Raising taxes on the rich is good for the economy.

[ftwliberal]

The biggest time of economic expansion in America was during the late 40's to late 70's. The top marginal income tax rate within those years was between 70% and 90%. I know a lot of you will say "LOOPHOLES! DEDUCTIONS! THEY DIDN'T PAY THOSE TAXES!" Well, that's true, but they certainly still paid much higher taxes than they do today and we had the BEST expansion in American history.

Why is raising taxes on the rich good for the economy?

When you have a high marginal income tax rate, what you are doing is disincentivizing business owners from taking money out of their business and putting it into their personal accounts, because they know if they do that they're going to get taxed at a higher rate, so it incentivizes them to leave their money in their businesses and to expand. When you do this, you have a great economy.

Now during the 80's, Reagan was known for what would be called "Reaganomics", which is basically just cutting taxes for the rich and hoping that it trickles down to everybody else, that's what they call "trickle down" economics - we implemented that in the 80's and we had one of the worst boom/bust economies ever, as a direct result of cutting taxes on the rich from 70% down to 28%.

Now I don't think it should be back up to 70%, but it should be compromised in the middle at around 40%.

When Reagan deregulated the economy, we had a boom for a few years, but then the inevitable bust. This happens every single time you cut taxes on the rich, it happened under George W. Bush and we got the recent recession.

If I'm wrong, tell me how and why.

[amy31416]

Yeah. The gov't needs more money for drones, DEA/ATF/CIA/FBI/corporations to wage more war abroad and here at home.

More taxes please!

[amy31416]

The gov't uses that money to wage more war, both here and abroad--they aren't going to use it to pay down debt that they have no intention of paying. Pretty damned simple.

Hooray for all the wars: drug war/Afghanistan/Pakistan/Iraq/Somalia/Yemen/various African wars/militarizing police, etc.

Pay for gov't to shoot some kid who smoked pot, that's what we want, right?

[amy31416]

Apologize for the two posts--forum's being goofy or my hillbilly connection is effed up.

[Danke]

Income taxes. Yes those that benefit from Federal privileges should pay the tax. Not ordinary people (rich or poor) in the private sector.

[ftwliberal]

I want to end wars and cut military spending. You're not addressing anything I said.

[Occam's Banana]

The biggest time of economic expansion in America was during the late 40's to late 70's. The top marginal income tax rate within those years was between 70% and 90%. I know a lot of you will say "LOOPHOLES! DEDUCTIONS! THEY DIDN'T PAY THOSE TAXES!" Well, that's true, but they certainly still paid much higher taxes than they do today and we had the BEST expansion in American history.

[...]

If I'm wrong, tell me how and why.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

[Danke]

I want to end wars and cut military spending. You're not addressing anything I said.

I suggest you lurk a little while longer or do a search on this site. There are answers to be found here to your questions.

[amy31416]

I want to end wars and cut military spending. You're not addressing anything I said.

If you're responding to me, I am addressing what you said. You are sticking your head in the sand if you think that the gov't will use this additional revenue for good rather than evil.

They'll buy another $#@!ing fleet of drones and kill more children, or they may magically see the light and spend it on disadvantaged puppies--seems likely.

[Danke]

Some reading material:

http://www.losthorizons.com/Income.pdf

http://losthorizons.com/CtCforFree.pdf

[angelatc]

I want to end wars and cut military spending. You're not addressing anything I said.

The entitlement system was relatively new. As predicted, it is now crushing the economy. You can't tax us into prosperity.

INcomes taxes, as a percent of GDP, don't really vary that much.





ANd let's not forget the most important point: income taxes make the working class nothing more than slaves to the agenda of the elite.

Not to mention that we've reached the tipping point - you can tax the rich at 100% and it won't be enough to pay our bills. The government is going to inflate the debt away, which means that the oldest and poorest people in society will suffer the most. But since you socialists are the workers party, you're perfectly fine with doing that to people who serve to produce nothing that you value.

