Top marginal income tax rate should be fifty percent

[Syrinx]

I'm not sure at what income level that it should kick in.

But people making tens and hundreds and thousands of millions of dollars a year are clearly being supported by "the folks."

It's only fair.

If the folks have no money, who is going to buy their cars and computers and movies and video games?

The right-wing idiots want to concentrate all the wealth into the hands of a few.

What happens when the wealth becomes totally concentrated?

A total collapse of the "system," because nobody has any money to spend.

That's what we're heading toward.

The consumers will have all the money. But the producers will be deprived, and they will wither and die.

And the consumers will be left with their pile of gold.

In an ending suitable for The Twilight Zone, they will realize that Gold isn't really good for much of anything practical.

They will look at their bars of gold and wordlessly weep.

Tax the rich. Tax the rich. That's where the money is, stupid.

[suivezlargent]

1. one of the lefty talkers on the radio

last week was talking about this topic with some economists.
They were able to determine mathematically that a top marginal rate of 70% is the best rate for this country over all.

[Syrinx]

2. sounds good to me

It was once over 90%.

[lefthandedlefty]

6. Even that high would not be bad for big business

It would just cause them to invest more in thier business unlike now where they just keep the profits and run the business to the ground.Investing in your business is a good tax write off as is paying wages.I think that would create more spending thus creating more jobs.I think a good law to pass also on CEO`s would be that if they get money from investors then bankrupt the company is make them pay back thier salaries to the investors.

[Cresent City Kid]

31. That makes sense

I hope a real debate on this emerges from the campaign. So far we hear Obama and others saying the rich need to share the sacrifice, and Boehner et al saying we can't tax "the very people we expect to create jobs" and then nothing. The Dems need to extend the argument, logic and the facts are clear. When the right addresses the issue, the spew the same worn canard about the tax savings being invested in jobs, but it's really about the right to get rich and keep the money.

[joeglow3]

68. You realize taxes owed are a function of 2 things (tax rate and taxable income)

You should research why they passed the Alternative Minimum Tax.

[BootinUp]

27. Anything online to read about that you can point to?

[dkf]

4. It's because the really rich are making money off the entire world.

What happens if it's better to base yourself out of another country?

We've been helped by the fact that the truly ambitious want to come here because they can make a lot of money. Take that away and you incentivize people to move to where opportunities are better.

We should be concentrating on evening the playing field instead of disincentivizing ambition. That probably does mean getting money out of politics, but it shouldn't mean a punitive attitude towards wealth.

[quaker bill]

30. This logic has limits

It sounds terribly much like hostage taking. If we don't let them stay and make all the money they desire, they will take their bag of marbles and go elsewhere.

We are still the world's largest economy and there is money to be made here. There is very little evidence for capital flight between States for tax advantage.

If tax rates were the sort of motivator the right believes them to be, the high-tech jobs in high tax states like MA in the Northeast should have drained to the low wage, low tax, right to work, minimal service states in the Southeast a long time ago, they haven't.

[dkf]

32. Its not flight so much as lessening the attraction for the world's best and brightest to move here.

"Already, 70% of engineers with PhD’s who graduate from U.S. universities are foreign-born. Increasingly, these talented individuals are not staying in the U.S – instead, they’re returning home, where they find greater opportunities."


http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2011/01/20/danger-america-is-losing-its-edge-in-innovation/

[quaker bill]

34. There is little in the way of policy to fix this

The opportunities for top rung graduates will always be better in places where there are very few of them in the population and the economy is in the developing mode. This is a problem that is not amenable to a tax policy fix. Beyond that, you have quasi-governmental technological development programs in many of these places. Now if one were to collect revenue from those who have the income and wealth, and invest it in tech development programs (like we did with the space industry), we could get back to a level playing field. However, few are speaking of this sort of policy.

Tax incentives do almost nothing. This is largely because ambient tax levels are currently so low that there is little incentive to offer. When GE can make 4 billion in a quarter and not owe a red cent in taxes, what incentive is left?

[Bluenorthwest]

86. We don't tax wealth, we tax income. Many other countries tax both.

And the idea that immigration is like a shopping trip to the mall is just silly. Country swapping is not easy. And countries that offer similar perks to the US also tax more than the US. Yep. There is no place where things are as good where the taxes are much lower. Opportunities and low, low taxes do not go hand in hand. I mean, where would you suggest? Which places are welcoming of immigrants, full of opportunities for new comers, with low taxes, good schools and all of that? You speak as if there are dozens of such open gates, crying for folks to come use their resources for nothing, and that is simply not the case.

[KharmaTrain]

5. Here's The Rub...

It's 535 Congresscritters...many who have incomes and/or assets in the upper income brackets. Not only that, they rely upon the checks of corporations and high rollers who are also in those brackets. Now try to get any of these people to push for any tax increase. We already see the rushpublicans would rather see the taxes go up on 160 million people rather than see the taxes on those earning over one million a year go up a couple of percentage points. Good luck on asking them to be willing to cough up half of their earnings to a government many feel is either for sale or dysfunctional.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

10. All have incomes in the upper brackets.

The base $174K salary puts them in the top 6.745% of earners.

[hack89]

7. That will give rich people even more leverage - you have to keep them rich

problem with inverted pyramids - they are inherently unstable. If you make fewer people responsible for more of your revenue then your revenue stream depends on not only keeping rich people rich but creating more rich people.

[unblock]

8. 50% is way too low.

there's a pretty simple reason, actually.

we're dealing with the sort of people and income earning potential that WILL continue to earn no matter what.
the higher the tax rate, the more they complain, but they will NEVER stick their wealth under a mattress or refuse to earn more.

it's a game to them, they all want as much as possible, they all want to be highest on the forbes list as possible.

the only thing that alters their behavior is tax rate DIFFERENTIALS. they'll steer their income to dividends or municipal bonds if there's a tax advantage, or they'll leave money overseas if that's worth more to them. that's why it's important to tax all income the same, unless the government has a very specific desire to encourage certain forms of investment (as in the case of munis).

