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

[danielpalos]

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.

The United States has one of the lowest tax rates in the world in terms of a revenue collected per year as a percentage of its GDP. U.S. tax revenues are only about 22% of annual GDP while in a country like Norway, they amount to nearly 60% of GDP. Is business and investment dead in Norway? Nope. Norway has a strong economy.

Who are you kidding? Federal taxes are just the start. Then add social security/medicare. And we are ready to start the race. We are taxed at that rate also. Only we add other things like massive security state and military that denies us things. We do get a benefit of our fiat currency used as a medium of exchange without a surcharge for much of our business and trade. There are hundreds and thousands of taxes we pay. And it adds up. Also, many of the products made here are taxed at each level of production until the completed product. That can be 20% of the cost before we are charged again as a sales tax and more.

If it was just Federal taxes it would only be 17% of GDP. Adding in the other taxes it comes out to only 22% of GDP. There are 197 countries in the world. With total taxes only being 22% of GDP, there are 134 countries around the world that have higher taxes as a percentage of GDP.

Of all the countries in the world, the United States has one of the lowest tax rates. Our neighbor to the north, Canada, their collected taxes per year amount to 39.3% of their annual GDP.

We don't have a general warfare clause or a general defense clause;

why do we have alleged and global wars on crime, drugs, and terror?

 

[U2Edge]

The anti-capitalist folks here are happy to ignore the FACT that production per person has not increased due to what the worker is doing but rather due to the business owner providing better tools along with improved machines for production and today, robots.

The workers at Ford motor company did not work any faster or lift any more than they did before the Ford assembly line. It was the Ford Motor COMPANY that increased the production.

Workers work just as hard today as they did 20 years ago or 40 years ago, yet the CEO's are making 50 times what they did back in 1980. Why is that?
Also, economic growth since the year 2000 has averaged an anemic 1.9% per year in terms or real GDP growth. Back in the 1960s when you did not have any robots, gadgets or other technology, growth averaged 5.3%.

With all this technology growth has slowed to the lowest levels since World War II. The worker is making the same amount of money as he did in 1980 after adjusting for inflation. The CEO makes 50 times what he made in 1980. This is what happens when capitalism is not properly regulated by government. Monopolies occur, competition dry's up, growth slows and stagnates, quality declines, while the Rich live high off the hog.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

The United States has one of the lowest tax rates in the world in terms of a revenue collected per year as a percentage of its GDP. U.S. tax revenues are only about 22% of annual GDP while in a country like Norway, they amount to nearly 60% of GDP. Is business and investment dead in Norway? Nope. Norway has a strong economy.

Who are you kidding? Federal taxes are just the start. Then add social security/medicare. And we are ready to start the race. We are taxed at that rate also. Only we add other things like massive security state and military that denies us things. We do get a benefit of our fiat currency used as a medium of exchange without a surcharge for much of our business and trade. There are hundreds and thousands of taxes we pay. And it adds up. Also, many of the products made here are taxed at each level of production until the completed product. That can be 20% of the cost before we are charged again as a sales tax and more.

If it was just Federal taxes it would only be 17% of GDP. Adding in the other taxes it comes out to only 22% of GDP. There are 197 countries in the world. With total taxes only being 22% of GDP, there are 134 countries around the world that have higher taxes as a percentage of GDP.

Of all the countries in the world, the United States has one of the lowest tax rates. Our neighbor to the north, Canada, their collected taxes per year amount to 39.3% of their annual GDP.

We don't have a general warfare clause or a general defense clause;

why do we have alleged and global wars on crime, drugs, and terror?

Too insure the survival of the country which will insure the survival of the MARKET which decides what your house is worth and what you earn at your job.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

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.

Only if it is "EARNED" income. Dividend and capital gains wont fall into the earned income part, and most people who make over $10 million get it through options again not getting taxed as earned income. So this is all smoke and mirrors but supposed to make the petulant impoverished welfare queens and queers feel like she is working for them....


My earned income is around 30 thousand dollars a year. I have dividends coming in around $440,000 a year I only am taxed about $22,000 on that dividend income and $6,000 on the earned income.....See the difference?

