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

[U2Edge]

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.

No its what a patriot supports when he wants his country to be the best it can be. A stronger America is one that properly taxes the rich to maximize economic growth and revenue collection.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

Really?

The top 1% own half the country. You don't think they

A. Can't afford it

B. Shouldn't have to pay something approaching equivalency for that?

It has nothing to do with can they afford it.

You should give me money. I know you can afford it because you are wasting money on an internet connection, to lecture others about what they can afford.

So since you can afford it, I demand you pay my bills.

That's envy and greed based logic, is exactly what you are suggesting when you say "they can afford it".

I don't care if they can afford it. Taking 70% of the money someone earns, is wrong... period. Whether they can afford it or not.

If we gathered enough people to vote that you must give up your house, to some homeless people.... because you can afford it... does that make it right?

What you own, also doesn't make it right. What if you own a new car. I can't afford a new car. I think you should give me your car, because you should pay something approaching equivalency.... right? We're not equal between you and me. So you should give up most of what you have.

IS that right?

See this is the hypocrisy of the left. If we tried to force on you, the very ideology you are trying to force on others, you would be screaming bloody murder on here.

Explain to me why a top federal tax rate of 35% is ok but a top federal tax rate of 70% is somehow morally wrong? Was the United States an immoral country from World War II to 1980 because the top federal tax rate was always above 70% during those years?

 

[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.

No its what a patriot supports when he wants his country to be the best it can be. A stronger America is one that properly taxes the rich to maximize economic growth and revenue collection.

No, you're a progressive neocon looter, who worships at the altar of The State....Goldwater was right about you freaks; not a dime's worth of difference.

 

[U2Edge]

Then again...the Clinton tax increase (called the biggest tax increase in history by Republicans) increased revenues and ushered in amazing growth and a budget surplus.

70% ? Too big a jump too fast but an increase is clearly a good idea.

45%-50% for the top tax bracket?

Sure

The tax increase didn't cause the increase in tax receipts. The economy was booming due to the peace dividend, lagging effects of Reagan policies, the DotCo/Y2K/Telecom bubble, and welfare reform (courtesy of Newt Gingrich).

Its basic math. If the top federal tax rate had remained at 28% instead of the 40% it was raised to, there would have been no surpluses in the late 1990s. Economic growth is vitally important, but so is the proper tax rate.

 

[boedicca]

Then again...the Clinton tax increase (called the biggest tax increase in history by Republicans) increased revenues and ushered in amazing growth and a budget surplus.

70% ? Too big a jump too fast but an increase is clearly a good idea.

45%-50% for the top tax bracket?

Sure

The tax increase didn't cause the increase in tax receipts. The economy was booming due to the peace dividend, lagging effects of Reagan policies, the DotCo/Y2K/Telecom bubble, and welfare reform (courtesy of Newt Gingrich).

Its basic math. If the top federal tax rate had remained at 28% instead of the 40% it was raised to, there would have been no surpluses in the late 1990s. Economic growth is vitally important, but so is the proper tax rate.

Wrong. That is static thinking. You err in your assumption that tax rates do not affect behavior. They do in RealityLand. It's a fact that lower rates spur economic growth which then results in a net increase in aggregate tax receipts.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

I'd hazard a guess that those rich guys you talk about never laid a HAND on any of that shit. They used the labor of poor people to make it and probably borrowed the money to pay for the labor and raw materials.

Amazing how you have so little respect for the people who actually DID make that stuff

Without the work financed by the capital of the rich guys, the poor would be considerably poorer.

Just sayin'.

Where do the rich guys get their money? The Market? Did they build the market? Nope. They were lucky to be born into that market and given the opportunity to take advantage of that market, the U.S. market. The U.S. market was built and defended over several centuries. The vast majority of today's rich never served in the military or did anything significant to build the market. They were simply born into that market as opposed to being born in Afghanistan, Somalia or some other third world country. While they may have worked hard to succeed in that market, its still the market that is responsible for their wealth. Had then been born in Somalia or Afghanistan, its unlikely they would have ever escaped the poverty they would have been born into. Plus, Billion dollar success in a wealthy market like the United States is often about being at the right place, at the right time, with the right product, its often simple luck that makes the difference between a Millionaire and a Billionaire.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

Competition from Italy and other countries when it comes to cars could make them cheaper for the worker in America.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

No its what a patriot supports when he wants his country to be the best it can be. A stronger America is one that properly taxes the rich to maximize economic growth and revenue collection.

No, you're a progressive neocon looter, who worships at the altar of The State....Goldwater was right about you freaks; not a dime's worth of difference.

Franklin Roosevelt and Truman were not progressive neocon looters. They were smart leaders who did what was best for United States and made it the greatest most powerful country in the world. They also largely built the world and current international order that we all live in on this planet today.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Really?

The top 1% own half the country. You don't think they

A. Can't afford it

B. Shouldn't have to pay something approaching equivalency for that?

It has nothing to do with can they afford it.

You should give me money. I know you can afford it because you are wasting money on an internet connection, to lecture others about what they can afford.

So since you can afford it, I demand you pay my bills.

That's envy and greed based logic, is exactly what you are suggesting when you say "they can afford it".

I don't care if they can afford it. Taking 70% of the money someone earns, is wrong... period. Whether they can afford it or not.

If we gathered enough people to vote that you must give up your house, to some homeless people.... because you can afford it... does that make it right?

What you own, also doesn't make it right. What if you own a new car. I can't afford a new car. I think you should give me your car, because you should pay something approaching equivalency.... right? We're not equal between you and me. So you should give up most of what you have.

IS that right?

See this is the hypocrisy of the left. If we tried to force on you, the very ideology you are trying to force on others, you would be screaming bloody murder on here.

Explain to me why a top federal tax rate of 35% is ok but a top federal tax rate of 70% is somehow morally wrong? Was the United States an immoral country from World War II to 1980 because the top federal tax rate was always above 70% during those years?

Oh let me be absolutely clear about this.... I think a tax on income itself is immoral. The entire federal government should be funded by tariffs (low tariffs, not protectionist tariffs), and maybe a corporate tax.

Remember this country saw the most growth, and the highest increase in standards of living, when there was no income tax. By every single conceivable measure, the standard of living rose faster in the years between 1776 and 1876, than it has since then.

Now, of course that means a government within it's limits, that doesn't involve Social Security and Medicare and everything else.

However, if we want a government that is funded by income tax.... then we should have a flat tax, like Norway and many other countries. A flat tax means everyone pays the same amount of their income in taxes. No one should be required to pay a larger portion of their income, than someone else, simply because someone else is choosing to stay a burger flipper, when the other choose to put in 60 hours a week doing the hard work of running a company.

Everyone should pay the same percentage of their income in taxes. That is moral. That is fair. That is how it should be.

In fact, I would say those how get the most benefits from government should pay the most. So if you collect welfare, you should pay a higher tax. If you get government housing, you should pay a higher tax. Whoever is a larger burden on tax payers, should pay more in taxes.

That will get people to work, real quick.

But to answer your question, yeah. The country has been moving more towards an immoral position, since before FDR.

Founding Fathers of this country:
John Adams "Among the number of applications..., cannot we find an American capable and worthy of the trust? ...Why should we take the bread out of the mouths of our own children and give it to strangers?"

Thomas Jefferson: "A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government"

Ever since we moved away from the moral positions of the founding fathers, we have been on a path towards tyranny. Just look at the moves around the country to eliminate large drinks, and control people walking with headphones in.

Why do governments feel they have the right to control every aspect of our lives? Because they are providing government run health care, and those choices can cost the government money. So on that basis they believe they have the right to control everything.

Atlas Shrugged man. Go read the book. It's a slope on the Road to Serfdom.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

So you want no jobs?



.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

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

No,

Thanks.

The point is that having the top federal tax rate at 40% does not hurt economic growth

Now prove your claim.

The top federal tax rate in 1990 went from 28% then to 40% by 1994. That increase did not prevent the rapid GDP growth of the late 1990s!

 

[Wyatt earp]

how is it moral for any government to confiscate 70% of your INCOME? Remember, income is not even "profit."

Well, where does your income come from? If you are a U.S. citizen living in the United States, it comes from the U.S. MARKET. Your income is based essentially on your market value. How much your house is worth is based on the MARKET. You were lucky to be born into the United States and its market. You are lucky to be able to take advantage of that market. The U.S. market was built long before you were born. It was protected, built, and grown by generations that came before you. In order for that market to continue, it needs a stable government that is able to protect it and maintain order. The government needs revenue to do that and the only way it can get that revenue is through taxes.

What so Congress can continue to get rich like Nancy pelosi?


No one ever paid 70% in tax.


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

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

No,

Thanks.

The point is that having the top federal tax rate at 40% does not hurt economic growth

Now prove your claim.

The top federal tax rate in 1990 went from 28% then to 40% by 1994. That increase did not prevent the rapid GDP growth of the late 1990s!

