• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Remember the 1950's?

Dittohead not!

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
52,009
Reaction score
33,944
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well, unless you're an old guy like me, probably not, but one thing you need to understand about that era in which we were able to build the interstate highway system and help rebuild Europe without incurring a debt we can't pay is the way the tax system has changed since then:

tax.jpg

When Democrats talk about the rich paying more, consider a little bit of history. Check it out here
 
That's what I never understood**. Even compared to the early 1980's, the wealthy are paying so much less (as a percent of their income) today than they did in back then.

Yet, they want deeper and deeper cut. It's never low enough. They blather on about jobs and job creators, and when they get the cuts, what do they do? They engage in stock buybacks instead of reinvesting in the company or their employees.

** yes, I actually do understand.

and one time $1K bonuses are a joke.

Simple question..what's bigger 10 or infinity...
 
Dittohead not! said:
Well, unless you're an old guy like me, probably not, but one thing you need to understand about that era in which we were able to build the interstate highway system and help rebuild Europe without incurring a debt we can't pay is the way the tax system has changed since then:

View attachment 67266145

When Democrats talk about the rich paying more, consider a little bit of history. Check it out here
Click to expand...

I totally agree and would like to point out that things are more expensive now too. A 70% rate is no longer reasonable. Basically, everyone making more than $60k/yr should be paying somewhere between 80 and 95% tax on that income. The only way we'll ever be able to have enough free stuff to make America worthwhile is to tax the living daylights out of everyone that has two nickles to rub together.
 
Lutherf said:
I totally agree and would like to point out that things are more expensive now too. A 70% rate is no longer reasonable. Basically, everyone making more than $60k/yr should be paying somewhere between 80 and 95% tax on that income. The only way we'll ever be able to have enough free stuff to make America worthwhile is to tax the living daylights out of everyone that has two nickles to rub together.
Click to expand...



Do you ever tire of the sarcastic bent/rant?
 
Lutherf said:
I totally agree and would like to point out that things are more expensive now too. A 70% rate is no longer reasonable. Basically, everyone making more than $60k/yr should be paying somewhere between 80 and 95% tax on that income. The only way we'll ever be able to have enough free stuff to make America worthwhile is to tax the living daylights out of everyone that has two nickles to rub together.
Click to expand...

:bravo:
 
Do I remember the 1950s!!!

Well, I remember running home from junior high school because we had just gotten that new invention -- the television set.

I remember everyone liked Ike (President Eisenhower).

I remember that people did not worry about crime.

I remember that the railroad companies wanted to get out of providing passenger trains (people wanted to drive on those new highways mentioned in the OP, and air travel was starting to become popular).


I remember that "everyone" in the country watched "I Love Lucy."

I remember that illegal drugs were confined to a few "artistic" types.

I remember a (mostly) peaceful and orderly society. (Yes, there WERE rumblings of what would occur in the 1960s, but no one could have predicted what actually did happen.)
 
Dittohead not! said:
Well, unless you're an old guy like me, probably not, but one thing you need to understand about that era in which we were able to build the interstate highway system and help rebuild Europe without incurring a debt we can't pay is the way the tax system has changed since then:

View attachment 67266145

When Democrats talk about the rich paying more, consider a little bit of history. Check it out here
Click to expand...

Yep, when the rich were paying a 90% tax rate in the 1950s, that was the most prosperous time period in this country's history.

We should, at a minimum, have a 60% tax rate on the rich right now. That would fund virtually every social program and infrastructure program this country needs.
 
Kerry Won Ohio said:
Yep, when the rich were paying a 90% tax rate in the 1950s, that was the most prosperous time period in this country's history.

We should, at a minimum, have a 60% tax rate on the rich right now. That would fund virtually every social program and infrastructure program this country needs.
Click to expand...

Tax the rich. Make America Great Again.
 
Rexedgar said:
Do you ever tire of the sarcastic bent/rant?
Click to expand...

It's really not all that sarcastic. If people really want all this "free" stuff and want the federal government to pay for it all then tax rates are going to need to be exorbitant.

Right now the fedral government is spending roughly $4 Trillion per year. In 2017, the most recent year we have tax data for, total Adjusted Gross Income for all returns or all individuals reporting an AGI in excess of $75k was just under $8 Trillion. We'd need to take HALF of that just to cover current spending. If we add free health care, free college, free child care, free reparations for slavery, free basic income and affordable housing for all that will tack AT LEAST another couple of Trillion dollars so you're talking about need for a 75% tax rate on every dollar of income in excess of $75k.

If you only want to hit up "the wealthy" you need to understand that aggregate AGI for all returns showing income in excess of $200k is only a little over $4 Trillion so if we took 100% of that it MIGHT cover current spending and would fall at least 50% short of proposed spending. This idea that we can do all kinds of "free" stuff and only tax the "very, very wealthy" is, to be kind, utter bull****.

