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

[Toddsterpatriot]

How many people do big oil companies employ? How many counties do these big oil companies work in? Idiots like you, only think about you, and how much a victim of liberalism you are, because you are a miserable wretch who cant make it in the world....

How many people does big oil employ?

View attachment 239999

I'm not seeing them......List of largest employers in the United States - Wikipedia

Diversity and inclusion | ExxonMobil

Exxon-Mobil, almost 28,000 US employees.

View attachment 240017

Industries at a Glance: Oil and Gas Extraction: NAICS 211

All oil and gas producers, about 152,400 total employees.

All oil and gas producers, about 152,400 total employees.

The entire oil industry doesn't come close to the top 25 employers.

Retail, health, and IT far outnumber the oil industry.

The entire oil industry doesn't come close to the top 25 employers.

I know, their productivity has really risen over the last few years.

But comparable to the top employers the oil industry has made very little gains in employment.

Did you miss the part about increased productivity?

 

[OnePercenter]

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

Foolish, uninformed statement. Not surprising coming from a radical Progressive.

Specifically, who do you suggest take our place as the leader of the free world?

The tax cuts have stimulated what had been a lagging economy. Have you looked at the jobs market lately?

The rescued by the bank bailout was repaid early, with interest. Not so with the bailout of the American auto manufacturers.

Except

40% of American middle class face poverty by the time they reach age 65: Study

Working-Class Families Are Getting Hit From All Sides - Center for American Progress

Seems that the trump/Putin plan is working.

Do you know why 40% of US citizens face poverty by the time they reach age 65, is because Unions over promise and then underpay, high taxes in certain states, and a healthcare system that is going up even after Obama promised to save them $2,500..
Of course back in the 1990's when the scare of the left was that Social Security was going to run out of money(but welfare never does, go figure) I am my good friends really starting throwing a lot of money into McDonnell Douglas stock. After it went to $300 a share and split 3 for 1, then went back up to $200 a share and split 2 for 1, it was then bought out by Boeing and those shares are up over $350 a share. You can rely on someone else to take care of you and be disappointed or you can plan your own retirement and then if something bad happens to your pension or Social Security, at least you have another source of income....That is why 40% end up in poverty at age 65..

Worker poverty in this country is caused by corporations moving employee salaries lower to fund investor returns. In the 70's, investor returns were 5% to 10% of net profits. Today it's 50% or more.

Reasonably priced healthcare was lost when Reagan reversed the HMO act. Today, healthcare insurance owns or derives profit from 95% of providers. It's a company store.

 

[OnePercenter]

That's what the corporation pays, Lebron pays tax on what he is paid by his corporation which tends to be walking around money.

That's what the corporation pays

Prove it.

That's what all corporations pay 1.5% of revenue. Monetary liabilities are measured by corporations as a percentage of revenue.

That's what all corporations pay 1.5% of revenue.

You're lying.
Let me know when you can prove the LeBron James corporation pays 1.5% Federal tax on his annual income.

That's what all corporations pay under the new tRump tax plan.

Yes, I heard your lie the first time.

Try proving me wrong. Good luck.

 

[OnePercenter]

How many people does big oil employ?

View attachment 239999

I'm not seeing them......List of largest employers in the United States - Wikipedia

Diversity and inclusion | ExxonMobil

Exxon-Mobil, almost 28,000 US employees.

View attachment 240017

Industries at a Glance: Oil and Gas Extraction: NAICS 211

All oil and gas producers, about 152,400 total employees.

All oil and gas producers, about 152,400 total employees.

The entire oil industry doesn't come close to the top 25 employers.

Retail, health, and IT far outnumber the oil industry.

The entire oil industry doesn't come close to the top 25 employers.

I know, their productivity has really risen over the last few years.

But comparable to the top employers the oil industry has made very little gains in employment.

Did you miss the part about increased productivity?

More work for less workers?

 

[Thinker101]

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

Foolish, uninformed statement. Not surprising coming from a radical Progressive.

Specifically, who do you suggest take our place as the leader of the free world?

The tax cuts have stimulated what had been a lagging economy. Have you looked at the jobs market lately?

The rescued by the bank bailout was repaid early, with interest. Not so with the bailout of the American auto manufacturers.

Except

40% of American middle class face poverty by the time they reach age 65: Study

Working-Class Families Are Getting Hit From All Sides - Center for American Progress

Seems that the trump/Putin plan is working.

