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

[McRocket]

View attachment 240323

Your avatar has shown time and again to a) not care in the slightest about fiscal discipline; and b) does not seem to have a clue now the economy works.

Income inequality has almost NOTHING to do with income tax rates. To start with, the mega rich do NOT make their money in 'income' - they make almost all of it in 'capital gains'.

The principle reason for income inequality is government/central bank interventions that benefit the wealthy with mark to market rule changes for banks, corporate bailouts, ultra-low interest rates (which only the rich can truly utilize) and QE (which again, only pumps up the equity markets - which are overwhelmingly owned by the wealthy).


If you raise federal income taxes to 70% (plus state income taxes) - the wealthy will leave...period. Why the **** would someone rich stay in a country that takes almost all of their yearly income?
And forget the old 91% tax rate. That tax rate had ENORMOUS holes in it - almost no one paid that rate...or anything close to it.

You want to (eventually) drastically lower income inequality?

Make it illegal for the government to EVER bail out a company during peacetime, end the Fed's 'full employment' mandate (which will stop them from interfering in the economy for their rich buddies), balance the budget, end all deductions except capital losses and charitable contributions AND make capital gains and income tax rates identical.

 

[Oddball]

1812 is world that no longer exist. The United States has interest all over the world that is vital to its economy and its survival. As time goes by, the world becomes ever more interdependent. Isolationism has been dead since the 19th century. A country like Switzerland is dependent upon NATO for its true security.

Thank you, Woodrow Wilson.

I agree, the US had absolutely no business in WWI and it totally screwed up Europe for a long time, because it was an evil war.

It totally screwewd up the world up until the present time...Not the least of this screwing up is progressive asswipes like the OP, pretending like it's Murica's job to be the MPs for the globe.

 

[Oddball]

Poll: A majority of Americans support raising the top tax rate to 70 percent

"Oh? What’s that? The majority of Americans respect when you break down reasonable policy proposals that are designed to combat runaway income inequality and help fund priorities they value most? We can win public sentiment, stand our ground, & not be scared by GOP information." - AOC

Good link and post. Despite the arguments for and against raising the top federal tax rate to 70%, the poll shows that support is growing among American voters to do this. Its 59% support now, and will get higher as each year goes by. The rich don't have the votes to stop it. Popular support for raising the top federal tax rate as well increasing budget pressure mean that an increase in the top federal tax rate is nearly inevitable.

IOW, might makes right....Again, the mindset of the progressive looter in full flower.

 

[Winston]

This from the dude who was explaining how taxes are progressive. Remember, the seventy percent tax rate would only apply to the income over ten million dollars. So lots of people would start a business and bust their ass so that they could reach ten million dollars of income and the seventy percent rate. What, did nobody start any businesses back in 1950? What about Dunkin Donusts, Denny's, Sonic, and HR Block? You are just spouting off nonsense. Did anyone ever refuse to turn in their winning lottery ticket because the taxes were so high? Besides, taxes come out on the back end, not the front end, which all you conservatives fail to understand. What is it Warren Buffet said, he never knew anyone who ran away from a successful endeavor because of the tax rate.

But yes, higher taxes actually encourage greater risk. The weighted average cost of capital is INVERSELY related to the tax-rate. Higher tax rates increase a companies risk appetite. I mean companies are like investors, it is not the return on their money that they are mostly concerned with. It is the return OF their money. Investors who worry more about the return on their money than the return of their money usually end up with no money.

And your company a, company b choice is just stupid. There are many decisions when it comes to locating a business and the tax rate is not high among them. The United Arab Emirates has the highest corporate tax rate in the world and they sure as hell have no shortage of foreign investment, nor of business Matter of fact, the United States has more new businesses than any country in the world and that was when we had one of the highest corporate tax rates. Now, with the lower corporate tax rate, a dumbshit president, and a dysfunctional government, I fully expect that position to be lost. Number two was Great Britain. Watch them fall in the ratings as well for many of the same reasons.

Remember, the seventy percent tax rate would only apply to the income over ten million dollars.

Oh, so the corporate rate will remain 21% on the profit up to $10 million and then the rate will spike to 70%.

