tax that all immigrants pay, wealthy or poor, my friends!

A naturalization tax could pay for upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure.

 

[Redfish]

Why does anyone care about a rise in the Income tax for those who earn more in a year than the vast number of our citizens will earn in a lifetime?

A true progressive income tax would not have so few tax brackets, reduced by Ryan and signed by Trump which didn't benefit the many, only the very few.

The argument - lol - that the wealthy create most of the jobs is BULLSHIT. One more lie by the elite establishment to keep more than their fair share, and supported by the Republican Party.

The Importance of Young Firms for Economic Growth

Food for thought from the LINK:

"Welcome Immigrants
"Immigrants were nearly twice as likely as native-born Americans to start businesses in 2014. The creation of a visa for immigrant entrepreneurs would allow these job creators to start companies in the United States."

'Remove Regulatory Barriers to Growth
"As regulations build up over time, they represent an increasing and disproportionate cost to entrepreneurial firms. Ideas to counter regulatory accumulation include the establishment of a commission to review and recommend regulatory changes to Congress and implementing sunset dates on major regulations." [NOT EO's by the Executive]

your ideas have been tried in Venezuela, once one of the richest nations on earth, now the people are eating their pets and zoo animals.

Study the history of the Federal Income Tax Brackets and the highest tax percentage along with the GDP of the same period. You will see that tax cuts and tax raises have little to do with the economy.

Ryan's fraud likely bought him a nice seven figure job with some conservative think tank, ******* over our nation's deficit and the middle class down to the poor.

your first sentence is true only in regard to individual income taxes, reducing corporate taxes and regulations has always resulted in an improved economy.

your second sentence is correct. Ryan is a traitor to his party and the USA. I don't think any conservative think tank would be interested in hiring a rino like him. Maybe a job with MSNBC is in his future.

What proof do you have that corporations paying no or little taxes in terms to the ratio to their profit, aid the economy?

The Tax Code is too complicated and nothing was done by Ryan and Trump to make it understandable by anyone. Why is that do you think?

the tax code has been written to help the wealthy donors to the political elites, I think most people understand that. Now, which party has controlled congress for most of the last 80 years and wrote much of the existing tax code and its loopholes? hint: not the GOP

 

[Redfish]

This is scary foolish. Yeah, the top rate used to be 70%, but that was before we had Medicaid and Medicare and a fraction of the regulations that we have now, and we had hundreds of billions of dollars parked overseas precisely because of that absurd top marginal rate.

In case you haven't noticed, the economy has begun to boom under Trump and his historic tax cuts. We haven't seen this kind of growth in manufacturing jobs in decades. Just last month the economy added over 300,000 new jobs.

Thats a pipe dream.
Americans are failing financially.

Over the past few decades, tax burden has been shifted from the upper class to the lower and middle. Whether you know it or not, class warfare began some time ago and the 99% are losing.

That is all true, but the solution is not to tax and spend more, but to tax and spend less.
We need to balance the budget and start paying down the national debt.
Clearly the problem is not the tax rate but excess military spending.

We just wasted over $3 trillion invading Iraq and Afghanistan on fraudulent lies.
We should make the liars pay it all back.

We have wasted trillions of dollars and thousands of lives in unnecessary wars, but to claim that only republicans started them is totally off base, Kennedy and Johnson's Viet Nam cost us 58,000 American lives for absolutely nothing. At least Nixon declared defeat and ended it.

Afghanistan was retaliation for 9/11 and as such, was probably necessary. But we should have gone hard and gotten out fast. Iraq was Bush getting even with Saddam for trying to assassinate Bush 41, a stupid waste when we could have taken him out covertly much easier.

We don't seem to be able to learn from our mistakes. But having said that, military spending does create American blue collar jobs building ships, planes, tanks, guns, ammo, et. al. I prefer that kind of spending over shipping our money to foreign countries, don't you?

I agree totally that democrats are no better at all on record for starting unnecessary wars. Hillary pushed the Iraq invasion, as well as regime change in Libya, Egypt, Syrian, Palestine, Iran, etc. And Johnson gets the major blame for Vietnam.

I disagree about Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden was totally Saudi, and had nothing to do with the Taliban at all. They had arrested him before we even attacked, so in effect the attack of Afghanistan was to free Osama bin Laden. It was not in retaliation for anything, but instead gave Afghanistan over to the al Qaeda militants. The Taliban were the only good guys in Afghanistan.