[Minarchist]

9. If you add it all up, it already much higher than that.

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
Capital Gains Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Court Fines (indirect taxes)
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Interest Expense (tax on the money)
Inventory Tax I
RS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Local Income Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Road Toll Booth Taxes
Road Usage Taxes (truckers)
Sales Taxes
School Tax
Septic Permit Tax
Service Charge Taxes
Social Security Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Toll Bridge Taxes Toll
Tunnel Taxes
Trailer Registration
Tax Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers’ Compensation Tax

[Modern_Matthew]

11. Implying those in the top brackets actually pay all those taxes. nt

[CJCRANE]

12. Many of those taxes fall disproportionately on lower income earners.

It really boils down to what kind of country you want and what kind of government you want.

If you want government of, by and for the people then you need progressive income tax rates.

[Minarchist]

19. I agree that income taxes must be progressive, but not one of the taxes I listed

existed 100 years ago and our nation was not only the most prosperous, but also had the largest middle class in the world. Moreover, we had absolutely zero national debt and only one parent had to work to support the typical American family.

As you said: It really boils down to what kind of country you want and what kind of government you want.

As it is, we have a government of, by and for the government, rather than one that is of, for and by the People.

[CJCRANE]

23. 100 years ago was 1911...

You may be right but I don't have the historical or personal knowledge to comment on that.

Most people would hark back to a more recent era. Post-War America for example had the same middle-class prosperity and still had high tax rates (up to 91% top marginal rate under Eisenhower).

You seem to be taking the libertarian route and just blaming the government. I don't think strong government is necessarily a problem, the problem we have know is weak governnment that is beholden to corporations. The strength of the corporations is the problem IMO.

[Minarchist]

33. "weak governnment that is beholden to corporations"

Weak...? It is difficult for me to define something that spends $3.7 trillion and consumes 24% of the nation's GDP as weak. Moreover, corporations are just part of the problem--there are a multitude of special interests who demand that the government place something into their outstretched hands.

It has gotten to the point that we now have an expectation that the number of persons receiving something from the government should be enlarged each year, and that the benefits they receive should be expanded. And those in charge of handing out the goodies immediately criticize any effort to decrease the numbers of individuals dependent on government as "mean spirited."

Those who work hard and who are successful are not the problem.

[CJCRANE]

52. Government exists for the people

and if it gives back in ways that are beneficial for the people, I don't have a problem with that.

I like a big FDR style government that builds infrastructure and provides jobs and promotes science and culture. That way civilization lies.

But a government based on what's best for corporations or even worse just "gets out of the way", that way lies anarchy.

[Minarchist]

61. If only you were right--and I wish you were.

However, the sad truth is that government only exists for itself. Moreover, the only thing it "gives back," is twenty-five or thirty cents of every dollar it takes from someone who perhaps needed that money to put their kids through college.

I like a big FDR style government that builds infrastructure and provides jobs and promotes science and culture.

As we have seen: when government builds infrastructure, the results are bridges built to nowhere. This is due to the fact that the decisions are political, rather than economical or commercial. The same goes for science and culture. (I wonder: do you believe that government should promote religion as well?)

If we were all moral and righteous individuals, the results of big government totalitarianism and anarchy would be identical--it wouldn't matter. However, we humans are flawed creatures; thus, it's probably not a good idea to let those who control the guns, i.e., legitimate use of force, to have such a large slice of our pie.

[LanternWaste]

82. Tennessee Valley Authority certainly went somewhere.

"when government builds infrastructure, the results are bridges built to nowhere..."

The Tennessee Valley Authority certainly went somewhere. I imagine a rigid dogma may often deny us enough perspective to see both the success and the failures of a given thing.

"The same goes for science and culture..."

Might I suggest reading some material re: the British and German investments in education, specifically 9in the last half of the nineteenth century, which was part and parcel of the reason those two nations were world leaders in the chemical industry.

Again, I imagine a rigid dogma may often deny us enough perspective to see both the success and the failures of a given thing.

[jmowreader]

103. Are you sure you're in the right place?

Let's talk about the infamous "bridge to nowhere." You know, the bridge to an island with only 50 residents living on it that all the Republicans like to hold up as an example of government waste.

The bridge is called the Gravina Island Bridge. It's in Ketchikan, Alaska. Gravina Island is a smallish island about two miles off the coast of Alaska that contains, in addition to the 50 residents the Repukes love to tell you about, Ketchikan International Airport. Because of the extreme terrain in Ketchikan, that island is about the only place they could put the airport.

Alaska is a place where you're about as likely to have an airplane as you are a car. The place is really spread out, a lot of it is inaccessible by any other means than air, and prices are super high up there. If you have a large enough airplane to do this, it is actually cheaper to get in your airplane, fly to Seattle, buy six months' worth of groceries and return home than it is to shop locally.

The bridge would have crossed the Inside Passage, which is a route taken by cargo ships. Because it's so heavily traveled by these ships, the bridge needed to be high enough for a ship to pass under it. AND you're building in Alaska waters, which means your construction season's only a couple months long.

Right now, it costs $5 per day for a person to travel on the ferry between the mainland and Gravina Island, or $12 per day if the person drives. This explains why there are only 50 people living out there: would YOU pay $12 per day to get to work? Not unless you lived in Connecticut and rode the train to NYC to trade derivatives, or something else equally damaging to the economy.

Apparently Gravina Island is beautiful, so let me ask you, Minarchist: if they had built this bridge, which they would have done until the government told then-governor Sarah Palin that her state had to share the cost of the bridge with the federal government (she was all for it while it was free), do you really think there would continue to be only 50 people living out there? Highly doubtful.

[Marrah_G]

53. Those who have the most are not those who work the hardest.

That's just not how things work. When we are talking about economic justice we are not talking about Joe the Plumber workin hard and making a good living. We are taking about the bankers, the CEO's, the filthy rich.

Once upon a time company owners would put money back into their companies rather than pay taxes on it. Once the taxes were vastly reduced they were able to hoard more and more money, often by making profits off downsizing and wage lowering. Now the wealthiest produce nothing at all and live off investment income paying next to nothing.

There is a reason the middle class thrived when taxes on the wealthy were higher.

How much is enough? How much money should one man be able to have at the expense of all those around him?

I would gladly trade places with one of the Waltons and joyfully fork over 90% in taxes.

[Minarchist]

62. I disagree--all of the people I know who do well, are workaholics.

It is difficult for me to understand why so many abhor their efforts, for they are clearly not the problem.