Well, that's much better. No disruptions possible there. DURR!

But yes, higher taxes actually encourage greater risk.

Of course, I'm more likely to invest in equipment to increase my profit from $10 million this year to $20 million next year when the payoff is an additional $3 million after-tax, than when the payoff is an additional $7.9 million.

That's hilarious!

And your company a, company b choice is just stupid. There are many decisions when it comes to locating a business and the tax rate is not high among them.

Right. Ireland had just as many companies before they cut their tax rate to 12.5% as after.

I mean companies are like investors, it is not the return on their money that they are mostly concerned with. It is the return OF their money.

It's both, except for idiots like you.

Matter of fact, the United States has more new businesses than any country in the world and that was when we had one of the highest corporate tax rates.

I'm pretty sure new business formation suffered with our highest in the 1st world corporate tax rates under the previous dumbshit President.

It is not about "socialism", it is not about punishment, hell, it is not even about increasing revenue.

Lie, lie, lie.

It is about providing the incentive and subsidizing the risk, of investment back in to the company.

Raise the tax rate to 100%, subsidize the shit out of risk, eh comrade?

Not very impressive. First, the AOC proposal never said anything about the corporate tax rate albeit that rate should most certainly be adjusted upwards. The results of the cut have not been as promised and much of it was directed towards corporate buybacks instead of capital investment proving my point quite eloquently, to bad you don't have the knowledge to understand.

Ireland, the favorite example of tax cutting fools, is not just about the low tax rate. An educated workforce is also a variable, free college education and all. Plus they have a minimum wage that equates to over $1800 a month. You sure Bernie Sanders didn't get his ideas from Ireland?

Ireland, the favorite example of tax cutting fools, is not just about the low tax rate. An educated workforce is also a variable, free college education and all. Like your more likely to invest fantasy. Guess there are advantages to working for someone rather than running your own business though.

When it comes to new business formation why don't you check the Kaufman Index. It took a dive because of the recession but jumped rather significantly in 2010. Do you know why? I will give you a hint, it had something to do with Obama.

And finally the stupid one hundred percent argument, which is just as stupid as the zero percent argument. The Laffer curve is a curve, afterall. Sometimes you can raise revenue when cutting taxes and sometimes you can't. Anyone who thinks we are on the left side of the Laffer curve at these absurdly low rates is absolutely delusional.

The results of the cut have not been as promised and much of it was directed towards corporate buybacks

Yeah, I hate it when my stocks go up too.

Ireland, the favorite example of tax cutting fools, is not just about the low tax rate. An educated workforce is also a variable, free college education and all.

Obviously. Because their workforce wasn't educated before they cut the tax rate.

Like your more likely to invest fantasy.

You should ask a businessman if a 70% tax rate would make him want to invest more than a 21% rate.

It took a dive because of the recession but jumped rather significantly in 2010. Do you know why?

A Republican House?

Anyone who thinks we are on the left side of the Laffer curve at these absurdly low rates is absolutely delusional.

Anyone who thinks 70% is the revenue maximizing rate is even more delusional.

Who cares about your damn stock. Stock prices increasing were not part of the "deal" when it came to the corporate tax cut. Hell, them going up was a given considering after tax income for every corporation immediately went up. But the deal was investment would increase, incomes would increase, and the economy would blow past four percent GDP growth. Didn't happen.

And you are right about Ireland. Obviously first we need to provide free college education to all Americans and raise the minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour. Then, after a decade or so, we can cut the corporate tax rate to 12.5%. Who knew you were a Bernie supporter.

And if a businessman only cares about the tax rate, well he ain't really a businessman because nobody successful would base their decisions solely on the marginal tax rate.

The Kaufman index took a big jump in 2010 because of Obamacare. See if you can figure out why that happened. And a 70% marginal tax rate is closer to the revenue maximizing rate than 20% based on every empirical study ever done.

And if a businessman only cares about the tax rate, well he ain't really a businessman

If a businessman wants to invest more at a 70% tax rate than at a 21% tax rate, he ain't really a businessman.
At least he won't be one for long.

