When Eisenhower was president the top income tax rate was 91%. But you had to have already made a LOT of money before you hit that rate. (Eisenhower, by the way, supported that 91% top tax rate.)
That 91% tax rate is what got us out of the depression, and helped create a middle class (with the help of strong labor unions). It payed for fighting World War II and the GI Bill, and helped build our highway system, education system and other infrastructure that is in place today (albeit crumbling now from maintenance deferral resulting from tax cuts.) We did all that without borrowing, and the rich still got richer.
Think about this: If tax rates at the top were 91% today, hedge fund managers would STILL be bringing in over $300 million EACH YEAR - but the rest of us would be able to get health care, fix the roads, good schools, and the other benefits that were the reason we - yes, we - enabled this economic system in the first place.
And think about this. If that top rate is 91% it reduces the incentive for corporate CEOs to bribe politicians to put policies in place that funnel all the wealth up to the top.
Who is our economy FOR, anyway?
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
If you thought outsourcing was a problem now, just put that 90% tax rate in place and watch the companies and CEOs leave this country. FYI, the top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of the taxes already, without them this country would be gone.
Good old socialism, punish those that are productive and reward those that are not. That's a nice message to send to the people of this country, the more you succeed, the more we'll bring you down. Is that the American way?
WE HAVE ANOTHER HOUSING CRISIS COMMING!!!!!
MORE PEOPLE WILL LOSE THEY HOMES IF THEY DO NOT ROLL BACK THE BANKRUPTIZE LAWS THEY CHANGED A FEW YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AS MANY AS 30% OF HOME OWNER WHO ARE NOW ABLE TO PAY THE HOME LOANS WILL BE IN A FINANCIAL CRISIS BY NOVEMBER!!!!!!!!!!!
DEBTS AND PRICES HAVE JUMPED SO SUDDENLY AND THEIR SAVING GOING FOR GAS AND NOW FOOD THEY WILL BE IN DIRE STRAIGHTS BY NOVEMBER.
SOME MAY NOT BE ABLE TO VOTE IF THEY CAN'T AFFORD THE GAS OR IF THEY ARE LIVING IN THE STREET!!!!!
I find it amusing when some conservative waxes nostalgic about the 1950s to point out the 91% tax rate and strong labor unions of that era.
Right, but no one does. Nice try at the strawman though.
Listen, you slackers afraid to get out there and engage can whine all you want, but there is always going to be people who are not afraid and see themselves capable of making a lot of money. 90% tax rate, ROFL, why don't you just take up a straightforward life of crime instead of trying to steal from the productive through fake moral outrage? They tried communism, it failed spectacularly.
So We, the People imposing taxes is communism?
I would take this a simple step further. Put a ceiling on total wealth at maybe $10 million, and a ceiling on annual income of about $1 million. This would directly impact only a tiny percentage of people in this country, since almost no one makes that level of income, or has that much wealth, but the benefits would be profound. Government and corporate corruption would disappear, because the allure of massive wealth would be gone. Political decisions would suddenly be made on the merits of ideas. Beneficial social change would then come naturally.
Of course this would impact the wealth of just about everyone we see in the news today, the fat class who own and run everything, including the government. But they are a very thin veneer on society. We outnumber them 10000 to 1, at least.
Wow, you can probably get that now. It's called China and Russia
Whatever you do, treat ALL income the same.
Why should some guy living off trust fund dividends pay lower tax rates than I pay on my wages?
We need a WEALTH tax on people like Ted Kennedy who dont have to try to earn a living anymore...
If we DID have a wealth tax, and paid off our debt, the budget would immediately be reduced by about $450 billion, and ALL taxes could thereafter be lower -- even without cutting the huge, vast military budget.
Or GW who has never worked a full day in his life..... more vacation time than any other president and during a war!
No. Eliminate the employer contribution to SS and MC; increase the percentage to 30%, and put the annual cap at $30k. That's a real Republican plan with hair on its chest. Issue a tube of K-Y to every citizen making a wage under 30k every month. Your tube is in the mail.
