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

[danielpalos]

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)

• FY 2019 - $3.422 trillion, estimated.
• FY 2018 - $3.34 trillion, estimated.
• FY 2017 - $3.32 trillion.
• FY 2016 - $3.27 trillion.
• FY 2015 - $3.25 trillion.
• FY 2014 - $3.02 trillion.
• FY 2013 - $2.77 trillion.
• FY 2012 - $2.45 trillion.
• FY 2011 - $2.30 trillion.
• FY 2010 - $2.16 trillion.
• FY 2009 - $2.10 trillion.
• FY 2008 - $2.52 trillion.
• FY 2007 - $2.57 trillion.

Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

 

[Claudette]

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

That's true. I doubt the money gained by raising the top tax rate would go toward paying down the debt, though.

Yup the Govt leeches would find other things to spend that money on.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There are taxes on capital gains. They need to be raised!

If you want to stop growth, that's exactly what you do.

The reason capital gains taxes are not ridiculous is to encourage investments in the US. If tax rates are too high, the risk of making money is not worth it. Investors would rather invest in tax-free bonds or off shore investments.

So now we make capital gains taxes 50%. You purchased your home in 1990 for 150K. Today you sold it for 250K. You made 100K from your long-term investment. But now you owe government 50K of that for capital gains taxes.

Raising taxes on the rich does not hurt the economy and brings in vital tax revenue to pay for government programs including defense. The best policy is maximizing tax revenue coming into the government without hurting economic growth. Raising taxes on the rich income, capital gains, land, property accomplishes that goal. You want to keep taxes low or next to nothing on the lower class and middle class since they do most of the consumer spending. 70% of GDP growth comes from consumer spending.

It doesn’t hurt the economy? Tell that to California or New York where rich people are heading for higher grounds. Rewarding failure and penalizing success never works out.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Montrovant]

Typical libstain wants your money so she can spend it. **** all that.

We've already established that neither you, nor anyone in here, nor perhaps 80% plus of Americans will be affected by such a tax plan

Would your income be affected by Ocasio Cortez’s 70% marginal tax rate plan

Stop being so melodramatic.

In case I didn't already ask: Do you think it's fine to raise taxes as long as it's someone else being affected?

 

[McRocket]

I don't care what the majority of Americans want in this particular case (though usually, I do).

Most Americans are not in the tax bracket in question - naturally they will be for raising the tax rate in a tax bracket they have nothing to do with.


The ONLY, truly fair tax is where every American (who is not poor - it is pointless to tax poor people) pays EXACTLY the same tax rate...including capital gains.

 

[francoHFW]

I would like to know which members of the USMB here warm over $10 million a year.

The income above 10 million will be taxed at 70%.

Please vote in my poll.

It depends on what the rest of the tables would look like. Would she double all the marginal rates?

.

I doubt she has any plan. She's just throwing that out to see the reaction.

I think you're probably right, but I just wanted to throw a wet blanket on the OP. He's clueless about her plans. Ya never want to give a commie power. They'll pick your pocket clean.

.

35 years now of GOP giveaway to the rich has ruined the middle class and the country. You are absolutely Clueless. If the GOP didn't have lies and racism, they would have nothing at all. Always a disaster.... C 1929 1989 2008 allowing 911 through sheer incompetence, the stupidest Wars ever, and now trade wars tariff fights and chaos for no good reason...

 

[rightwinger]

Increasing taxes on those who make over $10 million would put them on food stamps

 

[basquebromance]

Ocasio-Cortez is still running around looking for Phil Abusters office. She wants to be on the appropriations committee because she understands when something’s appropriate. She says we shouldn’t just teach Civics in schools, we should teach about all automobiles

 

[Markle]

The other night I was watching Jay Leno's Garage and he was featuring a Ford GT he just bought. It's pretty much a carbon-fiber masterpiece, what he calls a "chassis car", oh and it won LeMans for the second time, 50 years apart....he mentioned that several times. He also mentioned he paid $500,000 for it. Imagine having enough scratch to even consider dropping half a million on a car you can't do anything with....you can't let it idle in traffic or let it loose on a freeway, certainly not a commuter because it doesn't have a trunk. He seemed most impressed that it has an AM radio but not enough metal in the chassis to ground it well enough for clear reception. So it's pretty much a "look at me I'm filthy rich" gold-digger magnet. My '85 F-150 works fine by me, and if I hit Leno in an intersection because I couldn't see him from only being a couple feet off the ground, I win.

You're jealous because Jay Leno bought a car for half a million dollars? What a loser!

He has nearly three hundred cars, motorcycles, and other vehicles. He has his own garage where they are all kept. He has all his own mechanics and other employees who maintain the cars. I doubt that the Ford GT is the most valuable car. He also has a Stanley Steamer he has driven on the road along with a jet-powered car which does not go on the road.

Ford developed the Ford GT to compete at LeMans. One of the Ford Sons had tried to purchase Ferrari. Ferrari would not sell. Ford wanted to win at LeMans. Because Ford was snubbed by Ferrari, Ford spent hundreds of millions to develop and build the GT.