Yeah, because nobody invested anything in the 1950's

 

[Winston]

It didn't happen. Those are "estimates".

Prove it with a reliable source and link. Otherwise....

No, Trump’s Tax Cut Isn’t Paying for Itself (at Least Not Yet)

 

[Montrovant]

One would assume those too young to have to been born or have forgotten the era of 70%, will say, it only applies to those super wealthy, yet as history so pointedly disclosed it started for those identified as of considerable wealth and creeped downward to hit everyone. It was the excuse used to cap social security contributions, employ a graduated tax scale, and era of deductions, and demise of the American manufacturing.
But f - - k it, go for it, the lessons of history need to be repeated so the young socialists can get a first hand taste of what their teachers have selectivity taught them and what joy it is to exist in a government controlled state.

the dems just want your money. always have.

Government overspending is a non-partisan problem. IMO it's probably a problem that knows no boundaries, neither geographic nor in time. Other countries, other time periods, governments tax as much as they can get away with and spend as much as they can get away with.

 

[Montrovant]

That $20 trillion debt is not going to pay itself off.

It will never be paid off.

Not with Republicans in charge of anything it won’t.

Is it your contention that Democrats do not contribute to the country's debt?

 

[Montrovant]

Here's a truly radical idea: Have the government spend less money.

That one will never work, though, because neither of the two major parties will embrace it.

Another failed talking point. Sometimes I think USMB is stuck in 2011.

The idea of lowering government spending is a "failed talking point"? Or do you just think that overspending is limited to a single party?

 

[Toro]

Accountants, tax attorneys, and residents of the Cayman Islands support it, too.

 

[westwall]

That $20 trillion debt is not going to pay itself off.

True, but progressive tax and spend is only going to make it worse. The only way to actually get out of that debt is to make the US so productive we BUILD our way out of debt. Taxing the rich people won't do that. Taxation period won't do it. Those are the same tired old tactics that ave failed for thousands of years. They claim to be smart but you would think that with thousands of years of history to teach them they would come up with something new, but no. Same old same old.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Remember, the seventy percent tax rate would only apply to the income over ten million dollars.

Oh, so the corporate rate will remain 21% on the profit up to $10 million and then the rate will spike to 70%.

Well, that's much better. No disruptions possible there. DURR!

But yes, higher taxes actually encourage greater risk.

Of course, I'm more likely to invest in equipment to increase my profit from $10 million this year to $20 million next year when the payoff is an additional $3 million after-tax, than when the payoff is an additional $7.9 million.

That's hilarious!

And your company a, company b choice is just stupid. There are many decisions when it comes to locating a business and the tax rate is not high among them.

Right. Ireland had just as many companies before they cut their tax rate to 12.5% as after.

I mean companies are like investors, it is not the return on their money that they are mostly concerned with. It is the return OF their money.

It's both, except for idiots like you.

Matter of fact, the United States has more new businesses than any country in the world and that was when we had one of the highest corporate tax rates.

I'm pretty sure new business formation suffered with our highest in the 1st world corporate tax rates under the previous dumbshit President.

It is not about "socialism", it is not about punishment, hell, it is not even about increasing revenue.

Lie, lie, lie.

It is about providing the incentive and subsidizing the risk, of investment back in to the company.

Raise the tax rate to 100%, subsidize the shit out of risk, eh comrade?

Not very impressive. First, the AOC proposal never said anything about the corporate tax rate albeit that rate should most certainly be adjusted upwards. The results of the cut have not been as promised and much of it was directed towards corporate buybacks instead of capital investment proving my point quite eloquently, to bad you don't have the knowledge to understand.

Ireland, the favorite example of tax cutting fools, is not just about the low tax rate. An educated workforce is also a variable, free college education and all. Plus they have a minimum wage that equates to over $1800 a month. You sure Bernie Sanders didn't get his ideas from Ireland?

Ireland, the favorite example of tax cutting fools, is not just about the low tax rate. An educated workforce is also a variable, free college education and all. Like your more likely to invest fantasy. Guess there are advantages to working for someone rather than running your own business though.

