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

[Winston]

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

Math is not your strong suit.

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[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?

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

Ah, conspiracy freaks. There were also aliens that landed at roswell NM in 1947, the moon landing was fake and 9/11 was an inside job? I think not.

 

[Winston]

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.

.01% interest bearing bank account isnt productive. Thanks Obama.
Taking the money and put it into stocks paying 6% to 10% annual dividends is very productive, since inflation is below 2%.

Doesn't matter what the interest rate is. It is still not investing. Matter of fact, any account with "interest" pretty much defines it as savings and not investing.

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[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.

Sorry Alexmarxia Ocasrtro Cortez. 70% tax rate under any circumstances is ridiculous and Keynesian economics don’t work. Go run off now...protest Wall Street...camp out...crap on the sidewalks...do drugs...play bongo drums.

1945 to 1980, the tax rate was between 70% and 92%. Things worked out just fine. Strongest GDP growth in the nations history during that time. National debt dropped from 121% of annual GDP in 1945 to 33% of annual GDP by 1980. GOOD TIMES!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Addressing climate change is a national security issue, but renewable energy is also a jobs issue, a health issue and a pocketbook issue for each American family.

throw in the trash the 44 separate energy tax breaks, anchored by advantages for big oil companies that get billions of dollars in beneficial tax treatment.

What advantages do "big oil companies" get that is not available to other businesses?

We have addressed "climate change" which has been happening for billions of years. When does the rest of the world act?

What advantages do "big oil companies" get that is not available to other businesses?

Depletion allowance

How should they depreciate their oil deposits?

 

[U2Edge]

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.

I never implied that the rich were just getting by in Denmark. The point of my post was to point out why a higher federal tax rate on the rich would work in the United States an provide lots of additional revenue to the government without raising taxes on lower and middle class people in the United States. Again, because of the of the huge level of wealth in the United States among the rich, the average adult is 41% wealthier than the average adult in Denmark. In reality that's not true, Mr. Median in both countries is about the same. But the point is that there is this extra wealth at the top in the United States which is not being taxed and could really help the country out in balancing its budget and paying for important government programs without damaging economic growth.

Well, as Income Taxes are not levied on Wealth, your entire theory that falls apart.

Try again.

Ah, but there is not just income tax. There is also taxes on land, property, purchased products and services, as well as capital gains.

 

[Bush92]

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.

Sorry Alexmarxia Ocasrtro Cortez. 70% tax rate under any circumstances is ridiculous and Keynesian economics don’t work. Go run off now...protest Wall Street...camp out...crap on the sidewalks...do drugs...play bongo drums.

1945 to 1980, the tax rate was between 70% and 92%. Things worked out just fine. Strongest GDP growth in the nations history during that time. National debt dropped from 121% of annual GDP in 1945 to 33% of annual GDP by 1980. GOOD TIMES!

That’s because we had manufacturing jobs and then so-called “free trade” lost them to Mexico and China. Tax code rates had shit to do with it. When mills in Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Youngstown closed...well, there’s your problem. But Harvard economist in their cozy offices, white shirts and ties, never got their hands dirty in their life...will tell you otherwise.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Sorry Alexmarxia Ocasrtro Cortez. 70% tax rate under any circumstances is ridiculous and Keynesian economics don’t work. Go run off now...protest Wall Street...camp out...crap on the sidewalks...do drugs...play bongo drums.

1945 to 1980, the tax rate was between 70% and 92%. Things worked out just fine. Strongest GDP growth in the nations history during that time. National debt dropped from 121% of annual GDP in 1945 to 33% of annual GDP by 1980. GOOD TIMES!

1945 to 1980, the tax rate was between 70% and 92%. Things worked out just fine.

How many countries should we nuke to get back to a 1945 starting point?

 

[mikegriffith1]

If you wanna see American capital flee overseas, sure, go ahead and raise the top marginal rate to 70%. With the economy booming, why oh why would anyone want to jack up taxes on employers and large investors? It just makes no sense.

Plus, back when the top marginal rate was 90% and then 70%, it was a very graduated and the tax code contained numerous loopholes to reduce the bite, not to mention that we didn't have Medicare until LBJ came along, so for most of that time no one had to worry about the Medicare tax.

 

[Bush92]

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.

I never implied that the rich were just getting by in Denmark. The point of my post was to point out why a higher federal tax rate on the rich would work in the United States an provide lots of additional revenue to the government without raising taxes on lower and middle class people in the United States. Again, because of the of the huge level of wealth in the United States among the rich, the average adult is 41% wealthier than the average adult in Denmark. In reality that's not true, Mr. Median in both countries is about the same. But the point is that there is this extra wealth at the top in the United States which is not being taxed and could really help the country out in balancing its budget and paying for important government programs without damaging economic growth.

Well, as Income Taxes are not levied on Wealth, your entire theory that falls apart.

Try again.

Ah, but there is not just income tax. There is also taxes on land, property, purchased products and services, as well as capital gains.

We lost our manufacturing base. We can’t sustain that kind of tax rate without a working middle class. Your just pissing up a rope. Tax codes need to be applied to the status of the economy. We boomed after WW2. 2019 is not 1949.