He worked extremely hard to get where he is today. He started with nothing and worked his way to success. Jay Leno and his wife are also extremely active in various charities.

Jay Leno has how much of your money? If he wasn't so rich, how much more would be in your pocket.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't care what the majority of Americans want in this particular case (though usually, I do).

Most Americans are not in the tax bracket in question - naturally they will be for raising the tax rate in a tax bracket they have nothing to do with.


The ONLY, truly fair tax is where every American (who is not poor - it is pointless to tax poor people) pays EXACTLY the same tax rate...including capital gains.

Raising taxes on anybody has an indirect effect on everybody.

If it's one thing I learned, it's that the rich guy never takes the hit. Come up with some tax scheme for companies, they simply increase the price of their products, freeze pay increases and benefits for their workers, move some or all operations overseas, and it's the little guy who always ends up paying or getting hurt.

Let's say you came across a small fortune: a small lottery winning, winning a huge lawsuit, being an heir of a wealthy relative. Now you have 200K to do with what you want. Would you risk that money in investments if government is going to take almost 3/4 of it if you make out? It's simply not worth the risk.

People investing money is what makes our world go round., Bring that to a halt and you do the same for our economy.

 

[Winston]

Not very impressive. First, the AOC proposal never said anything about the corporate tax rate albeit that rate should most certainly be adjusted upwards.

Why?

We Should Raise Corporate Taxes (Not Lower Them) | HuffPost

 

[Markle]

Increasing taxes on those who make over $10 million would put them on food stamps

How many people in America earn more than $10 MILLION per year? How much money would that generate?

 

[Markle]

Not very impressive. First, the AOC proposal never said anything about the corporate tax rate albeit that rate should most certainly be adjusted upwards.

Why?

We Should Raise Corporate Taxes (Not Lower Them) | HuffPost

Who pays Corporate Taxes? Where does the money come from?

 

[Lesh]

Clearly that majority is not represented on this board

 

[Synthaholic]

Bush’s war based on lies has nothing to do with NATO. But keep flailing!

Oh, so none of the other NATO nations were spreading the same disinformation and lies about Iraq....Only Bush was.

Got-dammit, are you a sap.

They received the intel from the Bush administration, Short Bus. Although Blair should have listened to his own intel agency instead of ours. I always thought he was smarter than that.

 

[Synthaholic]

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

Wait. So, spending less money is NOT an effective way to reduce the deficit/debt?

It is! We can start with the bloated Defense budget. We don't need billions of spending on new tanks.

Yes we do. The Russians have a brand new tank called the T-14 Armata have leaped ahead of the United States and the West in Tank technology. First production model was released in 2015, although full production to replace Russia's tank fleet has not started yet. Still though, that's way ahead of the United States and other Western countries. The last time the United Sates started mass producing a new tank was in 1981. Roughly the same time period for the United Kingdom and Germany. Germany is dusting of plans to build the Leopard III tank with France. The United States is still just upgrading the old M1 tank without any new firm plans to replace it. As a result, In the 2020s, NATO will have a much greater challenge in defending its eastern border especially in areas like Estonia and Latvia.

If we go to war with Russia it won’t be with tanks. Their tanks are for intimidating Ukraine and their neighbors.

What was the last war overseas that we fought without tanks?

Bosnian War.

 

[Markle]

we don't need the taxes if we abolish our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

Just declare anarchy.

Have you got your guns and farmland?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wait. So, spending less money is NOT an effective way to reduce the deficit/debt?

It is! We can start with the bloated Defense budget. We don't need billions of spending on new tanks.

Yes we do. The Russians have a brand new tank called the T-14 Armata have leaped ahead of the United States and the West in Tank technology. First production model was released in 2015, although full production to replace Russia's tank fleet has not started yet. Still though, that's way ahead of the United States and other Western countries. The last time the United Sates started mass producing a new tank was in 1981. Roughly the same time period for the United Kingdom and Germany. Germany is dusting of plans to build the Leopard III tank with France. The United States is still just upgrading the old M1 tank without any new firm plans to replace it. As a result, In the 2020s, NATO will have a much greater challenge in defending its eastern border especially in areas like Estonia and Latvia.

If we go to war with Russia it won’t be with tanks. Their tanks are for intimidating Ukraine and their neighbors.

What was the last war overseas that we fought without tanks?

Bosnian War.

Really.......you consider that a real war? How many Americans were injured or killed during that vicious war?

 

[Markle]

Again you are lying.
HUD had nothing to do with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac having to buy toxic derivatives.
That was the repeal of Glass Steagall that did that.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were already required by law to buy what ever the banks sold them.
It was up to legislation like Glass Steagall to prevent banks from trying to sell junk to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Almost NEVER does a bank lose a cent on foreclosures.
The bank gets the property at much less than full price, not only because of the down payment and monthly payments made up until then, but the property appreciates in general over time, even if there slight temporary devaluation.