Income information I used can be found here - SOI Tax Stats - Individual Income Tax Returns Publication 1304 (Complete Report) | Internal Revenue Service
 
Kerry Won Ohio said:
Yep, when the rich were paying a 90% tax rate in the 1950s, that was the most prosperous time period in this country's history.

We should, at a minimum, have a 60% tax rate on the rich right now. That would fund virtually every social program and infrastructure program this country needs.
Click to expand...

First define "the rich" and then define "income" (e.g. does that include capital gains). The biggest problem with our overly complex federal income tax code is it is largely based on how and upon who that income was later spent - rather than simply taxing "income from all sources" (gross income) as the 16A suggests.
 
Lutherf said:
It's really not all that sarcastic. If people really want all this "free" stuff and want the federal government to pay for it all then tax rates are going to need to be exorbitant.

Right now the fedral government is spending roughly $4 Trillion per year. In 2017, the most recent year we have tax data for, total Adjusted Gross Income for all returns or all individuals reporting an AGI in excess of $75k was just under $8 Trillion. We'd need to take HALF of that just to cover current spending. If we add free health care, free college, free child care, free reparations for slavery, free basic income and affordable housing for all that will tack AT LEAST another couple of Trillion dollars so you're talking about need for a 75% tax rate on every dollar of income in excess of $75k.

If you only want to hit up "the wealthy" you need to understand that aggregate AGI for all returns showing income in excess of $200k is only a little over $4 Trillion so if we took 100% of that it MIGHT cover current spending and would fall at least 50% short of proposed spending. This idea that we can do all kinds of "free" stuff and only tax the "very, very wealthy" is, to be kind, utter bull****.

Income information I used can be found here - SOI Tax Stats - Individual Income Tax Returns Publication 1304 (Complete Report) | Internal Revenue Service
Click to expand...

That is quite a bit oversimplified, since federal revenue is not from personal (individual) income taxation alone, but your basic point is certainly valid.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is quite a bit oversimplified, since federal revenue is not from personal (individual) income taxation alone, but your basic point is certainly valid.
Click to expand...

Roughly 85% of federal tax receipts comes from individual income tax and payroll taxes. The remaining 15% comes from corporate tax and excise taxes.
 
Lutherf said:
It's really not all that sarcastic. If people really want all this "free" stuff and want the federal government to pay for it all then tax rates are going to need to be exorbitant.

Right now the fedral government is spending roughly $4 Trillion per year. In 2017, the most recent year we have tax data for, total Adjusted Gross Income for all returns or all individuals reporting an AGI in excess of $75k was just under $8 Trillion. We'd need to take HALF of that just to cover current spending. If we add free health care, free college, free child care, free reparations for slavery, free basic income and affordable housing for all that will tack AT LEAST another couple of Trillion dollars so you're talking about need for a 75% tax rate on every dollar of income in excess of $75k.

If you only want to hit up "the wealthy" you need to understand that aggregate AGI for all returns showing income in excess of $200k is only a little over $4 Trillion so if we took 100% of that it MIGHT cover current spending and would fall at least 50% short of proposed spending. This idea that we can do all kinds of "free" stuff and only tax the "very, very wealthy" is, to be kind, utter bull****.

Income information I used can be found here - SOI Tax Stats - Individual Income Tax Returns Publication 1304 (Complete Report) | Internal Revenue Service
Click to expand...

What you are forgetting or ignoring... whatever, is that these programs increase growth and spending. If college is free and healthcare is free, you can expect drastic spending increases from the lower through middle classes in the economy and therefore more tax receipts that go along with said increased spending via new jobs and business expansion. Not to mention the savings in the government not having to bail out people with medical bankruptcies.

That aside, here is a current tax rate:

tax1.PNG

So... would you be for a tax rate like this?

tax2.jpg
 
Kerry Won Ohio said:
Yep, when the rich were paying a 90% tax rate in the 1950s, that was the most prosperous time period in this country's history. We should, at a minimum, have a 60% tax rate on the rich right now. That would fund virtually every social program and infrastructure program this country needs.
Click to expand...
This is not accurate. Excepting the post WWII period as a non-recurring phenomenon, the most prosperous time was the 1960s, after income tax rates were lowered. At the time, one of Kennedy's arguments was that the high income tax rates were designed to hobble the economy during the war. After the post war boom 1950-51 the decade was quite volatile. From the end of 1961 to 1970, great things.
 
Lutherf said:
Roughly 85% of federal tax receipts comes from individual income tax and payroll taxes. The remaining 15% comes from corporate tax and excise taxes.
Click to expand...