This is the unfairness of the tax code. Your real income is $470,000 a year. Years ago Wife sold her business and we had to pay that plus our incomes as earned income. What's the ******* difference is that rich men write the tax laws.

Tax everything at 10% is fair for all.

For years I have advocated a graduated/tiered tax. For example:

Your income is between $0 - $25K/your tax = $0

Your income is between $25+ - $50K/your tax = 5 %

you get the idea

Also: NO write offs, NO deductions, NO credits, NO bovine feces, NO nothing

Shame you are too stupid to not know how to make money, but punish those that work 80 hours a week and have degrees in higher education. I say, take away welfare, stop giving people money to sit on their liberal lazy asses, thus making them "WORK" so they can survive. This not only will reduce the national debt, but enable the new Republican Voters to rely on their God given skills, instead of being a victim of liberalism. Also we would no longer need a wall at our southern border because those that are coming here for our welfare programs will turn around, so another win for the US.

The War on Poverty has cost $22 trillion -- three times more than what the government has spent on all wars in American history. Federal and state governments spend $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars on America's 80 means-tested welfare programs annually.

The War on Poverty Has Cost $22 Trillion
www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=25288

You call me stupid? I paid off my mortgage within the past 12 months. That is saving me many hundreds in interest alone, every month. I paid off over $100 large. You are too stupid to know what that even means.

So, you believe the poorest folks in the nation, the ones that can least afford to pay an income tax, should pay an income tax?

That is your implication.

you do realize that a mortgage has not only a tax deduction but a lower interest rate payment than a signature loan. But if your mortgage is 4% while you have dividend stocks paying 7 -10% you have just wasted a lot of money. yes, you are a victim of liberalism who doesnt know how to make money...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Workers work just as hard today as they did 20 years ago or 40 years ago, yet the CEO's are making 50 times what they did back in 1980. Why is that?

Because CEO's are more valuable to a company than workers. If companies could find the best CEO's to work for 100K a year, they would do it. But like actors and actresses, sports figures, musicians, they have an extreme talent very few other people have.

You and I both own widget companies. We both need a new CEO. One is willing to work for you for 5 mil a year. You don't want to pay that because your workers are earning very well. So I offer the CEO the 5 mil. Within a few years, I am able to sell widgets for much less than you, I take most of your customers, and you close up shop.

That's why they pay CEO's what they pay them, because if you don't want to pay them that money, your competitor just might.

 

[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.

Which is why everybody should be paying income tax. However that's simply not the case. Almost half of our country doesn't pay one dime into income tax. And I don't care about payroll deductions since you get most of that back in social programs and it goes to operate local governments.

I understand that we need taxes to operate the federal government, but I also understand the waste of money by our federal government. I'll vote for the representative the gives me the most goodies as long as they send the bill to you. That's how we got 20 trillion in the hole.

If we raised the marginal rate to 70%, who would want to create wealth? It's simply not worth your time or money. Given the fact the top 10% of wage earners in this country pay over 70% of all collected income taxes and you think it's not fair, then what percentage should they be paying?

The top federal tax rate should be set at the rate that maximizes tax revenue collect without hurting economic growth. The United States has one of the lowest tax rates in the world based on the tax revenue it collects as a percentage of annual GDP. Top federal tax rates were also between 70% and 92% from 1945 to 1980.

So based on that evidence, the top federal tax rate can be increased without hurting economic growth and bring in much needed tax revenue to the government to balance the budget and defend the country.

Its not about what is "fair" for the individual, its about what is best for the country in terms of defending it and growing its economy. There is plenty of evidence from past history and other countries that the rich continue to work just as hard while being taxed at 70%. Plus much of their wealth at that level is based more on market conditions rather than their daily grind or ingenuity.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The United States has one of the lowest tax rates in the world in terms of a revenue collected per year as a percentage of its GDP. U.S. tax revenues are only about 22% of annual GDP while in a country like Norway, they amount to nearly 60% of GDP. Is business and investment dead in Norway? Nope. Norway has a strong economy.

