Our Looming Budget Disaster

[Old_Trapper70]

The wealthy never paid 90% because there were a great many loopholes. A fact constantly ignored by the left.

Not during WW2, or the 50's under Eisenhower. Get your stories straight. In fact, during the founding of this country it was only the wealthy that paid any tax as was set up in the Constitution, and Jefferson wrote about. "Loopholes" were the invention of the Repugnant ones you support, and should never have been allowed.

http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates

• "Today's income tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for rich people. For most of the century, including some boom times, top-bracket income tax rates were much higher than they are today.

• Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

• Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality. (For example, see the 1920s and now).
  "

 

[BigRob]

Let's just go back to the pre-Reagan years, when the very wealthy were taxed up to 90%. The economy STILL worked. . .But obviously, the very wealthy (the top 0.1%) doesn't work anyway!
And, let's count on balancing the budget over a 20 years period.

You can argue the "economy still worked" and that's is correct - however the data also shows us that between 1950 and today we can basically expect to collect the same amount of taxes as a percentage of GDP regardless of the rates. There is some data (but I think its incomplete) that says the early decades with the higher rates correlated to slightly lower tax collections as percentage of GDP.

The data basically seems to show us that you can raise taxes - but collections are going to effectively be range bound as a percentage of GDP. Hence why the goal of tax policy in general, in my opinion, should be to grow GDP - not to maximize collections. What economic argument can be made that a 90% tax rate on those earning (It's about $3.5 million in today's dollars) will grow GDP?

 

[BigRob]

Of course that is the excuse now. However, the tax on the wealthy has been lowered ever since Kennedy, and if you think that has not contributed to the debt then you are dumber then Dog is.

The debt is driven by spending more money than the government collects. Data shows us that generally regardless of the different rates between 1950 and today the government will collect essentially the same percentage of tax as a percentage of GDP.

Now they want to take from the poor so they can give more to the wealthy never grasping the truth that as long as you take from the poor the country will never grow again.

It is a generally true statement that "poor" people do not have a federal income tax burden. I'm not sure I follow the logic that cutting tax rates is "taking" from someone that did not have a federal income tax burden to begin with....

Income inequality was hated by the Founders, was hated by Jesus Christ, and should be hated by anyone with common sense, or a sense of morality.

I reject any economic argument that cannot stand on its own without deferring to a religious or social argument to justify it.

And the right wing will not be happy until the poor in this country have the same standard of living as those who live in the huts of Africa:

http://dailysignal.com/2014/09/15/9-facts-poor-america-live/

Not even worth a response...