When it comes to new business formation why don't you check the Kaufman Index. It took a dive because of the recession but jumped rather significantly in 2010. Do you know why? I will give you a hint, it had something to do with Obama.

And finally the stupid one hundred percent argument, which is just as stupid as the zero percent argument. The Laffer curve is a curve, afterall. Sometimes you can raise revenue when cutting taxes and sometimes you can't. Anyone who thinks we are on the left side of the Laffer curve at these absurdly low rates is absolutely delusional.

The results of the cut have not been as promised and much of it was directed towards corporate buybacks

Yeah, I hate it when my stocks go up too.

Ireland, the favorite example of tax cutting fools, is not just about the low tax rate. An educated workforce is also a variable, free college education and all.

Obviously. Because their workforce wasn't educated before they cut the tax rate.

Like your more likely to invest fantasy.

You should ask a businessman if a 70% tax rate would make him want to invest more than a 21% rate.

It took a dive because of the recession but jumped rather significantly in 2010. Do you know why?

A Republican House?

Anyone who thinks we are on the left side of the Laffer curve at these absurdly low rates is absolutely delusional.

Anyone who thinks 70% is the revenue maximizing rate is even more delusional.

Who cares about your damn stock. Stock prices increasing were not part of the "deal" when it came to the corporate tax cut. Hell, them going up was a given considering after tax income for every corporation immediately went up. But the deal was investment would increase, incomes would increase, and the economy would blow past four percent GDP growth. Didn't happen.

And you are right about Ireland. Obviously first we need to provide free college education to all Americans and raise the minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour. Then, after a decade or so, we can cut the corporate tax rate to 12.5%. Who knew you were a Bernie supporter.

And if a businessman only cares about the tax rate, well he ain't really a businessman because nobody successful would base their decisions solely on the marginal tax rate.

The Kaufman index took a big jump in 2010 because of Obamacare. See if you can figure out why that happened. And a 70% marginal tax rate is closer to the revenue maximizing rate than 20% based on every empirical study ever done.

And if a businessman only cares about the tax rate, well he ain't really a businessman

If a businessman wants to invest more at a 70% tax rate than at a 21% tax rate, he ain't really a businessman.
At least he won't be one for long.

Yeah, because nobody invested anything in the 1950's

Yes, because......that was my question.

 

[Rigby5]

1812 is world that no longer exist. The United States has interest all over the world that is vital to its economy and its survival. As time goes by, the world becomes ever more interdependent. Isolationism has been dead since the 19th century. A country like Switzerland is dependent upon NATO for its true security.

Thank you, Woodrow Wilson.

I agree, the US had absolutely no business in WWI and it totally screwed up Europe for a long time, because it was an evil war.

Had the United States been more involved in Europe before 1914, to include having troops stationed in France and Belgium, World War I would never of happened. The Germans would not have attacked risking war with France, Britain, The United States and Russia all at once.

The Germans started the war when they invaded Luxembourg on August 1, 1914. By August 2, 1914, there were tens of thousands of German troops in Luxembourg. The Germans were the first country to violate another country's sovereignty in 1914 and thus the blame for the World War rest with them.

Sorry, but that is totally ignorant.
Germany did not attack anyone in WWI.
It was Serbia that assassinated Archduke Ferdinand and his wife, and then when Serbia refused to allow an Austrian investigation that would have revealed it was the government behind the assassination, Russia, France, and England declared war on Germany and Austria, and started attacking them, both on the western and eastern fronts. French troop were many miles into southern Germany before Germany went through Belgium and got behind French defenses, making them retreat back out of Germany.
Clearly it was France that attacked Germany first.
The Germans most definitely did NOT at all start WWI.

Here are the headlines to prove it.

And no, stationing US troops in Europe not only would have been even more provocative, but have increased the frequency of war, because US troops usually start offenses and are not defensive at all.
For example, there would have been no Korean war or war in Vietnam, if not for US troops violating rights.
US troops always have caused conflict, not stopped it, like in China, Panama, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
You seem to forget the US is and always has been an imperialist and colonialist country.
Like bribing Pinochet into the military takeover in Chile, bribing the Shah of Iran into the military takeover in 1953, Operation Ajax, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

That would be a disaster for the country. Budget Deficits would balloon and the country would no longer be able to defend its interest around the world.

