Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.
Little things like well-maintained roads, reliable emergency services, and (mostly) quality schools, just to name a very, very few.
Except taxing me more doesn't do that... that's how money is spent, not on how its taxes. Those taxes could just as easily been spent on unneeded wars, financing the unconstitutional prison called Gitmo, spying on US citizens, and making sure that grandma gets a cavity search before getting on an airplane.
Is it a factor? Of course it is...but it's not the major factor, and neither is it the "huge problem" you seem to believe. But that's for another thread.
It is.. and has been a major factor for a while..
The oil embargo was not our fault...and which one are you referring to when you say "the Fed"? In any case, NONE of the recessions that occurred from 1951-1980 compared with the recessions that we've had since in 1982, 1987, and especially 2008.
Well first.. the recession of 1982 was proceeded by high marginal tax rates. So you might want to throw that out of your narrative. But none of those recession were caused by the tax system. Your narrative flies in the face of common sense. If the problem with our economy was tax rates.. then we should NEVER have good times or improvements during those periods. We have had marginal tax rates lower than 70-90% for decades.. and yet during those periods, we have also had booming economies.
The fact is.. the recessions and booms were not caused by our tax system.
How many truly major recession did we have in the decades we had lower marginal rates? Let's see here: the top marginal tax rate was slashed to 25% in the 1920's...and a little something happened in 1929. The top marginal tax rate was slashed to 25% in 1981...and we had a major recession in 1982. Bush slashed the top marginal tax rate...and gee whiz, did something happen to the economy while he had the helm?
Except there a few problems with your narrative... The top marginal rate was decreased in the 1920's but the while the top rate was 46% in 1924.. it was after 500,000 dollars income
and in 1925 it dropped to 25% but after 100,000 dollars of income.. so it caught a lot more wealthy. When you discuss top rates.. you forget that some of those 70% rates were on incomes over 5 million.
The second problem with your narrative is that the tax rate has nothing to do with the great depression. The great depression didn''t happen because of a tax rate.. Heck, rates went up again after after 1932.. and yet the depression didn''t end until we were the second world war.
The same thing with Bush.. he lowered tax rates and that didn't cause the housing bubble and didn''t cause it to crash. Obama LOWERED taxes further with the stimulus bill and the extension of the bush tax cuts.. and low and behold, the economy climbs out of the ditch.
The fact is that the tax changes are not that big of factors in the economy.
I didn't say they were paying that rate - I said that was their rate. In order to AVOID paying that rate, they used their money in ways that it wouldn't be taxed...like sinking their money back into their companies in the forms of infrastructure, investment, and pay raises. And our economy did Just Fine, thank you very much.
But that flies in the face of common sense... so to avoid that rate.. you are telling me that I need to invest in infrastructure, investment etc, more and better employees.. All of which would then cause me to make MORE money.. which then means that I would have more money that I would pay tax on.
So your narrative doesn't make sense..
Now if you want to claim that the rich would to avoid taxes invest in things that would NOT make them money.. then that makes no sense.. because why would I purposely lose 300,000 dollars if I could be taxed and at least keep 30,000 dollars of it rather than lose it all.
The fact is profit drives investment, hiring, wages and generally not taxes (except for the extremes.. like taxing at 100%)
Ah, do I see that 'card check' meme in there?
Not sure what you are referring to.
