70% tax rate?

[Herdloyal]

Ok slaves.....firstly get your asses out of your heads and brains back on your shoulder! 3-5% of the People will solve this problem so stand on the sidelines and watch real men and women restore your freedoms and sovereign unalienable rights! We The People are the only Union on the planet not the so-called parties.....where in the Historical Documents of our country gave anyone the right to party on us? This bitch from NY is so ****ing lame she gives Jachasses a bad name! Wake the **** up and learn how to fight this evil once and for all! Your are the Republic act like it until you do know fully the fraud perpetrated upon your person.....don’t think I know.....the truth of your enslavement is in your wallets.....your SSN card!!! And your birth (berth) certificates !!!

 

[Chevy1]

When has DT stated he wants to take us back to the 60-70’s???

I'll be honest, I can't find what era Trump targeted for "Make America Great Again". However, there is one guaranteed certainty; if Trump stated it was the 60s-70s, he would simply deny it if that era didn't suit his talking points du jour.

In the meantime, if you don't like the 60s and 70s....then let's give the late 40s and 50s a whirl......Oh darn! Max tax rate was 70%+ during that time as well.

https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspxhttps://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspx

World War I
In order to finance U.S. participation in World War One, Congress passed the 1916 Revenue Act, and then the War Revenue Act of 1917. The highest income tax rate jumped from 15 percent in 1916 to 67 percent in 1917 to 77 percent in 1918. War is expensive.

After the war, federal income tax rates took on the steam of the roaring 1920s, dropping to 25 percent from 1925 through 1931.

The Depression
Congress raised taxes again in 1932 during the Great Depression from 25 percent to 63 percent on the top earners.

World War II
As we mentioned earlier, war is expensive.

In 1944, the top rate peaked at 94 percent on taxable income over $200,000 ($2.5 million in today’s dollars). That’s a high tax rate.

The 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s
Over the next three decades, the top federal income tax rate remained high, never dipping below 70 percent.

 

[Chevy1]

70% was the tax rate during the 50s - when Eugene McCarthy was on his Communist witch hunt, and Dwight David Eisenhower sat in the White House. It was a time when a person with hopes of advancing a career in the film or any other industry wouldn't dream of having Russian or Communist connections. If they did, their political career, movie career....American career was over.

Again, I don't support that kind of a rate....but let's not get all "Commie" over this very American idea.

 

[-CarlHungus-]

It’s my understanding that very few people actually paid those super high rates back then (they found ways to avoid it) and the effective rates paid were actually very similar to current day. I may be wrong in this but I recall reading it a few years ago.

Unless there is a major overhaul of tax rules no way someone would just willingly pay 70% ...there will be off shoot “family foundations “ or other creative business/accounting measures to avoid paying it and instead “donate” that income somewhere more tax favorable.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44787.pdf

 

[-CarlHungus-]

Also, I believe that high marginal rate back then applied to people making around 1.4 million (in today’s dollars). Top marginal rates now kick in around mid six figures.

 

[Chevy1]

Good points....would like to see a graph through 2018....just to see the impact of recent tax cuts.

 

[extragreen]

Common sense will tell you something is wrong when 80% of wealth goes to the top 1%.

 

[-CarlHungus-]

Common sense will tell you something is wrong when 80% of wealth goes to the top 1%.

You may very well be right, I just don't think we need to blow the whole system up. Wealth inequality is not new though, as Vilfredo Pareto (see the "Pareto distribution" or the "Pareto Principle") described this pretty well in the early 1900's to describe how 80% of Italy's wealth seemed be owned by the the top 20%. At some point though (?maybe we're there?) the inequality gets too much, so we agree on that. But inequalities will always exist, and equality of outcome can lead to tyranny...we need equality of opportunity as the goal.

As Steven Pinker talks about, there may have never been a more prosperous or better time to be alive than the present. Most people *think* poverty is worsening, but that's just the nature of the media today - it's actually much better (see NYT opinion below). Certainly much of this improvement is on the back of the global economy bolstered by the US economy success. If we take a risk and blow this whole thing up and the US economy tanks, then we're in a lot of trouble.

Look - I agree there are major issues for the dispossessed in the US , and major challenges ....but I think more targeted solutions than democratic socialism can be employed to help address them without blowing this thing sky high and taking huge risks (see Nassim Taleb - the Black Swan).

Much to the chagrin of some of my conservative friends I'd be OK with increasing capital gains tax a little bit (like I've said before, I don't think ditch digging income should be taxed at a rate higher than buying and selling equities). But other things like student loan debt should be fixed by putting skin in the game on the University side, not making the problem worse by the very thing that caused it - 100% guaranteed government loans to colleges. Health care is a nightmare and I have no clue how to fix it so I won't even hazard a guess.

https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=1528

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/05/opinion/sunday/2018-progress-poverty-health.html

 

[Chevy1]

Ran into the below article;

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/05/...EZOWKoirk7xTNRuJM4qZm8Jm-JqIvkXgpFUlNUE8Q6C3s

The controversy of the moment involves AOC’s advocacy of a tax rate of 70-80 percent on very high incomes, which is obviously crazy, right? I mean, who thinks that makes sense? Only ignorant people like … um, Peter Diamond, Nobel laureate in economics and arguably the world’s leading expert on public finance.....

And it’s a policy nobody has ever implemented, aside from … the United States, for 35 years after World War II — including the most successful period of economic growth in our history.

 

[SamSwimmer]

Should have known this would be written by Krugman.

 

[-CarlHungus-]

Should have known this would be written by Krugman.

 

[extragreen]

Higher tax rates on the wealthy is not socialism, unless you think the U S was a socialist economy from the 40's thru the 70's. And it MUST be done if you want this nation to prosper in the long run.

 

[-CarlHungus-]

Higher tax rates on the wealthy is not socialism, unless you think the U S was a socialist economy from the 40's thru the 70's. And it MUST be done if you want this nation to prosper in the long run.

I was more referring to her Green New Deal plan, which called for massive spending and increased tax rates.

And we’ve already covered that 40s-70s rates...they were nominal only. People were taking massive deductions then so those rates in effect weren’t actuality.

 

[extragreen]

which called for massive spending and increased tax rates.

That's what we need, provided it comes from those who can afford it.

And we’ve already covered that 40s-70s rates...they were nominal only. People were taking massive deductions then so those rates in effect weren’t actuality.

The difference in effective tax rate of the top marginal tax between then and now would be about 6%. That's a lot of money.