It didn't cease to be the case in the years after WWII, people were still able to get wildly wealthy even with top tax rates over 90%. You're wrong, of course. If you want to work hard and build a nest egg big enough to pass on to children and grandchildren, you have that ability, just as the people after WWII did. That wasn't the case for education after WWII, when the GI bill ensured that each and every returning vet would have the ability to get an education. That dramatic expansion in education is what built the middle class and is a HUGE part of the engine that drove the biggest productivity boom the world has ever seen, post-WWII America. That also isn't the case for countries that have healthcare systems with single payer. Their healthcare outcomes, on average, are far better than ours and achieved at MUCH lower costs. Your claims are factually challenged.
effective tax rate was not over 90% in the years after WWII for the average American (for the top 1% it was around 40%). Also yes those tax rates hindered Americans badly.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/us...-2011-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets Starting in 1944, the top tax rate was 94% and it didn't drop below 90% until 1964. In that time, we paid off the costs of WWII, which had brought our debt up to 100% of GDP. That top tax rate didn't keep people from getting very wealthy, but did help to usher in the longest, most sustained productivity gains the world had ever seen. We used that money to develop our infrastructure, educate the population, and put men on the moon. Please, provide any information that those tax rates somehow "hindered Americans badly."
it's 94% on TAXABLE income. Which was about 40-50% of real income at that time. http://almostclassical.blogspot.com/2011/03/90-tax-rate-myth.html
OK, so you just want to play a semantics game. Feel free to reply to my actual point, if you have that ability. People were able to get wildly wealthy even with effective tax rates of around 40% and, during the time when those tax rates were in effect, we paid off a debt that had reached 100% of GDP, build an interstate highway system that was the best the world had ever seen, educated our populace to a level that had never been seen, built a middle class that powered the economic engine of the United States for decades, and even put men on the moon.
what planet are you on??? All income tax is on TAXABLE income! Duh, it's redundant. Today's marginal 35% rate is - YOU GUESSED IT - only on TAXABLE INCOME!
It's not semantics. 40% is quite different than 90%. When thegary was talking the wealthy paying a 'boat load' of tax, I am sure he meant literally not theoretically on paper. The amount of taxation he is talking about has never even been closed to tried in this country (you seemed to be arguing it had, unless I misunderstood your first post). the burden a government places on a citizen through taxes is measured by the actual amount of money being taken. Therefore I addressed GladiatorRowdy in such a manner. I believed he wanted to discuss the actual amount of money being taken as opposed to say tax rate. The tax rate itself would hold no value to anything thegary or GladiatorRowdy said. They were addressing the actual amount of money being taken, which was nowhere near 90%.
I think the gov't should provide a pathway for anyone who does well in school a any college degree or an advanced degree that serves the interest of the country. So a straight A student who is dirt poor should have a pathway. Hard work should be rewarded. There is nothing wrong with the gov't setting up rewards as a meritocracy. Doesn't mean they get a free ride to Harvard (that's up to Harvard) but they should get help with application fees and at least complete financial aid to go to one of the colleges they get into. As for healthcare - basic health services / primary care should be free. It's to the benefit of society for people to get treated while their ailments are minor and not when they are major. Its not about justice it's just about good economics.
So, you are going to ignore the point, refuse to provide any information on how those tax rates somehow negatively impacted Americans' ability to become wealthy, and play semantic games rather than address the actual point. It is sad that the above is simply par for the course for you.
All your points seemed to be based on the bad information that the wealthy were paying 90% of their income to the government before (every sentence contains some reference to 'after WWII') and therefore we would be fine doing it again. The wealthy weren't paying 90%. I addressed your points. As to why high tax rates hinder peoples ability to become wealthy, that seems pretty straight forward. If the government is taking large portions of your money then it is hard to accumulate a lot........
I never said anything of the like, I clearly stated that the "top tax rate" was over 90%. You are the one who brought the "effective tax rate" into the discussion in order to distract from the point. Good God, are you really that dense?
smh.... What relevance does 'top tax rate' have if that's not what they are paying? Thegary was clearly talking about how much citizens are actually paying..... He thinks the wealthy should pay a 'boat load'
Why stop there, you greedy tightwad? I "believe" scarcity should be abolished through government legislation so that everything is free for everyone forever. I am more liberal than thee.
I'm for free health care and free education including college for anyone that can't afford it. I would not means test health care; I'd put in a single payer system. I would means test education as I would Social Security and Medicare (assuming we didn't already have single payer). In each of these means tests, I would set the bar very high before asking someone to pay for college. When a young person goes to college who wouldn't have otherwise due to expenses, we all win. In a single-payer system or Medicare for all, preventative care saves us money; the incredible drop in people going to the ER (because they aren't relying on the ER for the full sum of their health care and aren't there for catastrophic illness as a result of no preventative care) saves us all money. Besides, as Wilfred Brimley said, "It's the right thing to do." I am extremely liberal. And I am a Democrat.
That guy doesn't cite any sources. He is probably pulling those numbers from his ass. I am sure there were deductions that did lower the tax rate, but the top marginal tax rate was 90%. In any case tax rates have very little correlation with GDP growth. Even if the top tax rate was 90% if a guy could make 3 million instead of 2 million he would be making more money.
you're fired. it is clear that things cannot be otherwise than they are, for since everything is made to serve an end, everything necessarily serves the best end. observe: noses were made to support spectacles, hence we have spectacles. legs, as anyone can plainly see, were made to be breeched, and so we have breeches. . . . consequently, those who say everything is well are uttering mere stupidities; they should say everything is for the best.
how you gonna do it if you really don't want do dance, by standing on the wall? get your back up off the wall.
What are we counting as a Democrat here? Do you have to officially be a member? A loyal voter? Or, just find yourself voting for the lesser of two evils?