Who are you kidding? Federal taxes are just the start. Then add social security/medicare. And we are ready to start the race. We are taxed at that rate also. Only we add other things like massive security state and military that denies us things. We do get a benefit of our fiat currency used as a medium of exchange without a surcharge for much of our business and trade. There are hundreds and thousands of taxes we pay. And it adds up. Also, many of the products made here are taxed at each level of production until the completed product. That can be 20% of the cost before we are charged again as a sales tax and more.

If it was just Federal taxes it would only be 17% of GDP. Adding in the other taxes it comes out to only 22% of GDP. There are 197 countries in the world. With total taxes only being 22% of GDP, there are 134 countries around the world that have higher taxes as a percentage of GDP.

Of all the countries in the world, the United States has one of the lowest tax rates. Our neighbor to the north, Canada, their collected taxes per year amount to 39.3% of their annual GDP.

We don't have a general warfare clause or a general defense clause;

why do we have alleged and global wars on crime, drugs, and terror?

Too insure the survival of the country which will insure the survival of the MARKET which decides what your house is worth and what you earn at your job.

How did you reach your perspective? it is becoming to seem more like a learned behavior. we merely get more of what we subsidize, seems to be prophetic instead of instructive, for the right wing.

 

[U2Edge]

The United States has one of the lowest tax rates in the world in terms of a revenue collected per year as a percentage of its GDP. U.S. tax revenues are only about 22% of annual GDP while in a country like Norway, they amount to nearly 60% of GDP. Is business and investment dead in Norway? Nope. Norway has a strong economy.

That's a great thing! We have the greatest country in the world. We have millions of people trying to get into America or a better life. Are millions trying to get into Norway?

What are the serious problems concerning Norway?
Geir Harald Hansen, lives in Norway
Jan 17, 2018 · David Reksten, lived in Oslo, Norway

The biggest threat to Norway is financial collapse.

Norway is a banana republic, economically. We don’t have much other than oil going for us. We also have a huge government with much wasteful spending.

The government has a large fund created from oil profits. But this is all promised away in pensions.

There is an imbalance in the size of generations. Soon we will have a lot of pensioners and too few young people to work and pay taxes.

Many immigrants don’t get a job and end up on permanent welfare. We are importing poverty.

The income from oil has dropped and the oil won’t last forever. There is nothing to replace it. There is a belief that government does things best. Private initiative has been strangled. At some point they realized it has gone too far so they tried to fix it with more government. They created something called Innovation Norway. It’s a government agency that takes our tax money and throws it at startups they think look cool. It doesn’t appear to be a good solution so far.

So we are becoming a country of no money, no source of new money, with old people on pensions and young people on welfare.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-serious-problems-concerning-Norway

Demographics are a problem for many European countries. The above is a demographic issue and not a tax issue. The United States won't have this demographic problem provided it does not restrict immigration. Unfortunately, TRUMP is trying to restrict immigration and deport people. This will hurt the United States in the long run. It will damage growth. Already there are labor shortages all across the country. The end result of Trump like policies will be an aging population supported by too few workers.

Let the Latin Americans come. They are more religious than the average American, typically work harder, and have twice as many children. White Americans are not meeting the replacement standard when it comes to the birth rate. To avoid the demographic problems Europe is seeing, let the flood gates of immigration open and STOP deporting people!

 

[U2Edge]

The United States has one of the lowest tax rates in the world in terms of a revenue collected per year as a percentage of its GDP. U.S. tax revenues are only about 22% of annual GDP while in a country like Norway, they amount to nearly 60% of GDP. Is business and investment dead in Norway? Nope. Norway has a strong economy.

Who are you kidding? Federal taxes are just the start. Then add social security/medicare. And we are ready to start the race. We are taxed at that rate also. Only we add other things like massive security state and military that denies us things. We do get a benefit of our fiat currency used as a medium of exchange without a surcharge for much of our business and trade. There are hundreds and thousands of taxes we pay. And it adds up. Also, many of the products made here are taxed at each level of production until the completed product. That can be 20% of the cost before we are charged again as a sales tax and more.