It is beyond ludicrous to assert that the government is better off at spending your money than you are. It is even more so to assert that the government is better at spending the money of people who are actually good with money than they are.

[cubical]

Well, that's true, but they certainly still paid much higher taxes than they do today and we had the BEST expansion in American history.

Just not true. Compare top 10% today vs back then and see who paid more.

What kind of logic is it to think taking money from people who create value and give it to an entity who AT BEST simply consumes it. Your name fits your line of thinking.

Tell me why the greatest growth probably in human history was in the late 1800s to the early 1900s when there was NO INCOME TAX.

[JackieDan]

Actually it was when deregulation and lower tax-rates under Reagan that sparked economic growth. Think of the tax rates going down from 70% to 39% under Clinton - only that created somewhat 22 million jobs over 8 yrs. Also, you have to count on how many jobs where lost because of the higher tax rates in place. The income tax is unfair because it's progressive and that kills everything from job creation to innovation and investment. Everyone should pay taxes in form of sales taxes or direct taxes which is less offensive compared to the income tax.

Booms and Busts in an economic environment will always be common, however the magnitude of that bust is being manipulated by central banks imo.

[Carehn]

The biggest time of economic expansion in America was during the late 40's to late 70's. The top marginal income tax rate within those years was between 70% and 90%. I know a lot of you will say "LOOPHOLES! DEDUCTIONS! THEY DIDN'T PAY THOSE TAXES!" Well, that's true, but they certainly still paid much higher taxes than they do today and we had the BEST expansion in American history.

Why is raising taxes on the rich good for the economy?

When you have a high marginal income tax rate, what you are doing is disincentivizing business owners from taking money out of their business and putting it into their personal accounts, because they know if they do that they're going to get taxed at a higher rate, so it incentivizes them to leave their money in their businesses and to expand. When you do this, you have a great economy.

Now during the 80's, Reagan was known for what would be called "Reaganomics", which is basically just cutting taxes for the rich and hoping that it trickles down to everybody else, that's what they call "trickle down" economics - we implemented that in the 80's and we had one of the worst boom/bust economies ever, as a direct result of cutting taxes on the rich from 70% down to 28%.

Now I don't think it should be back up to 70%, but it should be compromised in the middle at around 40%.

When Reagan deregulated the economy, we had a boom for a few years, but then the inevitable bust. This happens every single time you cut taxes on the rich, it happened under George W. Bush and we got the recent recession.

If I'm wrong, tell me how and why.

If it is true that the 'biggest time of economic expansion' was in the 40s to 70s I don't see how this can be connected to tax rates. Perhaps with less taxes this expansion you speak of would have been larger. I think much of the expansion was due to all the other producing countrys in the world having been destroyed in the war. Booms and Busts are not created by taxes. Taxes do have a large effect on the economy but not in the way you would have us believe. In no way can more taxes on anything or anyone in any way be good for an economy. Its simply not possible. Its not mathematically possible. An economy is like a living organism. It grows and adapts to fulfill the needs it has. The needs it has are made up of all the needs and wants of everyone in the economy. So Wile the most pressing need for one person may be water, for another it could be medical help, or rent money, or drugs... Every individual must choose for themselves. And times change, the horse market goes bust but the automobile industry takes off. When government taxes it does so under the guise of 'knowing whats best' For the people, or the environment, or education. But government cant possibly know whats best. And for the love of God any one with 5 mins and a history book should be able to figure that out. Any way you have these intellectuals and depending on where and when they could be scientists, priests, kings, what ever highly respected at the time. they have good intentions and bad intentions but only one outcome --- destruction. When you are taxed so ... lest say the government can send poor kids to school (and who could possibly be against that) what the government is doing is transferring wealth (the life blood of the economy) away from what is best for the overall economy in order to pump up sectors or ideas or actions of the economy the blessed ones feel should have more. they also like to tax sectors of the economy they don't approve of as much like drinking. This causes a distortion because whats best for everyone is not to send those poor kids to school but something else. and while the economy is constantly trying to meet its needs taxes make it harder and harder to do so. You used the word 'incentivizes' what you meant is threaten.

