Is It Really Belt Tightening

[a completely inoffensive name]

we taxed the rich successfully in the past, but it can't work now because

Jolt gave a reason.

[Ice]

Yes, I agree about that. Taxing 83% is much too high for people's taste nowadays. But this information shows that in order for taxes to get near to "fair" we must break the silly notion of never having taxes above 50% out of some weird "last stand" to make sure that government isn't taking more than half of someones "hard earned" money.

I feel that a more reasonable tax rate for the rich lies in between the 35-40% nowadays and the 83% I calculated. I think 60% would be a good middle ground.

I think 45%-50% would also be an appropiate number. 60% is too high.

Of course, the top rate would be over 1 million dollars.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think 45%-50% would also be an appropiate number. 60% is too high.

Of course, the top rate would be over 1 million dollars.

The top marginal tax bracket was taxed at roughly 70% from 1964 to 1980 before Reagan knocked it down to 50% by 1982. I don't see how 60% would be some sort of back breaker for the rich.

[Ice]

The top marginal tax bracket was taxed at roughly 70% from 1964 to 1980 before Reagan knocked it down to 50% by 1982. I don't see how 60% would be some sort of back breaker for the rich.

It's really just out of principle. Half of your money goes to the government, and you keep the other half.

[Spino]

Mentioning the Reagan & GW Bush tax cuts while conveniently leaving out the Kennedy tax cuts isn't playing nice. Kennedy helped bring the top tax rate down from 90+% to 70%... NINETY PERCENT!!!

Here's Kennedy's famous speech regarding the tax cuts. Arguably the single most effective campaign video a conservative candidate could ask for...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AAEp0J_hzU

The point isn't whether the rich can afford a tax increase, it's a matter of whether said increase is not only fair but even necessary. As others have mentioned, is such a tax increase even healthy for our economy? What positive historical precedent is there for increasing taxes during a recession?

With government waste and inefficiency at an all-time high I find it awfully hard to pay my taxes without getting hot under the collar about my money going towards building bridges to nowhere, airports that service a dozen people a day, THREE foreign wars, bailouts for foreign banks, Obamacare exemptions for Democratic constituency groups (i.e. union cronies), ridiculous cost overruns for the F-35's wonky engine, big oil subsidies, etc. Why should I have to pay for that? Why should the rich have to pay for that? Looking beyond the simplistic rich/poor dynamic philosophically speaking how do you justify taking other people's money to pay for the terrible decisions made by those less wise and/or fortunate? If we live in a 'free' society then aren't people just as free to fail as they are to ignore the plight of others? It's one thing to have your tax dollars go to employing cops, firemen, garbage men, postal workers, etc., another thing entirely to have it fund other people's welfare safety net (look up welfare in NYC during the 60s & 70s for a sad lesson on what not to do with the poor and other people's money). How do you justify the expression 'paying their fair share' when most of the wealthy achieved their success through the toil of their own labors? You not only need to define 'fair' but you also need to justify the brackets that determine where a person's fair share starts and when it stops.

So let's cut spending... great! So what to cut? Well, that's the rub isn't it? It's the threat to government programs & entitlements that leads to the biggest brawls on Capitol Hill, not tax rates. Our debt and entitlement commitments are absolutely mammoth, so much so that even a serious tax hike won't get them under control anytime soon. And it's those same programs & entitlements that are threatening our long term prosperity.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It's really just out of principle. Half of your money goes to the government, and you keep the other half.

And the burden continues to punish the middle class. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The infringement of an extra 10% of the super rich's money is nothing compared to the failure of the state to provide basic needs for the middle class that constitutes the vast majority of the actual people.

[Ice]

And the burden continues to punish the middle class. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The infringement of an extra 10% of the super rich's money is nothing compared to the failure of the state to provide basic needs for the middle class that constitutes the vast majority of the actual people.

You seem to be more left ideologically here. I can't really argue with that, so I believe we can agree that the Bush tax cuts were and the top tax rates need to be increased.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You seem to be more left ideologically here. I can't really argue with that, so I believe we can agree that the Bush tax cuts were and the top tax rates need to be increased.

I really don't consider my views as "left", just more pragmatic for the current time and situation. Eventually the circumstances will be different and the tax rate will need to be higher or lower accordingly and I will change my stance after a reassessment.

But yes, we agree about those two issues.