If it was just Federal taxes it would only be 17% of GDP. Adding in the other taxes it comes out to only 22% of GDP. There are 197 countries in the world. With total taxes only being 22% of GDP, there are 134 countries around the world that have higher taxes as a percentage of GDP.

Of all the countries in the world, the United States has one of the lowest tax rates. Our neighbor to the north, Canada, their collected taxes per year amount to 39.3% of their annual GDP.

We don't have a general warfare clause or a general defense clause;

why do we have alleged and global wars on crime, drugs, and terror?

Too insure the survival of the country which will insure the survival of the MARKET which decides what your house is worth and what you earn at your job.

How did you reach your perspective? it is becoming to seem more like a learned behavior. we merely get more of what we subsidize, seems to be prophetic instead of instructive, for the right wing.

Its economic reality of the market in a capitalist system. Such a market needs to be regulated in order to reach its full potential in terms of sustained growth and competition. It needs to be defended and secured, for the market can only prosper in a stable environment. The government defends the market and maintains a stable environment for the market. To do this though, it needs tax revenue, which should be maximized without hurting economic growth. That's why its critical to set the proper top federal tax rate to insure maximum revenue collection without hurting economic growth.

 

[U2Edge]

Workers work just as hard today as they did 20 years ago or 40 years ago, yet the CEO's are making 50 times what they did back in 1980. Why is that?

Because CEO's are more valuable to a company than workers. If companies could find the best CEO's to work for 100K a year, they would do it. But like actors and actresses, sports figures, musicians, they have an extreme talent very few other people have.

You and I both own widget companies. We both need a new CEO. One is willing to work for you for 5 mil a year. You don't want to pay that because your workers are earning very well. So I offer the CEO the 5 mil. Within a few years, I am able to sell widgets for much less than you, I take most of your customers, and you close up shop.

That's why they pay CEO's what they pay them, because if you don't want to pay them that money, your competitor just might.

Yet, overall economic growth has slowed over the last 20 years, yet these people at the top of these companies are still making absurd amounts of money, while the average worker has not seen any increase at all. Its one thing to make more money as a CEO when business is thriving, but that's not the case here. GDP growth is an anemic 1.9% on average since the year 2000. Back in the 1960s when you did not have these massive disparities between what the average worker made and what the CEO made, GDP growth was over 5% EVERY YEAR!

The system now is essentially a welfare program for the rich.

 

[danielpalos]

Who are you kidding? Federal taxes are just the start. Then add social security/medicare. And we are ready to start the race. We are taxed at that rate also. Only we add other things like massive security state and military that denies us things. We do get a benefit of our fiat currency used as a medium of exchange without a surcharge for much of our business and trade. There are hundreds and thousands of taxes we pay. And it adds up. Also, many of the products made here are taxed at each level of production until the completed product. That can be 20% of the cost before we are charged again as a sales tax and more.

If it was just Federal taxes it would only be 17% of GDP. Adding in the other taxes it comes out to only 22% of GDP. There are 197 countries in the world. With total taxes only being 22% of GDP, there are 134 countries around the world that have higher taxes as a percentage of GDP.

Of all the countries in the world, the United States has one of the lowest tax rates. Our neighbor to the north, Canada, their collected taxes per year amount to 39.3% of their annual GDP.

We don't have a general warfare clause or a general defense clause;

why do we have alleged and global wars on crime, drugs, and terror?

Too insure the survival of the country which will insure the survival of the MARKET which decides what your house is worth and what you earn at your job.

How did you reach your perspective? it is becoming to seem more like a learned behavior. we merely get more of what we subsidize, seems to be prophetic instead of instructive, for the right wing.

Its economic reality of the market in a capitalist system. Such a market needs to be regulated in order to reach its full potential in terms of sustained growth and competition. It needs to be defended and secured, for the market can only prosper in a stable environment. The government defends the market and maintains a stable environment for the market. To do this though, it needs tax revenue, which should be maximized without hurting economic growth. That's why its critical to set the proper top federal tax rate to insure maximum revenue collection without hurting economic growth.