Ever hear of dot com and cell phones?


.

 

[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.

So you want no jobs?



.

Plenty of Jobs in America from 1945 to 1980. In fact, the lowest rates of unemployment in America occurred during those years as well as the highest average real GDP growth per year. During those years, the top federal tax rates were between 70% and 94%.

 

[U2Edge]

how is it moral for any government to confiscate 70% of your INCOME? Remember, income is not even "profit."

Well, where does your income come from? If you are a U.S. citizen living in the United States, it comes from the U.S. MARKET. Your income is based essentially on your market value. How much your house is worth is based on the MARKET. You were lucky to be born into the United States and its market. You are lucky to be able to take advantage of that market. The U.S. market was built long before you were born. It was protected, built, and grown by generations that came before you. In order for that market to continue, it needs a stable government that is able to protect it and maintain order. The government needs revenue to do that and the only way it can get that revenue is through taxes.

What so Congress can continue to get rich like Nancy pelosi?


No one ever paid 70% in tax.


.

That's debatable. The rich have in the recent past paid a top federal rate of 40% all evidence points to the fact that they could pay a lot more without it hurting the economy.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

So you want no jobs?



.

Plenty of Jobs in America from 1945 to 1980. In fact, the lowest rates of unemployment in America occurred during those years as well as the highest average real GDP growth per year. During those years, the top federal tax rates were between 70% and 94%.

Uhm because the world was still in ruins after WWII, it was a fluke in history, we had no competition, our imports didn't over take exports till the mid 1980s, thats why Reagan did what he did.


.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

That isn't entirely true.

What if the competition causes US manufacturers to either make better cars, or reduce the price of existing cars.

Do workers benefit from having higher quality, or lower cost cars? I think so. So while you might be accurate in saying that it won't directly help those workers of car companies..... it does benefit ALL workers across our entire country.

If you doubt that, look at India. So India had for 70 years prior, a completely closed economy. Specifically in the car market, it was locked down. As a result they had the Hindustan Ambassador. This car was designed in 1955, and Hindustan Motors bought the design, and started producing this car in 1957.

They continued to produce this garbage car until 2014. How could a car company, make the exact same car for just under 60 years? Because there was no competition from foreign companies. Without any competition, the company had no reason to come up with a newer, or better design.

In the late 90s, they liberalized the economy, and allowed foreign competition. Throughout the 2000s, the car fell dramatically in popularity, as foreign companies offered much better alternatives to a 60 year old design.

So did the workers who made the Ambassador benefit from this? Not directly. They likely were laid off.

But everyone.... all workers, including those who now needed new jobs, all had newer and better cars to purchase. Everyone was better off.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

If you tax me at 70% then when we get tax discounts my discount should be higher too.

 

[boedicca]

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.

I'd hazard a guess that those rich guys you talk about never laid a HAND on any of that shit. They used the labor of poor people to make it and probably borrowed the money to pay for the labor and raw materials.

Amazing how you have so little respect for the people who actually DID make that stuff

Without the work financed by the capital of the rich guys, the poor would be considerably poorer.

Just sayin'.

Where do the rich guys get their money? The Market? Did they build the market? Nope. They were lucky to be born into that market and given the opportunity to take advantage of that market, the U.S. market. The U.S. market was built and defended over several centuries. The vast majority of today's rich never served in the military or did anything significant to build the market. They were simply born into that market as opposed to being born in Afghanistan, Somalia or some other third world country. While they may have worked hard to succeed in that market, its still the market that is responsible for their wealth. Had then been born in Somalia or Afghanistan, its unlikely they would have ever escaped the poverty they would have been born into. Plus, Billion dollar success in a wealthy market like the United States is often about being at the right place, at the right time, with the right product, its often simple luck that makes the difference between a Millionaire and a Billionaire.

Oh blah blah blah so sleepy....zzzzzzz

Your pea green envy has poisoned your brain.

 

[U2Edge]

71% of the federal budget goes to pay for the following five things:

National Defense
Medicaid
Medicare
Social Security
Veterans Benefits

Unless you plan on cutting those things, you need to increase the top federal tax rate. Its not a good idea to cut national defense. What justification would you have for cutting a veteran's benefits or preventing a citizen from collecting their social security pay check for the month?

You really naive enough to think that the Pentagon isn't as duplicative and wasteful as any other federal program?....All that would need to happen is have all the waste and graft wrung out of their budget, and they could survive budget cuts just fine.

2/3s of the United States defense budget goes to paying the troops and training them. Where is the duplication and the waste in paying the troops and training them?