[Marrah_G]

66. This is not about those doing "well"

8 Walton family members have more wealth then the lowest 30% of Americans. They have 92 billion dollars. 92 billion. And their employees have to rely on state subsidized insurance, food stamps and housing. Who do you think pays for that?

[LeftishBrit]

77. You are speaking like a right-winger here

Poor, ill, elderly or vulnerable people SHOULD be helped to survive, and that generally includes government help. Families should help - but many poor and vulnerable people either have no family, or family members who are just as poor and vulnerable as themselves. Charities should help - but there aren't enough to do the whole job. Individuals should help - but there are limits to what any one of us can do. So that leaves the government, or alternatively allowing the poor and weak to perish.

'an expectation that the number of persons receiving something from the government should be enlarged each year, and that the benefits they receive should be expanded.'

This does not seem to me to be happening all. Government services in most places are being cut, not expanded. What *is* true is that the number of very elderly people has expanded considerably in recent years, and they need more government help than younger people. Also, many more people are unemployed at the moment. Not because they want to be, but because there are fewer jobs. In the UK at the moment, there is now an average of 23 applicants for every job that comes up. The way to reduce the number of people who are on unemployment benefits is to create jobs!

Survival should not be dependent on being 'successful'.

[Minarchist]

81. It is not right-wing for one to advocate against the Greek model of government's role.

Government services in most places are being cut, not expanded.

If that is true, why have federal government expenditures grown from $3.145 to $5.642 trillion in the past ten years?

http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=86&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2001&LastYear=2011&3Place=N&Update=Update&JavaBox=no#Mid

[LeftishBrit]

85. First of all, the crisis in Greece is mainly due to the banking crisis, not to their 'model of

government's role'

Their governments may not have in general been terribly competent, but that is not to do with any 'model'.

It is right-wing to advocate against, or for cutting, social safety nets.

It is right-wing to advocate against provision of public services.

It is right-wing to blame our economic crises on spending on social safety nets.

It is right-wing to imply that the rich are morally superior, or more deserving, than others.

Now, it may be that you are only criticizing the *efficiency* of social safety net provision, not the fact of it.

But if you do support the 'small government', anti-welfare-state viewpoint, then you are right-wing; indeed that is the basic definition of 'right-wing'.

As regards increases in American government spending: first of all, the cuts that I refer to are in the last three years (recession-related) rather than in the last ten. Secondly, not all government spending is on public services. A lot of your spending, and ours, in the last ten years has been on maintaining two wars!

[Minarchist]

89. The Greek government was in cahoots with the bankers; thus, they facilitated the crisis.

For years, the left and the right, who took turns running the country, borrowed as if there were no tomorrow. Through mismanagement and nepotism, they drove their country to the brink of bankruptcy. The Greek people reacted to all of this by creating a shadow economy that accounts for 25 to 30% of the nation's economic activity. That is indeed the Greek model.

I do not advocate for small government or large government; rather, I insist on an honest and competent government. In discussing these matters with family, friends over the holidays, there was a common thread of agreement: No one objected to paying taxes to support public services and safety nets; rather, the objections were to government waste, fraud and outright theft of tax payer $$$.

Regarding Banks and Government Power: The original US colonies printed their own currency, which resulted in a powerful growing economy, free of the poverty and unemployment, which at the same time, crippled England. UK bankers, were horrified by the American approach and saw it as a threat to their deeply cherished belief that bankers should control all the wealth of the world. Thus, the Bank of England lobbied King George III to impose the Currency Act on the colonies, which forbade them to use their own currency and instead, required them to borrow their legal tender from the Bank of England, at interest.

Subsequently, the formerly prosperous and productive colonies experienced the poverty and unemployment typical of Charles Dickens' London.

All of the above is why I favor a devolution of the central government to the state or local levels. IMO, that is the key to ensuring that governments can be held accountable by the electorate and provide the necessary services without being ripped-off by politicians and their cronies.

[ieoeja]

94. Since the Reagan Revolution (which included decentralizing and privatizing gov't) has destroyed ...

... the economy, your solution is to take it even further?


Let us revist the start of this subthread: 1911. Or rather, 1780 through 1932 when the United States had a very small federal government, no taxes, and it was understood that the government had absolutely no responsibility for the economy (for the record, you were wrong about there being no debt).

We experienced a full blown economic depression every 12 to 15 years on average during that time period.

1933 ushered in the era of big government. In the 78 years since we have not had a single economic depression.

78 years of big government without a single economic depression. 150 years of what you advocate with 7 or 8 depressions. That should end the discussion right there. Unless you think economic depressions are a good thing.

We only came close once since then: in 2008. That was only 30 years after the federal government began dismantling the New Deal. And the only thing that prevented a full blown economic depression in 2008 was intervention by big government.


After 30 years of Reganomics we are almost exactly where you want us. THAT is why the economy is in such trouble. Not because of too much or too centralized government, but because of the return to laissez faire capitalism.


Now, back to the effect of decentralization on the economy. Prior to Reagan (yet again) state taxes were extremely small. This is because they received block grants from the federal government. However, since the Republican's failure of Reaganomics prior to 1932, the United States had become almost a one party entity. In addition, the federal government finally started taking its role of protecting individual rights seriously. To break the stranglehold of Democratic rule and stop a runaway federal government that stopped state and local governments from lynching niggers and imprisoning faggots**, Reagan slashed the federal income taxes forcing the states to pick up the tax burden.

**If you're going to advocate a return to the good ol' days, let's not paint it over with pretty words that let us ingore what that truly means.

At the time the vast majority of state's were, like the Federal gov't, run by the Democrats. This meant those Democrats were forced to raise taxes to replace the block grants that Reagan took away from them. So while Reagan is cutting taxes, Democrats are raising them. Forcing them into the "bad guy" role let Republicans finally break the Democrats post-Depression stranglehold on American politics.

Flash forward a couple decades. Indiana offered to let United Airlines operate their maintenance tax free. Illinois loses taxes on UA, their employees, and other jobs fueled by the incomes of those employees. Indiana gains taxes on the employees and indirect jobs, but not on UA. The United States as a whole saw a decrease in the tax basis. When the tax basis decreases, but the needs do not (see **** below), we have no choice but to increase taxes on the existing basis.

Illinois responds by offering to let Boeing operate tax free. Again, Illinois gains less than Washington state loses. Again, the tax basis is decreased across the United States. Again, individuals and small businesses have to pay more to make up the loss. This is what decentralizing gov't does to the economy.