Good capitalists use capital not weapons of micro and mass destruction?

Good national capitalists make money on public policies and good national socialists don't.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh, well, if Hufflepuff Post says so, then . . . I believe it even less.

Yeah, Huffpro articles usually require someone to have more than a third grade education to understand.

Uh huh, yeah, THAT'S the problem. I think you're a gullible buffoon because you're just too damned smart for me, and I laugh at Huffandpuff because they're so far beyond me.

You go with that, Sparky.

Well that seems the way to go since the article mentioned several reasons that corporate taxes were too low. You cannot refute those reasons by condemning the source.

Yeah, actually I can, when the so-called source has never had even a tinge of respectability or reliability as a real news source. "But it sounds plausible!" does not require me to suddenly take a tabloid trash site seriously.

If YOU would like to present those "reasons" and make arguments for them, I will be glad to discuss them with you. But if you are going to present Huff'n'Stuff, then I'm going to respond to THAT, and my response is, "Read a real news source, gullible tool."

Great, although I am not holding my breath. But let's give it a shot. First reason.

Firstly, they are doing little to improve our economy to warrant such favorable treatment. As Buffett said, his corporation pays less in taxes than his Secretary. Yet corporations have record profits, and hirings are at multiple year lows, while hoarding a record $2.3 trillion in cash.

What are corporations doing to deserve favorable tax treatment? Hirings at multi year lows, hoarding cash, corporate stock buybacks and inflated executive compensation. I mean the corporate stock buybacks are a glaring case in point. By definition a company buys back it's stock when it has no acceptable capital investments to make. That is why it is distributing it's excess cash to shareholders via a buyback. That is not why an investor buys a stock. That is not what they want the company to do with their cash. They want the company to make INVESTMENTS, to grow, to expand their earnings. So if companies did not have capital investments to make why the hell did they need a tax cut? Worse, a tax cut actually CUTS the number of possibly acceptable investments. It is like a snowball rolling down hill, the WACC is inversely related to the marginal tax rate and the required IRR of any potential capital investment is higher as the marginal tax rate declines.

First of all, Buffett is lying his ass off, and playing a verbal shell game with you, on the assumption that you're too stupid to catch on. And congratulations! You proved him right.

Before you rush on to where we assume your parameters are correct, let's explore your assertions.

Hufflepuff is misquoting Buffett. He never said he or his corporation pay less in taxes than his secretary; he said he paid a lower tax rate than she does, knowing that economic morons like you would immediately conflate that to "less taxes".

The fact is that you're basically comparing apples to oranges. Both Buffett and his corporation pay DIFFERENT taxes than his secretary does. She gets a salary, and pays income tax on it as earned income. Buffett very deliberately does not draw a salary from his company, because he knows that he would then be subject to the same earned income taxes that his employees are, except at MUCH higher rates than they are. Instead, he derives his money from his investments, which are capital gains and taxed as such. The same is true for his company. But because his investment assets and those of his company are worth FAR more than his secretary's salary, they both pay vastly more money in taxes than she does.

I will be happy to agree that the cumulative taxes levied on those who receive salaries are excessive; it does not follow, however, that the solution is to raise capital gains taxes to match the percentage level created by the myriad taxes draining an individual's salary. I can see why this would help politicians and bureaucrats who crave more and more of other people's money to spend, but I can't imagine how this does anything for the individual wage earners. Is it going to increase the secretary's take-home pay if her employer shells more money out to the government? Or is it just going to retard the economic growth of the company, making it less likely that she gets raises and other benefits? Probably doesn't affect Buffett's secretary that directly, since she's a very specialized, highly-trained, and highly-placed employee who is likely to be among the last hit by any economic hardships encountered by the corporation. But it's a very immediate concern to those near the bottom of the corporate ladder.

