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

[danielpalos]

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.

Exactly!!



Behold, the two-stroke Trabant!
The pinnacle of the East German automobile industry.
Available after putting your name on a 10-13 year waiting list.

Trabant - Wikipedia

Puts the West German Mercedes and BMW to shame, doesn't it?

industrial automation would have made it more feasible.

 

[Desperado]

Why the **** do you want the government to take a larger percentage of your income than you? They haven't proven they are worthy of stealing your money. They spend it on endless wars that do nothing to protect the US, They give it away to foreign governments for no apparent reasons. The US infrastructure and security are not even an after thought.
**** the US Government and **** anyone crazy enough to want a 70% tax rate

 

[ThisIsMe]

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.

My response is as always. How about we stop trying to take money fro. The wealthy, and simply spend less?

There should be no reason to tax us like the government does. We are taxed enough already. Government needs to, first, stop wasting money, and second stop spending so much.

Do that, and we won't need to raise taxes to 70%. Besides, if you raise taxes that high, revenue will go down as the wealthy move out of country, or find ways to shelter their money.

 

[Dana7360]

But I think Krugman is right that we should try to set the top marginal tax rate as high as possible without hurting growth in order to maximize revenue collection.

I agree. I think that top rate is about 28%.

But I think Krugman is right that we should try to set the top marginal tax rate as high as possible without hurting growth in order to maximize revenue collection.

I agree. I think that top rate is about 28%.

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.

Clinton handed the bush boy a balanced budget with zero deficits and billions in surplus.

The bush boy created half the deficit we face today. He started with zero deficit. trump is responsible for the other half.

Too bad he was lying through his teeth when he said he would continue the responsible economic policies of Clinton.

Instead, with his very first budget, before 9-11, he restarted the deficit spending. His tax cuts for the rich made it worse. His two wars made it worse. Wars he kept off the books.

By the time he was done he set a new historic high in budget deficits for our nation. Which was 1.4 trillion dollars.

Obama slashed it by nearly half in 8 years even though he was handed the worst economic crash since the last republican Great Depression.

trump is back to the standard huge tax cuts for the rich and out of control spending republicans do whenever they get any power. In two years trump has our deficit back up to nearly 1 trillion dollars.

I wonder what he will have the deficit and national debt up to by the time he's done.

republicans love to spend. They hate to pay for it and don't believe they should pay for what they buy and spend.

Democrats spend but not at such a high rate and they pay for what they spend. Whenever democrats get control of our congress they institute pay as you go. They also increase the days they have work.

When republicans take control of our congress they quickly get rid of that rule. Along with cutting the number of days they have to work.

 

[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.

Correct.
It was the Pentagon that lied to use about WMD in Iraq.
We should make them pay back that $3 trillion they causes us to spend, with interest.

No one lied about anything. Iraq had used WMD more times than any country since World War I. Over the past 15 years, over 10,000 artillery shells have been found in Iraq filled with Sarin Gas. These Artillery shells date from the Iran/Iraq War, and the purity of the gas in many of the shells has declined, but some of them are still have high purity levels and could wipe out several city blocks. Saddam's Iraq was supposed to have eliminated all these shells over 25 years ago. They did not. Many of them were hidden or buried. All of them are violations resolutions requiring Iraq to disband of ALL WMD!

Finally, the Iraq war was not just about Iraq's possession of WMD, it was also about preventing Iraq from restarting and rebuilding WMD programs in the future. The only way to do that was by removing Saddam from power.

That is totally ridiculous.
First of all, what Saddam used in the war with Iran was mustard gas, which is not even considered deadly.
Second is that not only did Saddam get the methodology for making mustard gas from the US, but we also sent him the precursor components. There are pictures of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam when they worked out the deal.