 

[U2Edge]

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!

That increase did not prevent the rapid GDP growth of the late 1990s!

That increase did not cause the rapid GDP growth of the late 1990s!

I never claimed it did. Choosing the top federal tax rate is about choosing the rate that does not hurt economic growth and maximizes revenue collection. This was successfully done in the late 1990s and it suggest the top federal tax rate could have been even higher than 40% and you will still of had the same GDP growth.

I never claimed it did.

Great. You also never proved the higher rates didn't harm GDP growth.

Yes I did. The higher tax rates of the 1990s did not prevent the historic GDP growth rates of the 1990s.

Yes I did.

Where?

The higher tax rates of the 1990s did not prevent the historic GDP growth rates of the 1990s.

What would the growth rates have been if the top rate had remained 28%?

GDP growth would not have been any different, but the budget deficit would have been worse. No budget surpluses of the late 1990s. Tax cuts on the rich do not drive economic growth because such tax cuts do not impact the rich's consumer spending at these levels. That's why the Bush tax cuts in the early 2000s failed to grow the economy above the rates seen by Clinton much less keep those rates steady.

 

[boedicca]

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.

I never implied that the rich were just getting by in Denmark. The point of my post was to point out why a higher federal tax rate on the rich would work in the United States an provide lots of additional revenue to the government without raising taxes on lower and middle class people in the United States. Again, because of the of the huge level of wealth in the United States among the rich, the average adult is 41% wealthier than the average adult in Denmark. In reality that's not true, Mr. Median in both countries is about the same. But the point is that there is this extra wealth at the top in the United States which is not being taxed and could really help the country out in balancing its budget and paying for important government programs without damaging economic growth.

Well, as Income Taxes are not levied on Wealth, your entire theory that falls apart.

Try again.

Ah, but there is not just income tax. There is also taxes on land, property, purchased products and services, as well as capital gains.

They are already taxed on property in most states - and they already pay sales and excise taxes in most states. And if taxes on capital gains are increased, the very wealthy will move their financial assets out of the country or shelter them in trusts as is already done.

The problem with people like you is that instead of developing policies which are growth oriented, you are static pie grabbers. You can only think of ways to take away from others.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Sorry Alexmarxia Ocasrtro Cortez. 70% tax rate under any circumstances is ridiculous and Keynesian economics don’t work. Go run off now...protest Wall Street...camp out...crap on the sidewalks...do drugs...play bongo drums.

1945 to 1980, the tax rate was between 70% and 92%. Things worked out just fine. Strongest GDP growth in the nations history during that time. National debt dropped from 121% of annual GDP in 1945 to 33% of annual GDP by 1980. GOOD TIMES!

National debt dropped from 121% of annual GDP in 1945 to 33% of annual GDP by 1980. GOOD TIMES!

Federal Net Outlays as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

Well, if you think we should cut Federal spending by 75% over the next 3 years, you've got my support.

 

[Bush92]

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.

I never implied that the rich were just getting by in Denmark. The point of my post was to point out why a higher federal tax rate on the rich would work in the United States an provide lots of additional revenue to the government without raising taxes on lower and middle class people in the United States. Again, because of the of the huge level of wealth in the United States among the rich, the average adult is 41% wealthier than the average adult in Denmark. In reality that's not true, Mr. Median in both countries is about the same. But the point is that there is this extra wealth at the top in the United States which is not being taxed and could really help the country out in balancing its budget and paying for important government programs without damaging economic growth.

Well, as Income Taxes are not levied on Wealth, your entire theory that falls apart.

Try again.

Ah, but there is not just income tax. There is also taxes on land, property, purchased products and services, as well as capital gains.

“From each according to his ability...to each according to his need.”

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That increase did not prevent the rapid GDP growth of the late 1990s!

That increase did not cause the rapid GDP growth of the late 1990s!

I never claimed it did. Choosing the top federal tax rate is about choosing the rate that does not hurt economic growth and maximizes revenue collection. This was successfully done in the late 1990s and it suggest the top federal tax rate could have been even higher than 40% and you will still of had the same GDP growth.

I never claimed it did.

Great. You also never proved the higher rates didn't harm GDP growth.

Yes I did. The higher tax rates of the 1990s did not prevent the historic GDP growth rates of the 1990s.

Yes I did.

Where?

The higher tax rates of the 1990s did not prevent the historic GDP growth rates of the 1990s.

What would the growth rates have been if the top rate had remained 28%?

GDP growth would not have been any different, but the budget deficit would have been worse. No budget surpluses of the late 1990s. Tax cuts on the rich do not drive economic growth because such tax cuts do not impact the rich's consumer spending at these levels. That's why the Bush tax cuts in the early 2000s failed to grow the economy above the rates seen by Clinton much less keep those rates steady.

GDP growth would not have been any different,

Cool story. Prove it.

 

[U2Edge]

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

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

He means 70% of real GDP growth comes from consumer spending.

I mean it's an idiotic claim and that he's an idiot.

