I honestly don't know the answer. Why did the US economy seem to flourish more when the tax rate was much, much higher for the wealthiest?

 

Maybe there was a mentality by the "haves" of making this whole nation great rather than just ourselves.

I honestly don't know the answer. Why did the US economy seem to flourish more when the tax rate was much, much higher for the wealthiest?

 

Because the wealthiest knew that their money was going towards the betterment of the United States, not some Bums welfare check.

I thought conservatives were supposed to be seen as greedy, but who's the greedy one, asking for more money after I just gave 12.5 million. (Still using the hypothetical from above lol)

 

Not greedy nor a millionaire hater, but much of their success is because they live in this nation. There is a responsibility to make this nation better than how you left it.

Not greedy nor a millionaire hater, but much of their success is because they live in this nation. There is a responsibility to make this nation better than how you left it.

 

I think its a stretch to say that much of -illionaires successes are due to living in the United States. That being said, I agree that as United State citizens, we all have a responsibility to make our nation better. The common person (not a -illionaire) primarily does that by paying taxes, voting, etc.

 

However, the CEO's and whatnot of the United States do all of those, but they do something that the common citizen does not. They employ thousands, pay corporate taxes, provide health insurance and often contribute heavily to charities. You want to tax the richest of the rich? That's fine, but they are going to get their money regardless. The first thing they are going to do is reduce their costs by cutting labor. So, that being said, excessively taxing the rich really doesn't have much long term value, imo.

Umm it didn't? I didn't live in the 70's but I hear they weren't as good as the 80's.

 

Actually I was thinking of the tax rates during the 50's and 60's.

Because the wealthiest knew that their money was going towards the betterment of the United States, not some Bums welfare check.

 

That's an answer, and an understandable one.

 

My question is how did it produce wealth and economic success when it was so high before? I honestly wish someone with some economic background would chime in. Maybe it didn't work well. Maybe it did because of the need to reinvest in infrastructure to protect their money. Maybe it worked because the expected profit margin was lower and accepted as such.

That's an answer, and an understandable one.

 

My question is how did it produce wealth and economic success when it was so high before? I honestly wish someone with some economic background would chime in. Maybe it didn't work well. Maybe it did because of the need to reinvest in infrastructure to protect their money. Maybe it worked because the expected profit margin was lower and accepted as such.

 

I'm not expert, but my initial reaction would be that the economic successes of that time period were not a result, or a product, of the tax rate. In my opinion, the lack of the global market (stronger domestic economy-our money gets invested in our economy), the rebuilding and replenishing following WWII and Korean War, the increase in urbanization, the population growth all had an impact on the economy during the 50's.

 

So, to answer you question, I don't think that higher tax rates in the 1950's created or enabled economic success or wealth.

I'm not expert, but my initial reaction would be that the economic successes of that time period were not a result, or a product, of the tax rate. In my opinion, the lack of the global market (stronger domestic economy-our money gets invested in our economy), the rebuilding and replenishing following WWII and Korean War, the increase in urbanization, the population growth all had an impact on the economy during the 50's.

 

So, to answer you question, I don't think that higher tax rates in the 1950's created or enabled economic success or wealth.

 

Thanks.

Actually I was thinking of the tax rates during the 50's and 60's.

 

Think Eisenhower administration.

I'm for any candidate that will aid in the redistribution of All Tell's wealth to the neediest in our society. Hence, I will cast my primary ballot for Bernard Sanders.

To add onto what HHSHOG62 has already said. I believe most of the economic prosperity in the 50's also stems from the lack of overall government spending during the administrations. Roosevelt dedicated most of his pre-war efforts to getting us out of the depression. In order to do this he spent and spent and for the most part it worked. But these were temporary stimuli to the economy and the United States delayed payment on these debts until we had successfully pulled us out of the depression. But right before WWII we actually had a pretty severe recession and had we not entered the war, Roosevelts legacy may very well be dramatically different than it is today. Eisenhower when he took office, we still had the government hangover effect from the pre-war spending and thus he increased the tax rates in order to generate revenue. But what he didn't do, was increase domestic spending. How this relates to our current scenario, is that there is somehow this illusion that government spending is actually sustainable. Roosevelt spent, but he his spending had expiration dates. You know what expiration dates create? Urgency. With this current administration there is no urgency because they believe government spending should be a permanent solution. This is simply unsustainable. We have a 20 trillion dollar deficit and all Bernie and Hillary are filling you all with is promises that they can't keep. It sounds great, I know. But it's not possible. Nobody has confidence in the governments handling of their tax money because they keep spending and spending and our debt goes up and up. We have a deficit of 20,000,000,000,000 dollars! Bill Gates has a net worth of 76,000,000,000 dollars. It would take 263 Bill Gate's to pay off our debt! But yet all we hear about is more spending. That doesn't make any sense at all. Tax the -illionaires all you want, none of it will matter until we decrease spending.

I ask this...I never get a good answer. Why do we need to pay off our debt?

I ask this...I never get a good answer. Why do we need to pay off our debt?

 

It's not paying off the whole debt. It's the more interest obligations you have as part of your overall budget the less you have to commit to spending on actual programs. Some programs will need to be reduced. If you don't reduce spending, you either expect revenues will make up any shortfall or you raise taxes. The problem is that while interest rates right now are historically low, they will rise and our debt obligations will become a bigger part of our overall budget. Who wants that?

I ask this...I never get a good answer. Why do we need to pay off our debt?

Do you have a credit card?

I ask this...I never get a good answer. Why do we need to pay off our debt?

 

Seriously? That is where we are now? Unfortunately I think many of elected officials agree with you (the entire Dem party and some Republicans). Just spend and spend and not care about the future implications?

 

The only thing propping up our economy is that others (China for example) believe we can pay them back when they lend us money. As soon as the lenders don't believe that any longer and stop lending us money (buying bonds), we are a bigger version of Greece (or California).

 

We took in a record amount of tax revenue last year - think about that - we took in the most money as a country that we have ever taken in...and we STILL managed to spend more than that. We don't have an income problem, we have a spending problem. If you taxed the top 1% of the wage earners 100% of their income, it still would not put a dent in the national debt. We simply spend too much...and I hear politicians saying we are not spending enough...ugh. I do feel bad for future generations because they will have to fix the mess of the last 20 years -especially the last 7 as Obama took the ridiculous spending of Bush and gave it a dose of steroids. There is your answer....