It also makes it more difficult for interstate business as they have to address differing regulations in different states.


**** If a tax basis decreases because of a shrinking population, then the needs also decrease. Chicago, for instance, has a shrinking population. We are collecting less in taxes, but we also don't need as many schools. So in that instance, we can cut instead of raising taxes. In the airline examples given above, there was no decrease in need. Only decrease in tax base.

[HughBeaumont]

92. Oh great.

A "Don't Punish Our Supremely Productive, Successful and Benevolent Oligarchs, You Economically Amateurish Commies!!!" person. That's what was missing. Because returning the extremely wealthy to a 39 to 50% TMTR would be SUCH a "punishment". After all, HOW can you begrudge them their MUCH DESERVED vacations to St. Barts or a sixth castle?? HOW???



Yet, surprisingly (or not), a conversation about "WASTE" almost never includes things like "defense" or "corporate welfare" or "tax cuts for the rich".

[The Genealogist]

69. You want to go back to how it was 100 years ago?

No interstates, not even that many paved roads. People maimed and dying of diseases like polio. No commercial radio, TV, CD players, DVD players, personal computers. Flight was in its infancy. Most people had no running water, electricity or telephone. Without a government role, do you honestly think there would be many of the conveniences, health and hygiene changes, technological breakthroughs and other steps forward? Hardly.

[Minarchist]

79. Technology-wise? No. -- Big Government Totalitarianism-wise? Yes.

No interstates, not even that many paved roads. Building roads is a legitimate government function. However, government involvement entails political decisions. This was true when Eisenhower pushed through The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 as heavily populated States and urban areas wanted population to be the main factor, while other States preferred land area and distance as primary factors. Regrettably, political decisions still hamper the process as evidenced by the modern concept of "bridges to nowhere."

People maimed and dying of diseases like polio - The first effective polio vaccine was developed in 1952 by Jonas Salk at the University of Pittsburgh; not by the federal government.

No commercial radio, TV, - Rather than the public radio and television models that prevailed in Europe and other parts of the world, the United States' radio and television stations were privately owned and operated. The evidence is irrefutable--the US model is far superior with respect to quality and variety of content.

CD players, DVD players, personal computers. - CD technology was invented by James T. Russell in 1965. DVD technology evolved from CD technology and the official specification was developed by a consortium of ten companies: Hitachi, JVC, Matsushita, Mitsubishi, Philips, Pioneer, Sony, Thomson, Time Warner, and Toshiba. In 1939, Konrad Zuse completed the Z2, the first fully functioning electro-mechanical computer. None of this stuff was invented by the federal government.

Flight was in its infancy. Samuel Langley, was backed by thousands of federal government $$$; the Wright Brothers financed their dream with the nickels and dimes they could scrape from the profits in their private business. The rest is history.

Most people had no running water, electricity or telephone. Running water was developed by the Romans; electricity was invented by Thomas Edison and the telephone was invented by Alexander Graham Bell; not the federal government. In fact, the feds nearly stunted the development of electricity by enacting legislation to "protect" the people from the dangers of AC current developed by Nikola Tesla.

[LeftishBrit]

88. Big Government Totalitarianism?? In America?

When has the government in America EVER been totalitarian? Or anything like it?

The nearest thing to political totalitarianism in the USA in recent history was probably McCarthyism; and McCarthy was a Republican Senator without much interest in funding public services.


The research on the polio vaccine was predominantly charitably funded; i.e. neither the federal government *nor* profit-making entrepreneurs. The *administration* of this and other vaccines to all who need it *has* been largely funded and regulated by government.

As regards your other examples: most of them seem to represent some confusion between *invention* of a commodity, and enabling its use by the public as a whole. No one has said that running water, electricity or the telephone were 'invented' by the government (indeed electricity was not invented at all; it was *discovered* and harnessed). But government has been strongly involved in enabling and regulating the use of these resources. The same goes for civil aviation - and there has also been a lot of government-funded research into aviation, though probably more because of its military than civil use.

'The evidence is irrefutable--the US model (of radio and TV provision) is far superior with respect to quality and variety of content.'

No, it isn't. The BBC is a lot better than such media as Fox News. And, in case I sound like a British chauvinist, I hasten to add that British newspapers are much worse on the whole than American ones. One of the big problems in our countries and many others, is that media moguls have disproportionate power over manipulating public opinion - sometimes without even living in the countries in question. It is bad for government to control media, but it is also bad for privately-owned and often monopolistic media to essentially control government, as too often happens.

[grantcart]

72. 100 years ago our nation was not the most prosperous but was the most

affected by boom and bust cycles that drove millions from 'wealth' to poverty. Just a few decades before that the most famous man in the world, President U.S. Grant, would lose all of his millions and only be able to support his family by writing his memoirs with his last breath of life while he died of throat cancer.

In a few years after 1911 the 'prosperous' nation you mythologize would demonstrate one of the greatest economic collapses in human history.

Finally your off hand demonization of 'government debt' is absolutely ridiculous. Government debt allowed us to win WWII. After WWII massive government debt allowed veterans to get loans to buy their own homes and return to get education. Great debt allowed Grand Coulee Damn, the TVA and Hoover Damn to be built bringing not just great jobs but constant flow of inexpensive power. Government debt allowed states to build land grant Universities and the greatest higher education system in the world.

All of this government debt was invested in the people of the country and helped to create the longest continuous increase in individual and personal wealth in human history.

Your mythologizing of the feeble economy of the US of 1911 is very newt gingrich but doesn't pass the laugh test. Please take you parroting of RW talking points elsewhere.

[MFrohike]

74. Allow me to laugh

The middle class of 1911 was NOTHING compared to the middle class since 1945. If the US actually had the largest middle class in the world in 1911, I submit that it was akin to being the tallest midget. Seriously, trotting out a laundry list of taxes and an unsourced argument about the size of the middle class is laughable at best. The bit about the national debt is pretty funny as well. We did have a low national debt. We also had mindblowing, crushing poverty in the rural part of the country. Low debt and a medieval way of life on the farm is not something to trumpet.

Your contention that we have government for government's sake is also pretty funny. Government, as currently used, is a means, not an end in itself. The primary beneficiaries are not those in government. They're kind of like the small-time hoods in Godfather 2 who pay a tax to the Don killed by Vito Corleone. That Don is the real beneficiary and, rest assured, he ain't in government.

[jmowreader]

104. Even better is some of the taxes he lists

He's got a VERY long list of taxes paid only by the truck transportation industry. "These taxes didn't exist 100 years ago!"

True, they didn't; neither did the truck transportation industry.

[MFrohike]

105. Haha, missed that

That's akin to trying to divide by zero.

[Union Scribe]

35. Lol, welcome to DU.

How many billionaires do you know who are commercial truck drivers, by the way?

[Minarchist]

36. How many billionaires do you know?

[Union Scribe]

38. None. That's why I'm so surprised to hear they're truckers.

I also didn't know they fancied trailers. See, had you not come here and illuminated this rarely seen side of the billionaire as tax payer, I'd have never known.

By the way, it's usually considered proper to cite the place you copy and paste a list from. I see a bunch of them in Google, lots of interesting places too.

[Minarchist]

39. Well, if you don't know any, that should tell you that there are not very many of them.

And since there are not that many of them, that should tell you that taking their stuff (even all of it) is probably not going to change things very much.

You should also know that demonizing these folks is simply an old worn-out political tool utilized in the art of manipulating sheep.

[Union Scribe]

47. Ah, poor one percenters.

Thank goodness you're there to stand up for them. Them and their...big rigs...

[Minarchist]

63. I view all nameless-faceless individuals the same--without knowledge there can be no judgement.

On the other hand, you seem abhor people that you have never met, simply based on the fact they have been successful.

[Ikonoklast]

71. You realize that most wealthy people in this country did exactly *nothing* to earn it?

Since you use the amount of wealth one has as the measure of one's success, you do realize that the most millionaires in this country got that way through inheritence, not by any hard work on their own part?

In this nation, the easiest way to determine if you will ever be a millionaire is...if your parents are very wealthy.

Percentage-wise, very few people in this country attain wealth through their own devices.

What type of hard work does it take to be bequeathed a trust fund?

Love the defense of the 1%er's, though. I am glad they will think highly of you, if they didn't see you as stuff on their shoe.

[Minarchist]

80. That is not true. But I suppose it sounds good if one is engaged in the art of manipulating sheep.

Gates and Buffett lead the 272 self-made billionaires on our list of Richest Americans. These moguls have amassed a combined fortune of nearly $920 billion. The top 20 richest entrepreneurs, including well-known tech executives like Oracle's Larry Ellison, Google ( GOOG - news - people )'s Sergey Brin and Larry Page, and Amazon's Jeff Bezos, account for more than a third of that wealth. Forbes 400 members who inherited their wealth are worth just $450 billion, less than half as much as their self-made counterparts.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/11/03/richest-self-made-american-billionaire-entrepreneurs-gates-buffett-self-made-10-entrepreneurs.html

[HughBeaumont]

90. No one is "entirely self-made", despite what Ovarian Lottery Winner Steve Forbes tells you . . .

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/07/5075

What Forbes means by "entirely self-made" is that the fortunes were not inherited but derived from business activity. Does this make the Forbes definition of "entirely self-made" reasonable? After all, if someone starts with modest resources, does well in business, and makes a fortune, isn't it fair to attribute that wealth to individual merit? Not really, though Forbes would like us to think so.

To see what's wrong with this idea, it's easiest to start with criteria that ought to disqualify a person from claiming to be "entirely self-made." After we've applied these criteria, we can see who's left in the pool. So, then, let us scratch from the list of the self-made anyone whose accumulation of wealth has been aided by any of the following:

* Laws concerning property or contracts, and the public agencies that enforce such laws
* Public schools or employees educated in public schools
* Employees or customers who rely on public transportation
* Roads, bridges, airports, sewers, water treatment plants, harbors, or other utilities built and maintained at public expense
* Mail systems built and operated at public expense
* Public hospitals and government-licensed physicians
* Health and safety regulations created and enforced at public expense
* Police and fire protection provided at public expense
* Public libraries and parks
* Any public amenities that add value to commercial or residential real estate
* Government contracts
* Government-provided business incentives
* Regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission or the Securities and Exchange Commission, that sustain trust in the stock market
* A government-granted license permitting the exclusive use of a broadcast channel
* The Internet
* A form of currency legitimated and backed by a stable government
* Social welfare programs that keep the poor from rebelling
* The U.S. military

If we use these criteria to determine who can legitimately claim to be "entirely self-made," the Forbes number drops dramatically. It's not 270 out of 400. In fact, it's precisely zero.

If not for the legal and political arrangements that we create and maintain as a society -- with contributions from us all, costs to us all, and benefits to us all -- and if not for what we call "the public infrastructure," nobody could accumulate wealth. In short, there can be no private wealth without common wealth.

Manipulating sheep . . . Jesus Christ. Want some grass?

[Minarchist]

91. The problem with your thesis is that PRIVATE wealth created the common wealth.

The chicken did not beget the first egg, my friend.

[HughBeaumont]

93. Ha ha ha ha ha. No man is an island. NONE.

Private wealth didn't get as big as it did without public wealth and they never COULD have. No one has to like what you sell. No one HAS to grant you these services. The laws of supply and demand still hold. The laws of economic downturns still apply. Unless there's a magical way a corporation can attain increasing profit without additional and constant new business, that is.

Geez, Bill Gates himself had well-to-do parents that provided initial funds and was well-connected. One of Larry Ellison's first projects was a government assignment.

Here's an idea. Rather than imply that I'm stupid, which you're obviously doing and it's really not endearing, why don't you logically explain to me how you run something as large and as complex as the United States without collective public wealth and a soaring, mostly-caused-by-the-needs-of-the-wealthy National Debt. I'm all ears.

[Ikonoklast]

95. Add up all the millionaires in this country who inherited their wealth.

Your run-of-the-mill guy who inherited his Dad's Ford dealership, for instance.

Not members of the Forbes 400, which is a very restrictive numerical sample.

Not total assets owned, which I didn't mention, the actual number of millionaires in this country that inherited their wealth.