I was watching Leavitt, the secretary of BS or HHS, not sure, on C-Span this morning, and a caller asked him if the SS tax money was going to fund the war. His reply - "absolutely not." Is this guy an idiot liar or a lying idiot. Let's see - the taxes are sent to the SS Administration. All the surplus, which is still very major, is sent to Treasury. Treasury sends the SSA a piece of paper called a Treasury Bond which will soon be worthless and unredeemable which they put in a file cabinet somewhere in Virginia, and then Treasury sends the money to State which sends it on to the thugs at Blackwater. It's enough to warm the heart of the heartless.
Technically, he's correct. SS taxes are going straight to the SSA, and then they spend what they must, and put the rest in the trust fund. However, the President and Congress then come out and force the SSA to spend the ENTIRE surplus to buy T-Bills. What they "invest" is then spent on the war.
Eliminate income tax altogether, (other than the payroll deductions for Social Security, etc., those programs designed to be fully funded through payroll deductions). Fund the government spending by making everyone pay a fraction of their wealth every year. I never tried to run the numbers, but I am guessing the percentage is well below 1%. It fair, its flat and it totally eliminates the need for estate tax, capital gains tax, etc.
But think of all the accountants that would be out of work.
A great idea,... although before we go quite that high in the overall tax rates,... how about we start with two other less painful ideas:
1) Raise the base tax rate for Capital Gains to that for wage income of the equal level.
2) Eliminate the ceiling for wage income for SS-tax, and tax investment capital gains income as if it were wage income for purposes of calulating SS 'income' level.
THEN - reinstate a 90% tax bracket. And use the net to cover the VA, Education, and Healthcare costs.
I don't want to raise taxes for all rich people. Just Grover Norquist.
What an idiotic idea! Nation after nation are reducing their tax rates to lure investment and jobs and you want to encourage business to leave the country - and then have the nerve to complain when it happens. Companies are in business to earn profits - not supply jobs. The higher the tax rate, the more investment leaves the country.
I fail to understand why you call yourselves "progressives". There is nothing progressive in your proposals. This election will present a stark contrast in the two candidates. The 'progressive' will lead us back to 1950 and the republican will lead us to 2050. Since the American public is generally an optimistic bunch, I wouldn't count on returning to the 1950's.
What an idiotic post. Yes companies are in business to earn a profit, but our government, of the people, is in business to support policies that support the wellfare of the majority of its citizens without placing undue hardship on any of them.
As demonstrated in the past, the wealthy can pay high taxes and remain wealthy while our country remains healthy. Current policy has the wealthy remaining wealthy and our country in decline.
I just hope your not a hypocrytical Christian, as Jesus said, " I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Matthew 19:24.
Additionally, one of the keys to the successs of Henry Ford was his belief that his employees should earn enough to purchase one of his cars. How is American business going to earn a profit if Americans don't have jobs.
Talk about, IDIOTIC.
"our government, of the people, is in business to support policies that support the wellfare of the majority of its citizens without placing undue hardship on any of them" is in what article of the Constitution? I can't find anything in the constitution that directs the government to do anything to support the welfare of the majority of it's citizens. The Constitution is for all it's citizens - not just the majority.
In case you haven't picked up a globe lately, there are two sets of middle class citizens emerging in the most populous countries in the world - India and China. The billions (not measly millions - but billions) of people want to take your job - and they are willing to scratch and claw to do it - because they know you are fat and lazy and won't fight for it.
People like you are not ready for the challenges of the 21st century so you want to retreat to the 1950's and put up trade barriers to keep everyone out. That just does not work in todays world. You are either going to have to learn to compete or be pushed aside and a protectionist government will wither and die.
Business aren't leaving this country! They may be manufacturing goods overseas, but they're bringing them back to America to sell them. That's not leaving, it's exploiting cheap labor!
When Henry Ford was just starting out his fellow industrialists would criticize him for paying his employees too well. His answer was "I want them to be able to by their own automobiles." He was right, you can't sell anything to people when they don't have the money to buy. Is any of this making sense to you? Please think for a change.