Also, words like "hoarding" are exactly why your treasured Huff'n'Stuff deserves and receives no respect as a news source. Professional journalists don't use emotionally charged and inaccurate terms like that. Corporations aren't stuffing wads of currency in safes and under the couch cushions in the executive lounge. Much of their retained earnings are actually in motion.

 

[dblack]

Mo guberment, mo guberment.

 

[dblack]

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

It's not tax revenue they're after. It's power. Very few wealthy people will pay 70%. They'll leave the country first, and politicians know that. So, such insane tax rates always come with a wheel barrow full of "incentives" and loopholes. Congress uses these as carrots and sticks to manipulate society, to control private wealth. As long as rich people do as they're told, and don't piss off Congress, they'll be left alone, with most of their wealth intact.

There are 134 countries around the world with higher tax rates than the United States. Given that a rich person is unlikely to move to a 3rd world country, where will they go to after they leave the United States? If its a first world country, the tax rate will likely be the same or higher.

That's not the point. The point is they won't willingly work for the government as slaves. No one would.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Which is why everybody should be paying income tax. However that's simply not the case. Almost half of our country doesn't pay one dime into income tax. And I don't care about payroll deductions since you get most of that back in social programs and it goes to operate local governments.

I understand that we need taxes to operate the federal government, but I also understand the waste of money by our federal government. I'll vote for the representative the gives me the most goodies as long as they send the bill to you. That's how we got 20 trillion in the hole.

If we raised the marginal rate to 70%, who would want to create wealth? It's simply not worth your time or money. Given the fact the top 10% of wage earners in this country pay over 70% of all collected income taxes and you think it's not fair, then what percentage should they be paying?

The top federal tax rate should be set at the rate that maximizes tax revenue collect without hurting economic growth. The United States has one of the lowest tax rates in the world based on the tax revenue it collects as a percentage of annual GDP. Top federal tax rates were also between 70% and 92% from 1945 to 1980.

So based on that evidence, the top federal tax rate can be increased without hurting economic growth and bring in much needed tax revenue to the government to balance the budget and defend the country.

Its not about what is "fair" for the individual, its about what is best for the country in terms of defending it and growing its economy. There is plenty of evidence from past history and other countries that the rich continue to work just as hard while being taxed at 70%. Plus much of their wealth at that level is based more on market conditions rather than their daily grind or ingenuity.

Top federal tax rates were also between 70% and 92% from 1945 to 1980.

So based on that evidence, the top federal tax rate can be increased without hurting economic growth and bring in much needed tax revenue to the government to balance the budget and defend the country.

You didn't provide any evidence.

 

[danielpalos]

Mo guberment, mo guberment.

national capitalists strive to generate revenue not just spend revenue and cut taxes for the rich, so the People can pay the Debts instead; only national socialists, do that.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

These are some of the most baffling comments I have ever read.

It is illegal to cut social security? What are you smoking? Social security is a spending program, no different than any other spending program. It is no more "illegal" to cut social security, than it is "illegal" to cut the military. It is no more "illegal" to cut Social Security, than it is to cut welfare and food stamps, like Bill Clinton did in the 90s.

Social security was created from legislation passed by congress in the 1930s, and it can just as easily be cut or even eliminated by legislation passed by congress today.

Additionally the US courts have ruled as much.

In 1960, the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of Fleming v. Nestor, that workers have ZERO legally binding contractual right to social security. If the government rules that you are to be denied social security benefits tomorrow, you don't even have legal right to sue for benefits.

You need to write this down as absolute fact in your little head.... You have ZERO rights to Social Security. ZERO. The government can cut, or even eliminate your benefits, whenever it suits them, and you have no grounds to complain about it.

There is sooo much mythology surrounding social security, it is baffling to me. I have never met such a large group of people who talk about a topic for decades on end, while knowing practically nothing about it.

When you get health insurance, you have to sign a document.
When you get a mortgage, you have to sign a document.
When you buy a car, you have to sign a document.
Even if you get Medicare, you have to sign a document.

Do tell.... all of you people..... How many of you signed a document to get social security benefits in exchange for a percentage tax on your income?

