In the 1950's & 1960's the top tax rate was 70-92% so what is repubs malfunction?

"The opposite belief, correlation proves causation, is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a cause-and-effect relationship. The fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "with this, therefore because of this") and false cause."
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Dipshit..the internet was created with about $2000 dollars invested..communism collapsed under "it's own weight" and our education system can only manage a 50% high school graduation rate, with those completing High school managing to rank last in the world in science and math..most can;t even read when they try to get into college.

College is an over priced, "everyone that basically shows up passes" fucking joke.

The government has done virtually nothing for the citizens and in fact has now admitted that they've also stolen the $$trillions paid into SS for retirees.

Let's see...the federal government has literally squandered trillions of dollars, and you think they deserve even more money?

So that premise can also be used to debunk the talking point that when you lower taxes on the rich, the Govt gains more revenue.

In the 50s and 60's we had an economy that actually producedd and made money and we had the world by the tits. We dont have any of that anymore.
We are unemployable luxury addicted debtors with the process servers pounding on the door.
One can ethically borrow if they have means to EARN payment. When one cannot EARN enough to repay they have to stop borrowing, because selling the property of others is theft and fraud and as such is not a viable option.
If you think that's not true, please come on over so I can sell you into sexual servitude for my personal benefit.

I don't think they should get more money to spend, just more money to reduce the deficit.

[link to mercatus.org]

5 charts of historical data showing correlation to various taxes and overall govt revenue as percent of gdp. In almost every chart revenue is virtually flat while the tax rate is all over the page. Revenue seldom and barely past the 20% mark, no matter the rate. In fact, in many cases revenue increased as rates decreased.

Go figure

I do love how the Govt blows trillions on war, military equipment, no bid contracts, payouts to foreign Govts, but SS is sinking the economy.

hey dipshit, you really think if the government gets more of our tax dollars that they are gonna put it towards the deficit? You're nutso.

There main goal is to keep the economy screwed up until Nov 2012, helping their rich supporters avoid taxes doesn't hurt them either.

No opposite. The oposite of warm is not narrow, opposite of black isn't seven.

People ate more potatoes during that time...did that effect the buildup of wealth in America? No correlation

According to the 'logic' of the OP's post, the OP is making a case for eliminating most government spending.

"The government today easily spends more in a quarter than it did in all of the 1950's."
[link to www.gpoaccess.gov]

"Wow.

In the 1830's, we had slavery and the economy was booming. Cotton never traded higher, for the first time in US history people had leisure time, we invented the radio and steam engine, and the industrial revolution was full ahead.

Bring back slavery!"

Back then it vanished into private trusts , charities and foundations. Today it just gets stolen right in front of you. Behind every great fortune is a great crime.

Because those kind of rates are immoral.
No one should have to pay more than half their income in taxes.
Just because those were the rates back then doesn't make it a good thing.

If they stop spending (wasting) they CAN reduce the deficit WITHOUT raising taxes

This is true. The problem stems from the fact that goods and services cost are based with the highest corporate income tax figured into the equation, which is then paid by the consumer. Then through the miracle of lobbies and special interest tax legislation this money is not turned over to the treasury but kept by large corporations. They are beating us (i.e. U.S.A.) out of it. Never mind the tax dollar impact and it's extent, it's morally wrong, especially since the average American gets no such consideration.

Again, it's never been an issue of raising taxes, it's an issue of getting the most wealthy and large corporations to actually turn over the money. What is so hard to understand about this?

Lamest argument I have ever read.

Begin at the beginning: were the rich actually paying 70% or more during that period, or were they availing themselves of various loopholes and paying a good deal less? My guess (subject to correction) would be that they probably weren't actually paying much more than they are now.

This matters because the general 'point' is that good things happened at time X, and Y was true through the time X, so Y must be the cause of the good things in X. That is either valid for EVERY pertinent Y, given the EXACT Y involved, or it is not valid at all.

Thus, as to taxes, every loophole that existed for the avoidance of taxes by the wealthy during the period in question must be scrupulously preserved or restored in order for us to get back to the wonderful postulated good old days. For the loopholes are all part of the Y, right? We want the good old days "back," right?



And there are other candidate Ys that had nothing to do with the tax system. Those were the years of the Bretton Woods accords, after all, which lasted from 1944 until 1971. These accords created a gold standard with regard to international financing. So maybe it was the gold that was behind all those good things! (Indeed, personally I take this quite seriously, although I acknowledge that just daydreaming about good old days would not make up an argument for it.)

