Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Bernie Sanders Would Tax The Income Of The Wealthiest Americans At 90 Percent [View all]LWolf
(46,179 posts)49. To be accurate,
he said "No" to the question about 90% being too high, which can be interpreted to mean that he could back a 90 percent top marginal tax rate. It's possible that he might.
He did not say anything to lead to the "would" in the article's title.
That said, I agree with him. 90% is not too high, as the article points out a little later on:
Republicans have consistently claimed that higher tax rates on the wealthy will hold back economic growth, while lowering rates further will spur it forward.
But thats not likely the case. Last year, economists found that the point at which the top tax rate is high enough to maximize government revenues but not so high that it discourages the rich from trying to earn more is quite high: about 95 percent for the 1 percent. History bears that out. Economists have pointed out that post-war American growth has been higher during periods with much higher top marginal tax rates and lower when tax rates were substantially lower. When the top rate was more than 90 percent in the 50s, economic growth averaged more than 4 percent a year. But recently when the top rate has been closer to 35 percent, growth has been less than 2 percent a year on average.
But thats not likely the case. Last year, economists found that the point at which the top tax rate is high enough to maximize government revenues but not so high that it discourages the rich from trying to earn more is quite high: about 95 percent for the 1 percent. History bears that out. Economists have pointed out that post-war American growth has been higher during periods with much higher top marginal tax rates and lower when tax rates were substantially lower. When the top rate was more than 90 percent in the 50s, economic growth averaged more than 4 percent a year. But recently when the top rate has been closer to 35 percent, growth has been less than 2 percent a year on average.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
111 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Bernie Sanders Would Tax The Income Of The Wealthiest Americans At 90 Percent [View all]
oberliner
May 2015
OP
Odd that Eisenhower would be considered a communist by the standard of today's GOP
LanternWaste
May 2015
#11
Because that is not actually the truth. It's just rhetoric you are using.
Bluenorthwest
May 2015
#21
Loopholes are important, but not the real point of a near 100% top marginal tax rate.
salib
May 2015
#61
That they CAN spend billions on buying politicians is evidence that their tax rates are too low.
smokey nj
May 2015
#39
Kudos to him for honestly stating his opinion of what the top tax rate should be.
Nye Bevan
May 2015
#28
No one ever explains what this 90% means. I think back in the 50s it was the earnings OVER
valerief
May 2015
#29
That would be the MARGINAL tax rate. It only kicks in beyond a certain point. nt
tblue37
May 2015
#33
But I think it helps if pols *always* explain what's meant by marginal. Many people think all
valerief
May 2015
#94
That's for sure. In fact, I 'd bet money that many, perhaps even most, reporters who write
tblue37
May 2015
#106
Damn, I would hope reporters are smarter than that...but then there's no such
valerief
May 2015
#109
I see little evidence of "smarter than that" among most MSM transcriptionists. nt
tblue37
May 2015
#110
Exactly! This could end up hurting moderately successful Democrats as well as the Billionaires.
beaglelover
May 2015
#38
It could hurt the Democratic party if this were twisted into the idea that the Democrats
pnwmom
May 2015
#46
Too low. It should be 100% like FDR tried in 1942. He compromised and got a 94% top tax rate.
Cheese Sandwich
May 2015
#47
Eisenhower was paying for the Korean War. W put the bill on the credit card. It is time to pay for
jwirr
May 2015
#48
He also built the interstate highway system which literally paved the way for American growth.
gordianot
May 2015
#53
Disingenous headline... He didn't say that would be the amount he would like to see the
ChisolmTrailDem
May 2015
#66