Yep, but more spending is "mandatory" than "discretionary" and payroll taxation is based on a flat rate applied to gross wage/salary income used to fund Social Security and Medicare. Too much (most?) of the personal federal income tax code is devoted to exempting gross income from taxation (creating a fictitious AGI?) based on how and upon who that income was later spent.
 
poweRob said:
What you are forgetting or ignoring... whatever, is that these programs increase growth and spending. If college is free and healthcare is free, you can expect drastic spending increases from the lower through middle classes in the economy and therefore more tax receipts that go along with said increased spending via new jobs and business expansion. Not to mention the savings in the government not having to bail out people with medical bankruptcies.

That aside, here is a current tax rate:



So... would you be for a tax rate like this?
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, who is going to be spending the money if their tax rate is 75% or more and that just at the federal level?

That proposed tax rate schedule will not provide nearly enough revenue to fund $6-7 Trillion dollars a year in federal spending. Like I said, you'd need to tax 75% of ever single dollar earned in excess of $75k to pay for that kind of spending.
 
Lutherf said:
Out of curiosity, who is going to be spending the money if their tax rate is 75% or more and that just at the federal level?
Click to expand...

I've never proposed any such thing. And even if it were 75% it wouldn't be on the middle class. That was around the top end income tax rate only way back under that socialist Eisenhower. Not the middle and lower class.

Lutherf said:
That proposed tax rate schedule will not provide nearly enough revenue to fund $6-7 Trillion dollars a year in federal spending. Like I said, you'd need to tax 75% of ever single dollar earned in excess of $75k to pay for that kind of spending.
Click to expand...

Not with growth. You are not including increased revenues from all the increased spending like I said.

So, would you be for a tax program like I posted or not?
 
Last edited:
Lutherf said:
I totally agree and would like to point out that things are more expensive now too. A 70% rate is no longer reasonable. Basically, everyone making more than $60k/yr should be paying somewhere between 80 and 95% tax on that income. The only way we'll ever be able to have enough free stuff to make America worthwhile is to tax the living daylights out of everyone that has two nickles to rub together.
Click to expand...

Reducto ad absurdum.
Don't you ever get tired of doing nothing but displaying attention seeking behavior?
 
Kerry Won Ohio said:
Yep, when the rich were paying a 90% tax rate in the 1950s, that was the most prosperous time period in this country's history.

We should, at a minimum, have a 60% tax rate on the rich right now. That would fund virtually every social program and infrastructure program this country needs.
Click to expand...

The upper segment of tax rates were MARGINAL rates.
The highest tax rates fell on the "last few dollars" on incomes deemed to be in the top 0.5% at the time.
NOBODY was paying 90 or 92% tax on ALL their income, not to mention that the tax code heavily incentivized reinvestment strategies as well, thus a comfortable tax haven which stimulated jobs and wage growth.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Well, unless you're an old guy like me, probably not, but one thing you need to understand about that era in which we were able to build the interstate highway system and help rebuild Europe without incurring a debt we can't pay is the way the tax system has changed since then:

View attachment 67266145

When Democrats talk about the rich paying more, consider a little bit of history. Check it out here
Click to expand...

For that graph to be meaningful, you need to know what percentage of people were actually paying the highest rates in the 50s as compared to now.

Even bettter, you would need data on the tax rate as compared to total GDP for then and now.
 
Lutherf said:
I totally agree and would like to point out that things are more expensive now too. A 70% rate is no longer reasonable. Basically, everyone making more than $60k/yr should be paying somewhere between 80 and 95% tax on that income. The only way we'll ever be able to have enough free stuff to make America worthwhile is to tax the living daylights out of everyone that has two nickles to rub together.
Click to expand...

Gotta love ignorance from the right, red states are the poorest in the nation, have all but eliminated unions and yet they support giving the rich their money. You don’t sound smart, you sound ignorant and cute. Mainly ignorant.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, but more spending is "mandatory" than "discretionary" and payroll taxation is based on a flat rate applied to gross wage/salary income used to fund Social Security and Medicare. Too much (most?) of the personal federal income tax code is devoted to exempting gross income from taxation (creating a fictitious AGI?) based on how and upon who that income was later spent.
Click to expand...

I would vehemently disagree with that assessment of the tax code. Most of the code is definitions and instructions for how and when the income is taxed. There is very little income that simply isn't taxed.
 
Bandit said:
Gotta love ignorance from the right, red states are the poorest in the nation, have all but eliminated unions and yet they support giving the rich their money. You don’t sound smart, you sound ignorant and cute. Mainly ignorant.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Thanks! At least I still have my looks and sense of humor.
 
Wishful thinking and wasn't around in the '50s, I wish they were here today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom