Best
108 Comments
Post
  • #25
    !
    Keep your damn hands off the spoils of our labor. The Government shouldn't own its people's labor. That is a Socialist ideal people! Get rid of Income Tax, get rid of the IRS.
  • #71
    !
    hmmm wonder why they don't let us vote on that? There is no greater force for the oppression of the people than the IRS. I personally see it as a terrorist organization.
  • #19
    !
    Bring back the 50's music! Ban the Bieber!! The 50's economy was good because Eisenhower (R) put in place the right combination of low taxes, balanced Federal budgets, and conservative public spending that allowed the economy to hum along at a steady clip without inflation. Obama & this Congress will never achieve that.
  • #34
    !
    What are you talking about? Low taxes? The highest marginal tax rate under Eisenhower was 91% for all 8 of his years in office.
  • #41
    !
    I'm with you on the Bieber thing but I think we just have to wait a few more months. Teen idols all come with a limited shelf life. I'm afraid I have to disagree about the fifties. We too often attribute properity to politics when they aren't connected. The fifties were properous because the steel industry was booming, our natural resources were still overflowing, and product innovations were frequent. (Real innovations, not minor tweaks to existing technology.) The American consumer was buying American goods and Unions had made the working class properous enough many, many people were constantly circulating money through the system. All very different than today, I'm sorry to say.
  • #45
    !
    Here's a thought. If we bring back the 91% tax rate from the 50's, how about we bring back the spending levels of the 50's as well? You know, about 24% of GDP vs. 39% today. 1.9% of GDP on welfare vs. 3% today. Oh, but we couldn't POSSIBLY do that....
  • #48
    !
    @LGRepublican When you are right you are right. To compensate for the additional spending we may need to raise it to 95%
  • #18
    !
    well , you would have to bring back the 1950s moral and ethical codes as well as the 1950s work ethic. Good luck. Truthfully , this is where it all started to go down hill. The last generation to endure hardship before the new prosperity set in. Yes, we had the Korean and the Viet Nam war but those wars didn't require the sacrifice of the American public at home like WWII. This is the new generation of the entitled, the spoiled, and the give me free stuff and immediate satisfaction. There are good people here don't get me wrong but the downward spirals starts with the following generations with a couple of notable exceptions like the Civil Rights movement.
  • #7
    !
    And exactly how is that going to bring jobs back to the USA? A 91% tax rate would just have the rich leaving in droves or finding more ways to shelter their money.
  • #12
    !
    The idea that the rich will leave the country is a straw man. There is absolutely no evidence to support this. They certainly didn't leave back when the tax rate was 91% and they won't today. Let's just try it and see. We'll raise the tax rate to 91% and see if it helps. It sure can't do any worse than the Reaganomics that have decimated the middle class.
  • #22
    !
    @FFX_VA There is NO evidence to support the notion that the rich would leave the country. They certainly did not during the time when the tax rate was 91% and they won't do it now. Moving from state to state is not the same thing and you know it.
  • #28
    !
    @PNWest That's not an experiment I'm willing to risk our future on. I wasn't around in the 50's so I can't refute your first hand knowledge that no one moved out back then, but the history books clearly state it was a very, very different world than the one we live in today so your statement they won't move is pure speculation. Eisenhower got it right, I speculate Obama won't.
  • #32
    !
    @FFX_VA You didn't have to be around in the 50's (or 30's through 60's) to read the history of the era. What I said was true. Eisenhower had a 91% top marginal tax rate for all of the years he was President. Damn right he had it right. You cannot present a single iota of evidence that a low tax rate on the rich helps the economy - not one. We have had the lowest marginal rates since the 1920 for the last 10 years. The results - very few jobs and the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor and middle class. That is the modern day facts. I have presented historical evidence that a high marginal tax rate on the rich works and that a low marginal tax rate on the rich fails. It's pretty straight forward. Show me some hard evidence to the contrary. The idea that you are not willing to experiment is not evidence. Neither are your speculations.
  • R Load more replies

  • #24
    !
    How about cut spending by getting rid of the Departments of Energy, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce and Interior, cutting back on the Defense Budget and Welfare Budget.
    And not revise the Tax Code, throw it out! Get rid of Income Tax all together. Any Conservative that supports Income Tax isn't a true Conservative. The Government shouldn't own our labor!! That is the single most Socialist ideal there is.
  • #27
    !
    @Fishbone345 That's really extreme! We need those departments, and we need more taxes to fund them! Only a traitor would propose getting rid of them, and your the only one proposing to get rid of them so I guess that makes you a...
  • #85
    !
    @Suff - Calling someone a traitor for expressing his opinions is my definition of extreme. I don't know if I agree with getting rid of those departments, but they could be trimmed down quite a bit. As for income taxes, they are the direct result of prohibition. Those wanting to outlaw a popular recreational drug on the federal level, in order to get that legislations passed, had to find a way to compensate the government for the +30% of their revenues that would be lost by outlawing alcohol. Ergo, income taxes. Those who refuse to read history deserve to repeat it.
  • #77
    !
    Canada and England have scaled tax rates - the the more you earn, the more you pay, and they have fewer tax loopholes for stock dividends. When the world economy belched in 2008, there were NO bailouts in Canada, and all the jobs lost to the recession were regained in NINE MONTHS because the national economy was fiscally sound and the rich had been paying their share of the taxes. England did not recover as fast, but did recover because the rich actually pay taxes in that country. The taxes lost in the US to George Bu**sh** and his tax cuts was over $1.5 TRILLION, half of the US's current deficit. The other half is the cost of the two illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  • #49
    !
    About as well as it did then, hardly anyone paid it, it would just be another sop to appease the people engaged in class warfare. It would do absolutely nothing to help our situation. It would make a lot of envious people happy thought, just to see it, the "Soak the Rich" crowd would love to punish the hard workers, the business owners and those who succeeded where they didn't. Obama has stirred up a hornets nest of envy and hate against business, business owners and the successful. Those people would love to see that rate, heck, they'd love to see every wealthy person punished so badly that they too wouldn't have much of anything. Nothing makes a small person feel better than bringing others down to their level.
  • #39
    !
    I think we need at minimum a 10% tax on everyone without allowing exemptions. Maybe add a GST tax to items over a certain price in addition to the sales tax. Too much tax to cover government inability to manage money could and should result in a revolution like what happened with the British. Balance is the key and when you have an out-of-control national debt to fund things like pensions that should be self-funding or billions of dollars spent on aircraft that can't fly and are becoming obsolete, the government is demonstrating an inability to exercise common sense and good judgement. I want the same "work 5 years and get a pension" plan our bureaucritters get!
  • #36
    !
    It wouldn't help. Enough is never enough. The only two things government is actually good at. Spending money and figuring out ways to spend more money. Which is no surprise to any of us. John Adams said "There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt." Guess what? We are done. At this point we are just like the chicken running around the yard with it's head cut off. There's no hope. We keep putting the same party's with the same mentality's in power so nothing ever really changes except who's getting the majority of the hand outs when power is passed back and forth. We have people who see the writing on the wall and are talking about leaving the country. But what they don't know is even if they and give up there citizenship they are still subject to U.S. federal income tax on what they make in there adopted country and subject to extradition back if they don't pay. On top of that just about every assets they have is subject to confiscation. There is no escape but death and they tax that to.
  • #17
    !
    Why leave the 9% on the table? If prosperity is through larger government, consider that extra 9% a downpayment for our future. Just think of all the "gifts" you can get from the money stolen from the rich.
  • #40
    !
    Gosh, those poor rich people. They're so helpless! All a rich guy has on his side is massive amounts of cash to lobby politicians, private armies, gated communities, vacation homes on three continents, and pals they went to college with who run the multinational conglomerates that he doesn't. And raising their taxes is just like taking rice from the mouth of a starving toddler, isn't it? Tsk. It's terrible the way our nation preys on the most helpless among us (the rich) to help aid the most powerful among us (starving toddlers.) We should protect and coddle the rich and find a way to have the toddlers work at their factories so they can become even richer!
  • #43
    !
    @Zazziness So people who've achieved success should pay 90 cents of every dollar they make just to support the entitlement mentality and big brother government? So much for "fair".....
  • #44
    !
    @LGRepublican I don't think 90% is appropriate but you'll not catch me crying for people so wealthy their lifestyle will not be impacted one tiny bit if they pay slightly higher taxes. They profited very nicely being citizens of our nation; they can pay for the services they use and, yeah, if they feed a few hungry children with their taxes, too, good.
  • #46
    !
    @Zazziness Hard work and sacrifice had something to do with success as well. Perhaps if the parents of those "hungry children" would have shown a little more of those qualities, they wouldn't be in the position they're in now. In other words, take more of their work ethic and less of their money.
  • #47
    !
    @LGRepublican I'm all for hard work and creativity resulting in increased rewards. I'm also keenly aware we have an entrenched noble class in this country which is passing down wealth generation to generation and many of them wouldn't know what work is if it bit them in the behind. Bottom line? I'm not going to ever advocate letting children starve because of the mistakes of their parents.
  • R Load more replies