They *swamp* your numbers

[Starry Messenger]

101. "How to Become As Rich As Bill Gates"

http://philip.greenspun.com/bg/

Lesson 1: Choose Your Grandparents Carefully

William Henry Gates III made his best decision on October 28, 1955, the night he was born. He chose J.W. Maxwell as his great-grandfather. Maxwell founded Seattle's National City Bank in 1906. His son, James Willard Maxwell was also a banker and established a million-dollar trust fund for William (Bill) Henry Gates III.

In some of the later lessons, you will be encouraged to take entrepreneurial risks. You may find it comforting to remember that at any time you can fall back on a trust fund worth many millions of 1998 dollars.

Lesson 2: Choose Your Parents Carefully

William Henry Gates, Jr. and Mary Maxwell were among Seattle's social and financial elite. Bill Gates, Jr. was a prominent corporate lawyer while Mary Maxwell was a board member of First Interstate Bank and Pacific Northwest Bell. She was also on the national board of United Way, along with John Opel, the chief executive officer of IBM who approved the inclusion of MS/DOS with the original IBM PC.

I guess it's easy to be "self-made" when your grandpappy owns a bank.

[The Genealogist]

67. Good grief that is an old meme

It comes from a "dear IRS letter." It is just a list of taxes, and not everyone pays all those, or needs to, or should need to. Cigarette Tax, Fishing License Tax, Liquor Tax , Watercraft Registration Tax are use taxes; only those who use these have to pay the taxes. For businesses paying them, it is part of the cost of doing business and is passed on to the consumer. Then you have federal, state and local taxes all mixed in together. Not every state has state income taxes, not every local jurisdiction has local income taxes. The purpose of the list is to shock people by its heft, when in reality the full heft of the list does not apply to everyone.

[taught_me_patience]

13. Where do you thing the top rate should begin?

I'd support a 50% top marginal rate for incomes over $5 million/year. If you're talking 50% for 250k... then HELL NO.

[Vincardog]

22. I am for 50% after the second $1 M and add 1 % for every additional Million until you get to 99%

[Under Dog]

75. I agree

The Average Joe has no idea how great the income disparity is. Look up the "L-curve". Propagandists like Rush Limbaugh complains about 47% not paying any income taxes. If you saw the L curve chart you can see why.

Things really got bad in this country when they lowered the top marginal tax rates and now these rightwinger have the audacity to talk about a flat tax? Also you might want to check out Feudalism AKA American Capitalism by David F who explains how we got into this mess.

[Syrinx]

29. As I said in the OP, I'm not sure where that top tax rate should begin

But I went on to talk about people making tens, hundreds, and thousands of millions of dollars a year. I don't think I once mentioned anyone making the absurdly tiny income of 250,000 dollars.

[NNN0LHI]

14. I have tried this approach at DU before with about the same luck

Pretty sure most of the poor people in this country lost their internet connection and pawned their computer and IPhone a long time ago.

I don't think DU is very representative of the poor any more.

Don

[JHB]

15. Why so low? For 40 years it was 70-90%

And most of those years were pretty good, economically.

I don't know what the magic number should be, or if there is one. But for the last 30 years it's been too low, and maybe it's time to err in the other direction.

At a minimum, call for 90% and start your negotiations from there.

[JHB]

16. In the 50s and 60s there were about two dozen income tax brackets...

...about 80% of which only impacted incomes above the equivalent of about $200,000 in today's dollars.

[Stinky The Clown]

17. I disagree

It should be 90%.

At least.

[TheKentuckian]

18. Between 55-60% is more like it with at least 3 more brackets.

one at the bottom and two at the top.

[99Forever]

20. I started one reply and it sounded kind of snarky...

.. which I didn't intend at all.

The gist being that I think we are long passed the day "when the wealth becomes totally concentrated." I feel deeply that fundamental and revolutionary changes to our government and way of "doing business" are the only hope that "this Nation will long endure."

[cthulu2016]

21. specify the rate you want collected

When the rate for top brackets was 91% almost nobody paid it.

We could make it 100%, but if all that was collected at the end of the day was 5% it would be cold comfort.

Devil. Details.

If we doubled the corporate income tax rate we wouldn't have collected a penny more from GE than we did. zero.

[CJCRANE]

25. It's possible that the surplus cash was invested

or used for more expenses and capital purchases or donated to charity to avoid the high tax rates...so it's possible that the money was recirculated in other ways.

The main problem with the current low tax rates seems to be that the money remains stagnant and doesn't move around in the real economy so higher tax rates (on the 1%) may be one way to prevent that.

[hack89]

41. That money is not stagnant

unless it is under the proverbial mattress if the money is in the financial system it is in the economy.

[CJCRANE]

43. If it's not moving around in the real economy then it's stagnant IMO.

Corporations that have trillions in cash surpluses but don't invest in jobs or infrastructure are contributing to the stagnation.

[hack89]

44. That cash can't create demand

when there is demand there will be jobs.

Are you talking about public infrastructure? If so, what does corporate cash have to do with that - public money funds infrastructure.

[CJCRANE]

45. But if you tax the 1% more

you can use that money to fund more infrastructure => more construction => more people spending money in the real economy in restaurants etc => more jobs etc.

(Corporations can build their own infrastructure too, for example they could build electric stations for recharging electric cars, solar power stations etc).

[Taitertots]

24. It should be 95%

If they don't like it they can stop taking the productive gains of the masses. Which just happens to be exactly what they should be doing.

[PETRUS]

26. If you're looking to maximize revenue without negative consequences to the economy overall

The top marginal tax rate could be around 80-85%.

[hack89]

37. So what happens when you run out of rich people to tax at that level?

under your plan, I would simply limit how much I earn - spend more time with my family or get a hobby. Why work hard if you can't keep the money?

[PETRUS]

40. It's not my plan

It's from a technical analysis I read via a link from the CEPR website indicating how high one can go without impeding growth. (I'm not equipped to evaluate or critique the study, I'm just reporting their conclusions. But there's ample evidence of healthy, prosperous societies with similar levels of taxation, including the US in past years.) That is to say, the analysts do not believe that problems with growth - which would include your hypothetical - manifest until rates just above that level.

[PowerToThePeople]

49. you have a false sense of self worth

There are tens of thousands of non 1%ers that can do exactly what you do, possibly much better. At the level you are discussing, skills do not matter as much as capital. Take away the capital, then those with the best skills will shine brightest.