Not one. So please explain to me, what document you would go into court with, to claim you have a right to social security benefits, that says you agreed to the terms and conditions of Social Security?

None. You have nothing that shows a contractual agreement.

Government is not required to provide you diddly jack shit. And when government ends up unable to pay you, it won't. Greece wasn't a random event. The government went broke, and stopped paying pensions, health care, and education.

That's how socialism works. The government can cut your benefits, at any time, for any reason, whenever it suits their purposes. When Obama said Social Security would be cut, if government couldn't borrow enough money to pay it.... that was fact. Not a threat. That was basic math.

Do not be stupid and foolish enough to think government can't cut your benefits. They most certainly can, and I will even guarantee that in the future they will.

I would bet my entire existence, and everything I own, on it.

And for the record.... Government collected $3.4 Trillion. DOD spending was $600 Billion. That's not half.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Which is why everybody should be paying income tax. However that's simply not the case. Almost half of our country doesn't pay one dime into income tax. And I don't care about payroll deductions since you get most of that back in social programs and it goes to operate local governments.

I understand that we need taxes to operate the federal government, but I also understand the waste of money by our federal government. I'll vote for the representative the gives me the most goodies as long as they send the bill to you. That's how we got 20 trillion in the hole.

If we raised the marginal rate to 70%, who would want to create wealth? It's simply not worth your time or money. Given the fact the top 10% of wage earners in this country pay over 70% of all collected income taxes and you think it's not fair, then what percentage should they be paying?

The top federal tax rate should be set at the rate that maximizes tax revenue collect without hurting economic growth. The United States has one of the lowest tax rates in the world based on the tax revenue it collects as a percentage of annual GDP. Top federal tax rates were also between 70% and 92% from 1945 to 1980.

So based on that evidence, the top federal tax rate can be increased without hurting economic growth and bring in much needed tax revenue to the government to balance the budget and defend the country.

Its not about what is "fair" for the individual, its about what is best for the country in terms of defending it and growing its economy. There is plenty of evidence from past history and other countries that the rich continue to work just as hard while being taxed at 70%. Plus much of their wealth at that level is based more on market conditions rather than their daily grind or ingenuity.

Top federal tax rates were also between 70% and 92% from 1945 to 1980.

So based on that evidence, the top federal tax rate can be increased without hurting economic growth and bring in much needed tax revenue to the government to balance the budget and defend the country.

You didn't provide any evidence.

The rich could fund unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed and still make money;

junk Bonds not junk Laws!

are we not, capitalists on a National basis.

 

[Freiheit]

Your premise seems to be everything belongs to the collective. You are advocating slavery. Ones earnings belong to no one but the earner. The great experiment in collectivism (the Soviet Union) failed. You are one of those who refuses to learn from history.

What you earn, is based on the MARKET. The MARKET decides your salary. The MARKET decides what your house is worth. You did not create the MARKET, you were born into it. In order to keep the MARKET going and to protect it, you need to be taxed at a proper rate based on your income level. This is so the country's government receives the required revenue to pay to defend itself, to insure its survival, and to insure the survival of the MARKET that you depend on for your salary and other earnings.

The best MARKETS in the world are in countries where the governments are able to defend themselves and provide a stable environment where the MARKET can thrive.

If you don't like that you can try your luck in Somalia. In Somalia there is no government to tax you. Move there and see if you like it. If your lucky enough to make a profit in some form of business, you'll have to find a way to defend yourself because there is no government that will send the police or military to defend you are save you. There is no government to collect your trash or put any fires out on or near your property. You'll be responsible for your own plumbing and electricity. You'll be responsible for your own health care as well. Good Luck.

What a baseless conglomeration of senesless gooblegook. The "market" is a creature of the power structure. Chariman Mao was brutally honest when he said "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.". Political power is the basis for taxation. That has been the truth of the matter from the beginning. The "market" is what the power structure wants it to be. The police and military exist to do the bidding of the power structure. Even the Supreme Court codified that when it found the police have no constitutional duty to protect a person from harm. Government protects itself and its' creations.

 

[Synthaholic]