I also disagree about Iraq in that there was no assassination attempt against senior Bush. Saddam was our ally and always did only what we told him to. US Ambassador Glasspie is recorded giving the ok for the invasion of Kuwait.

Military spending is mostly sending it overseas. Our electronics are coming from Israel, our armored vehicles, cannon, missiles, etc. are imported. Etc. What we need to spend money on is transportation and light rail, which then would have to be spend inside this country. In fact, we need hundreds of low cost clinics the eng. corpse could build. We don't need ships now that weapons range is so great. It is not that we do not learn from mistakes, but that the mistakes have to be deliberate.

Oh, where to begin. you are totally disengaged from reality. All military contracts contain a "buy America" clause which requires that hardware and software be made in the USA. To claim that "most" of it goes overseas is just downright stupid.

Bin Laden was allied with and supported by the Taliban. They hid him after 9/11 as did the Pakis.

Saddam did put a it on Bush 41, that is well established fact.

But we do agree that both parties are responsible. So lets leave it at that.

 

[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 swear progs. don't have a ******* clue. They say shit they think sounds cool, repeated from someone else. We were the only game in town in 1980, or close. Today we have internet and global trade. A 70% tax would drive everyone away. Who would pay for all the welfare required by your 70% tax?

The United States was not the only game in town in 1980. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Finland, France, Netherlands, Belgium, United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Japan, Monaco, Australia, and New Zealand were all first world countries where the rich could do business. You could maybe add ten countries to that list today. After that your dipping into the third world where the risk for the rich goes up and may not be worth it.

 

[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.

That's not fair to the people who are the wealthiest. 70% !!!!! Way more than half their income going to the government? That is obscene.

Top federal national tax rates are not about what is "fair" for the individual, but about what is BEST for the country as a whole. A 70% top federal tax rate does not prevent a rich person from continuing to live a life of luxury well above 99% of the rest of the public.

 

[U2Edge]

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

Nope. In fact we should eliminate all tax expenditures and LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.

That would be a disaster for the country. Budget Deficits would balloon and the country would no longer be able to defend its interest around the world.

 

[Oddball]

Top federal national tax rates are not about what is "fair" for the individual, but about what is BEST for the country as a whole. A 70% top federal tax rate does not prevent a rich person from continuing to live a life of luxury well above 99% of the rest of the public.

Ethos of the looter in full flower.

 

[U2Edge]

The point was the money is tied up in the house and is not benefitting anyone except me and my lender. Rich folks own a lot of real estate.
Great returns if done well. They also have accounts around the world.

Maybe you should explain why you believe the cash I spent for my home in Tuscany is still in circulation in the American economy.

The point was the money is tied up in the house and is not benefitting anyone except me and my lender. Rich folks own a lot of real estate.

The money you spent on your house doesn't get buried in the basement you idiot.
If it's new, it paid for the land, materials and construction labor.
If it was already built, the seller now has a pile of money to spend or invest.
In either case, only an idiot thinks the money is "taken out of circulation".

Maybe you should explain why you believe the cash I spent for my home in Tuscany is still in circulation in the American economy.

Well, in most cases, the seller is going to exchange your dollars into Euros, assuming you didn't change your dollars into Euros first. Is the seller going to bury your dollars in his basement? Maybe he'll buy a T-Bill with it.
Suddenly the dollars are "back in the US".

You're assuming there was a profit for the seller.

Doesn't matter.

Sure it does, silly.

The wealthy spread the cash amongst themselves. Rich folks sell to rich folks.
The guy I bought my Maserati from lives two doors down.

Working folks certainly never get a taste. It doesn't circulate their way.

Really? I bought a used car that had only 70,000 miles on it, from a rich guy. Mint condition. Good price.

You are crazy. Everything I own right now, was built by a rich guy. My home was built by a rich guy. Clothes were made by rich people. My computer, my phone, my shower, my washer and drier, everything in my kitchen.... all made by rich people, and sold to me.

When I look around at all the wealth I have, it sure seems rich people made my life better.

Rich people don't lay bricks or work in sewing shops. The majority of consumer products are physically made by people generally in the lower class or even the poor. They may be employed by a rich guy, but the rich guy did not sweat and gain blisters from the building of the product.