  • #13
    !
    The liberals are bound and determined to have big business's and the wealthy flee the country, so they can have their socialistic Utopia of government dependent servants and government controlled business. Then who's going to pay the bills?
    The "entitlement" collectors wont give up their freebies. They've earned those government checks by supporting Barry. They will throw a fit. What the uneducated don't want to understand is... "If the government can give it to you, then the government can/will take it away"
  • #10
    !
    Oh, yeah...the fabulous 50s. What a joke that was. I saw my father lose his business because no one could afford to hire any work done. He went to work for Civil Service to earn a living. By 1959, that job was shut down and he had to move half across the country to keep working. Eisenhower's interstate system got all the federal money. The people where I lived were hurting then.
  • #106
    !
    Response to 91% Tax Rate

    Thanks to Mongoapillager and rmancassman for dehyping the 91% tax rate of the 1950's. People tend to look at the surface without peering below the glassy surface. And the media in it's shallow pool of reflections fails to tell us the rest of the story.

    One thing I want to add. Politico like to say that the debt was similar to that after WWII. But there where significant differences back then that wiped that dept out. In 2008, US government debt was 70% of GDP. Now it is 102%. The last time it was this high was in the aftermath of WWII. Back then, America was a nation in its zenith, about to embark on a population boom and a run of growth and rampant economic development. America today is an aging society, weighed down with liabilities from entitlements stretching years into the future.

    And the Keynesian fools think that monetizing the debt will bail the US out again. Monetizing the debt alone is not the answer, what is needed is congress to create an economic environment very conductive to business and job growth. So far they are strangling recovery with increased taxes and draconian regulations like Obamacare and EPA mandates.
  • #105
    !
    It would destroy our economy. With the tax rates of the US already among the highest in the world, taxing at that level would drive all capital (and all growth) offshore. Welcome to the Union of Soviet Socialist United States, where everyone is equally poor and miserable.
  • #103
    !
    He's absolutely correct. After the war, we had a huge debt and the rich agreed that it was their patriotic duty to accept that burden. And history shows that it certainly did not stifle the 'job creators'. Now we have a huge debt because of two wars, and the rich are heading for the exits. I'll bet that even a 39.6% marginal rate and changes in capital gains rates will cause a few people to renounce their citizenship.
  • #99
    !
    If we can get good revenue off of it absolutely.
    But there is some point beyond which tax revenues from raising taxes go down. It's called the Laffer Curve. America is eons away from the upper "bump" in the Laffer Curve.
    We should figure out what the Laffer optimum is for different tax brackets and potential tax brackets and then optimize our tax policy instead of whimsically saying "well I think the rich don't pay enough let's raise rates" or "we need to stimulate the economy let's lower rates". It is possible to figure this out objectively. Let's do it! We haven't time to lose. We have a debt to pay off, and then a surplus to build and maintain so we don't have to borrow money anymore!
  • #94
    !
    well first of all, it would not help. because the economy, is not in as good of shape as when that was given. as the economy then, prospered from the preceeding good economy upswing. increased government taxing does not help, the ecomony or the people. it benifits the government and the government employees more than anyone else. or economy ran out of steam, because of all the insane tax increases. and raising the taxes to balance the budget, and overspending even more is economic suicide.
  • #91
    !
    Start collecting SS tax on ALL income, even over the 110,000 limit that is in place now. Yes....ss only taxes up to $110,000 (at regular rate of 10.4% then it drops off to 2.9%".....if you are pulling in 600,000 a year well ss only taxes $110,000 at 10.4%. Of course they say "well we cant collect more taxes because the pay back during retirement would be too high" Well thats simple, SS just needs to cap a max pay back amount for retirees.

    Simple.

    Apply the SS tax rate to ALL income, have a max retirement payback amount....have plenty of money for Medicare and the SS fund, and social programs, and infrastructure.

    http://law.freeadvice.com/government_law/soci...
  • R Load more comments...
Post