[hack89]

50. They are still not going to work their asses off for money they will never see. nt

[PowerToThePeople]

51. wrong

They work their asses off currently, just to struggle paycheck to paycheck. You think they would suddenly stop for 5-10 times that money? CEO pay now at greater than 400 times employee compensation. 1% must be a much greater multiple. Nothing but leaches.

[TBF]

100. They don't work their asses off now. nt

[Overseas]

55. Great. That would open up market opportunities for other companies.

And might even encourage you to hire a few more people instead of paying yourself that extra 5 million a year.

[hack89]

57. Or give the money back to the shareholders

that would be good for pension funds everywhere.

They won't create jobs just to create jobs - if the demand is there then they would do it anyway.

[Overseas]

84. I remember the days when making a decent profit was enough. We weren't crazed about maximizing

profit whatever the cause-- merging and acquiring companies that paid their workers "too much" when cheaper labor could be acquired elsewhere.

I remember when purchasing decisions were made that incorporated relationships and protecting our country's domestic manufacturing.

Then we began the era of great pretending-- Morning in America --ushered in by multinational corporations determined to make quarterly profits the most important factor. Determined to stomp out the sixties and seventies silliness about sustainable development and limits to growth.

They cloaked their mercenary approach to profits above all as "free trade" and pretended that it would ensure that our trading partners' quality of life would be improved and our environmental standards would raise those of our trading partners too. People opposed to "free" trade were characterized as out of touch. Luddites. Anti-progress.

I guess the multinational corporations think tanks and PR agencies figured that if they could sell the USA a "B" actor determined to crush union power then they could sell us anything. And they have certainly embedded a destructive model very deeply in American life. Cheaper cheaper cheaper at all costs. Keep workers' wages low so they'll want cheaper goods too.

Workers wages stagnated as greater and greater profits accrued at the top. Jobs and environmental damage were exported to more compliant countries. Sweatshop workers now had televisions and refridgerators so people who complained about their working conditions were characterized as "elitist." You have a fridge! How dare you deny others that right!

They sold the US public a bill of goods. Give to the rich and we will all prosper, they said. Supply-side economics has been pushed relentlessly on every level. Even getting us to feel rich vicariously through luscious TV shows from Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous to today's "Real" Housewives.

They have had to work very hard because Demand Side Economics is so much more logical and has worked so much better in our history. When we put more people to work with decent wages and working conditions, they had the time and money to spend consuming the goods we produced and our economy prospered. When we taxed the rich more, they shared more of their wealth by investing in their companies and paying workers more.

When we taxed the rich more, we could fund Medicaid to help our fellow citizens afflicted with medical problems and Social Security to keep our seniors out of dire poverty and Medicare to handle the wearing out of our bodies as we age. The majority of Americans share those values. We would rather our tax dollars went there than to fund illegal wars of aggression based on lies.

George Herbert Walker Bush pushed the concept that charity could take care of the poor-- A Thousand Points of Light would do the trick. Luckily, voters disagreed.

But these days the whole Charity Will Do It argument is being pushed again. But why should the rich be able to keep more and more of their tax money to decide which suffering group is most worthy of their largesse, while we poor and middle class citizens have our tax dollars applied without giving us much choice at all? Our tax dollars were given in charity to billionaire perpetrators of fraud on Wall Street and war profiteers.

The ridiculous folly of Supply Side Economics was so apparent in 2008. I really thought Democrats would go big on a return to the more logical and sustainable Demand Side economics. Pay people to repair our infrastructure and we will all win. We will spend our money locally.

But a lot of logical thinking had to be smashed to make supply side and fake free trade appealing to the masses, so here we are as a nation, willing to pretend that climate change isn't happening and we didn't invade Iraq on false pretenses and the war in Afghanistan should continue and Wall Street financiers did not commit fraud, etc etc.

I guess it is time to get back to my housecleaning because I'm rambling again.

[Ikonoklast]

73. We never did before, why would we do so in the future?

People didn't stop trying to get wealthy during the Eisenhower years, nor did they leave the country.

There will always be someone willing to try to make as much as possible, no mattter the tax rate.

Those tax rates were set up for capital re-investment in the physical plant, not for the accumulation of a big pile of dough to sit and look at.

Only an idiot woild have paid the highest rates.

Saying we would run out of wealthy to tax is straight out of the right-wing talking point handbook.

[LanternWaste]

83. I imagine you believe no one in the top brackets worked very hard

"Why work hard if you can't keep the money? "

I imagine you believe no one in the top brackets worked very hard in the forties and fifties when tax rates-- and output were at their highest levels?

[bvar22]

42. THAT is what PISSES ME OFF about our Party Leadership.

They are going to frame the battle with Republicans over a 3% increase on the top marginal rate to 39%!!!
THAT isn't going to do SHIT.
We wouldn't even notice.

They SHOULD be fighting for 70%,
and "compromise" to 50% IF necessary.
THAT would move the National debate and the national Awareness in a NEW direction,
especially IF they framed the battle[/]i] as
"We want our America back too!"




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Overseas]

56. I agree.

[wiggs]

46. A lot of speculation. We don't need to pluck numbers out of thin air....we should look at what

our expenses should be then adjust taxes accordingly, with the top income brackets taking up the current revenue gap in addition to other sources. We first decide what programs are needed, what incentives are needed, how much we need to spend on safety nets, etc ...then we establish the necessary revenues (income, tariffs, capital gains, etc) to match it.

Shouldn't be hard (except politically), and I bet we're not far off...with a 4% fed income tax increase (still historically low) we had annual surpluses in the 90s. Aside from that lesson, there are many other countries in the world that aren't running deficits...we can look at their systems.

We don't need to reinvent the wheel...we just need to get away from ideology that keeps rational thought from being part of public discourse.

[mainer]

48. I'd be OK with it only if it kicked in at $300,000 income

and not just for those making north of a million dollars, because it has to capture a wide number of taxpayers. Just taxing the very top won't be enough to make a dent in the deficit.

[slackmaster]

54. Before raising any taxes, I want to see the government stop spending money on illegal wars

If your children are misusing their toys, you take the toys away from them and insist that they change their behavior before you give them more toys.

