Reducing income to avoid taxes; some people are silly.

[The Minx]

So, IMHO, the 91% marginal tax rate back then doesn't stand as an argument under closer scrutiny (note that I'm not objecting to 39% taxes). Perhaps it would be better if there were the same rates regardless of type of income, since that would eliminate loopholes and not distort people's behavior.

The whole point of the 91% was to get people to invest their income so and thus provide plenty of cash flow and investors for American businesses. While I'm not advocating going back that high, you can't call the policy a failure because it got people to using the loopholes it was intended to make them use.

I didn't call it a failure, and I understand why it was done. I merely claimed that pointing to a high tax rate in the past doesn't by itself justify an increase unless you look at it in context, and that I wasn't happy about the idea of a disparity between the different tax rates, even though there is a reason.

[General Havoc]

So, IMHO, the 91% marginal tax rate back then doesn't stand as an argument under closer scrutiny (note that I'm not objecting to 39% taxes). Perhaps it would be better if there were the same rates regardless of type of income, since that would eliminate loopholes and not distort people's behavior.

The whole point of the 91% was to get people to invest their income so and thus provide plenty of cash flow and investors for American businesses. While I'm not advocating going back that high, you can't call the policy a failure because it got people to using the loopholes it was intended to make them use.

I didn't call it a failure, and I understand why it was done. I merely claimed that pointing to a high tax rate in the past doesn't by itself justify an increase unless you look at it in context, and that I wasn't happy about the idea of a disparity between the different tax rates, even though there is a reason.

And the point I think we've all been making is that, in context, these gradiated taxes, increased back to the level of the Clinton years, makes perfect sense. I think the record will show that I'm hardly a "tax and spend" democrat, I'm a fiscal conservative who believes in lowering taxes where and when possible, but these proposed tax increases are not some kind of socialist class warfare whose intention is to deny the wealthy the just returns from their labor and ingenuity. The wealthy were doing just fine under Clinton, and our need for tax money is all the greater right now than it was then. These tax adjustments make sense in context.

Besides, a government that can never raise taxes is as useless as one that can never lower them. Governments must have discretion to adjust their revenue stream periodically and within reasonable bounds without declarations of class war.

[The Minx]

And the point I think we've all been making is that, in context, these gradiated taxes, increased back to the level of the Clinton years, makes perfect sense. I think the record will show that I'm hardly a "tax and spend" democrat, I'm a fiscal conservative who believes in lowering taxes where and when possible, but these proposed tax increases are not some kind of socialist class warfare whose intention is to deny the wealthy the just returns from their labor and ingenuity. The wealthy were doing just fine under Clinton, and our need for tax money is all the greater right now than it was then. These tax adjustments make sense in context.

As I said, I am not objecting to 39% taxes as has been proposed, which happens to be the Clinton level.

[frigidmagi]

While going back to the 1950's tax code would be a good thing I think (look, I'm not trying to punish the wealthy but let's be blunt, it's way more in their interest to keep society going then in mine.) it's not possible. We got away with that without capital flight because... Well where the fuck were they gonna go to escape the level of taxation? Most of Europe was a bombed out wreck and the rest of the planet was either communist or a colony in the middle or about to explode into rebellion.

Today if we slapped on a 90% tax rate on the top 1%, even with the massive loopholes, most of them would just rather hop a plane to Europe, Japan, Australia or even India. All of whom would be happy to have their tax euros/yen/dollars.

That said, we can still raise the tax a fuck ton (why yes that's a measurement) and we should. Why? Because we're in deep shit and we need money. We're sure as hell not going to get the money we need from your average Kansas farmer or office worker in Cleveland.

Society has done alot of work for the wealthy. Only fair they kick something in for the rest of the Unit.

[SirNitram]

I disagree. 39% is the best we SHOULD do until we've cleaned up the methods of investment. Right now, the economy as it stands, we'd just encourage more bubbles. We need to get free of the time where we're just inflating one bubble when we get a jolt that one fell.

1950s worked not JUST because of the sharp encouragement to invest. It had strong regulation.