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

[boedicca]

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.

Hauser's Law proves you are incorrect:

 

[U2Edge]

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

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


No one ever paid 70% in tax.


.

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

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

You're lying.

Even if they could, it's still immoral to suggest that they should.

Yes, and even if the top 5% was taxed at 100% it would not create enough revenue to balance the budget. The libs just don't understand basic economics and math.

The point is to maximize revenue collection without hurting economic growth. A top federal tax rate of just 40% does not achieve that. The top federal rate can and needs to be raised to maximize revenue collection without hurting economic growth.

Starving the country to preserve the income of the rich few is not smart when it comes to national policy.

 

[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.

How many times must you be told? No one ever paid anywhere near 70% in those days. The tax code protected the very rich just as it does today. Warren Buffet says he paid 14% and he files in total compliance with the tax code. Trump's 2005 return showed that he paid around 25%, more than the Clintons or obamas or bidens. and all of them filed in compliance with the code.

The problem is not the top rate, the problems are that the government spends too much, the bottom 50% pay nothing, and the congress has helped their rich donors for years with exemptions and deductions in the code.

We need the bottom 50% to continue spending their money in the economy. Consumer spending benefits the economy, so it would not be wise to raise taxes on them or force them to pay a federal tax if they are not. But the rich can be taxed at higher rates without driving down their spending.

Most of the extra revenue that can be found out there through taxes, without hurting the economy, lies with the rich.

 

[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.

Hauser's Law proves you are incorrect:

View attachment 240029

If that chart is correct, then it only means the rich were not properly taxed in the years from 1945 to 1980. It would mean that they somehow got out of paying the higher rates. Many economist today believe that the top federal tax rate can be increased to 70% to 80% without hurting the economy.

The current revenue that is collected from taxes only amounts to 22% of GDP, one of the lowest rates in the world.

 

[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.

How many times must you be told? No one ever paid anywhere near 70% in those days. The tax code protected the very rich just as it does today. Warren Buffet says he paid 14% and he files in total compliance with the tax code. Trump's 2005 return showed that he paid around 25%, more than the Clintons or obamas or bidens. and all of them filed in compliance with the code.

The problem is not the top rate, the problems are that the government spends too much, the bottom 50% pay nothing, and the congress has helped their rich donors for years with exemptions and deductions in the code.

Think about it...
You really think that NFL and NBA players will pay a 70% tax rate? You think liberal actors like George Clooney or Barbra Streisand will pay the full amount? If you do you need to have your head examined.

If such a rate is approved, they won't have any other choice unless they want to move to a third world country. Music artist like ABBA and Ace Of Base have no problem paying Sweden's higher top federal tax rate.

 

[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.

The only way it was possible to maintain that level of slavery? Tax loopholes so that no one actually paid 70%, and the fact that World War 2 had destroyed the industrial base of every other industrialized country in Europe and Asia....leaving us the only country with any industry.......so if you want to do that, 70% would barely be possible......but now? No way....70% is how you get Venezuela, but with even less food and toilet paper...

Europe was largely rebuilt by the late 1950s/early 1960s. Asia was still largely undeveloped. Tax loopholes became much more common AFTER 1980, but were not common before 1980. Go back to 1978, the height of the disco era, plenty of wealth, but the richest were paying 70% of their income in federal tax. The country was a strong global super power, but the national debt was under control. It was only 33% of annual GDP back in 1978. The period from 1945 to 1980 shows that heavy taxes on the rich will not hurt the economy and will benefit the country as a whole in a variety of ways.

You are delusional.....

No, he is right.

Both wrong.
The 70's were very prosperous because of corruption.
We were borrowing money hand over fist for Vietnam.
And we all knew the fighting in Vietnam was totally corrupt and wrong, and that Ho Chi Minh was extremely popular in both north and south Vietnam.
Sure there was a 70% tax rate, but no one was pay that because it is easy to use tax code loopholes, and the wealthy were very happy because they were getting all these military contracts, like to make illegal chemical weapons, like agent orange.

Look at the national debt history. Clearly Vietnam prevented reduction of debt after WWII, and was a continuation of the bloated war profiteering of the Military Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned us about.

National debt as percentage of annual GDP decline from 121% in 1945 to 33% in 1980, in the United States. Today under Trump, its at around 105% of annual GDP.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

70% of GDP growth comes from consumer spending.

You have a link for this wonderful stat?

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,

So what do they do with their higher take home pay? Any links?

Today, most countries around the world have higher tax rates than the United States.

Link?

A higher top federal tax rate means THE RICH have less money.

Less money to invest.

In fact, it would be a good idea to reduce tax rates on the lower middle class and increase them on the rich.

If the bottom half already pays zero, how much more can we reduce taxes on the lower middle class?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The only way it was possible to maintain that level of slavery? Tax loopholes so that no one actually paid 70%, and the fact that World War 2 had destroyed the industrial base of every other industrialized country in Europe and Asia....leaving us the only country with any industry.......so if you want to do that, 70% would barely be possible......but now? No way....70% is how you get Venezuela, but with even less food and toilet paper...