Do you know why 40% of US citizens face poverty by the time they reach age 65, is because Unions over promise and then underpay, high taxes in certain states, and a healthcare system that is going up even after Obama promised to save them $2,500..
Of course back in the 1990's when the scare of the left was that Social Security was going to run out of money(but welfare never does, go figure) I am my good friends really starting throwing a lot of money into McDonnell Douglas stock. After it went to $300 a share and split 3 for 1, then went back up to $200 a share and split 2 for 1, it was then bought out by Boeing and those shares are up over $350 a share. You can rely on someone else to take care of you and be disappointed or you can plan your own retirement and then if something bad happens to your pension or Social Security, at least you have another source of income....That is why 40% end up in poverty at age 65..

Worker poverty in this country is caused by corporations moving employee salaries lower to fund investor returns. In the 70's, investor returns were 5% to 10% of net profits. Today it's 50% or more.

Reasonably priced healthcare was lost when Reagan reversed the HMO act. Today, healthcare insurance owns or derives profit from 95% of providers. It's a company store.

50% or more? Smells like BS, gotta link?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's what the corporation pays

Prove it.

That's what all corporations pay 1.5% of revenue. Monetary liabilities are measured by corporations as a percentage of revenue.

That's what all corporations pay 1.5% of revenue.

You're lying.
Let me know when you can prove the LeBron James corporation pays 1.5% Federal tax on his annual income.

That's what all corporations pay under the new tRump tax plan.

Yes, I heard your lie the first time.

Try proving me wrong. Good luck.

Nowhere in the tax code does it say corporations are liable for 1.5% of revenues.
Because you lied.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Diversity and inclusion | ExxonMobil

Exxon-Mobil, almost 28,000 US employees.

View attachment 240017

Industries at a Glance: Oil and Gas Extraction: NAICS 211

All oil and gas producers, about 152,400 total employees.

All oil and gas producers, about 152,400 total employees.

The entire oil industry doesn't come close to the top 25 employers.

Retail, health, and IT far outnumber the oil industry.

The entire oil industry doesn't come close to the top 25 employers.

I know, their productivity has really risen over the last few years.

But comparable to the top employers the oil industry has made very little gains in employment.

Did you miss the part about increased productivity?

More work for less workers?

Higher productivity!

 

[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!

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

View attachment 239759

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.

You would destroy the country if you cut federal spending by 75%. The answer is to increase the top federal tax rate. It won't hurt economic growth and will increase revenue collection.

You would destroy the country if you cut federal spending by 75%.

But they did that between 1945-1948, the beginning of the grooviest period in US history.
The country survived, thrived even.

The answer is to increase the top federal tax rate.

Tell you what, if we cut federal spending by 50%, I'll support boosting the rate above $10 million to 45%.
Cutting federal spending won't hurt economic growth.

Federal spending during World War II was massively inflated due to the national emergency of the war. It was far in excess of what was needed to run the country and defend in peace time. So that cut in spending can't be compared to a similar cut in spending today.

You will be unable to defend the country, send people their social security checks, pay for medicare as well as keep up with interest payments on the debt if you were to cut federal spending by 50% or 75%. That is CRAZY. It would definitely hurt economic growth in variety of ways. Being unable to defend U.S. interest abroad could result in hostile aggression that would harm U.S. or global trade which would hurt the U.S. economy. Without social security checks, many citizens would no longer be able to buy the consumer products they do every day having a negative impact on the economy. Without medicare insurance, people would have to spend money they normally spend on consumer products to fund their doctor or hospital visits, which would also hurt the economy.

 

[boedicca]

Right, and Lebron James who is due to make 35 Mil a year would take a big hit, Which would be kind of interesting in the sports world. Suddenly all those guys making the super max contracts would be just taking home the same as the run of the mill guys.

My guess is that you don't understand that all of these "super max contracts" are corporations or corporate trusts that currently PAY 1.5% of revenue under tRump.

You think if Lebron's contract pays him $35 million, this year,
his actual tax paid is 1.5% of $35 million, $525,000?

You're so full of shit.

That's what the corporation pays, Lebron pays tax on what he is paid by his corporation which tends to be walking around money.

Link?

A link to common sense? Why would an individual pay much more tax when our tax code allows them to pay much less?

Ah, so you are just speculating.

Thanks for playing!

 

[U2Edge]

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.

The higher rates worked pretty well from 1945 to 1980. No doom and gloom situations. Most other countries have higher tax rates on their rich than the United States does.

And they would have worked better had they been lower.

High taxes does not necessarily mean 'doom and gloom'. But if you think we would all be better off with less money, and somehow the economy would do just as well without people having money in their pockets, as with.... then that is also not very logical.

Again, as I'm sure many people have pointed out. Our economy was artificially bolstered by two world wars, that left the US being the manufacturing center of the planet. It doesn't surprise me that our economy was able to handle high tax rates, when everyone on the planet was coming to us for stuff.

That doesn't change the fact that lower taxes would have resulted in even more economic growth.

Even JFK admits this. Lower taxes = economic growth. Because people use that money to invest, to spend, and to save. All of which is a benefit to the economy.

Equally, high taxes simply means people have less money. If I have less money, that means I'll invest less, spend less, and save less. That reality doesn't matter if I'm in the top income bracket, or lowest.

Lower taxes on the lower class and middle class increases economic growth because people in those classes usually spend the extra money immediately which boost the consumer spending total. 70% of GDP growth comes from consumer spending.

The Rich on the other hand, do not change their level of consumer spending when they get a tax cut. So there is little to no positive impact in cutting their taxes, plus there is the huge cost of lost revenue when you cut their taxes.

Today, most countries around the world have higher tax rates than the United States. There is no place in the first world where the rich can flee to, to escape heavy taxes, if the United States decided to increase the top federal tax rate above 50%.

The world had recovered from World War II, by the late 1950s and in fact was pushing ahead in terms of development and technology well past where the world had been in 1939.

A higher top federal tax rate means THE RICH have less money. The majority of the population will have the same amount of money. In fact, it would be a good idea to reduce tax rates on the lower middle class and increase them on the rich. Why? Lower taxes on the middle class helps the economy, unlike lower taxes on the rich.

 

[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!

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

View attachment 239759

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.

You would destroy the country if you cut federal spending by 75%. The answer is to increase the top federal tax rate. It won't hurt economic growth and will increase revenue collection.

They did that in the 1940s. It did not destroy the country.

If you increase revenue into the government.... by definition that means there is less money in the economy. If someone in society has less money, because the government taxed it away... then they can't save it, or invest it, or spend it. So by definition, you will harm the economy.

And the real kicker in all this is, you still won't have enough money. Socialism does not work. It does not matter how much money to throw at socialism, it will never be enough.

Again... look at Greece. If taxing did not harm the economy, and if higher taxes resulted in the government having enough money.... then explain how Greece, with Social Security tax of 28% on employers, 16% on employees, 40% personal income tax, 24% sales tax, and a Corporate tax of 49%..... by any estimate, Greece's tax rates were nearly double the US rates.

Did this result in an economic utopia? No. Did this result in a government flush with money? No.

Instead it resulted in the economic catastrophe, that you claim reducing government spending would result in.

The money spent on the military and social security finds its way back into the economy. 2/3s of military spending is paying the troops and paying for their training. Boosting Federal spending in the 1940s did not hurt the economy, it supercharged it.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

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

Foolish, uninformed statement. Not surprising coming from a radical Progressive.

Specifically, who do you suggest take our place as the leader of the free world?

The tax cuts have stimulated what had been a lagging economy. Have you looked at the jobs market lately?

The rescued by the bank bailout was repaid early, with interest. Not so with the bailout of the American auto manufacturers.

Except

40% of American middle class face poverty by the time they reach age 65: Study

Working-Class Families Are Getting Hit From All Sides - Center for American Progress

Seems that the trump/Putin plan is working.

Do you know why 40% of US citizens face poverty by the time they reach age 65, is because Unions over promise and then underpay, high taxes in certain states, and a healthcare system that is going up even after Obama promised to save them $2,500..
Of course back in the 1990's when the scare of the left was that Social Security was going to run out of money(but welfare never does, go figure) I am my good friends really starting throwing a lot of money into McDonnell Douglas stock. After it went to $300 a share and split 3 for 1, then went back up to $200 a share and split 2 for 1, it was then bought out by Boeing and those shares are up over $350 a share. You can rely on someone else to take care of you and be disappointed or you can plan your own retirement and then if something bad happens to your pension or Social Security, at least you have another source of income....That is why 40% end up in poverty at age 65..