You are just lying when you claim 10,000 filled artillery shells were found, because the truth is they were empty. And Saddam never succeeded in making sarin at all. Nor VX. Every single successful chemical warfare weapon was used up in the war with Iran, because Iraq got very close to getting over run. Anyone claiming Saddam has sarin, VX, weaponized anthrax, or any significant WMD is just lying, We have the reports from Keys, and Deufler from their investigation AFTER Saddam was defeated and dead, and they clearly concluded Saddam had NOTHING at all of significance.

You also are lying when you claim that Saddam was in violation of any UN resolution. When he was working WMD during the war with Iran, not only was there no UN resolution against what he was doing, but the US was helping him. There were only UN resolutions after Desert Storm, when the UN turn on Saddam and started lying about him. But it is absolutely clear now without a doubt, that Iran had absoltutely no WMD at all since 1988.

And it is foolish to talk about needing to take out Saddam to prevent him from restarting a WMD program that never existed since 1988, and was the fault of the US giving it to him in the first place. Nor is it illegal for anyone to make WMD, or is it legal for anyone to threaten anyone else about their WMD program.

The US has the largest WMD programs and stockpiles in the world. If you are going to condemn those who try to build and stockpile sarin, VW, anthrax, etc., you have to start with the US, the greatest offender in the whole world!

Sorry, but your wrong. Saddam's use of Chemical weapons during the Iran/Iraq war killed hundreds of thousands of people. Notably Kurdish civilians and Iranian soldiers. Try telling them that their deaths and injuries were due to mustard gas instead of sarin. In event, its a moot point because Saddam was not allowed to have Sarin or mustard gas or any chemicals after his 1990 invasion and illegal annexation of Kuwait.

The United Nations security council made it illegal through resolutions 678 and 687 for Saddam's Iraq to have ANY chemical weapons of any kind! These resolutions were passed in November 1990 and April 1991. They authorized further U.S. military action against Iraq which took the form of airstrikes in the 1990s on an annual basis. Operation Desert Fox in 1998 was the largest. These UN resolutions were also sited in UN resolution 1441 which authorized the invasion of Iraq. UN resolution 1483 in June 2003 authorized the occupation of Iraq. This resolution, authorizing the occupation of Iraq was voted on every year, and won re-authorization every year.

While the initial report on Iraqi Chemical Weapons declared that no new Iraqi chemical weapons had been developed in the late 1990s, it left out the fact that Iraq had failed to disband and destroy what at the time were several hundred artillery shells filled with Sarin. This was in 2004. Since the 2004 report. The number of artillery shells found in Iraq still filled with Sarin or other chemical agents from the Iran/Iraq war has grown to over 10,000. When you occupy a country for nearly a decade, you get to look in places and have time and man power to look in places, that UN inspectors did not in the 1990s. As of right now in January 2019, there are still Artillery shells in Iraq, from he Iran/Iraq war, filled with various chemical agents WAITING to be properly dismantled!.

 

[Oddball]

Sorry, but your wrong. Saddam's use of Chemical weapons during the Iran/Iraq war killed hundreds of thousands of people. Notably Kurdish civilians and Iranian soldiers. Try telling them that their deaths and injuries were due to mustard gas instead of sarin. In event, its a moot point because Saddam was not allowed to have Sarin or mustard gas or any chemicals after his 1990 invasion and illegal annexation of Kuwait.

The United Nations security council made it illegal through resolutions 678 and 687 for Saddam's Iraq to have ANY chemical weapons of any kind! These resolutions were passed in November 1990 and April 1991. They authorized further U.S. military action against Iraq which took the form of airstrikes in the 1990s on an annual basis. Operation Desert Fox in 1998 was the largest. These UN resolutions were also sited in UN resolution 1441 which authorized the invasion of Iraq. UN resolution 1483 in June 2003 authorized the occupation of Iraq. This resolution, authorizing the occupation of Iraq was voted on every year, and won re-authorization every year.

While the initial report on Iraqi Chemical Weapons declared that no new Iraqi chemical weapons had been developed in the late 1990s, it left out the fact that Iraq had failed to disband and destroy what at the time were several hundred artillery shells filled with Sarin. This was in 2004. Since the 2004 report. The number of artillery shells found in Iraq still filled with Sarin or other chemical agents from the Iran/Iraq war has grown to over 10,000. When you occupy a country for nearly a decade, you get to look in places and have time and man power to look in places, that UN inspectors did not in the 1990s. As of right now in January 2019, there are still Artillery shells in Iraq, from he Iran/Iraq war, filled with various chemical agents WAITING to be properly dismantled!.

Suspicions confirmed: a Bushbot.

GTFO, neocon scum....Your days of militarism and international warmongering have long passed.

 

[U2Edge]

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?

Horse shit...You can't say that because the Pentagon has defied any attempts to be audited.

The Pentagon is to you what food stamps are to lolberals.

Its not a secret where defense spending goes. What the men and women make when serving in the armed forces plus the cost of their training when added up equals 2/3s of defense spending. Its not a secret regardless of whether you think the Pentagon has been successfully audited or not.

 

[Desperado]

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.

Clinton handed the bush boy a balanced budget with zero deficits and billions in surplus.

The bush boy created half the deficit we face today. He started with zero deficit. trump is responsible for the other half.

Too bad he was lying through his teeth when he said he would continue the responsible economic policies of Clinton.

Instead, with his very first budget, before 9-11, he restarted the deficit spending. His tax cuts for the rich made it worse. His two wars made it worse. Wars he kept off the books.

By the time he was done he set a new historic high in budget deficits for our nation. Which was 1.4 trillion dollars.

Obama slashed it by nearly half in 8 years even though he was handed the worst economic crash since the last republican Great Depression.

trump is back to the standard huge tax cuts for the rich and out of control spending republicans do whenever they get any power. In two years trump has our deficit back up to nearly 1 trillion dollars.

I wonder what he will have the deficit and national debt up to by the time he's done.

republicans love to spend. They hate to pay for it and don't believe they should pay for what they buy and spend.

Democrats spend but not at such a high rate and they pay for what they spend. Whenever democrats get control of our congress they institute pay as you go. They also increase the days they have work.

When republicans take control of our congress they quickly get rid of that rule. Along with cutting the number of days they have to work.

Biggest bunch of manufacture lies I have heard in a long time. Talk about alternative facts!

 

[Oddball]

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?

Horse shit...You can't say that because the Pentagon has defied any attempts to be audited.

The Pentagon is to you what food stamps are to lolberals.

Its not a secret where defense spending goes. What the men and women make when serving in the armed forces plus the cost of their training when added up equals 2/3s of defense spending. Its not a secret regardless of whether you think the Pentagon has been successfully audited or not.

It's a secret if you don't submit to audits, which the Pentagon has refused to do....Go sell your state-worshiping neocon snake oil to the few fools who are left to buy it.

 

[U2Edge]

Sorry, but your wrong. Saddam's use of Chemical weapons during the Iran/Iraq war killed hundreds of thousands of people. Notably Kurdish civilians and Iranian soldiers. Try telling them that their deaths and injuries were due to mustard gas instead of sarin. In event, its a moot point because Saddam was not allowed to have Sarin or mustard gas or any chemicals after his 1990 invasion and illegal annexation of Kuwait.

The United Nations security council made it illegal through resolutions 678 and 687 for Saddam's Iraq to have ANY chemical weapons of any kind! These resolutions were passed in November 1990 and April 1991. They authorized further U.S. military action against Iraq which took the form of airstrikes in the 1990s on an annual basis. Operation Desert Fox in 1998 was the largest. These UN resolutions were also sited in UN resolution 1441 which authorized the invasion of Iraq. UN resolution 1483 in June 2003 authorized the occupation of Iraq. This resolution, authorizing the occupation of Iraq was voted on every year, and won re-authorization every year.

While the initial report on Iraqi Chemical Weapons declared that no new Iraqi chemical weapons had been developed in the late 1990s, it left out the fact that Iraq had failed to disband and destroy what at the time were several hundred artillery shells filled with Sarin. This was in 2004. Since the 2004 report. The number of artillery shells found in Iraq still filled with Sarin or other chemical agents from the Iran/Iraq war has grown to over 10,000. When you occupy a country for nearly a decade, you get to look in places and have time and man power to look in places, that UN inspectors did not in the 1990s. As of right now in January 2019, there are still Artillery shells in Iraq, from he Iran/Iraq war, filled with various chemical agents WAITING to be properly dismantled!.

Suspicions confirmed: a Bushbot.

GTFO, neocon scum....Your days of militarism and international warmongering have long passed.

The United States after two years of Trump is still maintaining its military bases around the world, its alliances, in addition to having 16,000 troops in Afghanistan, 5,000 troops in Iraq, and 2,000 troops in Syria. Defending the United States and its interest around the world is NOT long passed. It continues, despite those who would try to dismantle it.

 

[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.

all evidence points to the fact that they could pay a lot more without it hurting the economy.

You're lying.

Paul Krugman article sites two different economist who believe a top federal tax rate of 70% or 80% would not hurt the economy. Most of the evidence I have seen supports this.

 

[U2Edge]

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?

Horse shit...You can't say that because the Pentagon has defied any attempts to be audited.

The Pentagon is to you what food stamps are to lolberals.

Its not a secret where defense spending goes. What the men and women make when serving in the armed forces plus the cost of their training when added up equals 2/3s of defense spending. Its not a secret regardless of whether you think the Pentagon has been successfully audited or not.

It's a secret if you don't submit to audits, which the Pentagon has refused to do....Go sell your state-worshiping neocon snake oil to the few fools who are left to buy it.

The Isolationist and anti-defense establishment fools are the ones that have to sell their ideas. Congress and the American people for the most part support the levels of defense spending seen as well as the level of foreign intervention. They have by and large been supporting this since 1945. Rand Paul is in the minority and has little to no power to implement his ideas.

 

[U2Edge]

Why the **** do you want the government to take a larger percentage of your income than you? They haven't proven they are worthy of stealing your money. They spend it on endless wars that do nothing to protect the US, They give it away to foreign governments for no apparent reasons. The US infrastructure and security are not even an after thought.
**** the US Government and **** anyone crazy enough to want a 70% tax rate

So you think Franklin Roosevelt was wrong to involve the United States in World War II?

 

[Andylusion]

why do liberals and dems hate rich successful business people, but love rich successful Hollywood loonies? Do Streisand and Baldwin and Whoopi support a 70% tax on their ridiculous incomes?

Ask them.

I think we both already know the answer. No one wants to pay 70%, rich or poor. What you left wing fools don't understand is that if we were to go to the "government pays for everything" ideology that you seem to want, that YOU would also be paying 70%, unlike now when you pay nothing. the 50% who pay taxes pay for the 50% who don't. Its easy to understand why when you pay nothing you see no personal impact if the govt gives you more free stuff.

Ask the people of Denmark if they like paying 65% of everything they earn. All of them, not just the rich.

No one wants to tax the lower class at 70%. The country benefits when the lower class pays no federal tax because THEY SPEND THAT MONEY IN THE ECONOMY! The whole point of having the proper tax rate is to maximize economic growth while at the same time maximizing revenue collection. The only way to do that is to have a much higher tax rate on the rich.

Bartenders and Janitors in Denmark don't pay 65% of their income in taxes. That would hurt economic growth and those individuals would not have enough money to buy what they need to live. You can still get rich in the Scandinavian countries, but you pay a much higher tax rate than you do in the United States. Just as music artist like ABBA and Ace Of Base from Sweden. Very rich and living the life, but yes, they are paying huge tax rates.

Everyone spends money in the economy. That's not an argument for taxing one person differently than another.

You are correct that Bartenders and Janitors in Denmark are not paying 65% in taxes.... namely because no one is.

View attachment 239516

So let me help you out with this.