I'd love to back to 1950. I was a sophomore in high school, my family OWNED our house, we had a car, and we ate well. My dad worked as a machinest for the railroad. Now those guys are lucky they can eat, much less raise a family.
Also, you keep business in this couontry by charging a tariff on imported goods. Thats what China, Japan, South Korea and India have done and what we have done in the past.
Maybe if they taught history in our schools Americans would remeber what a tariff is. Its a tax on imports to support American jobs. Genius idea, its only 1000 years old os so.
Please explain exactly how a 90% PERSONAL tax rate would cause corporations to move overseas? Especially since they will STILL have to sell their products here, and if we were to ACTUALLY tax companies that do business here, rather than simply the ones who are officially based overseas.....
The 90% personal tax will destroy small businesses and won't achieve the revenue promised. The only reason it seemed to work in the 1950's was because there was not a global economy. Today we face increased competition for jobs from the emerging middle classes in India and China. The raising of the personal tax will be followed immediately by the corporate tax. When that happens there would be no real reason to incorporate in the USA. With global communications and technological advances and US corporation could run just as effectively in Ireland as Boston or Singapore as in LA.
The federal government is awash in tax revenue. The problem is on the spending side. We need to reduce spending on 'non-government' items. Education is not a federal concern, welfare is not a federal concern, healthcare is not a federal concern. Hard decisions will have to be made. We can either choose to make them ourselves or the world will make them for us.
I don't see us going back to something just because it worked and what we're doing now doesn't. We're just not that kind of country anymore.
"Add to that 80% tax of everything from $250,000 to $500,000, and 90% tax of everything above that,"
You and I both know that in decision making circles, this is pocket change. We'd have to kick in the high tax on something like $10 mill or more for it to have a chance of passing.
Hooray for you Dave Johnson, hooray for the 90% top rate. These (Republican) people don't "earn" their huge fortunes, they inherit them or invest and watch the fat profits roll in while they are getting overly tanned vacationing in some nice warm places. Well some might work a bit, but so does tne burger flipper at Hardees.
Of course. There are simple and fair changes that could be made by our politicians if they were not all on the take. Changes that would help our country in many ways. For example, businesses are only allowed to write of business expenses that area "reasonable." So a salesperson may be able to write off a reasonably-priced lunch for a prospective client, but not a $1000/plate lunch.
The law should say that businesses cannot write off consideration to any person in excess of $250,000/year. This would include salary, pension, bonuses, stock options -- whatever they call it, it's all counted. Anything in excess of that, the corporation would be taxed as would the insider receiving the money.
Add to that 80% tax of everything from $250,000 to $500,000, and 90% tax of everything above that, suddenly insiders have no incentive to screw the workers and investors and loot the business. Business expenses and scams in general should be curtailed so that businesses pay the same taxes as individuals do.
Tax income from offshore businesses so people cannot hide their income outside the country.
And eliminate the whole "private" charity con that's going on right now. People like Bill Gates, the Clintons, Warren Buffett, set up their own personal charity, put money in there so they don't have to pay taxes on it, then let it sit there forever tax free. The law says that as long as they pay out 5%/year, the money is tax free.
You left McCain off that list. As I recall, a good chunk of his income went to his foundation, to avoid taxes. Of course, he can afford to do that since his wife has the bucks to pay the bills.
I agree with everything EXCEPT that the individuals you named at the end are actually some of the better ones about their philanthropy. And Clinton doesn't have a private charity.
My mistake, there is the Clinton Foundation. I don't think it is a family foundation though, where the Clintons park money. It puts on the Clinton Global Initiative which I think is an extremely important event.
But let me add, and I posted about it at http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2008/02/reflections_on_2.htm, that I think these foundations are profoundly anti-democratic in nature. It is a way to justify privatizing the decisions about use of resources.
Loading comments…
Posted April 28, 2008 | 03:15 PM (EST)