Worker poverty in this country is caused by corporations moving employee salaries lower to fund investor returns. In the 70's, investor returns were 5% to 10% of net profits. Today it's 50% or more.

Reasonably priced healthcare was lost when Reagan reversed the HMO act. Today, healthcare insurance owns or derives profit from 95% of providers. It's a company store.

Pay gains during Trump's first year in office are the best since the Great Recession

Pay gains during Trump's first year in office best since the Great Recession

• The Employment Cost Index, a measure of salary and benefit costs, registered a 2.6 percent gain for the full year, tied for the best since 2007.
• That gives President Donald Trump the best wage gains since the Great Recession, easily topping any during former President Barack Obama's entire term.

And you dont think that those employees of the "corporations" arent invested in their own company? Maybe you arent, because you are a stupid ass liberal, but many more are, and doing quite well of late....Just love those victims of liberalism who are too stupid to take care of themselves....

 

[task0778]

Say the top marginal rate is 70% for whatever you make over $10 mil, so what's the rate for what you make over $9 mil but less than $10 mil? 65%? Then between $8 mil and $9 mil, 60%? And so it goes, all the way down to today's 37% at $400k, isn't that what the current top rate is for a single person? That's quite a hit for the big bucks crowd, it's insane to believe there won't be consequences if the rates went up that dramatically, even if you left the rates the same for everyone below $400k. It's a global economy now, and the rich people will find ways to avoid paying those higher rates, so they'll put that money to work in some kind of tax shelter or some other country where the rates ain't so high. Every single time a gov't tries to get more revenue by raising taxes on the rich, they NEVER get the expected increase in revenue. EVERY FREAKIN' TIME. So, it isn't really a revenue question, it's a political issue for lib/dems, I can get myself re-elected if I raise taxes on the rich. Kinda like Robin Hood.

I don't know how anyone can seriously consider raising taxes that much in today's environment. Yeah, I get that the US had super high rates from WWII through to Reagan. but those people had loopholes and deductions galore and very few people actually paid the highest rate. The economic growth experienced back then sure wasn't due tot he high marginal tax rates, but IN SPITE OF them. We had millions of Americans leaving the war and entering the civilian work force and starting new businesses, THAT's where the growth came from, and they ALL paid taxes then, none of this crap where almost half paid no federal income tax at all. THAT's how we paid down the massive war debt, it wasn't from the revenues received from the wealthy.

In those days, there was no other financial market or economy in the world that came even close to the US in terms of investing and making money. Today, there are so many other markets and places where a rich person can invest and make good money and keep most of it. Why? Because most other countries and gov'ts have realized that if you want economic growth you have to incentivize investors and businesses to come to you, and you do that by making your business environment as friendly as possible and by REDUCING YOUR CORP TAX rates. It ain't rocket science, money flows to where it gets the best return no matter where that is. So, if the lib/dems ever gain control of Congress and the WH and they are successful at raising the marginal tax rate to 70%, we'll find out the hard way just how bad of an idea that is.

 

[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.

**** you ass wipe, you failed to answer the question by asking another question.
Back to the first question
Why the **** do you want the government to take a larger percentage of your income than you? Why are they entitled to your money?

Because the money they have comes from the MARKET that they were born into! In order for that MARKET, where they made all that money, to continue to survive it has to be defended. It has to be regulated and supported by a government. The productive market in the United States exist because it was defended and built by generations of people who lived before today's rich were even born. Today's rich in the United States were LUCKY to be born in the United States, where they could work and exploit the most productive market in the world to make their money. But remember, it is the MARKET which decides how much money you make and what your house is worth! Had the same rich people been born in Somalia, despite their best efforts, I doubt that few or any of them would have escaped the poverty and chaos in that country which has no government.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Say the top marginal rate is 70% for whatever you make over $10 mil, so what's the rate for what you make over $9 mil but less than $10 mil? 65%? Then between $8 mil and $9 mil, 60%? And so it goes, all the way down to today's 37% at $400k, isn't that what the current top rate is for a single person? That's quite a hit for the big bucks crowd, it's insane to believe there won't be consequences if the rates went up that dramatically, even if you left the rates the same for everyone below $400k. It's a global economy now, and the rich people will find ways to avoid paying those higher rates, so they'll put that money to work in some kind of tax shelter or some other country where the rates ain't so high. Every single time a gov't tries to get more revenue by raising taxes on the rich, they NEVER get the expected increase in revenue. EVERY FREAKIN' TIME. So, it isn't really a revenue question, it's a political issue for lib/dems, I can get myself re-elected if I raise taxes on the rich. Kinda like Robin Hood.

