Why not tax the mega-rich at the rate they were taxed BEFORE Reagan began trickle down?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

Wouldn't that fill the coffers back up? Wouldn't that take the burden off the shoulders of the middle class? Wouldn't that put money back where it's needed to get us out of this horrific financial mess Republicans have put us in?

[Oregone]

1. Or we can just start by raising the top marginal rate to what it was under Reagan on average

57% (this is a great talking point against trickle down, don't tax the rich right-wingers, since they want to grow up and be exactly like Reagan).

:)

It wasn't until dementia took most of his mind that things really got fucked up.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

2. Why? Let's bring it up to what it was BEFORE Reagan. We have an emergency right now nt

[newtothegame]

24. 57%? Like someone would have 57% of their paycheck taken before they got it?

[reggie the dog]

25. In Frace they take fifty percent

in Denmark they take seventy percent.

[hay rick]

37. No. That's a top marginal tax rate.

In a progressive tax system, income tax rates increase at higher levels. The top marginal tax rate is the rate that applies to the last dollar earned.

An example.
tax rates
__________
0- $10,000 0%
$10,001-$30,000 10%
$30,001-$100,000 25%
$100,001-> 35%

In this case, a taxpayer making $50,000 would pay $0 on his first $10,000 of income, $2,000 on his next $20,000 of income, and $5,000 on his next $20,000 of income. His top marginal rate would be 25% (until he crossed the $100,000 threshold.) Making $50,000, his effective tax rate would be 14% ($7,000/$50,000).

Between 1951 and 1963, the top marginal tax rate for married couples was 91 or 92% on income over $400,000. A link: http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

[sabbat hunter]

3. It is hard to raise taxes during a recession/depression

That generally will make things worse. By Keynesian economics, during bad economic times you cut taxes and increase spending to prime the pump, then raise them during good times to pay off the debt.

[Oregone]

4. An argument for a high top-marginal rate in tough times is...

Shareholders fore-go on dividends (or profits used for stock repurchase) and most company earnings are reinvested back into corporations (to avoid excessive taxation since the companies will be virtual non-profits). Reinvesting all earnings into company infrastructure, aquisitions and workers strengthens stock values and can create a state of hyper-growth for a company.

To make sure shareholders don't take their money and run, taxes can be effectively used to prevent that also. This makes the main way a wealthy person can increase their wealth is let their stock multiply and grow until there is a safer time to sell it.

[sabbat hunter]

12. That means

you are raising capital gains taxes and corporate taxes not individual tax rates.

[annabanana]

15. How about actually *collecting* those famous "highest corporate taxes in the

world" that the corporations are always bellyaching about?

[Donnachaidh]

27. and if there is nothing coming IN to increase spending

Where exactly does the government go for funds?

We're IN this mess because taxes were cut. By your own post, the Bush Admin (as well as Clinton) should have RAISED taxes, but did not.

Keynesian economics go right out the window when you have hundreds of thousands losing jobs, who will be NEEDING government aid. Correct the mistakes, by taxing the CRAP out of the wealthy, until the economy is corrected.

[sabbat hunter]

28. The bush administration

should have indeed raised taxes, especially considering all the money spent foolishly in Iraq.

Clinton did raise taxes a bit, not nearly as much as he should have, but it was a start.


Under Keynesian economics, it is allowable for the government to borrow money ie run a deficit, during hard times.

[Horse with no Name]

46. Except during "good economic times"

The republicans fucking looted the treasury and gave everything to do their croneys...then raped us at the gas pumps while they made record profits.
I don't think that there is any economist dead or alive who would ascribed to THAT theory. It is time to get our money back from the robber barons...by any legal means possible.

[redstate_democrat]

5. Now you're talking

the post-war (WWII-1970s) boom was the most productive and best economy this country has ever seen, but the rich were taxed at high rates. We need to return to that. Narrow the wealth gap. Restore the stability of the middle class. Strengthen labor unions. Incentivize Domestic investment. Every since the tax rates on the wealthy have dropped dramatically, the middle class has lost ground. We can at least raise the tax rate on the top 10% back up to an effective 50%. That's still cheaper than the 90%, 70% it used to be.

Also, we need to stop giving companies a dollar for dollar tax break for the taxes the pay in other countries. That's just plain fucking stupid.

We need to close the loophole where hedgefund managers pay less than some secretaries by paying the capital gains rate at 15%. We need to do that, are make the tax progressive.

Then we need to stop this insanity of giving subsidies, grants, contracts, tax breaks for businesses who ship jobs overseas. We also need to stop giving away free money to companies to "relocate" somewhere in the name of "creating" jobs when they do nothing but attract multi-billion dollar behemoths like Walmart who could afford to relocate on their own and who bring nothing but low wage work, unfair practices, environmental abuse, and despair as they drive smaller businesses out of business.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

10. Exactly! Why are people so afraid to tax the rich the way they should be taxed? nt

[ipfilter]

14. Because nearly 30 years of supply side propaganda

is going to be hard to reverse.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

34. Yes, but what will it take? The death of this planet? Or will it take really angry people to bring

the tax rate of the rich back to what it was before Reagan?