Labour market tax, is an 8% tax that applies to all income, no matter what. If you make $5,000 for an entire year, you still pay 8% in tax.

Regional 1% tax also affects everyone.

The state tax of 15% only applies to people making more than $74,000 a year. So a Janitor would only be hit at the 11.13% rate.

Municipal taxes vary from 23% to 28%. We'll go with 23% for the sake of this example. Just understand most people in the country pay on average 25%.

Lastly the big share tax, which is 42% over dkk 52,900. That is about $8,000 USD.

Combined, even the lowest of income earners, will be hit with a tax bill upward of 40% of their income, if not higher. There are deductions, so you don't end up with the 70% taxes that this document would lead you to believe on its own.

Denmark - Taxes on personal income


Nevertheless, the lower class in Denmark, is paying more than double the taxes that the lower class in the US is paying.

And the reason is simple. You simply can't tax the rich enough to fund socialist programs. It is not possible. You have to tax the poor and middle class. That is the only way to fund these programs.

And the people are getting fed up with it. This is why right-wing governments have been winning all over Europe. People are tried of living poor, while working hard.

The United States is wealthier than Denmark even when looking at things on per capita basis. Just looking at GDP per capita, the United States is at $60,000 while Denmark is at $50,000. By that measure, the United States is 20% wealthier with much of that wealth concentrated in the top 1% or top 10%. In Denmark, that is a more equitable distribution of wealth which is why higher taxes on the middle and lower class make sense and work.

Looking at Average wealth per adult in America VS. Denmark we get, $403,974 in the U.S.A VS. $286,712 in Denmark. So the difference based on the average per adult when it comes to total wealth shows the average American is 41% wealthier than the average adult in Denmark. Once again this is just the average adult. That result is not really representative of the average American because so much of that wealth is in the top 1% or top 10%.

Take a look at median wealth per adult in United States VS. Denmark and its $61,677 in the United States VS. $60,999 in Denmark. The United States is lot wealthier than Denmark but you won't find that wealth by looking at Mr. Median.

All of this excess wealth that the United States has which makes its average adult 41% richer than the average adult in Denmark is all concentrated in the top 1% or top 10% in the United States. That is why a higher top federal tax rate would provide the government with lots of money that you would not get in Denmark. Its why Denmark needs extra revenue collected from the middle and lower classes.

The lesson, is that while Denmark may not be able to fund its government with just high tax rates on the rich, the United States can do to the extreme concentration of wealth among the rich in the United States which is not present in Denmark.

List of countries by wealth per adult - Wikipedia

By that measure, the United States is 20% wealthier with much of that wealth concentrated in the top 1% or top 10%. In Denmark, that is a more equitable distribution of wealth which is why higher taxes on the middle and lower class make sense and work.​

On paper that is true.
In reality, things are not nearly a 'equitable' as you would like to claim.

The average Denmark citizen, lives in a tiny apartment, and has no car.



Houses are small, rents are high, and people ride a bike to work, in the snow.

Again, very true on paper. Denmark has way fewer of the super rich, which makes sense. High income taxes do not eliminate the wealthy... it just makes it harder to be wealthy. You are less likely to be able to become the super wealthy in Denmark, than in the US.

By definition an income tax harms people trying to acquire wealth, not those who already have it.

But if you think that a wealthy person in Denmark lives the same as the lower and middle class, because on paper society is more 'equitable'... you are insane.

Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen of Denmark, has a net worth of over $5 Billion dollars. If you think he lives in the same tiny homes, and itty bitty apartments that average Denmark citizens live in, because on paper you see that 'statistically they are more equitable".... then you are insane.

Simply because fewer people in Denmark are able to become wealthy thanks to oppressive taxes, does not mean that the wealthy of Denmark live anywhere close to the standard of living of the middle class. Not even close.

The super wealthy around the world, live hundreds of times better lifestyles than the average, whether in the US, or in Denmark.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

There is no credible correlation between the good economy of that time and the tax rate. The problem wasn't that the Percent of GDP was 121% because the taxes were too low. The problem is that the spending was far too high.