I don't know how anyone can seriously consider raising taxes that much in today's environment. Yeah, I get that the US had super high rates from WWII through to Reagan. but those people had loopholes and deductions galore and very few people actually paid the highest rate. The economic growth experienced back then sure wasn't due tot he high marginal tax rates, but IN SPITE OF them. We had millions of Americans leaving the war and entering the civilian work force and starting new businesses, THAT's where the growth came from, and they ALL paid taxes then, none of this crap where almost half paid no federal income tax at all. THAT's how we paid down the massive war debt, it wasn't from the revenues received from the wealthy.

In those days, there was no other financial market or economy in the world that came even close to the US in terms of investing and making money. Today, there are so many other markets and places where a rich person can invest and make good money and keep most of it. Why? Because most other countries and gov'ts have realized that if you want economic growth you have to incentivize investors and businesses to come to you, and you do that by making your business environment as friendly as possible and by REDUCING YOUR CORP TAX rates. It ain't rocket science, money flows to where it gets the best return no matter where that is. So, if the lib/dems ever gain control of Congress and the WH and they are successful at raising the marginal tax rate to 70%, we'll find out the hard way just how bad of an idea that is.

Just think how those football players will "FEEL" when they who sacrifice their bodies for our entertainment MUST give up their paychecks to the government so it can be distributed to some liberal scumbag who can then sit in his/her/its basement watching TV on their 75inch LED, because of said player.. Do you think they would be a little pissed?

 

[U2Edge]

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

I think the United States should increase the top federal tax rate from where it is now at 39% back to 70% where it was in 1980. The top tax rate in the United States from 1945 to 1980 was NEVER lower than 70%. The time period of 1945 to 1980 saw the strongest average annual GDP growth in United States history. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was at 121% in 1945. But by 1980, the national debt was only 33% of GDP. During this time period, the United States fought the cold war which involved fighting in Korea and Vietnam as well as deterring the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

How was the United States able to fight these wars, have large annual defense spending, pay for new social programs like Social Security, Medicare etc, while reducing the national debt relative to the country's wealth? It was able to do this by having a top tax rate on the richest Americans that was between 70% and 94% during the time period of 1945-1980. These tax rates on wealthy Americans DID NOT hurt the economy, ruin business etc. The country thrived with these tax rates.

Consumer spending is 80% of economic growth. Most consumers are not wealthy. They are lower class or middle class. Making sure their taxes are lower or balanced is important because they spend money when they get a raise, new job, tax break, etc. The rich though do not change their level of consumer spending when they get a tax cut or obtain more wealth. Their wealth is such that their level of consumer spending is not impacted by tax cuts or tax increases.

So going back to a 70% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans will provide more important revenue for the government without hurting the economy. This extra revenue can be used to balance the budget, pay down debt, increase defense spending, provide more money for education and health care.

The national debt has sky rocketed since 1980 and it has been difficult finding enough money for defense and domestic programs. The solution is a higher tax rate, 70% or more on the wealthiest Americans. It won't hurt the economy as shown by the superior economic growth from 1945 to 1980.

I understand your point however we have a government spending problem and until we reign in that part of the equation, government will continue to be wasteful with the citizens money.

So if we can reign in government spending and cutback spending across the board and eliminate waste, then we can look at the tax structure, until that happens, why give government more money to waste?

Defending the country is a necessity! If you don't defend the country and its interest, it puts its survival at risk.

National Defense
Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
Veterans Benefits
Paying interest on the national debt

Already, those six things are 81% of the federal budget. You can't really cut any of those things. Such spending is generally a necessity. So its not a spending problem, its an economic growth and tax rate problem. Greater revenue collection is the only answer. The only way you get more revenue is through strong economic growth and a higher top federal tax rate.

Of course we can. In fact.... we have to. There is no choice. Social Security WILL BE CUT. It has to happen. There is no other option. Medicare and Medicaid MUST BE CUT. Guaranteed, it's got to happen.

Paying debt interest has to be paid, but we could cut the two things above, and pay down our debts.

Veteran benefits will likely be cut at some point.