Europe was largely rebuilt by the late 1950s/early 1960s. Asia was still largely undeveloped. Tax loopholes became much more common AFTER 1980, but were not common before 1980. Go back to 1978, the height of the disco era, plenty of wealth, but the richest were paying 70% of their income in federal tax. The country was a strong global super power, but the national debt was under control. It was only 33% of annual GDP back in 1978. The period from 1945 to 1980 shows that heavy taxes on the rich will not hurt the economy and will benefit the country as a whole in a variety of ways.

You are delusional.....

No, he is right.

Both wrong.
The 70's were very prosperous because of corruption.
We were borrowing money hand over fist for Vietnam.
And we all knew the fighting in Vietnam was totally corrupt and wrong, and that Ho Chi Minh was extremely popular in both north and south Vietnam.
Sure there was a 70% tax rate, but no one was pay that because it is easy to use tax code loopholes, and the wealthy were very happy because they were getting all these military contracts, like to make illegal chemical weapons, like agent orange.

Look at the national debt history. Clearly Vietnam prevented reduction of debt after WWII, and was a continuation of the bloated war profiteering of the Military Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned us about.

National debt as percentage of annual GDP decline from 121% in 1945 to 33% in 1980, in the United States. Today under Trump, its at around 105% of annual GDP.

National debt as percentage of annual GDP decline from 121% in 1945 to 33% in 1980,

Sure, cutting your spending from 40% of GDP to 10% of GDP does wonders for debt reduction.

 

[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.

You failed to show actual causation of GDP to tax rates. All you really did was suggest redistributing income to the government was a better way to spend. If you spend it on debit reduction, that doesn't create jobs or build a thing. Overlooking pent up demand post WWII and the effect of technology on our lives as the real sources of economic spending is laughable.

Well, all that grand technology development since the year 2000 has not boosted economic growth. Again, the United States has averaged 1.9% since the year 2000 when it comes to quarterly real GDP growth. That rate was 3.62% in the 1990s and above 5.3% back in the 1960s. The 1960s had stronger average GDP growth than the late 1940s or 1950s.

Balancing the budget and reducing the national debt and prevent increasing the interest that must be paid on the debt every year as well as make it possible to reduce such interest payments. Those interest payments on the debt reduce the amount of money that can be spent on other government programs.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

It's very interesting to look how tax brackets have changed.

https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal.pdf

The original rates were quite low...up until WWI, when they were increased dramatically. And that's the clue. Our high taxes are largely devoted to a permanent war economy. Rates were lowered after WWII, but once FDR got a hold of the government, taxes increased to punitive levels (hardly a surprise that the Great Depression continued for years). Note in the 1930s the transition in the highest tax bracket of 79% at $5M going to 81% in 1940, and then Boom! in 1941 the rate is increased to 88% on $200K. That's because the real target of income taxes is never the Incredibly Wealthy...it's the productive class that works. Anyone who thins 70% rates aren't going to be aimed at the upper middle class is delusional.

Absolutely. I keep telling left-wingers this, and they live in a delusion where because they said the rich would pay for everything, then they magically will.

Every time anyone says "we'll tax the rich to pay for x", what they are saying is, we're going to tax you.

Every tax ends up hitting the lower and middle class.

The yacht tax in the 90s. All the yachting companies started laying off people, because the rich were buying yachts from France and Asia. Shocking thing about yachts, you can float them back to where you live. Who was hurt? The Rich? No, they got their yachts cheaper elsewhere, and didn't pay the tax.

It was the lower and middle class who worked at those companies, who ended up laid off. They paid the price for those taxes.

Same is true of the luxury phone tax, that the lower and middle class ended up paying the bulk of.

Same is true of social security. Social Security was originally a 1% tax. Now people lose 15% of their income to the social security tax. And it is STILL not enough money! Social Security will go into deficit in the next 10 years last I read.

And the same is true of the income tax. Yeah, you put a 70% on income over $1 Million. Then you start spending money based on this revenue you assume you will get.

Then the rich change how they live, to reduce their tax burden, but the spending continues. Faced with deficits and national debt, the government has no choice but to widen the tax base. Soon it's 70% on people earning $500K, then $200K, and then you have the AMT hitting retired workers.

In the end, taxes aimed at the rich, always harm the lower and middle class. It is unavoidable.

If it wasn't unavoidable, then why hasn't any country in Europe done it? Every single European country, with free health care and education and pensions..... every single one of them has a massive tax burden on the poorest and middle class people of their country.

Why is France burning right now? Why are they protesting across the entire country? I thought everyone was happy in their socialist utopia! They have free health care! They have free education! They have massive pensions! Why is everyone not happy like the left-wing idiots in the US claim they all are?

Because they are living poor, while working hard, to fund their socialist system. That's the reality.

Whether or not one taxes high or low has nothing at all to do with it.
It depends entirely what you do with that tax money.
If you invest tax money into things that pay back even more, like an interstate highway system, then it is worth it.
If you invest in something with no return, that just wastes money, like an invasion of Iraq or the War on Drugs, then you just destroy the economy.

