Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because, despite what you think, the economy is strongest when top-earners are taxed highest.
"We had very high top marginal tax rates in the '50s and '60s, upwards of 90 percent," New York University economics professor Edward Wolff told The Huffington Post. "And we had our highest growth of the post-war period, perhaps the whole century."
Total coincidence.
And do a little research. Almost NOBODY paid that rate. It had no impact on tax receipts.
So today, if we had a 90% income tax on regular incomes over 10 million per year, how much do you think the Feds would collect? Very little if any.
And do a little research. Almost NOBODY paid that rate. It had no impact on tax receipts.
So today, if we had a 90% income tax on regular incomes over 10 million per year, how much do you think the Feds would collect? Very little if any.
Now tell me what people really PAID in the 1950s.
How is it a total coincidence when it has been a trend studied by ecomomist for 80+ years? America is a young country. The share of the wealth of the top 10% has only been this high twice in our nation's history-The Great Depression and the current Recession-That is no coincidence. Having a healthy middle-class is the absolute most important thing for the economy.
How is it a total coincidence when it has been a trend studied by ecomomist for 80+ years? America is a young country. The share of the wealth of the top 10% has only been this high twice in our nation's history-The Great Depression and the current Recession-That is no coincidence. Having a healthy middle-class is the absolute most important thing for the economy.
It's total coincidence that we had growth in the 1950s with a 90% marginal rate that almost nobody paid.
Because, despite what you think, the economy is strongest when top-earners are taxed highest.
"We had very high top marginal tax rates in the '50s and '60s, upwards of 90 percent," New York University economics professor Edward Wolff told The Huffington Post. "And we had our highest growth of the post-war period, perhaps the whole century."
The economic growth of a country is also positively correlated to the distance from the equator. Does that mean that if you immediately move to Alaska, you will start to make more money?
Personally? I spend time studying how to invest myself rather than spending time whining about how other people have more money than I do.
There are two types of people: those who complain about how much other people have and those who work to better themselves. I have personally never been big on whining. You might be different, however.
I'm not whining about how much money people have... i'm saying that the 1% are not the one's that the OP has alluded.
Wealth in this country (or this world) is not based on yearly income. It is purely based on who has control of the resources and commodities.
Putin is one of the wealthiest men in the world and i bet his yearly income sucks.
Earned wealth is proper. Income tax is wrong. wealth redistribution is clumsy and never works when forced.
What i'm saying is that the corruption through the control of resources, which is by old money families, for the most part... are the true 1% ers.
Fix that part, and everyone will thrive. If they want to.
I will have to change the deductable on my All Income from All Sources income tax from 90th percentile to the 98th percentile. Anyone making under about 250k pays no federal income tax. The rest pay all of the government's operating costs. They benefit the most so they pay the most.
I'm not whining about how much money people have... i'm saying that the 1% are not the one's that the OP has alluded.
Wealth in this country (or this world) is not based on yearly income. It is purely based on who has control of the resources and commodities.
Putin is one of the wealthiest men in the world and i bet his yearly income sucks.
Earned wealth is proper. Income tax is wrong. wealth redistribution is clumsy and never works when forced.
What i'm saying is that the corruption through the control of resources, which is by old money families, for the most part... are the true 1% ers.
Fix that part, and everyone will thrive. If they want to.
People CAN thrive if they want to. People today are, by and far very spoiled. Everyone is entitled to a 2400 sqft home in the suburbs with a job where you only work 40 hours per week and you get a flat screen TV and everyone in your family has a smartphone. No one reads at night. No one studies. No one educates themselves. If a person lives conservatively (a small house in a walkable neighborhood, so you don't need two cars for a family) and educates themselves (instead of assuming everyone with a high school diploma deserves a good job) then they will be successful. The real issue (in my mind) is the lack of a desire for education. Why don't people read about investment strategies instead of watching TV at night?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