To say we can't cut these government handouts is insane. Look at Greece. They said the same thing. Then the entire country went broke, and hospitals closed, and pensions were cut (I think) 60%?

Just because you demand it, and say it can't be cut, doesn't change math. Social Security is going to go broke. It will be cut. Medicare and Medicaid are going broke. It will be cut. Absolutely. It's called 'math'. Go read Atlas Shrugged. You can't legislate that 1 + 1 = 11. Doesn't work. The cost of these programs, is more than the country can support. We'll be in a depression 10X worse than the 1930s.

No, it is illegal to cut social security.
It is just your own money that was withheld, being given back to you at agreed upon interest rates.
To cut social security would be theft and fraud.
It would be like absconding with the pension fund.

Social security is not going broke.
In a couple years it will just have a temporary short fall for awhile.

And forget "Atlas Shrugged" which is a stupid book.
Over half the federal spending is military, so that is all that should be cut.
And no, we are not in a depression at all any more.
We are experiencing slight inflation.

Its not a good idea to cut Social Security, but during a national emergency or war, it is definitely an option. During the Cold War, it was legal for the government to seize all commercial airliners to quickly transport hundreds of thousands of troops to Europe in the event of a crises or war there.

 

[U2Edge]

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

I think the United States should increase the top federal tax rate from where it is now at 39% back to 70% where it was in 1980. The top tax rate in the United States from 1945 to 1980 was NEVER lower than 70%. The time period of 1945 to 1980 saw the strongest average annual GDP growth in United States history. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was at 121% in 1945. But by 1980, the national debt was only 33% of GDP. During this time period, the United States fought the cold war which involved fighting in Korea and Vietnam as well as deterring the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

How was the United States able to fight these wars, have large annual defense spending, pay for new social programs like Social Security, Medicare etc, while reducing the national debt relative to the country's wealth? It was able to do this by having a top tax rate on the richest Americans that was between 70% and 94% during the time period of 1945-1980. These tax rates on wealthy Americans DID NOT hurt the economy, ruin business etc. The country thrived with these tax rates.

Consumer spending is 80% of economic growth. Most consumers are not wealthy. They are lower class or middle class. Making sure their taxes are lower or balanced is important because they spend money when they get a raise, new job, tax break, etc. The rich though do not change their level of consumer spending when they get a tax cut or obtain more wealth. Their wealth is such that their level of consumer spending is not impacted by tax cuts or tax increases.

So going back to a 70% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans will provide more important revenue for the government without hurting the economy. This extra revenue can be used to balance the budget, pay down debt, increase defense spending, provide more money for education and health care.

The national debt has sky rocketed since 1980 and it has been difficult finding enough money for defense and domestic programs. The solution is a higher tax rate, 70% or more on the wealthiest Americans. It won't hurt the economy as shown by the superior economic growth from 1945 to 1980.

I understand your point however we have a government spending problem and until we reign in that part of the equation, government will continue to be wasteful with the citizens money.

So if we can reign in government spending and cutback spending across the board and eliminate waste, then we can look at the tax structure, until that happens, why give government more money to waste?

Defending the country is a necessity! If you don't defend the country and its interest, it puts its survival at risk.

National Defense
Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
Veterans Benefits
Paying interest on the national debt

Already, those six things are 81% of the federal budget. You can't really cut any of those things. Such spending is generally a necessity. So its not a spending problem, its an economic growth and tax rate problem. Greater revenue collection is the only answer. The only way you get more revenue is through strong economic growth and a higher top federal tax rate.

Tons of waste in the government and we need the spending cuts. I’m dont think it is wise to raise taxes without getting rid of waste.

Spending cuts first then raise taxes.

Correct.
And since the military is more than half of federal spending, that is the place to start.

It is actually worse than it looks because you will notice that VA , GIBill, and past military interest is not even included in the 57% blue as it should be, so the total is likely more like 75% military spending.

Its a mistake to label things as mandatory or discretionary. At the end of the day, the only spending that is truly mandatory is defense spending because if the nation cannot defense itself, it may cease to exist. You can't say that about Social Security and Medicare to the same degree.

In any event, the current military budget is barley enough to cover the United States basic security requirements. If anything the defense budget needs to be increased.

The fact is, your not going to be able to balance the budget by cutting spending because most of that spending is needed and if it were cut it would cause a whole host of other problems that would negate any of the benefits from cutting the spending in the first place.

The answer is better economic growth and a higher top federal tax rate on the rich!