In general, foreclosures are extremely profitable to banks, and that is why there have been so many attempts are trying to regulate this obvious potential abuse by banks. But clearly 2008 was a total failure of bank regulation, that allowed banks to commit wholesale fraud against buyers, which made trillions in undeserved profits for banks. Banks did not at all lose money over the 2008 real estate market collapse. Otherwise they would not have deliberately caused it by deliberately causing the defaults with high ARM increases and flooding the market with foreclosed homes. They could easily instead of accepted the same old payments, without jacking them way up. It is obvious to anyone that the foreclosures were deliberate, in order to depress the market, making it easier for those who did have their own credit, to swallow up properties at half price.

Your ignorance is not surprising. Either that or you are intentionally playing the part of a troll.

No fraud was committed against any borrowers. It was Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and their doings that caused the housing/mortgage/financial meltdown.

Further, banks lose and lose big on virtually every foreclosure. They will do virtually anything to avoid a foreclosure. It no economic sense for them to foreclose. The only way for the bank to make money on a foreclosure is if the market value of the property greatly exceeded the mortgage amount. If that were the case, the owner could have sold the property and paid off the mortgage.

Between Dodd and Frank, they, and their friends required Fannie and Freddie to increase the percentage of sub-par loans they bought from lenders. Since they were required to buy more sub-par loans, the banks were obligated to make more of them, which they were happy to do. Thus came the "no-doc" loans. Loans for which no documents were required, no tax returns for the self-employed, no income verification. It was glorious. I have been a Realtor for over 45 years. I knew we were in trouble when I had dog listings sell for more than the listing price. I knew the crash was coming when home prices started to drop in July 2007.

Just to remind all our FRIENDS from the far left, the responsibility for this mess lies with Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. AND WITH REPUBLICANS for backing off every time Barney Frank and his cronies played…THE RACE CARD! The housing bubble is what led to the downfall and that was driven by Democrats, starting with Jimmy Carter and hugely expanded by Bill Clinton. Here are the facts, once again, for you to ignore….


HUD TO FIGHT DISCRIMINATION, BOOST MINORITY HOMEOWNERSHIP AND WORK WITH URBAN LEAGUE TO FURTHER GOALS
HUD Archives: Cuomo agrees w/Nat'l Urban League -- to Fight Housing Discrimination


New York Times - 1999
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending -
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

August 5, 1997

President Bush’s and the Administrations Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs – Fannie and Freddie dating back to 2001
Just the Facts: The Administration’s Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs

By Elliot Blair Smith,
USA TODAY
Fannie Mae to pay $400 million fine
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Franklin Raines was Director of the Office of Management and Budget under Clinton and returned to Fannie Mae as its CEO in 1999. Raines is not a “chief” economic adviser for President Barack Hussein Obama but has advised the administration on mortgage and housing matters. Obama had hired another former Fannie CEO, Jim Johnson as a member of Obama’s V.P. search committee and who was forced to quit under fire.

Bloomberg News -
How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis -
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Democrats in their own words covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac


Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Democrats of Financial Crisis


From the New York Times
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: September 11, 2003 WASHINGTON,

Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

Read more: New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
[…]
From USNews and World Report
Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle
By Sam Dealey
September 10, 2008
[…
So five years ago, there was one of those rare moments in Washington when the branches and personalities of government—in this case, the Bush administration—are less interested in protecting or expanding their turf than in fixing a looming catastrophe. What was Frank's response to the proposal?

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
[…]
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle

Wall Street Journal Barney’s Rubble – September 17, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB122161010874845645

Barney Frank in 2005: What Housing Bubble?


Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
The White House called for tighter regulation 17 times.
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blog...rats-were-wrong-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac

Steve Kroft On Credit Default Swaps And Their Central Role In The Unfolding Economic Crisis -
The Bet That Blew Up Wall Street

All this, in addition to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act by President William Jefferson Clinton caused the meltdown.

It COULD have been stopped or greatly reduced. Democrats fought that every step of the way and the Republicans wilted under the barrage of being called racist and worse.

 

[U2Edge]

I don't care what the majority of Americans want in this particular case (though usually, I do).

Most Americans are not in the tax bracket in question - naturally they will be for raising the tax rate in a tax bracket they have nothing to do with.


The ONLY, truly fair tax is where every American (who is not poor - it is pointless to tax poor people) pays EXACTLY the same tax rate...including capital gains.

Raising taxes on anybody has an indirect effect on everybody.

If it's one thing I learned, it's that the rich guy never takes the hit. Come up with some tax scheme for companies, they simply increase the price of their products, freeze pay increases and benefits for their workers, move some or all operations overseas, and it's the little guy who always ends up paying or getting hurt.

Let's say you came across a small fortune: a small lottery winning, winning a huge lawsuit, being an heir of a wealthy relative. Now you have 200K to do with what you want. Would you risk that money in investments if government is going to take almost 3/4 of it if you make out? It's simply not worth the risk.

People investing money is what makes our world go round., Bring that to a halt and you do the same for our economy.

Tax policy is about what is best for the country as a whole, not the rich, or individuals in the middle class etc. In order for the nation and government to survive and thrive, tax revenue must be raised in the quantities that are needed for national defense and other government functions regardless of whether you think a certain rate is "fair" or penalizes success.