For example, investing in health care does improve the economy.
First of all there is no fraud because no one gets any advantage out of pretending to be sick.
It helps industry and the economy because it not only brings down health care costs, but lowers the cost of production, so that we can more easily compete globally with other countries that have public health care.

We could also improve the economy with high speed rail or hyperdrive tunnels.

Defending the country is NEVER a waste of money. The whole planet depends on energy supply from the Persian Gulf in order to keep prices stable. That energy supply was threatened by SADDAM's continued rule in Iraq which is why he had to be removed. His invasion and annexation of Kuwait and the resultant disruption in oil supply market caused the 1990/1991 recession.

Then there is World War II, probably the largest stimulus the economy ever got in its history. National Security is a necessity, not an option. Fail to protect it, and it will cost the country dearly.

 

[U2Edge]

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

.

Well, of course.


…...if we want to enter a depression that makes the 2008 recession look like child's play in comparison.

The 2008 recession was caused by the combination of war borrowing and tax cuts by Bush.
When you increase the national debt that fast, it soaks up all available credit, and makes the whole world too short of credit to be able to do business.

If not for the Bush tax cuts, likely the 2008 recession would not have happened.
The proof is that the 2008 recession was global, not just the US.

The 2008 recession was the result of failing to properly regulate the economy. The Glass Steagal act signed by Clinton was the largest act of de-regulation in the years before the 2008 recession.

The Bush tax cuts were a mistake, but their impact on the recession was minimal if anything. The borrowing for the war and other government functions was normal and in line with what the United States had done in the past. Defense spending as a percentage of GDP was actually lower while Bush was President than it was during the peacetime of the 1980s, despite wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[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.

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

Look it up, I've posted it many times.

 

[Markle]

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 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

Thank you! You and Jim Acosta seem to have a lot in common. He proved that the wall was vital and it worked. You, on the other hand, have proven that oil companies are not as large and dominant as Progressives want us to believe!

 

[Markle]

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.

That's just foolish and I expected more from you but then, you're a Progressive who is desperate to deflect and distract people from the truth...as you see it!

People, virtually everyone, goes up and down through the income brackets. I, for instance, was paid $0.85 per hour for my first real job. That was $0.15 below the minimum wage because I worked for tips. Like most people earning minimum wage, I was living9 at home and going to high school. Like everyone else, I I went up through the income percentiles. When I retired, my basic income is Social Security. My houses are free and clear as are my cars and Harley. I sold my primary residence for a smaller home. All the capital gains were tax-free. So now, my income is basically below the poverty level.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

.

Well, of course.


…...if we want to enter a depression that makes the 2008 recession look like child's play in comparison.

The 2008 recession was caused by the combination of war borrowing and tax cuts by Bush.
When you increase the national debt that fast, it soaks up all available credit, and makes the whole world too short of credit to be able to do business.

If not for the Bush tax cuts, likely the 2008 recession would not have happened.
The proof is that the 2008 recession was global, not just the US.

The 2008 recession was the result of failing to properly regulate the economy. The Glass Steagal act signed by Clinton was the largest act of de-regulation in the years before the 2008 recession.

The Bush tax cuts were a mistake, but their impact on the recession was minimal if anything. The borrowing for the war and other government functions was normal and in line with what the United States had done in the past. Defense spending as a percentage of GDP was actually lower while Bush was President than it was during the peacetime of the 1980s, despite wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 2008 recession was the result of failing to properly regulate the economy.

Banks making stupid loans to poor credit risks was because the government lifted an earlier regulation against making stupid loans? When did that happen? Do you have a date for a bill signing?
What about HUD telling Fannie and Freddie to buy trillions of dollars in subprime mortgages?
That was a failure to regulate?

The Glass Steagal act signed by Clinton was the largest act of de-regulation in the years before the 2008 recession.

Glass-Steagall didn't prevent banks from writing crappy mortgages.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

.

Well, of course.


…...if we want to enter a depression that makes the 2008 recession look like child's play in comparison.

The 2008 recession was caused by the combination of war borrowing and tax cuts by Bush.
When you increase the national debt that fast, it soaks up all available credit, and makes the whole world too short of credit to be able to do business.

If not for the Bush tax cuts, likely the 2008 recession would not have happened.
The proof is that the 2008 recession was global, not just the US.

The 2008 recession was caused by the combination of war borrowing and tax cuts by Bush.
When you increase the national debt that fast, it soaks up all available credit, and makes the whole world too short of credit to be able to do business.

What a load of BS. In FY 2007, the deficit was $161 billion, but the recession started in Dec 2007.
In FY 2009, the deficit was $1.4 trillion, but the recession ended in June 2009.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Since we have never been attacked since 1812 and we have no threats now, we could easily cut military spending by half, and still have no threat at all. In fact, what we should be doing instead is like Switzerland, and do universal military training.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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

And yet, right around the level collected when rates were 90%.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

No, training is only 9 weeks, and paying the troops are a tiny portion of the cost. The big costs are foreign deployments and massive weapons costs, from carriers to cruise missiles.
Boosting federal spending in the 1940s was all borrowing, and while that has short term expansion, if continued for any long period of time, caused total collapse of the economy.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

I don't think the president can change what is illegal, but merely can suspend enforcement of the law.