Nope. Eliminating tax expenditures would not only balance the budget, it would provide a surplus which could be used to LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.

What you don't realize is all the functions of government that are necessary for the country to survive. Those things have to be properly funded. If you cut spending by 50%, that won't happen.

You clearly do not know what tax expenditures are.

Likely you are correct, but you have to admit it is deceptive terminology and you could explain it better or use a different term. I had to look it up myself in order to know what you were talking about.

It's not deceptive terminology. In fact, it is an accurate economic term which reflects the fact they are an expenditure which has to be paid for. And they are paid for by higher tax rates and borrowing.

That's why I use the term very deliberately. It is the denial that they are an expenditure which is deceptive. I am undoing that deception by using the accurate and correct term.

If we eliminated tax expenditures, we would realize several benefits.

First, the budget would be balanced and we could lower tax rates for everyone.

Second, we would no longer have the existing insane system where entities earning identical incomes pay radically different taxes.

Third, we would no longer be hostage to a government behavioral control program which rewards and punishes certain behaviors.

Fourth, the incentive for special interests to bribe our politicians to put tax expenditures in the tax code for them would be removed. Instant campaign finance reform the RIGHT way.

I agree the results of eliminating tax expenditures would have positive results, be more fair, make the tax codes more transparent, etc.
But they certainly are not expenditures to the payer who then has his taxes lowered, and the federal government getting less tax money hardly seems like an expenditure, because the word "expenditure" normally implies the spending of money you have.

 

[Hiryuu]

That $20 trillion debt is not going to pay itself off.

True, but progressive tax and spend is only going to make it worse. The only way to actually get out of that debt is to make the US so productive we BUILD our way out of debt. Taxing the rich people won't do that. Taxation period won't do it. Those are the same tired old tactics that ave failed for thousands of years. They claim to be smart but you would think that with thousands of years of history to teach them they would come up with something new, but no. Same old same old.

The Progressives are more interested in replacing our Republic with a Democracy; take for instance the idea the majority of Americans wanting anything makes a difference in the first place. Progressivisms has always been one step at a time, and it is only the "same old, same old" because they don't intend on ever changing their goals.

 

[GreenAndBlue]

All polls should explain why the difference in an 18 yr old voting and the age group 50-64 ?

Will the explainers explain like a crook or one honest ?

 

[Synthaholic]

One would assume those too young to have to been born or have forgotten the era of 70%, will say, it only applies to those super wealthy, yet as history so pointedly disclosed it started for those identified as of considerable wealth and creeped downward to hit everyone. It was the excuse used to cap social security contributions, employ a graduated tax scale, and era of deductions, and demise of the American manufacturing.
But f - - k it, go for it, the lessons of history need to be repeated so the young socialists can get a first hand taste of what their teachers have selectivity taught them and what joy it is to exist in a government controlled state.

The last time we had a 70% tax rate families could live and thrive on one person's paycheck.

well Ladd that is pure bullshit. Most of us scraped by pay check to pay check as our employers started closing shop and or moved off shore. There is no excuse for ignorance! If your now hoping to say it was the roaring 50’s then the hole you have dug is deeper than you can spin your way out of.

That started happening once Reagan was elected, not in the 1950s.

 

[Synthaholic]

.and no one ever paid that rate because there were hundreds of exemptions allowed

False.

 

[Synthaholic]

View attachment 240323

She is the leader of a ingorant generation who only think of getting something free

Oh, it won’t be free.

 

[Synthaholic]

That $20 trillion debt is not going to pay itself off.

It will never be paid off.

Not with Republicans in charge of anything it won’t.

Is it your contention that Democrats do not contribute to the country's debt?

Nope! But the Democrats don’t run on spending less, like the Republicans do.

 

[Synthaholic]

That $20 trillion debt is not going to pay itself off.

True, but progressive tax and spend is only going to make it worse.

The last 2 Democratic Presidents reduced the deficit, while GWBush and trump have exploded it.

Speaks to which Party is truly fiscally responsible.