[closeupready]

22. Because our lawmakers are themselves rich, in those brackets which would pay more. Ergo, it doesn't

happen. At least that's bipartisanship in action. :rofl:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

35. Clinton spoke in favor it, and I consider Clinton a right winger nt

[closeupready]

40. Hillary/Bill/both?

n/t

[Sarah Ibarruri]

44. Right wingers? I guess they're right wing Democrats nt

[BirminghamExaminer]

42. ditto

[Kansas Wyatt]

6. That is the ONLY way they will turn around the 'Trickle Down Train Wreck' for...

The last 25 years. Along with rolling back the increased taxes against the middle class and/or working people.

However, I doubt millionaire Democrats would be eager to implement such a plan, even if millionaire Republicans agreed to it. Millionaire Democrats just like to talk about how bad trickle down economics has been for the middle class.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

11. Well, Clinton said it was necessary, so did George Soros, and many more nt

[closeupready]

23. Exactly. Senators, regardless of party, are worth on average $1.7 million. Nobody worth that much

is going to seek to tax anymore of that wealth than they absolutely have to.

[Skink]

7. can anybody say taxhaven?

:wtf:

[annabanana]

16. Invade the Caymans. . .

I am not completely unserious about this.

[HughBeaumont]

18. You read the David Cay Johnston article in Mother Jones too?

I like that suggestion. Wouldn't take much. Audit. Make them pay their fair SHARE.

[rrneck]

8. Sooner or later, its

inevitable. They're the only ones with any money.

[midnight]

9. Since the mega rich are running things, I don't think they would

even think about carrying their share of this burden. I think most of the mega rich are that way from taking and not from giving. Now, this is not about every mega rich person, because I'm sure there are exceptions.

[Evoman]

13. Yeah....but you also gotta do something about those Cayman Island banks, tax shelters, and loopholes

[Skink]

29. There's more to the Caymans than just banks.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

30. I imagine that someone making money here should find it pretty hard to suddenly make that money

disappear into a foreign bank if our country kept very very close tabs on money, income, etc.

[HamdenRice]

17. Because ...

because ... because ...

There is no because. High progressive tax rates on the very wealthy would be a good thing, and doing it in a recession is not a problem because would affect consumption, which is concentrated in the lower and middle classes.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

31. I agree. I mean, the rest of us will still need to spend our paychecks on the grocery bill, etc.

The rich are hiding their money, so I say tax the hell out of them. If they'd like to live elsewhere and not come back, that's fine with me too.

[Sandrine for you]

19. Yep I like It.

[SIMPLYB1980]

20. That is a great idea.

:toast:

[closeupready]

21. This is what I've been saying all along.

n/t

[Sarah Ibarruri]

32. Are there any movements or groups to get the rich taxed at the pre-Reagan rate again? nt

[closeupready]

41. Not that I'm aware of beyond some of us here just talking about it.

The closest I've seen to this happening is discussion about the fact that Obama wanted to return to the Clinton era marginal tax rates. Which, still doesn't come close, but I guess these things take time?

[L0oniX]

26. If we tax them they will just come back for another 700 billion bail out and buy some more jets

Face it ...they own us and our government. It's over!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

33. If we tax them, we tax them, and if they don't like it, they can move

We've given them a 30-year long party of redistribution of money to the top. Don't you think it's time that ended?

[Orsino]

36. Because the mega-rich own the Congress that would have to make the change...

...and the airwaves that could be educating us on the matter. We're screwed two ways.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

38. Then we'll have to let them know they will not get our votes...

If they think they can get away with things, they will get away with them.

[Orsino]

39. That might work...

...if there were a candidate in every race that wasn't already owned. I'm afraid that there are damned few of those. Our system is designed so that one doesn't get anywhere near office on the national stage without carrying the corporate banner. With our politics already so thoroughly undermined, it's starting to look as though real change isn't possible within the system.

It's our fault for having been asleep for so long, I guess.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

43. That's true - our system ensures that lobbying stays put firmly in place

And I think that's the first thing that needs to go.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. You mean like... oh what, FDR did?

My feeling is, we will see it...

Patience my dear, patience

The events of the last ten days are even more eerily reminiscent of the early days of 1933

All the way to the same (similar) words used by both sides

[SoCalDem]

47. a graph of tax rates on high earners.. notice when we were the envy of the world

prosperous, and with a growing middle class...and affordable college..

[Lilith Velkor]

48. Because that would actually, you know, help the country.

The mega-rich can't have that.