Then you talk about not 70% but 40% because 28% is just to low. WTF!!! lol If taxes are good then lets just go 100%.

So what causes the boom bust. Bad money. Why go into it you know what site you are on. If you have not at least looked into this idea i suggest you do because its clearly the problem.

What we both want is prosperity and peace. This can only be achieved through deregulation of the market along with a free market in currency, and the dismantling of the state. If you leave even a little state it will grow and we will find areselfs in this same mess. The state is force. It is nothing other then random people with uniforms and guns. It is little more the a mafia. Force is the opposite of reason and it takes reason to have peace and prosperity. So you cant possibly expect ether to be a result of government. Im don't typing now.

[enoch150]

The biggest time of economic expansion in America was during the late 40's to late 70's. The top marginal income tax rate within those years was between 70% and 90%. I know a lot of you will say "LOOPHOLES! DEDUCTIONS! THEY DIDN'T PAY THOSE TAXES!" Well, that's true, but they certainly still paid much higher taxes than they do today and we had the BEST expansion in American history.

Why is raising taxes on the rich good for the economy?

When you have a high marginal income tax rate, what you are doing is disincentivizing business owners from taking money out of their business and putting it into their personal accounts, because they know if they do that they're going to get taxed at a higher rate, so it incentivizes them to leave their money in their businesses and to expand. When you do this, you have a great economy.

Now during the 80's, Reagan was known for what would be called "Reaganomics", which is basically just cutting taxes for the rich and hoping that it trickles down to everybody else, that's what they call "trickle down" economics - we implemented that in the 80's and we had one of the worst boom/bust economies ever, as a direct result of cutting taxes on the rich from 70% down to 28%.

Now I don't think it should be back up to 70%, but it should be compromised in the middle at around 40%.

When Reagan deregulated the economy, we had a boom for a few years, but then the inevitable bust. This happens every single time you cut taxes on the rich, it happened under George W. Bush and we got the recent recession.

If I'm wrong, tell me how and why.

Business owners start businesses for the purpose of making more money. Don't you think they realize that investing more in their business is not only good for their business (and the economy at large), but also their personal long term income? By your logic, the corporate income tax should be eliminated entirely and taxes on dividends should be raised to near 100%.

One long term effect of a moderately high personal income tax is low accumulated savings by retirement age. Combine that with a very high tax on dividends and even those seniors who do have savings will have few places to turn for yield. The result is an entire generation of people retiring without anything to rely upon except government aid and government's continued ability to tax. And when the demographics shift a bit so that the population age pyramid gets top heavy, well, then you've got problems.

People might be less likely to rely upon government in old age if the savings rate were higher (eliminate the income tax), and they had a way to get a good yield on those savings (eliminate the dividend tax). Eliminating the income tax would also stimulate the economy, as people would have more to spend, as well as save.

Save up $583,000 over the course of 45 years or so - not a particularly difficult thing when reinvesting dividends, and easier still in a no income tax environment, and you can retire at 65 with, say, a 6% dividend yield on your investments. That would be $35,000 annually. Considering that most of your major purchases have already been paid off by that time, that's not an income level that will leave you starving or freezing in the cold.

A 6% yield is not an unreasonable target. DOW companies have increased their dividends at an average of 5.4% annually for the 85 year period ending in 2005. If you purchased stock initially with a 5% yield, and the company increased its dividends at 5.4% annually, your initial investment would yield 10% after about 15 years, even without reinvesting the dividends, and that will continue to rise over time. 6% on an entire portfolio built over 45 years is a reasonable target.

Of course, it's hard to build a portfolio with a starting yield of 5% these days, given that the S&P 500 yield is only 2.1%. Notice how the average yield used to be considerably higher.



And the reason the S&P only yields 2.1% is that the payout ratios have dropped. Companies payout around 40% of profits now, compared to around 70% historically.



Dividend payments could be boosted by eliminating the corporate income tax - which would also boost reinvestment in the business - and by eliminating taxes on dividends.

In any case, I don't agree that the late 1940's - late 1970's was the time of greatest economic expansion.

[Keith and stuff]

Apologize for the two posts--forum's being goofy or my hillbilly connection is effed up.

Wouldn't it have made more sense to edit the 2nd post than make a 3rd post?

Anyway, taxes are actually higher now. Were income taxes 14% in NYC in 1960? Did people on Long Island pay $10,000 a year in property taxes? What were the cigarette taxes in NYC? How much did it cost to drive from NYC to NJ? What were the gas taxes in NYC? There were also 100,000s less rules and regulations back them. The market was much freer.

[Carehn]

If you're responding to me, I am addressing what you said. You are sticking your head in the sand if you think that the gov't will use this additional revenue for good rather than evil.

They'll buy another $#@!ing fleet of drones and kill more children, or they may magically see the light and spend it on disadvantaged puppies--seems likely.

Odds are they would have less money if they raise taxes lol But so would I so ta hell with that.

[CaptUSA]

Learn these words: THE SPENDING IS THE TAX


Income tax rates or any other rates are just one mechanism to drain the economy. When government spends money, they either have to take it our of today's production or tomorrow's production. SPENDING keeps going up! That's what hurts the economy. If you wonder why the 90's were good, it's because we slowed the rate of increases in spending for a little while.

[Aeroneous]

When you have a high marginal income tax rate, what you are doing is disincentivizing business owners from taking money out of their business and putting it into their personal accounts, because they know if they do that they're going to get taxed at a higher rate, so it incentivizes them to leave their money in their businesses and to expand. When you do this, you have a great economy.

I'll let everyone else get into the statistics and historical figures, but I just had to point this out. What the bolded portion screams to me is, "Don't start a business, you idiot! You won't even be able to pay yourself." What incentive is there to start a business if you don't get to keep the money that the business earns?

[Matt Collins]

The biggest time of economic expansion in America was during the late 40's to late 70's. The top marginal income tax rate within those years was between 70% and 90%. I know a lot of you will say "LOOPHOLES! DEDUCTIONS! THEY DIDN'T PAY THOSE TAXES!" Well, that's true, but they certainly still paid much higher taxes than they do today and we had the BEST expansion in American history. .

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause

and

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter

[amy31416]

Wouldn't it have made more sense to edit the 2nd post than make a 3rd post?

Anyway, taxes are actually higher now. Were income taxes 14% in NYC in 1960? Did people on Long Island pay $10,000 a year in property taxes? What were the cigarette taxes in NYC? How much did it cost to drive from NYC to NJ? What were the gas taxes in NYC? There were also 100,000s less rules and regulations back them. The market was much freer.

Editing posts takes even longer than quoting someone, believe it or not. It'll often time-out, which I find rather aggravating.

[matt0611]

I'll use your logic to demolish your whole argument:

There was higher economic growth before the federal income tax was created, so abolish the income tax entirely.

[FindLiberty]

...gotta have some taxes to cover up the sound of the printing press (mouse clicks) creating the huge mountains of fiat money...

If too many start to question the budget numbers or balance, it indicates the tax distraction scam is not making enough noise (pain) so the fiat magic funding trick can continue un-noticed.

At the very least, the masses must think taxes have gone up to match the empire's ever increasing levels of spending.

A great liar could even claim a surplus!

Of course inflation cannot be hidden forever and the scam will get to a point where TSHTF.

[Zippyjuan]

Taxes on the rich are better for the economy (or more accurately less bad- more taxes aren't really better for the economy overall)...compared to the same amount of taxation on lower incomes. Not as an absolute. Why? The economy is good when companies are producing things, people are working, and they are buying things. Lower income people spend most of their income buying things. If people are buying things, companies are selling things and need workers. If you raise taxes on the lower incomes, purchases go down and businesses have lower sales so they need more workers. The rich has "surplus income"- they get more money than they can spend on goods and services so they have more in savings and investment. Raise their taxes and they don't really reduce their spending on goods and services at all.