 

[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.

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.

In 1945, the national debt was 121% of annual GDP. The top federal tax rate was high in 1945, over 90%, but spending was even higher. It was a necessity at the time given World War II. After World War II, the tax rate remained high between 70% and 94% for the top federal tax rate. Economic growth was good despite those heavier tax rates from 1945 to 1980. By 1980, the national debt was only 33% of annual GDP, a huge drop from where it had been in 1945.

The tax rate did not hurt the economy in the years from 1945 to 1980 despite being above 70% every year.

You're just being goofy. 1945, had we not just come out of a World War?

I have done this before but I’ll do it again for your edification, from (1963). It will do for our purposes. Anyone (a single person) earning $4,000 per year or less paid income tax at the rate of 20%. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $31,800.00 per year. That translates to everyone earning LESS THAN $31,800 PER YEAR TODAY WOULD PAY 20% INCOME TAX. Gosh, that sure would eliminate that 48% that pay no income tax today! Way to go!

As for the top rate of your beloved 91% in 1963, that was paid by those earning over $400,000.00 Adjusted for inflation, that would be $3,186,770.00 today. Do you want to tell us that 1% of the nation earns of 3.2 MILLION PER YEAR? Really?

In the same year, employees paid 3.625% for Social Security and the employer paid nothing. Not quite the 15.2% of today.

Now, do you really want to go back to those rates? Are you aware of the long, long list of deductions in 1963? All interest on everything and the list goes on.

Federal Income Tax Brackets for Tax Year 1962 (Filed April 1963)

FICA & SECA Tax Rates

The Inflation Calculator

As far as the economy being good from 1945 to the present, why are you forgetting all the recessions?

Despite those recessions, AVERAGE GDP GROWTH FROM 1945 to 1980 was better than it has been since 1980. It was in the 1960s where you saw the highest averages above 5% for that entire decade. Since the year 2000, the economy has averaged an anemic 1.9% in terms of GDP growth.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

Please explain how the rich, as you claim, are undertaxed in the United States.

Doesn't it appear to you that it's not the rich who are undertaxed but rather the other 95%? After all, as you know, when tax rates were where you covet, the lower income brackets paid much higher rates. Doesn't that seem fair to all concerned?

THANKS: Top 1% paid as much in federal income taxes as bottom 95%
January 22, 2018 By Andrew Moran
THANKS: Top 1% paid as much in federal income taxes as bottom 95%

A. from 1945 to 1980, the top federal tax rate was between 70% and 94%. Today its around 40%.

B. U.S. tax collection as a percentage of GDP is one of the lowest in the world.

C. The best top federal tax rate is one that maximizes revenue collection without hurting economic growth. 40% is well below the rate that would be best for maximizing revenue collection without hurting the economy.

 

[U2Edge]

Harry Truman increased the top federal tax rate to 92%. Why? To pay for the Korean War. The Korean war was paid for up front without borrowing ANY money. Its the only war in United States history where all the direct cost of the war were paid for immediately through tax increases. Sure, there were some rich people who complained, but most felt it their patriotic duty to pay that rate with the country at war. After all, few if any of the rich were fighting on the front lines in Korea risking possible death and dismemberment. Sure, paying 92% in taxes may be tough, but its certainly not as much of a sacrifice as being killed in combat or being severely injured in combat.

Huge difference. Taking 92% of someones income, to blow it on political games, bad green energy programs, and paying people who simply don't want to pay their bills forever..... is entirely different than a short term expenditure to doing a military offensive.

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?

what is the other 29%? Sounds like the important stuff is covered by 71%, so lets cut the other 29% to 10%. a net saving of 19%, much more than the annual deficit.

Nearly a quarter of the other 29% is paying interest on the national debt. You have to pay that or the debt will grow even larger. Other things in that 29% include, international affairs/diplomacy, General Science, Space, Technology, Agriculture, Administration of Justice, General Government, Energy, Natural Resources, Environment, Housing, Transportation, Community and regional development, Education, Training, Employment, Social Services, income security.

everything on your list could be eliminated or drastically cut and no one would know the difference. We are 20 trillion in debt, we cannot afford those unnecessary things any longer.

Well, then you don't understand the vital functions those things perform for the country. You really think the United States does not need a diplomatic corp with embassy's and consulates around the world? If you think that then you don't understand how important diplomacy and international relations is to the United States.