A tax cut on lower class, and middle class income increases consumer spending.

Ok.

A tax cut on the rich has no impact on consumer spending.

Because rich people don't buy stuff? LOL!
What do they do with their money?

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

The final Bush tax cut was signed in May 2003.

View attachment 239494

Real Gross Domestic Product

I guess there was no real GDP growth after it passed.

Average quarterly real GDP growth during 8 years of Bush: 1.87%

Average quarterly real GDP growth during 8 years of Clinton: 3.62%

The Bush tax cuts FAILED to sustain the growth seen under Clinton or increase. They then FAILED to prevent the decline in economic growth and finally the 2008 recession.

70% to 80% of economic growth does come from consumer spending. The lower Class and Middle Class increase consumer spending when their taxes are cut. The Rich do not increase their consumer spending when taxes are cut.

Warren Buffet does not increase his annual consumption of Big Mac's in any given year based on his tax rate. People in the lower class and middle class do.

Average quarterly real GDP growth during 8 years of Bush: 1.87%

Your claim was, "Bush's cut of the top federal tax rate from 40% to 35% did not produce any economic growth"

How many quarters of 7% real growth did we see after Obama hiked the top rate?

The Bush tax cuts FAILED to sustain the growth seen under Clinton or increase.

I'll be the first to admit that Internet Bubbles are COOL!

What was Obama's real GDP growth during his 8 years?

70% to 80% of economic growth does come from consumer spending.

I've noticed your inability to understand what GDP means.

Warren Buffet does not increase his annual consumption of Big Mac's in any given year based on his tax rate.

It's good that the purpose of tax cuts isn't to get him to eat more Big Macs.

GDP is the value of all goods and services produced during a given year within a country's borders. Consumer spending is responsible for 70% to 80% of GDP growth in any given year. That's Economics 101.

Bush Jr. average real quarterly GDP growth over 8 years: 1.87%

Obama average real quarterly GDP growth over 8 years: 1.90%

The Bush tax cuts did not produce any economic growth ABOVE what was seen under Clinton. In fact, Clinton levels of growth, average of 3.62% growth was not even sustained by the Bush Tax cuts. Growth averaged 1.87%, worst since the 1930s. Lesson, cutting the top federal tax rate did not help the economy while Bush was President.

GDP is the value of all goods and services produced during a given year within a country's borders.

Yup.

Consumer spending is responsible for 70% to 80% of GDP growth in any given year.

Nope.

That's Economics 101.

I don't believe you.

Bush Jr. average real quarterly GDP growth over 8 years: 1.87%

Obama average real quarterly GDP growth over 8 years: 1.90%

But Obama raised tax rates, why didn't that result in a much higher growth rate than Bush's?

The Bush tax cuts did not produce any economic growth ABOVE what was seen under Clinton. I

Of course not, the Internet Bubble popped before Bush took office.
Lesson, cutting the top federal tax rate did not help the economy while Bush was President.

How much lower would growth have been if he'd left rates at Clinton levels?​

I NEVER SAID TAX INCREASES on the rich raise GDP growth. Its just that don't prevent GDP growth. They don't hurt the economy.

If he had left rates at Clinton levels, there may have been a couple of more years of surpluses followed by years of smaller budget deficits. The higher rates would not have hurt the economy as has already been shown.

 

[U2Edge]

If you wanna see American capital flee overseas, sure, go ahead and raise the top marginal rate to 70%. With the economy booming, why oh why would anyone want to jack up taxes on employers and large investors? It just makes no sense.

Plus, back when the top marginal rate was 90% and then 70%, it was a very graduated and the tax code contained numerous loopholes to reduce the bite, not to mention that we didn't have Medicare until LBJ came along, so for most of that time no one had to worry about the Medicare tax.

Because it won't hurt the economy and will add revenue to help with the budget deficit and government programs. The Rich are under taxed in the United States and it does not help the country! The current top federal tax rate can be raised higher without the Rich fleeing or working less.

 

[U2Edge]

I never claimed it did. Choosing the top federal tax rate is about choosing the rate that does not hurt economic growth and maximizes revenue collection. This was successfully done in the late 1990s and it suggest the top federal tax rate could have been even higher than 40% and you will still of had the same GDP growth.

I never claimed it did.

Great. You also never proved the higher rates didn't harm GDP growth.

Yes I did. The higher tax rates of the 1990s did not prevent the historic GDP growth rates of the 1990s.

Yes I did.

Where?

The higher tax rates of the 1990s did not prevent the historic GDP growth rates of the 1990s.

What would the growth rates have been if the top rate had remained 28%?

GDP growth would not have been any different, but the budget deficit would have been worse. No budget surpluses of the late 1990s. Tax cuts on the rich do not drive economic growth because such tax cuts do not impact the rich's consumer spending at these levels. That's why the Bush tax cuts in the early 2000s failed to grow the economy above the rates seen by Clinton much less keep those rates steady.

GDP growth would not have been any different,

Cool story. Prove it.

I already have. Multiple examples of where cutting the top federal tax rate did not help the economy.