Yes there is less savings which means less money to borrow for say a company to invest in expanding their operations, but if people aren't buying their goods as much, they aren't going to be willing to borrow and invest in more production. Less capital is a problem if there is a shortage of capital compared to demand for it, but if the economy is shrinking due to lower sales, the demand for investment capital will fall as well so there should not be a shortage of capital for lending.

[acptulsa]

So what causes the boom bust. Bad money. Why go into it you know what site you are on. If you have not at least looked into this idea i suggest you do because its clearly the problem.

Plus rep. The economy was good in the forties. In the thirties, not so much--though the administration and the tax rates were not dissimilar. What made the difference? Can you say, we borrowed the world to produce arms? Well, then, let's borrow the world to produce arms. Wait, we are--and it's no longer working.

This is what you get for seizing on one bit of datum from two discrete periods of history, and taking them completely out of context. You get educated. The Brits had high top tax rates in the 1970s, too. Did it do them one bit of good? No. It didn't.

You know what makes strong economies? Opportunity. You know what makes opportunity? People who are short on parasites and long on liberty. Which is why the Soviet Union never had an economic boom.

You want to make it simple, Ft. Worth? There. It really is that simple.

[bolil]

Perhaps "deregulation" is pointless without sound monetary policy. By sound I mean organic, by organic I mean gold.

[cubical]

Lower income people spend most of their income buying things. If people are buying things, companies are selling things and need workers.

The Keynesian circular logic.

People only want to sell things to people who produce things. Zimbabwe had plenty of money to buy or products, but the act of having cash means and the desire to buy means nothing. People only produce in surplus when they want something else. They don't produce in surplus in order to get little green pieces of paper unless that paper can buy something. Fortunately for those who produce very little, but receive handouts in the form of USD, the USD is accepted by those who are super producers. The "spenders" are not driving the economy, they are taking from it.

[Lord Xar]

The Keynesian circular logic.

People only want to sell things to people who produce things. Zimbabwe had plenty of money to buy or products, but the act of having cash means and the desire to buy means nothing. People only produce in surplus when they want something else. They don't produce in surplus in order to get little green pieces of paper unless that paper can buy something. Fortunately for those who produce very little, but receive handouts in the form of USD, the USD is accepted by those who are super producers. The "spenders" are not driving the economy, they are taking from it.

Cubical - explain this:

"People only want to sell things to people who produce things." - I don't get this. What would a business care if a bum bought a car or a professor? The car is sold, generating money for the business.

Are you saying because the value of the dollar is going down the drain, the producers see little in gathering more of the useless stuff? If that is the case, wouldn't sitting on their capital - be a bad investment? They have workers to pay, rent to pay etc.. I am just trying to understand your logic.

[TheFreeEconomy]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...554982808.html

[cubical]

Cubical - explain this:

"People only want to sell things to people who produce things." - I don't get this. What would a business care if a bum bought a car or a professor? The car is sold, generating money for the business.

No, the sellers wouldn't care. That is why I said "Fortunately for those who produce very little, but receive handouts in the form of USD, the USD is accepted by those who are super producers." Think about what makes the USD so valuable. It is valuable because people who produce a surplus are willing to accept it for that surplus.

Now imagine the USDs originated from a country of all "bums", who barely squeak by and produced no surplus of goods. Would someone who produced a surplus of goods(imagine oil) give any value to USDs and be willing to trade them for their hard earned goods? No. Not until there is something to trade the currency for. The more goods or services the currency can be traded for, the more value would be given to the currency.

Or what if I stumbled across gold and then used it to take real, hard to produce goods out of the economy without any work on my part. Assuming I buy consumable items, the economy is worse off because I found that gold, not better.