[truth2power]

58. According to economist Richard Wolff the top rate was 91% during FDR's administration...

www.rdwolff.com

[joeglow3]

70. Sadly, he ignores the other half of the equation for determining taxes owed.

Reality is that when we had those rates, we allowed deductions up the ass in determining taxable income. In fact, it was so bad that many people would earn millions (in unadjusted amounts) and would pay ZERO (even with those "91%" rates). Eventually, in 1969, we passed the alternative minimum tax to deal with this. The tax act of 1986 was revenue neutral and dropped the rates, while doing away with MANY of the deductions previously allowed.

The fact is that anyone who says enacting a 90% rate today is in the same ballpark as back then is flat out lying to you. Clearly, rates can (and should) be higher, but a 90% rate is flat out idiotic and would have the opposite effect than many assume.

[hfojvt]

76. ah, the myth of the loophole

How the rightwing loves that one. Sure we closed loopholes in 1986. That's why in 1986 the top 1% was paying an AVERAGE tax rate of 33.13% and that fell to 26.4% in 1987 and 24.04% in 1988 and 23.34% in 1989 and 23.25% in 1990.

Because of al those loopholes that were closed.

As for the AMT, David Cay Johnston describes its history. It was passed, not because EVERY rich person was avoiding those high marginal tax rates. The Treasury Secretary in 1966 informed Congress that 155 households (a whole 155) paid no tax in spite of having an income over $200,000 (which would be roughly $1 million in 2003). "Perfectly Legal" p. 103

So it was not really many people. It was 155, and they were not earning millions. They were earning $200,000.

Also, we still have loopholes, known as itemized deductions, to the tune of $1.3 trillion in total deductions. Taypayers who make over $1,000,000 got 11% of those itemized deductions even though they are only .28% of all tax filers. That's over $130 billion in deductions for those rich people.

And 55%of the deductions goto people making over $100,000. Whereas those making between $10,000 and $40,000 a year in AGI are 48% of tax filers and only get 11% of the total value of itemized deductions. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/151

One loophole that I remember from pre-1986 was that the first $100 of dividend and interest income was tax free. A loophole that mostly helped small savers and investors. Gone with the 'reform' of 1986.

[joeglow3]

96. I trust my 15 years experience as a tax CPA (half for Big 4 firms)

You act like there were only 155 people who paid zero in taxes and EVERYONE ELSE paid 91%. The reality is that the problem was much more systemic than what you find on wikipedia.

[hfojvt]

97. meaning you started in 1996

so you don't have firsthand knowledge of pre-1986.

Neither do I, because IRS tax stats only go back to 1986.

I never quoted wikipedia either, only my own journal, sourced from IRS tax statistics.

I'd like to have stats going back to at least 1966, but I am not sure if I can dig them out of SAUS, or Saez and others who have done some work on past tax rates.

Even today we have tons of loopholes, like IRA deductions (mostly taken by the rich) (see the link here "About IRA deductions" http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/169) and lower tax rates on capital gains and dividends (http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/81), tax free municipal bonds, and so on.

My point about loopholes in the past is that they also had their limits. For example, suppose a person made $800,000 in 1975. At that point they were taking advantage of evey loophole they could. Thus, if they were to steal (er, earn?) another $200,000 that money would be taxed at the 70% marginal rate.

Thus, loopholes or no loopholes, the higher marginal tax rates sorta acted as an income cap, reducing inequality. And I still do not believe loopholes were much more prevalent then than they are today. If the act of 1986 closed loopholes that sure didn't result in higher taxes to the rich. Quite the opposite.

[joeglow3]

98. I have studied this

Started with my Masters Program and Accounting 920 (History & Philosophy of Accounting Thought) in college at University of Nebraska-Lincoln and went through continuing education courses I have taken on history of US income taxes.

[hfojvt]

99. UNL? Well that explains a lot. Their degrees are worthless.

And I speak from firsthand knowledge, having gotten an MA in 1990 from there. I keep asking them to send me my degree in cloth so I can use it at my job cleaning urinals. At least then it would be good for something.

But you still have no hard data on tax rates for the top 1%. I am sure they were higher in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, loopholes or no. And name some of the loopholes that were closed in 1986.

And then explain why closing loopholes resulted in lower average tax rates for the top 1%.

[joeglow3]

102. My "worthless" degree has done a lot for me

8 years working for Big 4 firms and 7 years in a Fortune 500 company with a six figure salary. I am more than content with that.

[truth2power]

78. I don't know. I'll send that message to him. Can't say I'll get a reply, as he gets

thousands of emails.

(There's a place on his website under FAQ where one can email questions to him).

Thanks.

[primavera]

59. Taxation should be progressive

The more you make, the higher your tax bracket. Even at 50%, a CEO who elects to pay him/herself $50 million a year is still taking home an obscene amount of money, way more than any human being could ever possibly need or spend. 50% is fine for the bottom end of extreme affluence, but the bracket should increase so as to marginalize the incentive for paying one's self excessive salaries that could be better spent reinvesting in the business and higher wages for employees. You want to pay yourself $10 million a year? Fine, but your tax bracket should then be 60%. $20 million? 70%. $50 million? You need to be paying 95% tax on that obscene a salary.

[Yavin4]

60. I Agree with Your Post, However Higher Tax Rates Won't Solve The Income Gap

The income gap exists because of wages, not taxation. Wages for middle and low income workers are not growing, and they are not keeping pace with the cost of living. Raising the top tax rate won't solve this problem.

Wages are suppressed because without wage suppression, the Fed cannot expand the monetary base without incurring hyper inflation.

The key to bridging the income gap is to remove the Fed and constrain the monetary supply by going back to a gold standard.

[NightTemplar]

64. 50% isn't bad...

But let's take a look at the consequences.

So let's say... a Doctor pays 50% tax for every penny he makes after let's say 250k.

Is the Doctor going to charge MORE or LESS for his services? He will insist on seeing his income increase annually.



In the end... the poor pay for high taxation. Institute a high tax on lets say... EXXON. They will increase the price of their product to maintain their profit level for their shareholders.

I don't KNOW the final answer... the rich need to pay the bills, agreed. But how can it be done so the poor don't pay the bill?

[Syrinx]

106. I don't know why people keep saying 250k

In my post I talked about people making tens and hundreds and thousands of millions of dollars a year.

[roamer65]

65. It should be at least 70%

[Crunchy Frog]

87. Herbert Hoover raised it to 60% when the Great Depression hit.