The 1950s and 1960s were also a period when neither the US nor the UN recognized the People's Republic of China. In both contexts, only the government in Taipai was China. So ... withdraw recognition from Beijing! and go back to spelling it Peking! You want those good things "back," right?

But ... look at the list of "good things" again. The US "defeated Communism" in the 1950s and 1960s? Assuming that the word "Communism" in that sentence refers to the bloc of nations led by the old Soviet Union: didn't its "defeat" come after the reduction of the highest marginal taxes? In the late '80s and early '90s?




What the US did in the 1950s and 1960s was "contain" Communism. By, for example, making a point of committing to the defense of Quemoy and Matsu, the forward posts of the regime in Taipai that we continued to recognize as the only legitimate China. So why should this lead us to the conclusion that we should replicate the tax system of the period without also replicating its diplomacy? Rescind the recognition of Beijing! (Or, recognize reality and don't do that -- but drop silly arguments.)


The US created the interstate system during the period. Yes: but should we pay no attention now to the possibility that that is one of the causes of subsequent troubles? After all, it made the rapid consumption of gasoline a lot more easy and a lot more tempting. That in time became a geostrategic imperative: we have to keep importing the crude oil that makes that possible in ever-increasing quantaties. In the good old days, the best way to get to California was to take route 66. It made for a nice TV show but unwieldy travel. You want those good old days back? Tear up the interstates!

Or keep the interstates and look beyond lame arguments about how we have to do things just like we did back in the good old days. Arguments like the paradigm of lame at the top of this thread.

You do understand the concept of tax brackets, right? No-one pays "more than half their income in taxes," even at a 70-92% tax rate. That rate would apply to the portion of one's income above some high threshold (i.e. by the time you're paying that rate you're already "earning" more in a single year than most people will work their asses off for their entire life and not match.)

Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society. The fact that there are huge deficits and we are seeing state and local governments cutting schools, fire departments and policing means that taxes are not high enough. There are only so many "cuts" that can be made, despite what the Tea Party talking heads tell you on TV.

In fact, when taxes are lower - people spend more, and therefore are taxed more. Likewise, when "rich" people - read that as successful people (e.g. not hippies) have money to invest, and a promising economic outlook; they spend more than you'll ever have the mental capacity to understand. This means more physical locations, thus more local and state property taxes; more employees (jobs) so more government gains in employment taxes, salary taxes, FICA, and the other bullshit that the government makes you pay for.

I employ 8 people, and created those jobs in 2009 during one of the worst times. My wonderful employees agree to work their ass off for me; in return, I pay them a nice salary, all their health benefits, and other perks. You want more? I really can't afford more. If you take more, then I will be forced to thin out my roster, hurting the local and federal economy.

Its capitalism, and it works better than any other system derived to date; except when the government over-regulates.

An example of over-regulation:

Turning teen minds into a "free" college circus of entitlement. The government backed student loans was a gravy train for the colleges - so they raised their tuition again, and again, and again ... and made it illegal to wipe them with Chapter Bankruptcy.

Now, "Rich" people should pay for your poor decisions. If you went to college for game design, then you deserve that $xx,xxxx tuition bill for being that stupid. At the same time, I know so many people who didnt take out loans, who worked their way through college because they were actually hard and intelligent workers.

It is common practice for HS grads to *NOT* investigate their desired industry prior to getting on the hook for many thousands of dollars. The colleges certainly don't help them, but somehow - America is on the hook for the bleeding-heart liberal ideological of "everyone, including dummies, deserves a college education, a job, healthcare, food, clothes, cell phone, and weed at the expense of taxpayers."

If the whiners want to change anything, go march on Washington, and stop shitting in NYC Streets. It isn't Wall Street's fault for playing within the rules that government set forth. Its like blaming the cat for eating your tuna fish sandwich that you left unattended in the kitchen for eight hours.

Ultimately, this is why OWS makes little sense to anyone with half-a-brain.

We had the baby boom and super growth. Now we have an aging population and very little growth.

The claim is made that "higher taxes will kill the economy"

In mathematics, all you need is one counterexample to show a statement is false.

The experience cited of the 1960s (when we had the greatest growth in real median income) shows even a 70% marginal tax rate didn't "kill the economy"

And of course, a 39% top tax rate won't/

sorry dude on glp, they believe the less you make the higher tax rate you should pay...they absolutely worship George W and his rich folks tax cuts.

It was wrong then too.

this

Yeah because when Government steals our money, they are so much more efficient with it...

Just ask the GSO, that is if you can find any that aren't on their monthly junket to Las Vegas...