 

[Dana7360]

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%.

I would love for there to be a 70% tax bracket on wages above 10 million a year. I would be very happy to be in that income bracket. In fact, I would be living in very extreme luxury for the rest of my life. Paying taxes would be the least of my thoughts and never a concern or worry.

That means I'm living on over 6 million dollars a year after the 37%. Add to that the 30% I have left after the taxes on the wages above the 10 million and the investments I've made and I'm sitting pretty for the rest of my life.

I guess you think that living on a base wage of over 6 million dollars then add in all the investments and wages above that 10 million dollars is a big hardship for people.

You seem to believe that they will be living on the streets instead in their very comfortable mansions.

There is also a huge benefit of keeping wages for the top 1% lower. If they don't want to pay that rate, they don't have to take salaries that will put them in that tax bracket. Thus leaving more revenues in the company for everyone in the company to benefit. Thus our whole economy benefits.

Imagine if owners of big corporations didn't take millions out of the company a year and instead used that money to pay their workers a living wage so they don't make so little money they qualify for public assistance so us taxpayers don't have to feed, clothe and house them with our tax dollars? Imagine how much we could slash public assistance? Imagine if companies offered and helped all of their employees pay for health insurance so their employees don't qualify for medicaid? How much money could we save? Imagine how much companies could lower their prices for their goods and services if they don't have to generate high profits to pay those high wages to CEOs, executives and stockholders?

Paying CEOS, executives and stockholders huge salaries and dividends while paying employees wages so low they qualify for public assistance and medicaid, harms the whole nation. Paying employees a living wage builds a healthy nation with a healthy economy.

 

[OnePercenter]

Do you think our country would be better off if nobody made over 10mil? Why do you want to punish people that are successful to support people that are a drag on our economy?
What the 70% tax would do is make sure people getting close to the 10mil mark is guarentee they would go on an extended vacation or move. Why would they continue to risk investing or work hard for 30c on the dollar.
Let the rich keep their money, they buy things that keep millions employed. How many lose their jobs if the rich don’t buy a new yacht or plane or all the other things the rich buy.
I guess progressive think the wealthy just put money in the bank and let it set there. Without the investments the wealthy make most people would be unemployed or working for the government, which is what the progressives want anyway.

Since when is putting money in a bank NOT an investment? Have you heard of interest?

Putting money in the bank is not an investment. It is savings. The trouble with conservatives is that have no damn idea the difference between saving and investing. Purchasing a stock is NOT investing. It is saving. Now, buying a brewing kit to brew your own beer to save money on your beer purchases, that is an investment.

"Investment vs Savings Key Differences. Savings means to set aside a part of your income for future use. Investment is defined as the act of putting funds into productive uses. ... Savings do not have any risk of losing money, whereas In Investing there is a risk of losing money."

Investment vs Savings | Top 6 Differences (with infographics)

If you put money into a interest bearing bank account you've put it into a productive use.

 

[rightwinger]

I feel sorry for billionaires

Everyone is so mean to them

 

[danielpalos]

I feel sorry for billionaires

Everyone is so mean to them

democratic capitalists should strive to generate revenue via public policy.

 

[Desperado]

Why the **** do you want the government to take a larger percentage of your income than you? They haven't proven they are worthy of stealing your money. They spend it on endless wars that do nothing to protect the US, They give it away to foreign governments for no apparent reasons. The US infrastructure and security are not even an after thought.
**** the US Government and **** anyone crazy enough to want a 70% tax rate

So you think Franklin Roosevelt was wrong to involve the United States in World War II?

Yes
The people did not want the US involved in another world war. So to get us involved he set up Pearl Harbor as a sneak attack, All the ships were in port, lined up bow to stern and our planes were lined up wing tip to wing tip and just by coincidence the carriers were out at sea, Oh by the way they had cracked the Japanese code weeks before the attack.
Americans were conned into WW2 by the socialist FDR